Land management implications for ecosystem services in a South African rangeland

In South Africa, restoration and sustainable management of historically overgrazed and degraded rangelands are promoted to increase biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. This study evaluates different land management scenarios in terms of ecosystem services in a South African rangeland, the Baviaanskloof catchment. As measured data were limited, we used simple models to quantify and map the effect of the different combination of agricultural, nature conservation and restoration practices on multiple ecosystem services. The land management scenarios were evaluated against management targets set for individual ecosystem services. Results highlight how the provision of ecosystem services is related to land management as unmanaged, pristine ecosystems provide a different mix of ecosystem services than ecosystems recently restored or managed as grazing lands. Results also indicate that historically overgrazed lands provide no forage, may retain 40% less sediment and have 38% lower biodiversity, while providing 60% more fuel wood and supplying two and half times more water (i.e. retaining less water), than pristine or restored lands. We conclude that a combination of light grazing, low input agriculture, nature conservation and restoration is the best for the sufficient provision of multiple ecosystem services. Applying such mixed management would improve biodiversity, ecotourism and maintain forage production and regulating services on farmers’ land. This management option also fits into and further optimizes local decision-makers’ vision regarding the future management of the area.     

生态系统修复国内外研究进展与展望

气候变化和人类活动的增加不仅导致生态系统退化、生物多样性丧失、生物圈资源供给能力降低, 而且极大地制约了社会经济的可持续发展。尽管在全世界范围内已实施了大量的保护工作, 但全球生态系统退化仍在继续, 逐渐成为备受关注的全球性问题。文章首先厘清生态系统修复的发展历程、相关概念与理论。其次, 归纳生态系统修复的全球议题, 涉及生态系统服务及其价值评估、生物多样性保护、应对气候变化与碳储存、自然保护地、监测体系与适应性管理、公平性与多主体参与等方面。然后, 总结我国森林、草原、河流与湿地、海洋与海岸带的生态系统退化问题与修复进展, 梳理生态保护红线、自然保护地生态系统修复和国土空间生态保护修复3种措施的进展与不足。最后, 对山水林田湖草沙一体化保护与系统治理、生态系统修复的多元融资政策与渠道、荒野生态保护修复的探索与实践、城镇生态系统修复的研究与应用以及生态系统修复对生物多样性的保护与维持等五个方面进行展望, 以期为我国进一步开展生态系统保护修复的相关研究与实践提供指导。     

Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics

Protecting species and their habitats through the designation and management of protected areas is central to present biodiversity conservation efforts in Europe. Recent awareness of the importance of ecosystem dynamics in changing environments and of human needs for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services expose potential weaknesses in current European conservation management strategies and policy. Here we examine these issues in the light of information gained from reviews, workshops, interviews and discussions undertaken within the RUBICODE project. We present a new conceptual framework that joins conventional biodiversity conservation with new requirements. The framework links cultural and aesthetic values applied in a static environment to the demands of dynamic ecosystems and societal needs within social–ecological systems in a changing Europe. We employ this framework to propose innovative ways in which ecosystem service provision may be used to add value to traditional conservation approaches by supporting and complementing present European biodiversity conservation strategy and policy while remaining within the guidelines of the Convention on Biological Diversity.     

Impacts of species-led conservation on ecosystem services of wetlands: understanding co-benefits and tradeoffs

Biodiversity conservation organisations have recently begun to consider a wider ecosystem services context for their activities. While the literature suggests the potential of ‘win–win’ situations where biodiversity conservation and the delivery of ecosystem services overlap, empirical evidence is wanting. Here we explore the role that species-led management for the benefit of biodiversity in cultural landscapes can play in the delivery of wider ecosystem services. We use UK lowland wetlands as a case study and show how successful delivery of species-led conservation through management interventions relies on practices that can affect greenhouse gas fluxes, water quality and regulation, and cultural benefits. In these wetlands, livestock grazing has potentially large effects on water and greenhouse gas related services, but there is little scope to alter management without compromising species objectives. Likewise, there is little potential to alter reedbed management without compromising conservation objectives. There is some potential to alter woodland and scrub management, but this would likely have limited influence due to the relatively small area over which such management is practiced. The management of water levels potentially has large effects on provision of several services and there does appear to be some scope to align this objective with biodiversity objectives. A comprehensive understanding of the net costs and benefits to society of these interventions will require fine-grained research integrating ecological, economic and social science research. However, a less analytic understanding of the potential costs and benefits can highlight ways by which land management principally to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives might be modified to enhance delivery of other ecosystem services.     

Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries

The concept of ecosystem services has become important for our understanding of the role of nature for maintaining human livelihoods. But is biodiversity essential to maintain ecosystem services? Many studies suggest that higher biodiversity allows a higher level of ecosystem services, but others argue that there is little hard evidence, especially from tropical environments, to document the necessity of high biodiversity for provision of most ecosystem services. Thus, effective valuation of biodiversity for ecosystem services and long-term studies and monitoring are needed to fully understand the complex biodiversity-ecosystem service interface. This introduction briefly reviews some of the main arguments in this debate and provides an overview of the other five special issue papers. Exploring biodiversity and ecosystem interactions in the context of the provision of ecosystem services, these papers address population and biodiversity coexistence, the importance of dung beetles in agricultural landscapes, the knowledge and use of palms by local communities, bioprospecting for drugs and how biodiversity conservation may have added benefits in terms of improved watershed functions and health.     

白洋淀流域生态系统服务评估及其调控

政策制定者在制定土地利用相关政策时需要权衡各方面的利益关系,协调资源保护和经济发展之间的关系.由于缺乏有效的评价与权衡办法,目前对这方面研究还较少.采用InVEST模型,评价了白洋淀流域7种服务功能指标,分析了其空间分布特征.通过情景(政策情景与保护情景)分析,较好的反映了农业直接经济收入与服务功能之间的关系.结果表明:生物多样性、水源涵养、土壤保持和固碳重要区域主要分布在流域西部、北部和流域中部山区;水质保护和授粉重要区域主要分布于流域东部、南部和中部平原区.政策情景下,产水量第二,农业产出有所下降,固碳能力较保护模式差,N/P输出最少.保护情景下产水量最大,农田产出价值不变,氮磷保持与政策情景差不多,但固碳效果最好.通过权衡不同情景下服务功能得失,筛选既不损害流域居民实际经济收入,又能使得水文服务功能得到提高的管理模式.研究表明InVEST模型可以很好的用于对自然资本评估和空间化特征分析,通过建立不同情景,评价结果可以用于权衡不同管理策略下服务功能得失,是一种评价和预测自然资本变化的有效方法,对政策制定和策略筛选具有重要的指导意义.     

Land‐use strategies to balance livestock production,biodiversity conservation and carbon storage in Yucatán,Mexico

Balancing the production of food, particularly meat, with preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services is a major societal challenge. Research into the contrasting strategies of land sparing and land sharing has suggested that land sparing—combining high‐yield agriculture with the protection or restoration of natural habitats on nonfarmed land—will have lower environmental impacts than other strategies. Ecosystems with long histories of habitat disturbance, however, could be resilient to low‐yield agriculture and thus fare better under land sharing. Using a wider suite of species (birds, dung beetles and trees) and a wider range of livestock‐production systems than previous studies, we investigated the probable impacts of different land‐use strategies on biodiversity and aboveground carbon stocks in the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico—a region with a long history of habitat disturbance. By modelling the production of multiple products from interdependent land uses, we found that land sparing would allow larger estimated populations of most species and larger carbon stocks to persist than would land sharing or any intermediate strategy. This result held across all agricultural production targets despite the history of disturbance and despite species richness in low‐ and medium‐yielding agriculture being not much lower than that in natural habitats. This highlights the importance, in evaluating the biodiversity impacts of land use, of measuring population densities of individual species, rather than simple species richness. The benefits of land sparing for both biodiversity and carbon storage suggest that safeguarding natural habitats for biodiversity protection and carbon storage alongside promoting areas of high‐yield cattle production would be desirable. However, delivering such landscapes will probably require the explicit linkage of livestock yield increases with habitat protection or restoration, as well as a deeper understanding of the long‐term sustainability of yields, and research into how other societal outcomes vary across land‐use strategies.     

Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region

The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, ‘wilderness’-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service—recreation—is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society.     

Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities

Ecological restoration is becoming regarded as a major strategy for increasing the provision of ecosystem services as well as reversing biodiversity losses. Here, we show that restoration projects can be effective in enhancing both, but that conflicts can arise, especially if single services are targeted in isolation. Furthermore, recovery of biodiversity and services can be slow and incomplete. Despite this uncertainty, new methods of ecosystem service valuation are suggesting that the economic benefits of restoration can outweigh costs. Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes could therefore provide incentives for restoration, but require development to ensure biodiversity and multiple services are enhanced and the needs of different stakeholders are met. Such approaches must be implemented widely if new global restoration targets are to be achieved.     

Optimizing carbon storage and biodiversity protection in tropical agricultural landscapes

With the rapidly expanding ecological footprint of agriculture, the design of farmed landscapes will play an increasingly important role for both carbon storage and biodiversity protection. Carbon and biodiversity can be enhanced by integrating natural habitats into agricultural lands, but a key question is whether benefits are maximized by including many small features throughout the landscape (‘land‐sharing’ agriculture) or a few large contiguous blocks alongside intensive farmland (‘land‐sparing’ agriculture). In this study, we are the first to integrate carbon storage alongside multi‐taxa biodiversity assessments to compare land‐sparing and land‐sharing frameworks. We do so by sampling carbon stocks and biodiversity (birds and dung beetles) in landscapes containing agriculture and forest within the Colombian Chocó‐Andes, a zone of high global conservation priority. We show that woodland fragments embedded within a matrix of cattle pasture hold less carbon per unit area than contiguous primary or advanced secondary forests (>15 years). Farmland sites also support less diverse bird and dung beetle communities than contiguous forests, even when farmland retains high levels of woodland habitat cover. Landscape simulations based on these data suggest that land‐sparing strategies would be more beneficial for both carbon storage and biodiversity than land‐sharing strategies across a range of production levels. Biodiversity benefits of land‐sparing are predicted to be similar whether spared lands protect primary or advanced secondary forests, owing to the close similarity of bird and dung beetle communities between the two forest classes. Land‐sparing schemes that encourage the protection and regeneration of natural forest blocks thus provide a synergy between carbon and biodiversity conservation, and represent a promising strategy for reducing the negative impacts of agriculture on tropical ecosystems. However, further studies examining a wider range of ecosystem services will be necessary to fully understand the links between land‐allocation strategies and long‐term ecosystem service provision.     

Conservation planning for ecosystem services

Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services—crop pollination and forage production—eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.     

集成生态系统服务与生物多样性的系统保护规划

生物多样性和生态系统服务的保护与可持续管理是当今世界面临的重大挑战之一,但如何判识与优化集成生态系统服务与生物多样性保护对象的保护优先区网络,相关研究还很有限。针对“三江并流”区,选取珍稀濒危与特有动植物物种和自然植被类型作为生物多样性保护对象,以调节服务(碳存储、固碳和土壤保持)、文化服务(自然游憩)和供给服务(水源供给)为生态系统服务保护对象。应用系统保护规划方法,首先判识出单一生物多样性和生态系统服务保护优先区;然后,分析这些保护优先区间的相关关系,并选择与生物多样性正相关的生态系统服务类型,判识集成生态系统服务与生物多样性的保护优先区;最后,评估了集成生态系统服务与生物多样性保护优先区在六类已建保护地中的保护状况。结果表明：(1)“三江并流”区多情景规划得到的生物多样性与生态系统服务保护优先区之间均呈正相关关系;(2)与分别针对生态系统服务和生物多样性的规划情景相比,集成生态系统服务与生物多样性保护优先区能够同时对两类保护对象提供最高的保护覆盖率;(3)集成生态系统服务和生物多样性保护优先区占研究区总面积的48.9%,其已建保护地覆盖率为32.5%,说明现有保护地体系仍存在保护...     

Prioritising Mangrove Ecosystem Services Results in Spatially Variable Management Priorities

Incorporating the values of the services that ecosystems provide into decision making is becoming increasingly common in nature conservation and resource management policies, both locally and globally. Yet with limited funds for conservation of threatened species and ecosystems there is a desire to identify priority areas where investment efficiently conserves multiple ecosystem services. We mapped four mangrove ecosystems services (coastal protection, fisheries, biodiversity, and carbon storage) across Fiji. Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we prioritised mangrove areas for each service, where the effectiveness was a function of the benefits provided to the local communities, and the costs were associated with restricting specific uses of mangroves. We demonstrate that, although priority mangrove areas (top 20%) for each service can be managed at relatively low opportunity costs (ranging from 4.5 to 11.3% of overall opportunity costs), prioritising for a single service yields relatively low co-benefits due to limited geographical overlap with priority areas for other services. None-the-less, prioritisation of mangrove areas provides greater overlap of benefits than if sites were selected randomly for most ecosystem services. We discuss deficiencies in the mapping of ecosystems services in data poor regions and how this may impact upon the equity of managing mangroves for particular services across the urban-rural divide in developing countries. Finally we discuss how our maps may aid decision-makers to direct funding for mangrove management from various sources to localities that best meet funding objectives, as well as how this knowledge can aid in creating a national mangrove zoning scheme.     

Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land

Cultivation and cropping are major causes of destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems throughout the world. We face the challenge of maintaining provisioning services while conserving or enhancing other ecosystem services and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. There is a range of possibilities within two types of intervention, namely “land sharing” and “land separation”; the former advocates the enhancement of the farmed environment, but the latter a separation between land designated for farming versus conservation. Land sharing may involve biodiversity-based agricultural practices, learning from traditional farming, changing from conventional to organic agriculture and from “simple” crops and pastures to agro-forestry systems, and restoring or creating specific elements to benefit wildlife and particular services without decreasing agricultural production. Land separation in the farmland context involves restoring or creating non-farmland habitat at the expense of field-level agricultural production—for example, woodland on arable land. Restoration by land sharing has the potential to enhance agricultural production, other ecosystem services and biodiversity at both the field and landscape scale; however, restoration by land separation would provide these benefits only at the landscape scale. Although recent debate has contrasted these approaches, we suggest they should be used in combination to maximize benefits. Furthermore, we suggest “woodland islets”, an intermediate approach between land abandonment and farmland afforestation, for ecological restoration in extensive agricultural landscapes. This approach allows reconciliation of farmland production, conservation of values linked to cultural landscapes, enhancement of biodiversity, and provision of a range of ecosystem services. Beyond academic research, restoration projects within agricultural landscapes are essential if we want to halt environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.     

中国西南地区不同类型生态系统服务的关系

明晰不同类型生态系统服务之间关系是优化生态保护策略和实现可持续生态管理的基础。在明确中国西南地区各类生态系统服务功能和空间格局的基础上,运用统计分析原理、ArcGIS技术和GeoDa软件分析了水源涵养、土壤保持、固碳、生物多样性保护、水质净化5项调节服务,以及水稻生产、小麦生产、玉米生产、蔬菜生产、水果生产5项供给服务之间的权衡和协同关系,并通过叠置分析识别生态系统服务共赢区域,探讨生态系统类型对共赢格局的影响。结果表明: 西南地区各类调节服务之间、各类供给服务之间主要呈协同关系,而调节服务与供给服务之间既有协同关系也有权衡关系;西南地区生态系统服务总共赢格局的高共赢区域主要分布在邛崃山、哀牢山和大瑶山以及怒江、澜沧江流域等地区;森林和农田面积比例对各类共赢趋势均有显著影响。     

Representation of Ecosystem Services by Terrestrial Protected Areas: Chile as a Case Study

Protected areas are increasingly considered to play a key role in the global maintenance of ecosystem processes and the ecosystem services they provide. It is thus vital to assess the extent to which existing protected area systems represent those services. Here, for the first time, we document the effectiveness of the current Chilean protected area system and its planned extensions in representing both ecosystem services (plant productivity, carbon storage and agricultural production) and biodiversity. Additionally, we evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas based on their respective management objectives. Our results show that existing protected areas in Chile do not contain an unusually high proportion of carbon storage (14.9%), agricultural production (0.2%) or biodiversity (11.8%), and also represent a low level of plant productivity (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index of 0.38). Proposed additional priority sites enhance the representation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, but not sufficiently to attain levels of representation higher than would be expected for their area of coverage. Moreover, when the species groups were assessed separately, amphibians was the only one well represented. Suggested priority sites for biodiversity conservation, without formal protection yet, was the only protected area category that over-represents carbon storage, agricultural production and biodiversity. The low representation of ecosystem services and species’ distribution ranges by the current protected area system is because these protected areas are heavily biased toward southern Chile, and contain large extents of ice and bare rock. The designation and management of proposed priority sites needs to be addressed in order to increase the representation of ecosystem services within the Chilean protected area system.     

