Upload
others
View
22
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biodiversity: back to basics of ecosystem services Biodiversidade: voltar à origem dos serviços de ecossistema
Cristina Branquinho, Pedro Pinho, Alice Nunes, Paula Gonçalves, Inês Teixeira do Rosário, Artur
Santos, Joana Vieira & Margarida Santos-Reis
cE3c, Centro de Ecologia, Evolução e Alterações Globais, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa
A man made world. The influence of man on earth: “People and societies are the biggest drivers of global change“.
The world we live in
The net gains in human well-being and economic development occurred at the cost of degradation of ecosystems.
Is it sustainable?
Ecosystem services rely on biodiversity
Maintaining biodiversity is essential to the supply of
ecosystem services, as well as their health and resilience
Linking biodiversity to ecosystem functioning
Cardinale et al. 2012
Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem services
Biodiversity plays a wide range of functional roles in ecosystems (well established).
+ Ecosystem functions are more stable through time in experimental ecosystems with relatively high levels of biodiversity (established but incomplete evidence); and there are comparable effects in natural ecosystems (likely).
the level and stability of ecosystem services tend to improve with increasing biodiversity.
Biodiversity is at the basis
UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report
Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem services
Biodiversity plays a wide range of functional roles in ecosystems (well established).
+ Ecosystem functions are more stable through time in experimental ecosystems with relatively high levels of biodiversity (established but incomplete evidence); and there are comparable effects in natural ecosystems (likely).
the level and stability of ecosystem services tend to improve with increasing biodiversity.
Biodiversity is at the basis
UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report
Transitions between states occur in many ecological systems – states differ in their capacity to provide ecosystem services
• Nonlinear critical transitions are forecast to increase
Scheffer et al. (2009) Nature; Bestelmeyer et al. (2011) Ecosphere
Mechanisms of transitions (following the authors terminology)
• Need for early-warning signs, not only looking to drivers, but to measure effects on ecosystems
Clim
ate
Biodiversity
Tipping points and early warning
Mechanisms of transitions between ecosystems states and tipping points
An ecosystem can experience a shift to a new state, with significant changes to biodiversity and the services they provide.
Tipping points also have at least 1 of the following characteristics: ✤ The change becomes self perpetuating (deforestation reduces regional rainfall, which increases fire-risk, which causes forest dieback and further drying). ✤ There is a threshold beyond which an abrupt shift of ecological states occurs. ✤ The changes are long-lasting and hard to reverse. ✤ There is a significant time lag between the pressures and the appearance of impacts.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
early warning
Small Pressure
Ecosystem functioning is extremely complex and thus monitoring the effects of environmental change factors in ecosystems in an integrative perspective can make use of ecological indicators. Common ecological Indicators are based on biodiversity measures since they integrate the ecosystem functioning.
M. Scherer-Lorenzen, (2005), BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: BASIC PRINCIPLES, in Biodiversity: Structure and Function, [Eds. Wilhelm Barthlott, K. Eduard Linsenmair, and Stefan Porembski], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),, Oxford ,UK
Biodiversity
Eco
syst
em
Pro
cess
es
Does all species have the same value?
Functional Diversity – Potentially Universal
Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. (2001) Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 646-655.
Functional diversity groups: groups of species respond similarly to an environmental factor or that have similar functions in ecosystems; Functional diversity is associated with the functioning of the ecosystem it is right also associated with the service rendered by this.
Lavorel, S. et al. (2007) Plant Functional Types: Are We Getting Any Closer to the Holy Grail? Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 149-160.
