Abstract
Author(s): Underwood, Emma C.; Hutchinson, Rachel A.; Viers, Joshua H.; Kelsey, T. Rodd; Distler, Trisha; Marty, Jaymee | Abstract: Change in land use in agriculturally dominated areas is often assumed to provide positive benefits for land-owners and financial agricultural returns at the expense of biodiversity and other ecosystem services. For an agriculturally dominated area in the Central Valley of California we quantify the trade-offs among ecosystem services, biodiversity, and the financial returns from agricultural lands. We do this by evaluating three different landscape management scenarios projected to 2050 compared to the current baseline: habitat restoration, urbanization, and enhanced agriculture. The restoration scenario benefited carbon storage services and increased landscape suitability for birds, and also decreased ecosystem disservices (nitrous oxide emissions, nitrogen leaching), although there was a trade-off in slightly lower financial agricultural returns. Under the urbanization scenario, carbon storage, suitability for birds, and agricultural returns were negatively affected. A scenario which enhanced agriculture, tailored to the needs of a key species of conservation concern (Swainson’s Hawk, Buteo swainsoni), presented the most potential for trade-offs. This scenario benefitted carbon storage and increased landscape suitability for the Swainson's Hawk as well as 15 other focal bird species. However, this scenario increased ecosystem disservices. These spatially explicit results, generated at a scale relevant to land management decision-makers in the Central Valley, provide valuable insight into managing for multiple benefits in the landscape and an approach for assessing future land-management decisions.
Highlights
Intact natural landscapes provide ecosystem functions that result in numerous ecosystem goods and services from which humans benefit, including carbon storage, flood protection, and maintenance of species life cycles (Daily 1997; MEA 2003)
We examine the assumption that land use change in agriculturally dominated areas provides positive benefits for land-owners and financial agricultural returns at the expense of biodiversity and other ecosystem services, such as carbon storage
We considered each of the scenarios in isolation; for example, landscape-wide restoration does not account for development, nor urbanization for set-asides for wildlife
Summary
Intact natural landscapes provide ecosystem functions that result in numerous ecosystem goods and services from which humans benefit, including carbon storage, flood protection, and maintenance of species life cycles (Daily 1997; MEA 2003). Crop rotation would provide inputs of nitrogen, and suppress insects and weeds by breaking their life cycles, yielding modest but stable agricultural inputs (Altieri 1992) This link between ecology and agriculture has become strained over the past few decades a a result of mechanization, new crop varieties, development of agrochemicals, as well as political and economic forces associated with regional agriculture’s supplying international markets (Altieri 1992). This has led to concerns about the long-term sustainability of food-production systems, and the influence of these practices on the ecosystem services provided to people
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
