Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes

被引:108
作者
Laterra, Pedro [1 ,2 ]
Orue, Maria E. [1 ,2 ]
Booman, Gisel C. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nacl Mar del Plata, Fac Ciencias Agr, Inst Nacl Tecnol Agropecuaria, Unidad Integrada Balcarce,EEA Balcarce, RA-7620 Balcarce, Argentina
[2] Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn CONICET, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
关键词
Ecosystem services; Rural landscapes; Landscape complexity; Pampas; Argentina; Tradeoffs; Complementarity; Thresholds; LAND-USE INTENSITY; ECOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS; TRADE-OFFS; BIODIVERSITY; CLASSIFICATION; CATCHMENT; WETLANDS; CARBON; AREAS; SCALE;
D O I
10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Despite general agreement on antagonist relationships between ecosystems capacity to simultaneously sustain the availability of regulating services and agricultural production, it is not clear how these tradeoffs operate in response to complexity loss at the rural landscapes level. Here we present a novel evaluation framework of ecosystem services (ES) and pose different response models to landscape complexity. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that complementarities among different ES types increase and the strength of their apparent tradeoffs diminishes with the spatial complexity of the rural landscapes, using a one million has basin of the Argentine pampas as study case. According to correlation and principal component analysis, main ES tradeoffs among ES availability observed at two spatial scales were represented by crop production vs. the other evaluated ES types (OES), and in contrast with our prediction, their strength was not higher for the fine- than for the coarse-scale (relatively large and internally complex observation units). Landscape composition and configuration indices showed a complementary capacity to explain spatial variation in OES, but combinations of configuration indices showed a higher explanatory value than composition ones. Widely accepted tradeoffs among ecosystem services at local levels, not only were able to explain their antagonistic but also their synergistic availability at intermediate levels of conversion of managed grasslands to croplands, depending on the evaluation scale. Despite intermediate complexity hypothesis was only partly supported by our results, these offer novel evidences about emergent responses in the form of nonlinearities and thresholds of total ES in relation to landscape complexity, which deserve further attention because of their relevance for land use planning. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 67
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes
    Vialatte, Aude
    Barnaud, Cecile
    Blanco, Julien
    Ouin, Annie
    Choisis, Jean-Philippe
    Andrieu, Emilie
    Sheeren, David
    Ladet, Sylvie
    Deconchat, Marc
    Clement, Floriane
    Esquerre, Diane
    Sirami, Clelia
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2019, 34 (07) : 1653 - 1673
  • [22] Spatial interactions among ecosystem services and the identification of win-win areas at the regional scale
    Yan, Rui
    Cai, Yanpeng
    Li, Chunhui
    Wang, Xuan
    Liu, Qiang
    Yan, Shengjun
    ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY, 2021, 47
  • [23] A Framework for Ecosystem Services Planning
    Staes, Jan
    Vrebos, Dirk
    Meire, Patrick
    ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HUMAN WELFARE, 2010, 69 : 53 - 71
  • [24] Monitoring social-ecological networks for biodiversity and ecosystem services in human-dominated landscapes
    Firkowski, Carina Rauen
    Schwantes, Amanda M.
    Fortin, Marie-Josee
    Gonzalez, Andrew
    FACETS, 2021, 6 : 1670 - 1692
  • [25] Stakeholders' Perspectives to Support the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Spatial Planning in Switzerland
    Jaligot, Remi
    Chenal, Jerome
    ENVIRONMENTS, 2019, 6 (08)
  • [26] Does agricultural intensification cause tipping points in ecosystem services?
    Watson, Stephen C. L.
    Newton, Adrian C.
    Ridding, Lucy E.
    Evans, Paul M.
    Brand, Steven
    McCracken, Morag
    Gosal, Arjan S.
    Bullock, James M.
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2021, 36 (12) : 3473 - 3491
  • [27] Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns
    Larson, K. L.
    Nelson, K. C.
    Samples, S. R.
    Hall, S. J.
    Bettez, N.
    Cavender-Bares, J.
    Groffman, P. M.
    Grove, M.
    Heffernan, J. B.
    Hobbie, S. E.
    Learned, J.
    Morse, J. L.
    Neill, C.
    Ogden, L. A.
    O'Neil-Dunne, J.
    Pataki, D. E.
    Polsky, C.
    Chowdhury, R. Roy
    Steele, M.
    Trammell, T. L. E.
    URBAN ECOSYSTEMS, 2016, 19 (01) : 95 - 113
  • [28] Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective
    Baral, Himlal
    Keenan, Rodney J.
    Stork, Nigel E.
    Kasel, Sabine
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2014, 57 (07) : 961 - 983
  • [29] Socio-ecological determinants of multiple ecosystem services on the Mediterranean landscapes of the Ionian Islands (Greece)
    Lorilla, Roxanne Suzette
    Poirazidis, Konstantinos
    Detsis, Vassilis
    Kalogirou, Stamatis
    Chalkias, Christos
    ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2020, 422
  • [30] More is more? Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services
    Pohjanmies, Tahti
    Eyvindson, Kyle
    Trivino, Maria
    Monkkonen, Mikko
    LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2017, 32 (12) : 2337 - 2349