Abstract

Large scale mapping of ecosystem services and functions (ES) is an important tool for researchers and policy makers to inform nature management and policies but it relies mainly on ES modelled with biophysical data such as land cover, henceforth biophysical ES. Other ES, henceforth species-based ES, are modelled at small scales based on species providers. As species-based ES are rarely included in multi-service, large-scale spatial assessments, we do not know if these assessments provide accurate information for managing the biodiversity important for species-based ES. We calculate and map weighted provider richness (WPR) for 9 species-based ES by weighting species data in Europe by their functional efficiency derived from functional trait databases. We compare WPR spatial patterns with those of 9 biophysical ES at continental and national scales in Europe. We find positive correlations at continental scale, and weaker positive correlations or neutral relationships at national scale between biophysical ES and WPR. Patterns of synergies and trade-offs for WPR are different from those of biophysical ES and change from continental to national scale. WPR for most species-based ES are synergistic with each other but WPR for existence value has the weakest synergies with other WPRs. Biodiversity data is still insufficient to truly map species-based ES at large scales but WPR can represent the next step forward for spatial ES assessments. A lack of spatial information on species-based ES in large-scale assessments leads to inaccurate information on ES distribution, and their synergies and trade-offs, which can lead to misguided management and conservation decisions.

Highlights

  • Comprehensive and sound spatial assessments are needed to guide conservation and management of ecosystem functions and services (ES) (Maes et al, 2012)

  • We analyzed synergies and trade-offs in an approach similar to the Weighted provider richness (WPR) for most species-based ecosystem services and functions (ES) had the highest values in central Europe (Fig. 1)

  • For 5 countries (Spain, UK, Italy, Greece, Finland) the trend was similar to the one at European level, with the correlations becoming increasingly positive with the increase in number of biophysical ES and weighted provider richness (WPR)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Comprehensive and sound spatial assessments are needed to guide conservation and management of ecosystem functions and services (ES) (Maes et al, 2012). Because estimating contributions of individual species is usually time consuming and effort intensive, authors some­ times rely on biophysical models even for ES for which contributions of individual species can be calculated in theory (Zulian et al, 2013). This indicates that the underlying ecological processes do not translate perfectly into different methodologies but, for the purposes of this study, we will refer to the two ES categories according to their dominant modeling approach

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.