We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter‐arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human–nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market‐based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

Aim While soil microorganisms play key roles in Earth's biogeochemical cycles, methodological constraints and sparse data have hampered our ability to describe and understand the global distribution of soil microbial biomass. Here, we present a comprehensive quantification of the environmental drivers of soil microbial biomass. Location Global. Methods We used a comprehensive global dataset of georeferenced soil microbial biomass estimates and high‐resolution climatic and soil data. Results We show that microbial biomass carbon (CMic) is primarily driven by moisture availability, with this single variable accounting for 34% of the global variance. For the microbial carbon‐to‐soil organic carbon ratio (CMic/COrg), soil nitrogen content was an equally important driver as moisture. In contrast, temperature was not a significant predictor of microbial biomass patterns at a global scale, while temperature likely has an indirect effect on microbial biomass by influencing rates of evapotranspiration and decomposition. As our models explain an unprecedented 50% of the global variance of CMic and CMic/COrg, we were able to leverage gridded environmental information to build the first spatially explicit global estimates of microbial biomass and quantified the global soil microbial carbon pool to equal 14.6 Pg C. Main Conclusions Our unbiased models allowed us to build the first global spatially explicit predictions of microbial biomass. These patterns show that soil microbial biomass is not primarily driven by temperature, but instead, biomass is more heterogeneous through the effects of moisture availability and soil nutrients. Our global estimates provide important data for integration into large‐scale carbon and nutrient models that may imply a major step forward in our ability to predict the global carbon balance, now and in a future climate.

No abstract

AimIn the face of global environmental change, identifying the factors that shape the ecological niches of species and understanding the mechanisms behind them can help to draft effective conservation plans. The differences in the ecological factors that shape species distributions may then help to highlight differences between closely related taxa. We investigate the applicability of ecological niche modelling and the comparison of species distributions in ecological niche space to detect areas with priority for biodiversity conservation and to analyse differences in the ecological niche spaces used by closely related taxa.Location United States of America, Mexico and Central America.Methods We apply ordination and ecological niche modelling techniques to assess the main environmental drivers of the distribution of Mexican white pines (Pinus: Pinaceae). Furthermore, we assess the similarities and differences of the ecological niches occupied by closely related taxa. We analyse whether Mexican white pines occupy similar or equivalent ecological niches.Results All the studied taxa presented different responses to the environmental factors, resulting in a unique combination of niche conditions. Our stacked habitat suitability maps highlighted regions in southern Mexico and northern Central America as highly suitable for most species and thus with high conservation value. By quantitatively assessing the niche overlap, similarity and equivalency of Mexican white pines, our results prove that the distribution of one species cannot be implied by the distribution of another, even if these taxa are considered closely related.Main conclusions The fact that each Mexican white pine is constrained by a unique set of environmental conditions, and thus, their non-equivalence of ecological niches has direct implications for conservation as this highlights the inadequacy of one-fits all type of conservation measure.