Diaz et al. (2007) The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Functional trait: a characteristic of an organism which has demonstrable links with
its function(s)
Response
Effect
Functional Diversity
Eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces
Ecosystem processes Eco
syst
em p
roce
sses
Functional diversity
Diaz et al. (2007) The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Plant traits, ecosystem processes and ecosystem services
Trait–service clusters
Many services are provided by multiple traits
De Bello et al. (2010) Biodiversity Conservation
3. F
un
ctio
nal
div
ers
ity
Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services
Land use intensity
Biodiversity
COPI, 2008
€
Sampling Holm-oak woodlands
50 cm
Point-intercept method
• Based on direct mesurements, regional and global databases, other bibliographic
sources
From species to traits
•Species characterization regarding relevant functional traits
Species
Frequently, species that make up at least 80% of the community
Functional divergence: the degree of functional dissimilarity within the community (ecological differences between species)
Functional Diversity metrics
Garnier et al 2007 (Annals of Botany); Laliberté & Legendre 2010 (Ecology)
Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions
Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance
Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance
SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition
N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling
Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy
Duration of flowering ns -0.62**
Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)
Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions
Ecosystem services
Carbon sequestration (water and climate
regulation)
Soil formation, fertility and stability
Food and shelter
Cultural and aesthetic ES
Habitat and gene pool maintenance
(Resilience)
Biocontrol
Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services
Pollination and seed dispersal
Aridity
N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean
Biomass production
p = 0,0019
R² = 0.5382
1.6
2.1
2.6
0.10 0.30 0.50
(lo
g) p
rod
ucti
on
of b
iom
ass
by
an
nu
al p
lan
ts (g
m-2
) [2
01
4]
annual NDVI increment (amplitude)
[average 2002-2012]Maes, 2016
NDVI from 2000 to 2011
time (years)
ND
VI
①
③
④
⑤
⑥
⑦
②
1. season start 2. season end 3. season length 4. growth rate
5. all ecosystem productivity 6. seasonal productivity 7. senescence rate 8. base level
⑧
Biomass production
mean annual precipitation
Perennial vegetation r=0.58
8
Ramos et al., 2015
Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions
Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance
Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance
SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition
N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling
Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy
Duration of flowering ns -0.62**
Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)
Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions
Ecosystem services
Carbon sequestration (water and climate
regulation)
Soil formation, fertility and stability
Food and shelter
Cultural and aesthetic ES
Habitat and gene pool maintenance
(Resilience)
Biocontrol
Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services
Pollination and seed dispersal
Aridity
N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean
Phenology
model 1 (53.6%) exponential range 2390 m isotropic
model 2 (46.4%) spherical max. range 45 km min. range 35 km direction 100°
model 1 (45.2%) exponential range 3020 m isotropic
model 2 (54.8%) spherical max. range 48 km min. range 42 km direction 156°
model 1 (52.5%) exponential range 2500 m isotropic
model 2 (47.5%) spherical max. range 38 km min. range 30 km direction 156°
model 1 (53.1%) exponential range 3560 m isotropic
model 2 (46.9%) spherical max. range 38 km min. range 30 km direction 120°
model 1 (50.8%) exponential range 3380 m isotropic
model 2 (49.2%) spherical max. range 49 km min. range 42 km direction 152°
model 1 (48.4%) exponential range 2600 m isotropic
model 2 (51.6%) spherical max. range 41 km min. range 28 km direction 127°
season end r=0.65
season length r=0.59
time (years)
ND
VI
①
③
④
⑤
⑥
⑦
②
⑧
time (years)
ND
VI
①
③
④
⑤
⑥
⑦
②
⑧
Ramos et al., 2015
Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions
Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance
Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance
SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition
N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling
Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy
Duration of flowering ns -0.62**
Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)
Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions
Ecosystem services
Carbon sequestration (water and climate
regulation)
Soil formation, fertility and stability
Food and shelter
Cultural and aesthetic ES
Habitat and gene pool maintenance
(Resilience)
Biocontrol
Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services
Pollination and seed dispersal
Aridity
N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean
Multi-trait functional diversity decreased non-linearly with aridity
Aridity
Aridity
Eco
syst
em
se
rvic
es
Time or space
Reflecting ES loss
17-Dec-15 25
• Stakeholders can easily identify benefits given by the montado altough they cannot recognize them as Ecosystem Services
• Strenghts, weaknesses, challenges and drivers of change identified by the stakeholders:
Strenghts
•Multifunctionality
•Resistence of the system
•Adaptability of trees
Weaknesses
•Quality of management
•Policies of support and territorial planning
•Susceptibilities of the system
•Knowledge and formation
•Economic valuation of provisioning services
Challenges
•Enhance economic sustainability and ecological continuity
•Adaptation and mitigation to climate change
•Quantify and valuate ES
Drivers of change
•Diversification of products (cork products, gourmet, aromatics, etc)
•Tourism opportinnities
•Greening and forest certification
•Mortality of trees
•Increasing overgrazing
• 2 workshops done with NGOs, researchers, companies, government agencies
Goal 1 - Evaluate stakeholders perceptions of ES delivered by the montado
First Results
• Workshops at the farmstead level with the stakeholders of each LTER montado area • Face-to-face surveys at the farm scale to identify preferences of montado natural values by visitors and other users and to evaluate economically this system • On-line surveys to evaluate public perception of Cultural ES of the montado with economic valuation
Future research
26 26
• The Forest Scenario was the most valuable;
• This high value is mainly due to cork;
• The Urbanization Scenario was the worst;
• Results are quite similar between methods.
