The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services

Shaw, M. Rebecca; Pendleton, Linwood H.; Cameron, D. Richard; Morris, Belinda; Bachelet, Dominique; Klausmeyer, Kirk R.; MacKenzie, Jason B.; Conklin, David R.; Bratman, Gregrory N.; Lenihan, James M.; Haunreiter, Erik; Daly, Christopher; Roehrdanz, Patrick R.

doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0313-4

Cited by 98 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Maintaining wildlife habitat on rangelands provides use and non-use benefits (Havstad et al 2007;Kroeger et al 2009;Shaw et al 2011), which will be diminished if current conversion trends continue as projected. Additional research is needed to measure in monetary terms the potential economic costs associated with the loss of these benefits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Byrd

Flint

Alvarez³

et al. 2015

Landscape Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context In addition to biodiversity conservation, California rangelands generate multiple ecosystem services including livestock production, drinking and irrigation water, and carbon sequestration. California rangeland ecosystems have experienced substantial conversion to residential land use and more intensive agriculture. Objectives To understand the potential impacts to rangeland ecosystem services, we developed six spatially explicit (250 m) climate/land use change scenarios for the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills consistent with three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenario narratives.Methods We quantified baseline and projected change in wildlife habitat, soil organic carbon (SOC), and water supply (recharge and runoff). For six case study watersheds we quantified the interactions of future development and changing climate on recharge, runoff and streamflow, and precipitation thresholds where dominant watershed hydrological processes shift through analysis of covariance. Results The scenarios show that across the region, habitat loss is expected to occur predominantly in grasslands, primarily due to future development (up to a 37 % decline by 2100), however habitat loss in priority conservation errors will likely be due to cropland and hay/pasture expansion (up to 40 % by 2100). Grasslands in the region contain approximately 100 teragrams SOC in the top 20 cm, and up to 39 % of this SOC is subject to conversion by 2100. In dryer periods recharge processes typically dominate runoff. Future development lowers the precipitation value at 123Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:729-750 DOI 10.1007 which recharge processes dominate runoff, and combined with periods of drought, reduces the opportunity for recharge, especially on deep soils. Conclusion Results support the need for climatesmart land use planning that takes recharge areas into account, which will provide opportunities for water storage in dry years. Given projections for agriculture, more modeling is needed on feedbacks between agricultural expansion on rangelands and water supply.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This uncertainty in the timing and quantity of precipitation is likely to increase, according to climate change projections for California from global climate models (GCMs) (Shaw et al 2009(Shaw et al , 2011. Despite this uncertainty, rangelands can serve an important role in supplying water.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Byrd

Flint

Alvarez³

et al. 2015

Landscape Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(e.g., Daly et al 2000;Bachelet et al 2004;Lenihan et al 2008;Shaw et al 2009;Spracklen et al 2009;NRC 2011), ours is the first national analysis conducted in concert with a wide range of other sectoral impact analyses (Waldhoff et al 2014, this issue). Our approach, which utilizes the same emission scenarios and climate projections as the other studies in this issue, allows for a direct comparison of the magnitude and nature of ecological impacts across sectors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Quantifying and monetizing potential climate change policy impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage and wildfires in the United States

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops and applies methods to quantify and monetize projected impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage and areas burned by wildfires in the contiguous United States under scenarios with and without global greenhouse gas mitigation. The MC1 dynamic global vegetation model is used to develop physical impact projections using three climate models that project a range of future conditions. We also investigate the sensitivity of future climates to different initial conditions of the climate model. Our analysis reveals that mitigation, where global radiative forcing is stabilized at 3.7 W/m 2 in 2100, would consistently reduce areas burned from 2001 to 2100 by tens of millions of hectares. Monetized, these impacts are equivalent to potentially avoiding billions of dollars (discounted) in wildfire response costs. Impacts to terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage are less uniform, but changes are on the order of billions of tons over this time period. The equivalent social value of these Climatic Change (2015) The magnitude of these results highlights their importance when evaluating climate policy options. However, our results also show national outcomes are driven by a few regions and results are not uniform across regions, time periods, or models. Differences in the results based on the modeling approach and across initializing conditions also raise important questions about how variability in projected climates is accounted for, especially when considering impacts where extreme or threshold conditions are important.

show abstract

“…Thus, it could be noted that the regulating service, just like the provisioning services of wheat, was water-dependent and that water resources, especially underground water, directly determine how much service could be given. The influential factors of ecosystem services mainly center on land use change [58], climate change [59], and other natural factors [60], but the major driving factor differed according to region. The lack of water resources was the biggest challenge in North China.…”

Section: Regression Analysis Of Resource Inputs and Major Services Oumentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China

Eneji

Liu

2014

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring the relationship between different services has become the focus of ecosystem services research in recent years. The agro-ecosystem, which accounts for one-third of the global land area, provides lots of services but also disservices, depending on resources provided by other systems. In this paper, we explored the agro-ecosystem from four aspects: a summary of different indicators in the agro-ecosystem, input and output changes with time, relationships between different ecosystem services and disservices, and resource contribution to major services, using Luancheng County of North China as the study area. We then used emergy analysis to unify all the indicators. The conclusions were that the agro-ecosystem maintained provisioning and regulating services but with increasing volatility under continued growth in production inputs and disservice outputs. There was a positive correlation between most of the different services and disservices. Rainfall and groundwater resources were the most used input resources in the agro-ecosystem and all other major ecosystem services depended directly on them.

show abstract

The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services

Cited by 98 publications

References 31 publications

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Quantifying and monetizing potential climate change policy impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage and wildfires in the United States

Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About