Dataset Information

Landscape context shifts the balance of costs and benefits from wildflower borders on multiple ecosystem services.

ABSTRACT: In the face of global biodiversity declines driven by agricultural intensification, local diversification practices are broadly promoted to support farmland biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services. The creation of flower-rich habitats on farmland has been subsidized in both the USA and EU to support biodiversity and promote delivery of ecosystem services. Yet, theory suggests that the landscape context in which local diversification strategies are implemented will influence their success. However, few studies have empirically evaluated this theory or assessed the ability to support multiple ecosystem services simultaneously. Here, we evaluate the impact of creating flower-rich habitats in field margins on pollination, pest control, and crop yield over 3 years using a paired design across a landscape gradient. We find general positive effects of natural habitat cover on fruit weight and that flowering borders increase yields by promoting bee visitation to adjacent crops only in landscapes with intermediate natural habitat cover. Flowering borders had little impact on biological control regardless of landscape context. Thus, knowledge of landscape context can be used to target wildflower border placement in areas where they will have the greatest likelihood for success and least potential for increasing pest populations or yield loss in nearby crops.

SUBMITTER: Grab H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6111170 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Landscape context shifts the balance of costs and benefits from wildflower borders on multiple ecosystem services.

Grab Heather H Poveda Katja K Danforth Bryan B Loeb Greg G

Proceedings. Biological sciences 20180801 1884

In the face of global biodiversity declines driven by agricultural intensification, local diversification practices are broadly promoted to support farmland biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services. The creation of flower-rich habitats on farmland has been subsidized in both the USA and EU to support biodiversity and promote delivery of ecosystem services. Yet, theory suggests that the landscape context in which local diversification strategies are implemented will influence their success. H ...[more]

PMID: 30068682

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These 'marginal' values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits.

Project description:Ecosystem markets are proliferating around the world in response to increasing demand for climate change mitigation and provision of other public goods. However, this may lead to perverse outcomes, for example where public funding crowds out private investment or different schemes create trade-offs between the ecosystem services they each target. The integration of ecosystem markets could address some of these issues but to date there have been few attempts to do this, and there is limited understanding of either the opportunities or barriers to such integration. This paper reports on a comparative analysis of eleven ecosystem markets in operation or close to market in Europe, based on qualitative analysis of 25 interviews, scheme documentation and two focus groups. Our results indicate three distinct types of markets operating from the regional to national scale, with different modes of operation, funding and outcomes: regional ecosystem markets, national carbon markets and green finance. The typology provides new insights into the operation of ecosystem markets in practice, which may challenge traditionally held notions of Payment for Ecosystem Services. Regional ecosystem markets, in particular, represent a departure from traditional models, by using a risk-based funding model and aggregating both supply and demand to overcome issues of free-riding, ecosystem service trade-offs and land manager engagement. Central to all types of market were trusted intermediaries, brokers and platforms to aggregate supply and demand, build trust and lower transaction costs. The paper outlines six options for blending public and private funding for the provision of ecosystem services and proposes a framework for integrating national carbon markets and green finance with regional ecosystem markets. Such integration may significantly increase funding for regenerative agriculture and conservation across multiple habitats and services, whilst addressing issues of additionality and ecosystem service trade-offs between multiple schemes.

Project description:Resilience is increasingly being considered as a new paradigm of forest management among scientists, practitioners, and policymakers. However, metrics of resilience to environmental change are lacking. Faced with novel disturbances, forests may be able to sustain existing ecosystem services and biodiversity by exhibiting resilience, or alternatively these attributes may undergo either a linear or nonlinear decline. Here we provide a novel quantitative approach for assessing forest resilience that focuses on three components of resilience, namely resistance, recovery, and net change, using a spatially explicit model of forest dynamics. Under the pulse set scenarios, we explored the resilience of nine ecosystem services and four biodiversity measures following a one-off disturbance applied to an increasing percentage of forest area. Under the pulse + press set scenarios, the six disturbance intensities explored during the pulse set were followed by a continuous disturbance. We detected thresholds in net change under pulse + press scenarios for the majority of the ecosystem services and biodiversity measures, which started to decline sharply when disturbance affected >40% of the landscape. Thresholds in net change were not observed under the pulse scenarios, with the exception of timber volume and ground flora species richness. Thresholds were most pronounced for aboveground biomass, timber volume with respect to the ecosystem services, and ectomycorrhizal fungi and ground flora species richness with respect to the biodiversity measures. Synthesis and applications. The approach presented here illustrates how the multidimensionality of stability research in ecology can be addressed and how forest resilience can be estimated in practice. Managers should adopt specific management actions to support each of the three components of resilience separately, as these may respond differently to disturbance. In addition, management interventions aiming to deliver resilience should incorporate an assessment of both pulse and press disturbances to ensure detection of threshold responses to disturbance, so that appropriate management interventions can be identified.

Dataset Information

Landscape context shifts the balance of costs and benefits from wildflower borders on multiple ecosystem services.

Publications

Landscape context shifts the balance of costs and benefits from wildflower borders on multiple ecosystem services.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets