Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

Eastburn, Danny J.; O’Geen, A. T.; Tate, Kenneth W.; Roche, Leslie M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166595

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2–4). However, it is worth noting that although BD differences were statistically significant in our meta‐analysis, we do not know if these translate to functional differences in surface infiltration rates (Eastburn et al, 2017). The global meta‐analysis also showed lower CN under continuous grazing relative to both rotational strategies and no grazing controls (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grazing lands support the livelihoods of millions of people across nearly one-half of the globe. Soils are the backbone of stability and resilience in these systems. To determine livestock grazing impacts on soil health, we conducted a global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon (SOC), total N, C/N ratio, and bulk density responses to grazing strategies (continuous, rotational, and no grazing) and intensities (heavy, moderate, and light grazing) from 64 studies around the world. Across all studies and grazing intensities, continuous grazing significantly reduced SOC, C/N, and total N compared with no grazing. Soil compaction (i.e., increased bulk density) was greater under both continuous and rotational grazing compared with no grazing; however, rotational grazing had lower bulk density than continuous grazing. Rotational grazing had greater SOC than continuous grazing and was not different from no grazing. The positive responses of SOC to rotational grazing could create climate change mitigation opportunities. Grazing strategy comparisons were minimally conditioned by aridity class (i.e., arid, subhumid, and humid); however, complete observations were notably limited or missing for many rotational grazing comparisons. For continuous and no grazing strategy comparisons, we found that grazing management can significantly influence soil function and health outcomes; however, site-specific environmental factors play important moderating roles. Greater coordination across regional, national, and global efforts, as well as consistent guidelines for soil health evaluation, would help overcome these knowledge gaps and vastly improve our collective understanding of grazing impacts on soil health, providing greater management and policy impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This will determine subsidies based on "public pay for public goods" (UK Gov., 2020), adopting a natural capital valuation approach. When considering honeybees, due to the effective area to forage in and the context of the 'pollinator movement hypothesis' [84], cooperative habitat management at the landscape scale has more evident and immediate benefits to these mobile ecosystem service providers [85]. Future land management strategies should consider implementation at the inter-farm level, highlighting the importance of complementarity of resources.…”

Section: Towards An Integrated Approach To Honeybee Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cost-effectiveness in ecosystem conservation can be achieved through the implementation of multi-functionality or "stacking" services to maximise output from minimal input [88]. Applying a multi-functional ecosystem service framework may result in exponentially greater, synergistic and efficient use of limited resources [85,89], but equally, requires the understanding and approval of practitioners, and an incentive to elicit environmental change. Though lacking under CAP, ELMs may suitably address this necessity, though this proposal remains in the consultation phase and is unlikely to show demonstrable results for the near future.…”

Section: Towards An Integrated Approach To Honeybee Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

A One-Health Model for Reversing Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Decline

Donkersley

Elsner-Adams²,

Maderson

2020

Veterinary Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global insect decline impacts ecosystem resilience; pollinators such as honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) have suffered extensive losses over the last decade, threatening food security. Research has focused discretely on in-hive threats (e.g., Nosema and Varroa destructor) and broader external causes of decline (e.g., agrochemicals, habitat loss). This has notably failed to translate into successful reversal of bee declines. Working at the interdisciplinary nexus of entomological, social and ecological research, we posit that veterinary research needs to adopt a “One-Health” approach to address the scope of crises facing pollinators. We demonstrate that reversing declines will require integration of hive-specific solutions, a reappraisal of engagement with the many stakeholders whose actions affect bee health, and recontextualising both of these within landscape scale efforts. Other publications within this special issue explore novel technologies, emergent diseases and management approaches; our aim is to place these within the “One-Health” context as a pathway to securing honeybee health. Governmental policy reform offers a particularly timely pathway to achieving this goal. Acknowledging that healthy honeybees need an interdisciplinary approach to their management will enhance the contributions of veterinary research in delivering systemic improvements in bee health.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless enhancement of provisioning services may cause degradation of regulating and cultural services, with vital importance for sustaining ecological processes (Costanza et al 2016). To ensure sustainability in the long-term there is need to focus on multiple services within a given area of land (Eastburn et al 2017). In agricultural ecosystems, which comprise a large part of terrestrial ecosystems (22-47% in our study areas) the intensity of management plays a significant role from below-ground diversity (Tsiafouli et al 2015) to landscape diversity (Tscharntke et al 2005).…”

Section: Synergies and Or Trade-offs Among Esmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Service capacity is higher in areas of multiple designation types

Nikolaidou¹,

Votsi²,

Sgardelis³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implementation of the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept into practice might be a challenging task as it has to take into account previous "traditional" policies and approaches that have evaluated nature and biodiversity differently. Among them the Habitat (92/43/EC) and Bird Directives (79/409/EC), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), and the Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) have led to the evaluation/designation of areas in Europe with different criteria. In this study our goal was to understand how the ES capacity of an area is related to its designation and if areas with multiple designations have higher capacity in providing ES.We selected four catchments in Greece with a great variety of characteristics covering over 25% of the national territory. Inside the catchments we assessed the ES capacity (following the methodology of Burkhard et al. 2009) of areas designated as Natura 2000 sites, Quiet areas and Wetlands or Water bodies and found those areas that have multiple designations. Data were analyzed by GLM to reveal differences regarding the ES capacity among the different types of areas. We also investigated by PCA synergies and trade-offs among different kinds of ES and tested for correlations among landscape properties, such as elevation, aspect and slope and the ES potential. Our results show that areas with different types or multiple designations have a different capacity in providing ES. Areas of one designation type (Protected or Quiet Areas) had in general intermediate scores in most ES but scores were higher compared to areas with no designation, which displayed stronger capacity in provisioning services. Among Protected Areas and Quiet Areas the latter scored better in general. Areas that combined both designation types (Protected and Quiet Areas) showed the highest capacity in 13 out of 29 ES, that were mostly linked with natural and forest ecosystems. We found significant synergies among most regulating, supporting and cultural ES which in turn display tradeoffs with provisioning services. The different ES are spatially related and display strong correlation with landscape properties, such as elevation and slope.We suggest that the designation status of an area can be used as an alternative tool for environmental policy, indicating the capacity for ES provision. Multiple designations of areas can be used as proxies for locating ES "hotspots". This integration of "traditional" evaluation and designation and the "newer" ES concept forms a time-and cost-effective way to be adopted by stakeholders and policy-makers in order to start complying with new standards and demands for nature conservation and environmental management.

show abstract

Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

Cited by 37 publications

References 27 publications

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators

A One-Health Model for Reversing Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Decline

Ecosystem Service capacity is higher in areas of multiple designation types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About