Linking potential biodiversity and three ecosystem services in silvopastoral managed forest landscapes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

Abstract

Several studies confirm that biodiversity loss endangers ecosystem services (ES) supply and human well-being. A better understanding of biodiversity-ES relationships and effects of biodiversity loss on ES supply is needed. The objective was to determine relationships between potential biodiversity and three ES in Patagonia where cattle ranching under silvopastoral use occurs. We used grids of potential biodiversity (plant species richness) and three ES, provisioning (cattle stocking rate), regulating (CO 2 sequestration) and cultural (geo-tagged digital-images). Potential biodiversity was negatively related to provisioning, but no significant relations were detected with regulating and cultural. These relations showed regional differences related to forest landscape distribution. High values of regulating were found in southern areas being coincident with high potential biodiversity. Opposite trends (negative relationship with biodiversity) was observed for provisioning in eastern and western regions where provisioning decrease from N-S. Results suggest that provisioning do not overlap spatially with the higher values of potential biodiversity maps, which is an advantage for land use planning when conservation and management requirements must be combined. Our results are the first contribution for Patagonia to underpin scientific and institutional efforts to connect biodiversity conservation with ES maintenance. However, further studies must be addressed including more ES and regions.

Indicators for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition and of the ecosystem service habitat maintenance in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

“…Theoretically, an ecosystem is likely to be in a good condition if pressures are absent. Many studies have examined the relationship between Biodiversity State and ES supply (Quijas et al 2010;Duru et al 2015;Soliveres et al 2016, Pastur et al 2016. Additionally, based on findings of Manolaki and Vogiatzakis (2017), the highest capacity of ES provision is detected in semi-natural habitat types, rich in biodiversity.…”

“…ΕU Nature Directives provide key inputs that can be used as indicators for assessing ecosystem condition and trends (Parrish et al 2003;Salomidi et al 2012). In the current study, the Biodiversity State indicator has been designed, based on biodiversity attributes monitored under the EU Nature Directives (Art.…”

Long-term monitoring of thinning for silvopastoral purposes in Nothofagus antarctica forests of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

“…This remaining crown cover provides protection from desiccating strong winds, improving the microclimatic conditions for understorey plants growth and tree regeneration. However, the thinning not only provides synergies with other forest components, but also produce greater trade-offs with other ecosystem services (Gyenge et al, 2011;Martínez Pastur et al, 2017;Peri et al, 2017) and biodiversity components (Lencinas et al, 2008(Lencinas et al, , 2015Quinteros et al, 2010;Peri et al, 2016a). These changes are poorly studied in the long-term, and can be influenced by changes in the climate conditions (Kreps et al, 2012) or biological threats (e.g.…”

Estrategias de manejo y conservación para bosques de Nothofagus: escalas del paisaje y factores que determinan las variaciones en diversidad y ensamble de plantas vasculares

“…Mucha de la literatura actual sobre manejo de ecosistemas naturales presta especial atención al paradigma de que el hombre es considerado como un tratamiento más, y no como un tratamiento control, pues prácticamente no existe un ambiente natural sin algún grado de intervención antrópica (Hanski, 2005;Rands et al, 2010). Las acciones de conservación y sustentabilidad sin el hombre (como sociedad) son inviables (Ostrom, 1990), y no todos los actores sociales quieren resaltar determinados valores de la naturaleza (Mastrangelo et al, 2015;Martínez Pastur et al, 2017a). Las opciones básicamente son dos: (i) priorizar un interés sobre otro, o (ii) tratar de encontrar una mediación entre intereses (ej.…”

“…Sin embargo, se producen compensaciones entre los diferentes objetivos de gestión (ej. aprovechamiento forestal vs. conservación) y los diferentes servicios ecosistémicos que el paisaje ofrece a la sociedad (Martínez Pastur et al, 2017a;Peri et al, 2017a). Por ello, en Tierra del Fuego, para cualquier estrategia o política nacional o provincial que busque alcanzar un equilibrio entre conservación y producción (ej.…”