The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA’s key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.
Control of erosion rates (CER) is a key ecosystem service for soil protection. It is mandatory for sustaining the capacity, especially of agroecosystems, to provide ecosystem services. By applying an established framework to assess soil regulating services, this study compares two approaches to assess CER provision for 466 ha of cropland in Lower Saxony (Central Northern Germany). In a "sealed modelling approach", the structural and the mitigated structural impact were modelled by applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The second approach uses spatially explicit long-term monitoring data on soil loss rates obtained in the investigation area as an alternative to the USLE-based modelled mitigated structural impact. Assuming that the monitoring data have a higher reliability than the modelled data, the comparison of both approaches demonstrated the uncertainties of the USLE-based assessment of CER. The calculated indicators based on a sound monitoring database on soil loss rates showed that, due to limitations of the USLE model, the structural impact in thalwegs has been underestimated. Incorporating models with the ability to estimate soil loss by rilling und gullying can help to overcome this uncertainty. The produced set of complementary large-scale CER maps enables an integrated analyses of CER. In the entire investigation area, the provision of CER regulating ecosystem services was generally high, indicating good management practices. Differences at the field scale and between the different regions can be explained by variations of the structural impact and the management practices.
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) creates understanding of the value of ecosystems for human well-being. With regard to soils, it provides a framework for assessments of soil contributions and soil management impacts. However, a lack of standardization impedes comparisons between assessment studies and the building of synthesis information. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is an important step forward, although its application to soils is not without difficulty. CICES version 5.1 defines 83 ES classes, of which only some are relevant for soils. We compiled two subsets of CICES classes: one set of soil-related ES comprising 29 services defined as directly and quantifiably controlled by soils and their properties, processes and functions, and another set of 40 ES defined as being affected by agricultural soil management. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review, searching for published lists of soilrelated ES that claim completeness. We identified 11 relevant lists. Of all CICES classes, 12 were included in more than 75% of the lists, whereas another 36 classes were included in 25-75% of them. Regarding the suitability of the CICES classification for addressing ES in the context of soils and their agricultural management, we identified constraints, such as overlaps, gaps, and highly specific or very broad class definitions. Close cooperation between the soil research and ES communities could ensure better consideration of soils in future CICES updates. A shortlist of Highlights • Standardized definitions are needed to allow meta-analysis of ecosystem service studies and improve assessments.• CICES defines 83 detailed classes of ecosystem services, suggested as a "default list".• We identified 29 classes as soil related and 40 classes as affected by agricultural soil management. • Both subsets facilitate ecosystem service assessments in soil research and comparability of results.
Ecosystems provide multiple services that are necessary to maintain human life. Agroecosystems are very productive suppliers of biomass-related provisioning ecosystem services, e.g. food, fibre, and energy. At the same time, they are highly dependent on good ecosystem condition and regulating ecosystem services such as soil fertility, water supply or soil erosion regulation. Assessments of this interplay of ecosystem condition and services are needed to understand the relationships in highly managed systems. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: First, to test the concept and indicators proposed by the European Union Working Group on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) for assessing agroecosystem condition at a regional level. Second, to identify the relationships between ecosystem condition and the delivery of ecosystem services. For this purpose, we applied an operational framework for integrated mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. We used the proposed indicators to assess the condition of agroecosystems in Northern Germany and regulating ecosystem service control of erosion rates. We used existing data from official databases to calculate the different indicators and created maps of environmental pressures, ecosystem condition and ecosystem service indicators for the Federal State of Lower Saxony. Furthermore, we identified areas within the state where pressures are high, conditions are unfavourable, and more sustainable management practices are needed. Despite the limitations of the indicators and data availability, our results show positive, negative, and no significant correlations between the different pressures and condition indicators, and the control of erosion rates. The idea behind the MAES framework is to indicate the general condition of an ecosystem. However, we observed that not all proposed indicators can explain to what extent ecosystems can provide specific ecosystem services. Further research on other ecosystem services provided by agroecosystems would help to identify synergies and trade-offs. Moreover, the definition of a reference condition, although complicated for anthropogenically highly modified agroecosystems, would provide a benchmark to compare information on the condition of the ecosystems, leading to better land use policy and management decisions.
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.