Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature265433
Source
PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112557
Publication Type
Article
Date
2014
Author
Matthias Schröter
Graciela M Rusch
David N Barton
Stefan Blumentrath
Björn Nordén
Source
PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112557
Date
2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Biodiversity
Climate
Computer simulation
Conservation of Natural Resources - methods
Ecology - methods
Forestry
Forests
Geography
Norway
Abstract
Inclusion of spatially explicit information on ecosystem services in conservation planning is a fairly new practice. This study analyses how the incorporation of ecosystem services as conservation features can affect conservation of forest biodiversity and how different opportunity cost constraints can change spatial priorities for conservation. We created spatially explicit cost-effective conservation scenarios for 59 forest biodiversity features and five ecosystem services in the county of Telemark (Norway) with the help of the heuristic optimisation planning software, Marxan with Zones. We combined a mix of conservation instruments where forestry is either completely (non-use zone) or partially restricted (partial use zone). Opportunity costs were measured in terms of foregone timber harvest, an important provisioning service in Telemark. Including a number of ecosystem services shifted priority conservation sites compared to a case where only biodiversity was considered, and increased the area of both the partial (+36.2%) and the non-use zone (+3.2%). Furthermore, opportunity costs increased (+6.6%), which suggests that ecosystem services may not be a side-benefit of biodiversity conservation in this area. Opportunity cost levels were systematically changed to analyse their effect on spatial conservation priorities. Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services trades off against timber harvest. Currently designated nature reserves and landscape protection areas achieve a very low proportion (9.1%) of the conservation targets we set in our scenario, which illustrates the high importance given to timber production at present. A trade-off curve indicated that large marginal increases in conservation target achievement are possible when the budget for conservation is increased. Forty percent of the maximum hypothetical opportunity costs would yield an average conservation target achievement of 79%.
Notes
Cites: Nature. 2000 May 11;405(6783):243-5310821285
Cites: Glob Chang Biol. 2014 Feb;20(2):382-9323913584
Cites: J Biosci. 2002 Jul;27(4 Suppl 2):309-2612177531
Cites: Ambio. 2003 Sep;32(6):389-9614627367
Cites: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74843571
Cites: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Feb 28;360(1454):443-5515814356
Cites: PLoS Biol. 2006 Oct;4(11):e37917076586
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2009 Feb;90(2):901-1118423841
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Feb 3;106(5):1305-1219179280
Cites: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 22;276(1669):2903-1119474040
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 20;106(42):17667-7019815522
Cites: Ecol Lett. 2009 Dec;12(12):1394-40419845725
Cites: Science. 2009 Dec 4;326(5958):136819965752
Cites: PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e827320011603
Cites: Conserv Biol. 2010 Aug;24(4):1021-3020136871
Cites: Conserv Biol. 2010 Dec;24(6):1529-3720561000
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2011 Jun;92(6):1642-5021334134
Cites: Science. 2011 Mar 25;331(6024):1606-821436453
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e1893021526118
Cites: Ambio. 2011 May;40(3):248-5521644453
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e2437821915318
Cites: Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Jan;27(1):19-2621943703
Cites: PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e7898624223870
Cites: J Biosci. 2002 Jul;27(4 Suppl 2):299-30812177530
PubMed ID
25393951 View in PubMed
Less detail

Incorporating threat in hotspots and coldspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature295760
Source
Ambio. 2017 Nov; 46(7):756-768
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Nov-2017
Author
Matthias Schröter
Roland Kraemer
Silvia Ceausu
Graciela M Rusch
Author Affiliation
Department of Ecosystem Services, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstr. 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany. matthias.schroeter@idiv.de.
Source
Ambio. 2017 Nov; 46(7):756-768
Date
Nov-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Biodiversity
Conservation of Natural Resources
Ecosystem
Forests
Norway
Abstract
Spatial prioritization could help target conservation actions directed to maintain both biodiversity and ecosystem services. We delineate hotspots and coldspots of two biodiversity conservation features and five regulating and cultural services by incorporating an indicator of 'threat', i.e. timber harvest profitability for forest areas in Telemark (Norway). We found hotspots, where high values of biodiversity, ecosystem services and threat coincide, ranging from 0.1 to 7.1% of the area, depending on varying threshold levels. Targeting of these areas for conservation follows reactive conservation approaches. In coldspots, high biodiversity and ecosystem service values coincide with low levels of threat, and cover 0.1-3.4% of the forest area. These areas might serve proactive conservation approaches at lower opportunity cost (foregone timber harvest profits). We conclude that a combination of indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services and potential threat is an appropriate approach for spatial prioritization of proactive and reactive conservation strategies.
Notes
Cites: Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Dec;21(12):681-7 PMID 17050033
Cites: PLoS One. 2014 Oct 22;9(10):e109643 PMID 25337913
Cites: J Environ Manage. 2013 Jan 15;114:293-302 PMID 23171606
Cites: PLoS One. 2014 Feb 24;9(2):e89807 PMID 24587050
Cites: PLoS One. 2014 Nov 13;9(11):e112557 PMID 25393951
Cites: Trends Ecol Evol. 2017 Apr;32(4):240-248 PMID 28190532
Cites: Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):853-8 PMID 10706275
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 2;110(1):372-7 PMID 23248308
Cites: Nature. 2005 Aug 18;436(7053):1016-9 PMID 16107848
Cites: Environmentalist. 1990 Winter;10(4):243-56 PMID 12322583
Cites: Nat Commun. 2016 Oct 07;7:13106 PMID 27713429
Cites: Science. 2006 Jul 7;313(5783):58-61 PMID 16825561
Cites: Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:431-450 PMID 26843784
Cites: Nat Commun. 2014 May 21;5:3899 PMID 24844928
Cites: Environ Manage. 2015 May;55(5):1168-80 PMID 25835944
Cites: PLoS One. 2014 Dec 11;9(12):e115001 PMID 25502238
Cites: Nature. 2000 May 11;405(6783):243-53 PMID 10821285
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24378 PMID 21915318
Cites: PLoS One. 2009 Dec 14;4(12):e8273 PMID 20011603
PubMed ID
28503701 View in PubMed
Less detail