REVIEW: The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality

Abstract

Summary1. Ecosystems have a critical role in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality, but management to change an ecosystem process in support of one regulating ecosystem service can either provide co-benefits to other services or can result in trade-offs. 2. We examine the role of ecosystems in delivering these regulating ecosystem services, using the UK as our case study region. We identify some of the main co-benefits and trade-offs of ecosystem management within, and across, the regulating services of climate regulation, and soil, water and air quality regulation, and where relevant, we also describe interactions with other ecosystem services. Our analysis clearly identifies the many important linkages between these different ecosystem services. 3. However, soil, water and air quality regulation are often governed by different legislation or are under the jurisdiction of different regulators, which can make optimal management difficult to identify and to implement. Policies and legislation addressing air, water and soil are sometimes disconnected, with no integrated overview of how these policies interact. This can lead to conflicting messages regarding the use and management of soil, water and air. Similarly, climate change legislation is separate from that aiming to protect and enhance soil, water and air quality, leading to further potential for policy conflict. 4. All regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services. At a policy level, this may well be the biggest conflict. The fact that even individual regulating services comprise multiple and contrasting indicators (e.g. the various components of water quality such as nutrient levels, acidity, pathogens and sediments), adds to the complexity of the challenge. 5. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that although there are some good examples of integrated ecosystem management, some aspects of ecosystem management could be better coordinated to deliver multiple ecosystem services, and that an ecosystem services framework to assess co-benefits and trade-offs would help regulators, policy-makers and ecosystem managers to deliver more coherent ecosystem management strategies. In this way, an ecosystem services framework may improve the regulation of climate, and soil, water and air quality, even in the absence of economic valuation of the individual services.

ESLab application to a boreal watershed in southern Finland: preparing for a virtual research environment of ecosystem services

“…Porto et al (2014) identified management strategies to minimize the trade-off between cost, fire risk and biodiversity objectives in cork oak forest landscapes with multiple landowners. Smith et al (2013) identified trade-offs of ecosystem management in the UK and found that optimal management is difficult to implement, in part because soil, water and air quality regulation are governed by different legislation. They also noted that the biggest conflict at a policy level may be caused by the fact that all regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services.…”

“…They also noted that the biggest conflict at a policy level may be caused by the fact that all regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services. They conclude that ''an ecosystem services framework may improve the regulation of climate, and soil, water and air quality, even in the absence of economic valuation of the individual services'' (Smith et al 2013). The management of agriculture, forestry, water quality and biodiversity is regulated by different national and international legislation and conventions.…”

Malthus is still wrong: we can feed a world of 9–10 billion, but only by reducing food demand

“…Had the increases in yield of the last 60-70 years not been achieved, almost three times more land would have been required to produce crops to sustain the present population; this is land that simply does not exist or that is unsuitable for cropping (5) . So intensification has been essential, but has resulted in many undesirable outcomes, including air, water and soil pollution (17) with agrochemicals and surplus nutrients, increased climate forcing (18) , resources depletion (19) , high fossil energy inputs (14) and habitat/biodiversity loss (11) . During the past century, then, while agricultural area expansion has continued, the emphasis for increasing food production has shifted towards intensification, i.e.…”

Using carbon sequestration to paint over the cracks, when we should be changing our consumption patterns

“…A recent study mitigation potentials available from technical supply-side options [3], such as those considered in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, were compared with the technical potential available from demand-side options, such as waste reduction and dietary change toward less GHG-intensive products (i.e., less meat and livestock products). This study found that the technical potential for a combination of demand-side options was between 1.5 and 15 Gt CO 2 -e/year by 2050, potentially much larger than the mitigation potential from supply-side measures in the AFOLU sector.…”

“…This study found that the technical potential for a combination of demand-side options was between 1.5 and 15 Gt CO 2 -e/year by 2050, potentially much larger than the mitigation potential from supply-side measures in the AFOLU sector. Some of the mitigation potential arises from the potential for carbon sequestration (or use of bioenergy to displace fossil fuels) on the land freed by changes in demand, so even under scenarios of changed demand, carbon sequestration still has a potential role to play [3].…”