Ecosystem services modelling tools can help land managers and policy makers evaluate the impacts of alternative management options or changes in land use on the delivery of ecosystem services. As the variety and complexity of these tools increases, there is a need for comparative studies across a range of settings, allowing users to make an informed choice. Using examples of provisioning and regulating services (water supply, carbon storage and nutrient retention), we compare three spatially explicit tools - LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Models were parameterised for the UK and applied to a temperate catchment with widely varying land use in North Wales. Although each tool provides quantitative mapped output, can be applied in different contexts, and can work at local or national scale, they differ in the approaches taken and underlying assumptions made. In this study, we focus on the wide range of outputs produced for each service and discuss the differences between each modelling tool. Model outputs were validated using empirical data for river flow, carbon and nutrient levels within the catchment. The sensitivity of the models to land-use change was tested using four scenarios of varying severity, evaluating the conversion of grassland habitat to woodland (0-30% of the landscape). We show that, while the modelling tools provide broadly comparable quantitative outputs, each has its own unique features and strengths. Therefore the choice of tool depends on the study question.
Improved understanding and prediction of the fundamental environmental controls on ecosystem service supply across the landscape will help to inform decisions made by policy makers and land-water managers. To evaluate this issue for a local catchment case study, we explored metrics and spatial patterns of service supply for water quality regulation, agriculture production, carbon storage, and biodiversity for the Macronutrient Conwy catchment. Methods included using ecosystem models such as LUCI and JULES, integration of national scale field survey datasets, earth observation products and plant trait databases, to produce finely resolved maps of species richness and primary production. Analyses were done with both 1×1km gridded and subcatchment data. A common single gradient characterised catchment scale ecosystem services supply with agricultural production and carbon storage at opposing ends of the gradient as reported for a national-scale assessment. Species diversity was positively related to production due to the below national average productivity levels in the Conwy combined with the unimodal relationship between biodiversity and productivity at the national scale. In contrast to the national scale assessment, a strong reduction in water quality as production increased was observed in these low productive systems. Various soil variables were tested for their predictive power of ecosystem service supply. Soil carbon, nitrogen, their ratio and soil pH all had double the power of rainfall and altitude, each explaining around 45% of variation but soil pH is proposed as a potential metric for ecosystem service supply potential as it is a simple and practical metric which can be carried out in the field with crowd-sourcing technologies now available. The study emphasises the importance of considering multiple ecosystem services together due to the complexity of covariation at local and national scales, and the benefits of exploiting a wide range of metrics for each service to enhance data robustness.
Loss and fragmentation of natural land cover due to expansion of agricultural areas is a global issue. These changes alter the configuration and composition of the landscape, particularly affecting those ecosystem services (benefits people receive from ecosystems) that depend on interactions between landscape components. Hydrological mitigation describes the bundle of ecosystem services provided by landscape features such as woodland that interrupt the flow of runoff to rivers. These services include sediment retention, nutrient retention and mitigation of overland water flow. The position of woodland in the landscape and the landscape topography are both important for hydrological mitigation. Therefore, it is crucial to consider landscape configuration and flow pathways in a spatially explicit manner when examining the impacts of fragmentation. Here we test the effects of landscape configuration using a large number (>7,000) of virtual landscape configurations. We created virtual landscapes of woodland patches within grassland, superimposed onto real topography and stream networks. Woodland patches were generated with user‐defined combinations of patch number and total woodland area, placed randomly in the landscape. The Ecosystem Service model used hydrological routing to map the “mitigated area” upslope of each woodland patch. We found that more fragmented woodland mitigated a greater proportion of the catchment. Larger woodland area also increased mitigation, however, this increase was nonlinear, with a threshold at 50% coverage, above which there was a decline in service provision. This nonlinearity suggests that the benefit of any additional woodland depends on two factors: the level of fragmentation and the existing area of woodland. Edge density (total edge of patches divided by area of catchment) was the best single metric in predicting mitigated area. Distance from woodland to stream was not a significant predictor of mitigation, suggesting that agri‐environment schemes planting riparian woodland should consider additional controls such as the amount of fragmentation in the landscape. These findings highlight the potential benefits of fragmentation to hydrological mitigation services. However, benefits for hydrological services must be balanced against any negative effects of fragmentation or habitat loss on biodiversity and other services.
We propose a way to synthesize different approaches to globally map land degradation by combining vegetation and soil indicators into a consistent framework for assessing land degradation as an environmental ‘debt’. our combined approach reveals a broader lens for land degradation through global change, in particular, identifying hot‐spots for the different kinds of land degradation.
Reduction in energy sector greenhouse gas GHG emissions is a key aim of European Commission plans to expand cultivation of bioenergy crops. Since agriculture makes up 10-12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, impacts of land-use change must be considered, which requires detailed understanding of specific changes to agroecosystems. The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of perennials may differ significantly from the previous ecosystem. Net change in GHG emissions with land-use change for bioenergy may exceed avoided fossil fuel emissions, meaning that actual GHG mitigation benefits are variable. Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling are complex interlinked systems, and a change in land management may affect both differently at different sites, depending on other variables. Change in evapotranspiration with land-use change may also have significant environmental or water resource impacts at some locations. This article derives a multi-criteria based decision analysis approach to objectively identify the most appropriate assessment method of the environmental impacts of land-use change for perennial energy crops. Based on a literature review and conceptual model in support of this approach, the potential impacts of land-use change for perennial energy crops on GHG emissions and evapotranspiration were identified, as well as likely controlling variables. These findings were used to structure the decision problem and to outline model requirements. A process-based model representing the complete agroecosystem was identified as the best predictive tool, where adequate data are available. Nineteen models were assessed according to suitability criteria, to identify current model capability, based on the conceptual model, and explicit representation of processes at appropriate resolution. FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES-NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project. A database to inform such decisions is included.
use change impact on faecal indicator bacteria in a temperate maritime catchment (the River Conwy, Wales),
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.