Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands

被引:153
作者
Egoh, Benis N. [1 ,2 ]
Reyers, Belinda [2 ]
Rouget, Mathieu [1 ,3 ]
Richardson, David M.
机构
[1] Univ Pretoria, Dept Plant Sci, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
[2] CSIR, ZA-7599 Stellenbosch, South Africa
[3] Univ Stellenbosch, Ctr Invas Biol, Dept Bot & Zool, ZA-7602 Matieland, South Africa
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Ecosystem services; Biodiversity; Systematic conservation planning; Carbon; Water; Soil; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; PLANTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.019
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Grasslands provide many ecosystem services required to support human well-being and are home to a diverse fauna and flora. Degradation of grasslands due to agriculture and other forms of land use threaten biodiversity and ecosystem services. Various efforts are underway around the world to stem these declines. The Grassland Programme in South Africa is one such initiative and is aimed at safeguarding both biodiversity and ecosystem services. As part of this developing programme, we identified spatial priority areas for ecosystem services, tested the effect of different target levels of ecosystem services used to identify priority areas, and evaluated whether biodiversity priority areas can be aligned with those for ecosystem services. We mapped five ecosystem services (below ground carbon storage, surface water supply, water flow regulation, soil accumulation and soil retention) and identified priority areas for individual ecosystem services and for all five services at the scale of quaternary catchments. Planning for individual ecosystem services showed that, depending on the ecosystem service of interest, between 4% and 13% of the grassland biome was required to conserve at least 40% of the soil and water services. Thirty-four percent of the biome was needed to conserve 40% of the carbon service in the grassland. Priority areas identified for five ecosystem services under three target levels (20%, 40%, 60% of the total amount) showed that between 17% and 56% of the grassland biome was needed to conserve these ecosystem services. There was moderate to high overlap between priority areas selected for ecosystem services and already-identified terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity priority areas. This level of overlap coupled with low irreplaceability values obtained when planning for individual ecosystem services makes it possible to combine biodiversity and ecosystem services in one plan using systematic conservation planning. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1642 / 1650
页数:9
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]   Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities [J].
Anderson, Barbara J. ;
Armsworth, Paul R. ;
Eigenbrod, Felix ;
Thomas, Chris D. ;
Gillings, Simon ;
Heinemeyer, Andreas ;
Roy, David B. ;
Gaston, Kevin J. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2009, 46 (04) :888-896
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well being synthesis
[3]  
Blignaut James., 2008, ECOL RESTOR, V26, P143, DOI [DOI 10.3368/ER.26.2.143, 10.3368/er.26.2.143]
[4]   TEXTURE, CLIMATE, AND CULTIVATION EFFECTS ON SOIL ORGANIC-MATTER CONTENT IN US GRASSLAND SOILS [J].
BURKE, IC ;
YONKER, CM ;
PARTON, WJ ;
COLE, CV ;
FLACH, K ;
SCHIMEL, DS .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1989, 53 (03) :800-805
[5]   Hitting the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in context [J].
Carwardine, Josie ;
Klein, Carissa J. ;
Wilson, Kerrie A. ;
Pressey, Robert L. ;
Possingham, Hugh P. .
CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2009, 2 (01) :3-10
[6]   Conservation planning for ecosystem services [J].
Chan, Kai M. A. ;
Shaw, M. Rebecca ;
Cameron, David R. ;
Underwood, Emma C. ;
Daily, Gretchen C. .
PLOS BIOLOGY, 2006, 4 (11) :2138-2152
[7]   Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver [J].
Daily, Gretchen C. ;
Polasky, Stephen ;
Goldstein, Joshua ;
Kareiva, Peter M. ;
Mooney, Harold A. ;
Pejchar, Liba ;
Ricketts, Taylor H. ;
Salzman, James ;
Shallenberger, Robert .
FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2009, 7 (01) :21-28
[8]   A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services [J].
de Groot, RS ;
Wilson, MA ;
Boumans, RMJ .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2002, 41 (03) :393-408
[9]  
DWAF, 2005, GROUNDW RES ASS PHAS
[10]  
Dzerefos C.M., 2004, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V10, P875