Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Dramatic changes in ecosystem services have motivated recent work characterizing their interactions, including identifying trade-offs and synergies. Although time is arguably implicit in these ideas of trade-offs and synergies (e.g., temporal dynamics or changes in ecosystem services), such interactions are routinely inferred based on the spatial relationships among ecosystem services alone (e.g., spatial concordance of ecosystem services indicates synergies, whereas incongruence signifies trade-offs). The limitations of this approach have not been fully explored. We quantified ecosystem service interactions using correlations among contemporary ecosystem services and compared these results to those derived by incorporating change in ecosystem services from an earlier decade. To document change over ~60 years in an urbanizing floodplain, we used aerial photography to map multiple floodplain-associated ecosystem services. Our results demonstrate how incorporating landscape baselines can influence measured synergies and trade-offs. Spatial correlations among contemporary ecosystem services missed several interactions that were detected when using prior baseline ecosystem services. Ignoring the history of ecosystem services and their change over time may result in missed opportunities to foster their synergies and lead to unnecessary trade-offs. Efforts to incorporate ecosystem services into land management should include long-term monitoring and baseline reconstructions of ecosystem services.

Relationships Between Ecosystem Services: Comparing Methods for Assessing Tradeoffs and Synergies

“…Both parametric and non-parametric tests of significance can be corrected to take into account spatial autocorrelation (Casalegno et al, 2013;Gos and Lavorel, 2012). Static spatial correlation studies have been criticized because they omit landscape history, an important factor in understanding ES relationships (Tomscha and Gergel, 2016), and because they often present ES spatial correlations as interactions, even when they are not; they are simply evidence of nonrandom associations (Bennett et al, 2009;Cord et al, 2017). Less frequently applied are methods integrating ES temporal dynamics by analyzing historical datasets (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016;Zheng et al, 2014); as few studies have data on ES over both time and space Dittrich et al, 2017;Locatelli et al, 2017).…”

“…Static spatial correlation studies have been criticized because they omit landscape history, an important factor in understanding ES relationships (Tomscha and Gergel, 2016), and because they often present ES spatial correlations as interactions, even when they are not; they are simply evidence of nonrandom associations (Bennett et al, 2009;Cord et al, 2017). Less frequently applied are methods integrating ES temporal dynamics by analyzing historical datasets (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016;Zheng et al, 2014); as few studies have data on ES over both time and space Dittrich et al, 2017;Locatelli et al, 2017). Static spatial correlations can be calculated at different dates in order to detect changes in ES relationships overtime (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016).…”

“…Less frequently applied are methods integrating ES temporal dynamics by analyzing historical datasets (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016;Zheng et al, 2014); as few studies have data on ES over both time and space Dittrich et al, 2017;Locatelli et al, 2017). Static spatial correlations can be calculated at different dates in order to detect changes in ES relationships overtime (Renard et al, 2015;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016).…”

“…There is a need to clarify which types of issues each method can help to resolve, taking into account their range of application and underlying hypothesis (Gasparatos, 2010). Few studies have done so explicitly (but see: Mouchet et al, 2014;Tomscha and Gergel, 2016;Zheng et al, 2014).…”

Using land use/land cover trajectories to uncover ecosystem service patterns across the Alps

“…They deliver food and shelter (crops, fodder, water, fuels, materials) (Cooper et al 2009;Briner et al 2013), protection and health (prevention of soil erosion, climate regulation, medical plants) (Ruiz-Mirazo et al 2011;Bernstein 2014) or pleasure (recreational experiences in landscapes, cultural heritage, enjoyment of appealing landscapes) (Sayadi et al 2009;LindemannMatthies et al 2010;Schirpke et al 2016). However, they are facing a number of serious and growing challenges because of a variety of human activities: increased urbanization (Wang and Mountrakis 2011); agricultural ex-or intensification (Tasser et al 2007;Terrasson et al 2015); increased economic pressure from globalized land management directions ; and rapid changes in tourism activities and developments (Geneletti 2008).…”