Assessing the effects of payments for ecosystem services programs on forest structure and species biodiversity

Hsiang Ling Chen,Douglas Stow,Shuang Yang,Li An,Rebecca L Lewison,Yu Hsin Tsai,Lei Shi

doi:10.1007/s10531-020-01953-3

Abstract

Globally, biodiversity has declined at an unprecedented rate, challenging the viability of ecosystems, species, and ecological functions and their corresponding services. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs have been established and implemented worldwide to combat the degradation or loss of essential ecosystems and ecosystem services without sacrificing the well-being of people. With an overarching goal of reducing soil erosion, China’s Grain-to-Green program (GTGP) converts cropland to forest or grassland. As one of the largest PES programs in the world, GTGP has great potential to offer biodiversity conservation co-benefits. To consider how GTGP may influence biodiversity, we measured forest structure and plant and wildlife species diversity at both GTGP forest and natural forest sites in Fangjingshan National Nature Reserve, China. We also evaluated the relationship between canopy cover and biodiversity measures to test whether forest cover, the most commonly measured and reported ecological metric of PES programs, might act as a good proxy for other biodiversity related parameters. We found that forest cover and species diversity increased after GTGP implementation as understory and overstory plant cover, and understory and midstory plant diversity at GTGP sites were similar to natural forest. Our results suggest that GTGP may also have been associated with increased habitat for protected and vulnerable wildlife species including Elliot’s pheasant (Syrmaticus ellioti), hog badger (Arctonyx collaris), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). Nevertheless, we identified key differences between GTGP forest and natural forest, particularly variation in forest types and heterogeneity of overstory vegetation. As a result, plant overstory diversity and wildlife species richness at GTGP forest were significantly lower than at natural forest. Our findings suggest, while forest cover may be a good proxy for some metrics of forest structure, it does not serve as a robust proxy for many biodiversity parameters. These findings highlight the need for and importance of robust and representative indicators or proxy variables for measuring ecological effects of PES programs on compositional and structural diversity. We demonstrate that PES may lead to biodiversity co-benefits, but changes in program implementation could improve the return on investment of PES programs to support conservation of biodiversity.

Highlights

Ecosystem services, defined as benefits that wild organisms or ecosystems provide to people, have been identified as necessary for human survival and wellbeing1 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Harrison et al 2010)
Deciduous forest accounted for 18% at natural forest sites but was missing at Grain-to-Green program (GTGP) sites
Our results suggest that payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs, like GTGP, are associated with some measures of biodiversity benefits

Summary

Introduction

Ecosystem services, defined as benefits (direct or indirect) that wild organisms or ecosystems provide to people, have been identified as necessary for human survival and wellbeing (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Harrison et al 2010). There is considerable complexity in the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services (Balvanera et al 2014), biodiversity has been recognized as an essential component that maintains vital ecological processes and corresponding services (Díaz and Cabido 2001; Hoekstra et al 2005; Cardinale et al 2012). PES programs aim to protect ecosystem services while supporting sustainable livelihoods or alleviating poverty by providing financial or in-kind incentives directly to resource users to undertake environmentally desirable actions or avoid environmental damaging ones (Wunder 2007, 2013; Jack et al 2008; Mathieu et al 2018). While PES programs mostly are designed to improve regulating services (e.g. water quality, erosion control), additional services such as biodiversity are commonly cited as a secondary benefit (Prager et al 2016; Bremer et al 2019). The Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP) in China was enacted primarily for flood control, the program has improved habitat for wildlife by restoring natural forest (Liu et al 2008)

Methods

Results

Conclusion