Dataset Information

Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities.

ABSTRACT: Global efforts to conserve biodiversity have the potential to deliver economic benefits to people (i.e., "ecosystem services"). However, regions for which conservation benefits both biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be identified unless ecosystem services can be quantified and valued and their areas of production mapped. Here we review the theory, data, and analyses needed to produce such maps and find that data availability allows us to quantify imperfect global proxies for only four ecosystem services. Using this incomplete set as an illustration, we compare ecosystem service maps with the global distributions of conventional targets for biodiversity conservation. Our preliminary results show that regions selected to maximize biodiversity provide no more ecosystem services than regions chosen randomly. Furthermore, spatial concordance among different services, and between ecosystem services and established conservation priorities, varies widely. Despite this lack of general concordance, "win-win" areas-regions important for both ecosystem services and biodiversity-can be usefully identified, both among ecoregions and at finer scales within them. An ambitious interdisciplinary research effort is needed to move beyond these preliminary and illustrative analyses to fully assess synergies and trade-offs in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services.

SUBMITTER: Naidoo R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2474481 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities.

Naidoo R R Balmford A A Costanza R R Fisher B B Green R E RE Lehner B B Malcolm T R TR Ricketts T H TH

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20080709 28

Global efforts to conserve biodiversity have the potential to deliver economic benefits to people (i.e., "ecosystem services"). However, regions for which conservation benefits both biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be identified unless ecosystem services can be quantified and valued and their areas of production mapped. Here we review the theory, data, and analyses needed to produce such maps and find that data availability allows us to quantify imperfect global proxies for only four e ...[more]

PMID: 18621701

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services-crop pollination and forage production-eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.

Project description:Where conservation resources are limited and conservation targets are diverse, robust yet flexible priority-setting frameworks are vital. Priority-setting is especially important for geographically widespread species with distinct populations subject to multiple threats that operate on different spatial and temporal scales. Marine turtles are widely distributed and exhibit intra-specific variations in population sizes and trends, as well as reproduction and morphology. However, current global extinction risk assessment frameworks do not assess conservation status of spatially and biologically distinct marine turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs), and thus do not capture variations in population trends, impacts of threats, or necessary conservation actions across individual populations. To address this issue, we developed a new assessment framework that allowed us to evaluate, compare and organize marine turtle RMUs according to status and threats criteria. Because conservation priorities can vary widely (i.e. from avoiding imminent extinction to maintaining long-term monitoring efforts) we developed a "conservation priorities portfolio" system using categories of paired risk and threats scores for all RMUs (n?=?58). We performed these assessments and rankings globally, by species, by ocean basin, and by recognized geopolitical bodies to identify patterns in risk, threats, and data gaps at different scales. This process resulted in characterization of risk and threats to all marine turtle RMUs, including identification of the world's 11 most endangered marine turtle RMUs based on highest risk and threats scores. This system also highlighted important gaps in available information that is crucial for accurate conservation assessments. Overall, this priority-setting framework can provide guidance for research and conservation priorities at multiple relevant scales, and should serve as a model for conservation status assessments and priority-setting for widespread, long-lived taxa.

Project description:In an era of unprecedented ecological upheaval, monitoring ecosystem change at large spatial scales and over long-time frames is an essential endeavor of effective environmental management and conservation. However, economic limitations often preclude revisiting entire monitoring networks at high frequency. We aimed here to develop a prioritization strategy for monitoring networks to select a subset of existing sites that meets the principles of complementarity and representativeness of the whole ecological reality, and maximizes ecological complementarity (species accumulation) and the spatial and environmental representativeness. We applied two well-known approaches for conservation design, the "minimum set" and the "maximal coverage" problems, using a suite of alpha and beta biodiversity metrics. We created a novel function for the R environment that performs biodiversity metric comparisons and site prioritization on a plot-by-plot basis. We tested our procedures using plot data provided by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) AusPlots, an Australian long-term monitoring network of 774 vegetation and soil monitoring plots. We selected 250 plots and 80% of the total species recorded as targets for the maximal coverage and minimum set problems, respectively. We compared the subsets selected by the different biodiversity metrics in terms of complementarity and spatial and environmental representativeness. We found that prioritization based on species turnover (i.e., iterative selection of the most dissimilar plot to a cumulative sample in terms of species replacement) maximized ecological complementarity and spatial representativeness, while also providing high environmental coverage. Species richness was an unreliable metric for spatial representation. Selection based on range-rarity-richness was balanced in terms of complementarity and representativeness, whereas its richness-corrected implementation failed to capture ecological and environmental variation. Prioritization based on species turnover is desirable to cover the maximum variability of the whole network. Synthesis and applications: Our results inform monitoring design and conservation priorities, which can benefit by considering the turnover component of beta diversity in addition to univariate metrics. Our tool is computationally efficient, free, and can be readily applied to any species versus sites dataset, facilitating rapid decision-making.

Dataset Information

Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities.

Publications

Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets