Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network

Stoll, Stefan; Frenzel, Mark; Burkhard, Benjamin; Adamescu, Mihai; Augustaitis, Algirdas; Baeßler, Cornelia; Bonet, Francisco Javier; Carranza, María Laura; Cazacu, Constantin; Cosor, Georgia; Díaz-Delgado, Ricardo; Grandin, Ulf; Haase, Peter; Hämäläinen, Heikki; Loke, Rob; Müller, Jörg; Stanisci, Angela; Staszewski, Tomasz; Müller, Felix

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.019

Cited by 95 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kienast et al, 2009, Maes et al, 2012, Stoll et al, 2015, we show that most European ecosystems provide a variety of ES. One step further, we show that these patterns of ES supply follow regional and especially climate-related latitudinal patterns that reflect the nature of European landscapes and the spatial distribution of land use types, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ruijs et al, 2013;Crouzat et al 2015) scale. Even fewer have mapped the supply (actual or potential) of multiple ES across land use types over large geographic scales (but see Maes et al, 2015, Stoll et al, 2015. To our knowledge to date no study has attempted to identify the drivers of ES bundles at these scales, and specifically in the EU.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Mouchet

Paracchini

Schulp

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights-A spatially explicit assessment of eleven ecosystem services and one dis-service across the European Union (EU) -Three bundles of ecosystem services related to climate and land use intensity were identified -Ecosystem service diversity and multifunctionality are strongly variable across EU Keywords: bundles, drivers, ecosystem services, Europe, indicator, supply, trade-off AbstractWe present an assessment of the spatial pattern of ecosystem services (ES) associations across Europe based on models of 11 ES and 1 dis-service, mapped at the extent of 27 Member States of the European Union (EU27) on a 1km² grid. We isolated three clusters of cells sharing common features in multi-ES supply associated with the main land-use-land-cover types such as forests and agricultural lands.Confronting these spatial patterns with biophysical and socio-economic drivers revealed two strong gradients structuring European ES bundles, climate and land use intensity. Variations in the diversity of ES bundles provided across administrative units (NUTS 2), quantified by the Shannon diversity index, tend to be higher in forested regions (e.g. SE Romania) and in the mosaic landscapes in the central EU27(from eastern France to Austria). Lower diversity prevails in areas of homogeneous terrain and land use in north-western Europe (e.g. Western France). Our findings illustrate that ES trade-offs and bundles cannot be reduced to land use conflicts but also depend on climate and, for a specific bundle, to biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Mouchet

Paracchini

Schulp

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Burkhard et al (2012) assigned a value (0-5) per ES to each CORINE land cover type, based on field studies and expert assessment. The values from the ES matrix were divided by five to range from 0 to 1, as has been done by others before (Schulp et al 2014a;Stoll et al 2014). …”

Section: Flood Control Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Humans structure landscapes for the production of food, fibre and fuel, commonly resulting in declines of non-provisioning ecosystem services (ESs). Heterogeneous landscapes are capable of providing multiple ESs, and landscape configuration-spatial arrangement of land cover in the landscape-is expected to affect ES capacity. However, the majority of ES mapping studies have not accounted for landscape configuration. Objectives Our objective is to assess and quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ES capacity. A review of empirical evidence for configuration effects on the capacity of ten ESs reveals that for four ESs configuration is relevant but typically ignored in ES quantification. For four ESs we quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ESs using Scotland as a case study. Methods Each ES was quantified through modelling, respectively ignoring or accounting for configuration. The difference in ES capacity between the two ES models was determined at multiple spatial scales. Results Configuration affected the capacity of all four ESs mapped, particularly at the cell and watershed scale. At the scale of Scotland most local effects averaged out. Flood control and sediment retention responded strongest to configuration. ESs were affected by different aspects of configuration, thus requiring specific methods for mapping each ES. Conclusions Accounting for configuration is important for the assessment of certain ESs at the cell and watershed scale. Incorporating configuration in landscape management provides opportunities for spatial optimization of ES capacity, but the diverging response of ESs to configuration suggests that accounting for configuration involves trade-offs between ESs.

show abstract

“…In line with the observatory missions, models using LTER data more strongly embrace management and predictive applications (Stoll et al, 2015) ranging predominantly from site and sub-catchment to region, from days to decades, Earth Syst. Dynam.…”

Section: Open Issues and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plausible causes for the lack of on-site measurements are the absence of harmonized measurements, and the time and personnel-consuming requirements for data gathering. 30In line with the observatory missions, models using LTER data more strongly embrace management and predictive applications (Stoll et al, 2015) ranging predominantly from site and sub-catchment to region, from days to decades, Earth Syst. Dynam.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of terrestrial observational networks: opportunity for advancing Earth system dynamics modelling

Baatz

Sullivan

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Advancing our understanding of Earth System Dynamics (ESD) depends on the development of models and other analytical tools that integrate physical, biological and chemical data. This ambition of increased understanding and model development of ESD based on integrated site observations was at the origin of the creation of the networks of Long Term Ecological Research (LTER), Critical Zone Observatories (CZO), and others. We organized a survey to identify pressing gaps in data availability from these networks, in particular for the future development and evaluation of models that 5 represent ESD processes. With the survey results, we look for gaps between data collection and ESD model development, to draw perspectives for the improvement both in data collection and model integration.From this overview of model applications gathered in the context of LTER-and CZO research, we identified three challenges: 1) Improving integration of observational data in Earth system modelling, 2) developing coupled Earth system models, and 3) identifying complementarity and ways to integrate the existing networks. These challenges lead to 10 perspectives and recommendations for strategic integration of observational networks and links to the ESD modelling community. We propose the further integration of the observational networks, either by 1) making the existing sitedetermined networks also functional topological networks with organising spread and coverage, and/or 2) thematically and geographically restructuring or co-locating the existing networks, and further formalizing these recommendations among these communities. Such integration will enable cross-site comparison and synthesis studies, which will offer significant 15 insights and extraction of organizing principles, classifications, and general rules of coupling processes and environmental conditions. IntroductionIn light of accelerating global change (e.g. IPCC, 2014;Camill, 2010), the scientific and societal imperatives are paramount 20 to improve our understanding of Earth System Dynamics (ESD), which comprise complex interactions among rock, soil, water, air, and living organisms that regulate the natural habitat and determine the availability of life-sustaining resources for human well-being (MEA, 2005). Understanding and modelling of Earth system processes and interactions among Earth system compartments can be enhanced by accessing a wider range of both observational and experimental data (Banwart et al., 2012;Aronova et al., 2010;Reid et al., 2010). For this purpose, observational networks have been developed the last 25 decennia aiming at a temporal and multidisciplinary coverage of continental and global scale ecosystem observations. The Critical Zone Observatory network (Brantley et al. 2015), the International Long Term Ecosystem Research network (Mirtl et al., 2017), the National Ecological Observatory Network of the US , Schimel et al. 2001, the Chinese Ecosystem Research Network (Fu et al., 2010) and the Australian Terrestrial Ecosystem Research N...

show abstract

Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network

Cited by 95 publications

References 61 publications

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Integration of terrestrial observational networks: opportunity for advancing Earth system dynamics modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About