Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
44,100
result(s) for
"Ecosystem services."
Sort by:
Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation
Although a number of comprehensive reviews have examined global ecosystem services (ES), few have focused on studies that assess urban ecosystem services (UES). Given that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, understanding the dualism of the provision of and need for UES is of critical importance. Which UES are the focus of research, and what types of urban land use are examined? Are models or decision support systems used to assess the provision of UES? Are trade-offs considered? Do studies of UES engage stakeholders? To address these questions, we analyzed 217 papers derived from an ISI Web of Knowledge search using a set of standardized criteria. The results indicate that most UES studies have been undertaken in Europe, North America, and China, at city scale. Assessment methods involve bio-physical models, Geographical Information Systems, and valuation, but few study findings have been implemented as land use policy.
Journal Article
Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition
The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
Journal Article
Blue marble evaluation : premises and principles
\"Taking a Blue Marble evaluation perspective means viewing the world holistically. It begins with watching for, making sense of, and interpreting the implications of things that are interconnected in the global system. Blue Marble thinkers see the interconnections between the global and local, the macro and the micro, and the relationships between worldwide patterns and area-specific challenges. Part 1 of this book presents and explains four overarching Blue Marble principles. Part 2 examines and elaborates the implications of the overarching principles with 12 operating principles. The Blue Marble perspective is both an approach to evaluation and a way of thinking about all aspects of systems change initiatives and interventions, at all levels at which they occur from local to global\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies
Agricultural ecosystems provide humans with food, forage, bioenergy and pharmaceuticals and are essential to human wellbeing. These systems rely on ecosystem services provided by natural ecosystems, including pollination, biological pest control, maintenance of soil structure and fertility, nutrient cycling and hydrological services. Preliminary assessments indicate that the value of these ecosystem services to agriculture is enormous and often underappreciated. Agroecosystems also produce a variety of ecosystem services, such as regulation of soil and water quality, carbon sequestration, support for biodiversity and cultural services. Depending on management practices, agriculture can also be the source of numerous disservices, including loss of wildlife habitat, nutrient runoff, sedimentation of waterways, greenhouse gas emissions, and pesticide poisoning of humans and non-target species. The tradeoffs that may occur between provisioning services and other ecosystem services and disservices should be evaluated in terms of spatial scale, temporal scale and reversibility. As more effective methods for valuing ecosystem services become available, the potential for ‘win–win’ scenarios increases. Under all scenarios, appropriate agricultural management practices are critical to realizing the benefits of ecosystem services and reducing disservices from agricultural activities.
Journal Article
Mainstreaming natural capital and ecosystem services into development policy
\"This book highlights the latest advances in the science and practice of using ecosystem services to inform decisions for economic development in the context of the developing countries. Mainstreaming Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services into Development Policy is designed to help decision makers at all levels, including governments, businesses, multilevel development banks and individuals, integrate ecosystems and their services into their decision making\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Land use intensity indirectly affects ecosystem services mainly through plant functional identity in a temperate forest
Land‐use change is known to affect biodiversity, and there is increasing concern regarding how these changes may impact the provision of ecosystem services. Although functional composition (diversity and identity) could influence ecosystem properties and services at the community level, there is little quantitative understanding of these relationships in the field. Here, we evaluate the direct and indirect effects (through ecosystem properties) of biodiversity on the provision of multiple ecosystem services in native mixed forest in north‐west Patagonia, and how land‐use intensity influences these relationships. We used structural equation modelling to test hypotheses regarding the relationship between understorey plant functional composition, two ecosystem properties, four ecosystem services and silvopastoral use intensity (SUI). We also evaluated two alternative models to assess the mechanism behind biodiversity and ecosystem properties relationships (biomass ratio and niche complementarity). Finally, we performed pairwise correlations to identify synergies and trade‐offs between ecosystem services. SUI affected functional composition, and the provision of three out of four ecosystem services was indirectly affected by land‐use intensity through changes in ecosystem properties. We found that this indirect effect of biodiversity on ecosystem services happens mainly through changes in functional identity rather than functional diversity. Under increasing land‐use intensity, functional composition changed towards a community characterized by a resource acquisition strategy. Trade‐offs between ecosystem services (provisioning vs. regulating) were enhanced under high SUI, while synergies where enhanced under low SUI (provisioning vs. cultural). Thus, although the strength of these relationships varied between SUI, its nature (trade‐off or synergy) stayed the same. Our results expand on previous studies by simultaneously considering the effect of land‐use intensification directly on functional composition and on the ecosystem processes underpinning ecosystem services, as well as on the relationship among them. We provide evidence of an indirect effect of land‐use intensification on multiple ecosystem services through biodiversity. Moreover, we found that functional identity is more important than diversity for ecosystem functionality. Land‐use intensification affects biodiversity, and thus, ecosystem properties, but does not change the relationship among ecosystem services. A plain language summary is available for this article. Plain Language Summary
Journal Article
Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed
Understanding spatial distributions, synergies, and tradeoffs of multiple ecosystem services (benefits people derive from ecosystems) remains challenging. We analyzed the supply of 10 ecosystem services for 2006 across a large urbanizing agricultural watershed in the Upper Midwest of the United States, and asked the following: (i) Where are areas of high and low supply of individual ecosystem services, and are these areas spatially concordant across services? (ii) Where on the landscape are the strongest tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services located? (iii) For ecosystem service pairs that experience tradeoffs, what distinguishes locations that are “win–win” exceptions from other locations? Spatial patterns of high supply for multiple ecosystem services often were not coincident; locations where six or more services were produced at high levels (upper 20th percentile) occupied only 3.3% of the landscape. Most relationships among ecosystem services were synergies, but tradeoffs occurred between crop production and water quality. Ecosystem services related to water quality and quantity separated into three different groups, indicating that management to sustain freshwater services along with other ecosystem services will not be simple. Despite overall tradeoffs between crop production and water quality, some locations were positive for both, suggesting that tradeoffs are not inevitable everywhere and might be ameliorated in some locations. Overall, we found that different areas of the landscape supplied different suites of ecosystem services, and their lack of spatial concordance suggests the importance of managing over large areas to sustain multiple ecosystem services.
Journal Article
Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications
Urban landscapes are the everyday environment for the majority of the global population, and almost 80 % of the Europeans live in urban areas. The continuous growth in the number and size of urban areas along with an increasing demand on resources and energy poses great challenges for ensuring human welfare in cities while preventing an increasing loss of biodiversity. The understanding of how urban ecosystems function, provide goods and services for urban dwellers; and how they change and what allows and limits their performance can add to the understanding of ecosystem change and governance in general in an ever more human-dominated world. This Special Issue aims at bridging the knowledge gap among urbanization, demand creation, and provisioning of ecosystem services in urban regions on the one hand and schemes of urban governance and planning on the other.
Journal Article