Assessing the effects of payments for ecosystem services programs on forest structure and species biodiversity

Abstract

Globally, biodiversity has declined at an unprecedented rate, challenging the viability of ecosystems, species, and ecological functions and their corresponding services. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs have been established and implemented worldwide to combat the degradation or loss of essential ecosystems and ecosystem services without sacrificing the well-being of people. With an overarching goal of reducing soil erosion, China's Grain-to-Green program (GTGP) converts cropland to forest or grassland. As one of the largest PES programs in the world, GTGP has great potential to offer biodiversity conservation co-benefits. To consider how GTGP may influence biodiversity, we measured forest structure and plant and wildlife species diversity at both GTGP forest and natural forest sites in Fangjingshan National Nature Reserve, China. We also evaluated the relationship between canopy cover and biodiversity measures to test whether forest cover, the most commonly measured and reported ecological metric of PES programs, might act as a good proxy for other biodiversity related parameters. We found that forest cover and species diversity increased after GTGP implementation as understory and overstory plant cover, and understory and midstory plant diversity at GTGP sites were similar to natural forest. Our results suggest that GTGP may also have been associated with increased habitat for protected and vulnerable wildlife species including Elliot's pheasant (Syrmaticus ellioti), hog badger (Arctonyx collaris), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). Nevertheless, we identified key differences between GTGP forest and natural forest, particularly variation in forest types and heterogeneity of overstory vegetation. As a result, plant overstory diversity and wildlife species richness at GTGP forest were significantly lower than at natural forest. Our findings suggest, while forest cover may be a good proxy for some metrics of forest structure, it does not serve as a robust proxy for many biodiversity parameters. These findings highlight the need for and importance of robust and representative indicators or proxy variables for measuring ecological effects of PES programs on compositional and structural diversity. We demonstrate that PES may lead to biodiversity co-benefits, but changes in This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Forest and plantation biodiversity.

Non-protected areas demanding equitable conservation strategies as of protected areas in the Central Himalayan region

“…Nonetheless, the bamboo forests are vital for the survival of species such as red panda and many other species. Moreover, a negative relationship between bamboo forests on mammalian species richness [ 65 , 66 ] is opposed by our findings.…”

Effects of Fence Enclosure on Vegetation Community Characteristics and Productivity of a Degraded Temperate Meadow Steppe in Northern China

“…Although STPR was designed to promote grassland transfers [17] and thus to facilitate the economic development in pasture areas, grassland tenants who obtained land use rights under STPR tended to seek short-term gains rather than longer-term sustainable productivity. To cope with this issue, solutions such as financial incentives to stimulate grassland protection [69] and payment for ecosystem services (PES) [70] are preferred. For example, PES can be used as an active intervention to compensate a herder's economic losses caused by putting degraded grasslands into fallowing or by lowering the stocking rate once a carrying capacity threshold is passed [4,71].…”

Synthesizing Remote Sensing and Biophysical Measures to Evaluate Human–wildlife Conflicts: The Case of Wild Boar Crop Raiding in Rural China

“…With better dispersed survey units, it may be feasible to derive a usable model for deciduous forests using this method. It should also be noted that camera traps were generally placed in more geographically accessible locations due to the region's rough terrain [40]; this may have limited our model's usability in some regions.…”

“…Elevation, slope, and slope aspect were assumed constant throughout the time series. Data on wild boar populations were obtained using 69 camera traps (Bushnell Trophy Cam) deployed between April 2015 and November 2016 throughout the study area [40]. Cameras were placed in each of 71 sampling plots (20 m × 20 m), which had been selected to spread across most of the reserve area.…”