Restoration scenario planning at a Spanish quarry can be informed by assessing ecosystem services

We carried out an ecosystem service (ES) assessment at Soto de Pajares, a 400 ha active gravel quarry site located close to protected areas in the southeast of the Community of Madrid, Spain. The currently approved restoration plan is for quarry‐made excavations to be restored back to agricultural land. However, the site has been identified as being important for nature, so different restoration strategies should be considered. To better understand how these compare in terms of ES provision, which had not previously been done at mineral extraction sites in Spain, we used an established toolkit: the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site‐based Assessments (TESSA). We compared the agriculture‐focused restoration plan and two nature‐focused alternative scenarios, one without public access (conservation scenario) and the other with public access (compromise scenario). Monetary estimations of the value of agricultural production, climate change mitigation, and recreation were calculated in three scenarios. Results indicated that the compromise scenario provided the greatest annual value (€91,409), mainly due to its potential visitors, surpassing both agricultural (€68,504) and conservation (€48,556) scenarios. Considering the higher costs associated with restoring sites to agricultural production, nature conservation may be an attractive option for extraction companies. The use of TESSA at this site has provided valuable information to quarry managers to help guide their decision‐making.     

Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes

To truly understand the current status of tropical diversity and to forecast future trends, we need to increase emphasis on the study of biodiversity in rural landscapes that are actively managed or modified by people. We present an integrated landscape approach to promote research in human-modified landscapes that includes the effects of landscape structure and dynamics on conservation of biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and sustainability of rural livelihoods. We propose research priorities encompassing three major areas: biodiversity, human–environment interactions, and restoration ecology. We highlight key areas where we lack knowledge and where additional understanding is most urgent for promoting conservation and sustaining rural livelihoods. Finally, we recommend participatory and multidisciplinary approaches in research and management. Lasting conservation efforts demand new alliances among conservation biologists, agroecologists, agronomists, farmers, indigenous peoples, rural social movements, foresters, social scientists, and land managers to collaborate in research, co-design conservation programs and policies, and manage human-modified landscapes in ways that enhance biodiversity conservation and promote sustainable livelihoods.     

Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversity

Inclusion of spatially explicit information on ecosystem services in conservation planning is a fairly new practice. This study analyses how the incorporation of ecosystem services as conservation features can affect conservation of forest biodiversity and how different opportunity cost constraints can change spatial priorities for conservation. We created spatially explicit cost-effective conservation scenarios for 59 forest biodiversity features and five ecosystem services in the county of Telemark (Norway) with the help of the heuristic optimisation planning software, Marxan with Zones. We combined a mix of conservation instruments where forestry is either completely (non-use zone) or partially restricted (partial use zone). Opportunity costs were measured in terms of foregone timber harvest, an important provisioning service in Telemark. Including a number of ecosystem services shifted priority conservation sites compared to a case where only biodiversity was considered, and increased the area of both the partial (+36.2%) and the non-use zone (+3.2%). Furthermore, opportunity costs increased (+6.6%), which suggests that ecosystem services may not be a side-benefit of biodiversity conservation in this area. Opportunity cost levels were systematically changed to analyse their effect on spatial conservation priorities. Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services trades off against timber harvest. Currently designated nature reserves and landscape protection areas achieve a very low proportion (9.1%) of the conservation targets we set in our scenario, which illustrates the high importance given to timber production at present. A trade-off curve indicated that large marginal increases in conservation target achievement are possible when the budget for conservation is increased. Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.     

Biodiversity banking: a strategic conservation mechanism

Among the conservation initiatives, biodiversity banking is a strategic new concept that calls for advocacy by the researchers, conservationists, policy planners and business corporate houses to enhance the conservational behaviour of the stakeholders. The concept has dual benefits of restoration of livelihood support systems and conservation of biodiversity that provides ecological services and economic benefits to civil society. Currently, lack of defined guidelines with robust valuation and incentive mechanism for biodiversity banking has resulted in ‘business as usual’ situation especially in developing and under developed countries. There is need for re-defining the country level biodiversity banking guidelines for the effective private-government-stakeholder participation. Furthermore, the mechanism must consider using robust scientific database of inter-disciplinary nature and suitably adopt the modalities of successful case studies to overcome the flaws/risks. Biodiversity banking is a realizable concept in developing and resource poor countries as additional livelihood support system through the market of accrued ecosystem services linked to conservation behaviour of stakeholders.