Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Alterra, Part of Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;2. Irstea TR Sedyvin, UR EMAX, 3275 route de Cézanne, CS 40061, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France;1. Programa de Pós Graduação em Ecologia Aplicada, Universidade Federal da Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais CEP 37200-000, Brazil;2. Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, United Kingdom;3. MCT/Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi,Campus de Pesquisa, Av. Perimetral, no. 1901, Terra Firme, Belém, Pará CEP 66017-970, Brazil;4. Stockholm Environment Institute. Linnégatan 87D, Box 24218, Stockholm 104 51, Sweden;1. Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;2. Geography and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;3. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS – Université Grenoble Alpes, CS 40700, 38058 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;4. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, UK;5. Centre for Environmental Science, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;6. Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, Ste. Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, 21111 Lakeshore H9X3V9, Canada;7. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi, 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy;8. Environmental Dynamics Research Group, Department of Geography, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK;9. UMR 7204 MNHN-UPMC-CNRS Centre d''Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, CP135, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France;10. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kr€aftriket 2B, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;11. Environmental Geography, Department of Earth Science, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;12. Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA;13. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Research Unit Landscape Dynamics, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;1. Department of Animal Ecology, Justus Liebig University, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, D-35392 Giessen, Germany;2. University of Applied Forest Sciences, Schadenweilerhof, D-72108 Rottenburg, Germany;3. Department of Ecology, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-v.-Frisch-Str. 8, D-35043 Marburg, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Recently, the science and policy agenda on biodiversity moved to include ecosystem services assessments and it is recognised that for determining the effectiveness and progress of policy frameworks monitoring is crucial.Within European monitoring schemes, data is collected following different sampling protocols for a range of biodiversity or context related aspects; from EU-wide general land cover mapping to red list species within Annex I habitats. In this paper, we analysed field instructions of seven monitoring schemes on the extent to which they can provide data on the provision of ecosystem services and what additional information may be needed for future monitoring of ecosystem services.We compared seven monitoring schemes (i.e. CORINE Land Cover, Land Use Cover Area Survey (LUCAS), European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE), biodiversity monitoring on organic and low-input farming systems (BioBio), National Inventory of the Landscape of Sweden (NILS) and Pan-European Common Birds Monitoring (PECBM) and UK Butterfly monitoring (UK-BM)) by scoring the quality of recorded parameters and the adequacy of sampling protocols for ecosystem service monitoring.All the examined schemes were able to provide some parameters on ecosystem services, but the quality of the parameters on average did not exceed the level of qualitative data. Additionally, the divergence between the sampling designs of the schemes and the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services reduced the potential monitoring value of all schemes. Monitoring schemes including a range of sampling methods, scales and included the recording of data on habitats, such as EBONE, BioBio and NILS, provided the best data on the provision of ecosystem services.We conclude that improvement of the monitoring of ecosystem services is hindered by several knowledge gaps: (1) a robust definition and conceptual framework of ecosystem services; (2) the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (3) the interpretation of monitoring data.In addition to ecosystem service monitoring, biodiversity monitoring unremittingly remains very important, at least to identify trade-offs between the management for services and the resulting biodiversity status. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biodiversity Monitoring Habitats Scales Ecosystem services Europe |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
