Article

Ecology. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface.

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 02/2011; 331(6021):1139-40. DOI: 10.1126/science.1202400
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Assessments must provide conditional predictions of specific policy outcomes, at well-defined spatial and temporal scales.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
206 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: China launched a series of ecological restoration policies to mitigate its severe environmental challenges in the late 1990s. From the beginning, the effects and influences of the ecological restoration policies have been hotly debated. In the present study, we assessed the effects of two vital ecological restoration policies (Grain-for-Green and Grain-for-Blue) on valued ecosystem services in Shandong province. A new method based on the net primary productivity and soil erosion was developed to assess the ecosystem service value. In the areas implementing the Grain-for-Green and Grain-for-Blue policies, the ecosystem service value increased by 24.01% and 43.10% during 2000–2008, respectively. However, comparing to the average increase of ecosystem service value (46.00%) in the whole of Shandong province in the same period, Grain-for-Green and Grain-for-Blue did not significantly improve overall ecosystem services. The ecological restoration policy led to significant tradeoffs in ecosystem services. Grain-for-Green improved the ecosystem service function of nutrient cycling, organic material provision, and regulation of gases but decreased that of water conservation. Grain-for-Blue increased the water conservation function but led to a reduction in the function of soil conservation and nutrient cycling.
    Advances in Meteorology 01/2015; · 1.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimBiodiversity responses to changing environmental forcing on species are often characterized by considerable time-lags (= relaxation times). Although changes to the occurrence and abundance of species likely have cascading effects (e.g. on species of other trophic levels, genes, community structure and ecosystem processes), current concepts addressing lagged biodiversity responses are limited to single drivers affecting a few biodiversity components (e.g. extinction debt in terms of species numbers or population size). Little attention has been paid to the interacting and cumulative nature of time-lag phenomena. Here, we synthesize current knowledge, mechanisms and implications of delayed biodiversity responses and propose a ‘cumulative biodiversity lags-framework’ which aims to integrate lagged responses of various components of biological organization.LocationGlobal.ResultsEffects of change in environmental forcing are transmitted along a series of linked cause–effect relationships which act on different biodiversity components (e.g. individuals, populations, species, communities). We show that lagged responses to environmental forcing are caused by different mechanisms (e.g. metapopulation dynamics, dispersal limitation, successional dynamics), which operate sequentially on these intermediary links. Lags manifest themselves on the respective biodiversity component which changes over time; the full relaxation time of a focal system will therefore depend on the aggregate length of different lags. We elucidate key mechanisms and circumstances which are likely to cause cumulative lagged responses, and propose research avenues to improve understanding of cumulative biodiversity lags.Main conclusionsThe failure to give adequate consideration to widespread cumulative time-lags often masks the full extent of biodiversity changes that have already been triggered. Effects that are particularly relevant for human livelihoods (e.g. changes in the provision of ecosystem services) may emerge with the most pronounced delay. Accordingly, the consideration of appropriate temporal scales should become a key topic in future work at the science–policy interface.
    Diversity and Distributions 02/2015; DOI:10.1111/ddi.12312 · 6.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous assessments have quantified, mapped, and valued the services provided by ecosystems that are important for human wellbeing. However, much of the literature does not clarify how the information gathered in such assessments could be used to inform decisions that will impact ecosystem services. We propose that the process of making management decisions for ecosystem services comprises five core steps: identification of the problem and its social–ecological context; specification of objectives and associated performance measures; defining alternative management actions and evaluating the consequences of these actions; assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of alternative management actions; and making management decisions. We synthesize the degree to which the peer-reviewed ecosystem services literature has captured these steps. For the ecosystem service paradigm to gain traction in science and policy arenas, future ecosystem service assessments should have clearly articulated objectives, seek to evaluate the consequences of alternative management actions, and facilitate closer engagement between scientists and stakeholders.
    Biological Conservation 04/2015; 184. DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024 · 4.04 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
201 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014