Goal 2 - Evaluate system responses to changes trough the development of scenarios Goal 3 – Test instruments and tools
First Results
We assessed and mapped 3 ES (cork, carbon stock and sequestration) using InVEST and TESSA in Ca. das Lezírias in 4 scenarios
• Both tools were usefull to estimate and map ES under diferente scenarios;
• Both methods are largely dependente on the quality of primary data making them uncertain and user dependent;
• The specificity of some data input is also demanding for non-specialists;
• The complexity of the montado system increases the complexity of estimates
Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services
Land use intensity
Biodiversity
COPI, 2008
€
MAES- tradeoffs
Adaptation to climate change
2006
2014
MAES- tradeoffs
landcover change in a local area
MAES- tradeoffs
carbon storage change
sediments discharge
nitrogen leaching
carbon water purification sediment
retention year Carbon storage
(Mg ha-1)
Nitrogen leaching
(Kg ha-1 year-1)
sediments discharge
(ton ha-1 year-1)
2006 75.22 0.23 0.034
2014 82.27 0.23 0.080
D 2006-2004 7.05 0.001 0.046
+9.4% +0.4% +135.3%
MAES- tradeoffs
non-target ESs tradeoffs
2014
Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services
Land use intensity
Biodiversity
COPI, 2008
€
Habitat quality provided by forest in urban areas?
total of 136 species of
lichens, butterflies, birds and
mammals and 18 orders of
other-invertebrates
however species richness
was unrelated to
environmental drivers
sampling
Henry Mühlpfordt
lichens butterflies
other-invertebrates birds mammals
Sandy Rae
mammals other-invertebrates birds
65 species 20 species
18 orders 47 species 4 species
modeling Habitat Quality
all forest were classified as
being closer to the “urban” or
“forest” type biodiversity
it is also a measure of quality of
each forest
Hygrophytes Frequency
mapping Climatic regulation Service
Lichens as ecological indicators in urban areas:
beyond the effects of pollutants Munzi et al.,
2014, Journal of Applied Ecology
+ -
Air purification service
(m2) (μg/m3)
Richness
0,461-3,174NO2+4,15Area
+1.7% +1.0% +2.3%
+14.1% +1.6% +5.1%
+3.9% +1.3% +2.6%
Icons from the Noun project: Alwx, Camilla Anderson, Ahmed Elzahra, James Keuning, Kamaksh Gangani
high background pollution
medium background pollution
low background pollution
0.1 ha 0.03 ha 5 ha Large green areas Small green areas Medium green areas
Resize, zoom or pan picture 1. Click on picture to activate
Picture-tool in top ribbon 2. Click on Crop-tool
to pan picture
3. Hold Shift and drag in
picturecorner to resize
Values and perceptions Social functioning?
• Face-to-face questionnaires with open questions addressing:
- motivation for visit and use of the parks
- place attachment and perceived benefits
- perception and valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem
services provided
- health and well-being
Ecosystem services assessment
• In your opinion which of these green areas contribute most for:
Food production, air purification, temperature regulation, carbon sequestration, flood regulation, pollination, habitat for species, social interaction, inspiration, spiritual experience, recreation
Final Remarks • Biodiversity is the basis of Ecosystem Services;
• Functional diversity is a good measure of Ecosystem Services;
• We must develop better the trade-offs methodology;
• We need to test this under different case studies
Obrigada Thanks