Boundary of ecosystem services: Differentiating between ecosystem services and geosystem services is needed
Not provided.
Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Ecosystem services”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Boundary of ecosystem services: Guiding future development and application of the ecosystem service concepts
Not provided.
Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
Beneficiaries, equity, and trade-offs in estuarine and coastal ecosystem services
Estuarine and coastal ecosystems support human populations in myriad ways. Traditionally, researchers have focused on the biophysical processes that underlie these benefits and their economic values. In the decade since the 1st Treatise, the literature on cultural ecosystem services, human health benefits, and the equitable distribution of societal benefits and burdens has grown tremendously. In this chapter we outline three dimensions of equity as they relate to estuarine and coastal ecosystems: procedural, recognitional, and distributional equity. We then apply the dimensions of equity to a suite of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services. Finally, we explore trade-offs and beneficiaries of these ecosystem services using three case studies that consider equity in a variety of estuarine and coastal management decisions.
beneficiaries↗
Identifying priority ecosystem services in tidal wetland restoration
Classification systems can be an important tool for identifying and quantifying the importance of relationships, assessing spatial patterns in a standardized way, and forecasting alternative decision scenarios to characterize the potential benefits (e.g., ecosystem services) from ecosystem restoration that improve human health and well-being. We present a top-down approach that systematically leverages ecosystem services classification systems to identify potential services relevant for ecosystem restoration decisions. We demonstrate this approach using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ecosystem Service Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) to identify those ecosystem services that are relevant to restoration of tidal wetlands. We selected tidal wetland management documents from federal agencies, state agencies, wetland conservation organizations, and land stewards across three regions of the continental United States (northern Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific Northwest) to examine regional and organizational differences in identified potential benefits of tidal wetland restoration activities and the potential user groups who may benefit. We used an automated document analysis to quantify the frequencies at which different wetland types were mentioned in the management documents along with their associated beneficiary groups and the ecological end products (EEPs) those beneficiaries care about, as defined by NESCS Plus. Results showed that a top combination across all three regions, all four organizations, and all four tidal wetland types was the EEP naturalness paired with the beneficiary people who care (existence). Overall, the Mid-Atlantic region and the land steward organizations mentioned ecosystem services more than the others, and EEPs were mentioned in combination with tidal wetlands as a high-level, more general category than the other more specific tidal wetland types. Certain regional and organizations differences were statistically significant. Those results may be useful in identifying ecosystem services-related goals for tidal wetland restoration. This approach for identifying and comparing ecosystem service priorities is broadly transferrable to other ecosystems or decision-making contexts.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
A review of ecosystem services from edge-of-field practices in tile-drained agricultural systems in the United States Corn Belt Region
Not provided.
Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
Native bee Pollination Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Wetlands and Riparian Protected Lands
Abstract Many freshwater wetlands and riparian systems are protected within agricultural landscapes. Yet, pollinator ecosystem services are seldom considered key ecosystem services provided by these conservation easements. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent of protected aquatic lands to provide pollination ecosystem services by assessing pollinator abundances, crop yield changes, and value estimations of increased soybean yields from a subset of common native solitary bees. We created a novel geodatabase of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation easements and used this database in the InVEST crop pollination model to model wild solitary bee pollination. We then estimated the monetary value of yield increases provided by pollinators. We found that wetland uplands provided the greatest potential for pollination services for ground nesting bees, followed by herbaceous and forested riparian respectively. Stem nesters preferred forested riparian, then upland habitats. In soybeans fields, we found wild pollinators can provide up to 5.5% yield response from current private aquatic conservation lands. The current landscape is not optimized to use wetlands and riparian conservation lands as pollinator habitat, but these results suggest protected aquatic lands can sustainably increase wild pollination services to agricultural crops if landscapes are managed, protected, and optimized with pollinator services as co-benefit.
Hinson, Audra L. (ORCID:0000000242314820)↗
A multi-objective optimization model for cropland design considering profit, biodiversity, and ecosystem services
More sustainable agricultural methods are needed to alleviate the decreases in biodiversity and ecosystem services that have occurred because of industrial agriculture. One such method is the inclusion of alternative crops into croplands that can support biodiversity, reduce erosion and chemical runoff, and sequester carbon in the soil. However, the question of where such crops should be planted to balance competing economic and environmental objectives remains open. To this end, we develop a mixed-integer quadratically constrained program to optimize the layout of a cropland considering economic, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality objectives. We include spatially varying fertilization as a decision variable in addition to crop establishment location. We further include the effect of core area and edges between different crops on biodiversity. To demonstrate the applicability of the model, we apply it to an example field, showing how the optimal cropland design changes as a decision-maker prioritizes different objectives and as edges have different impacts on biodiversity.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Field–scale evaluation of ecosystem service benefits of bioenergy switchgrass
Purpose-grown perennial herbaceous species are nonfood crops specifically cultivated for bioenergy production and have the potential to secure bioenergy feedstock resources while enhancing ecosystem services. This study assessed soil greenhouse gas emissions (CO 2 and N 2 O), nitrate (NO 3 -N) leaching reduction potential, evapotranspiration (ET), and water-use efficiency (WUE) of bioenergy switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in comparison to corn (Zea mays L.). The study was conducted on field-scale plots in Urbana, IL, during the 2020–2022 growing seasons. Switchgrass was established in 2020 and urea-fertilized at 56 kg N ha –1 year –1 . Corn management followed best management practices for the US Midwest, including no-till and 202 kg N ha –1 year –1 fertilization, applied as urea–ammonium nitrate (32%). Our results showed lower direct N 2 O emissions in switchgrass compared to corn. Although soil CO 2 emissions did not differ significantly during the establishment year, emissions in subsequent years were over 50% higher in switchgrass than in corn, likely due to increased belowground biomass, which was over five times higher in switchgrass. Nitrate-N leaching decreased as the switchgrass stand matured, reaching 80% lower than in corn by the third year. Differences in ET and WUE between corn and switchgrass were not significant; however, results indicate a trend toward reduced WUE in switchgrass under drought, driven by lower aboveground biomass production. Our study demonstrates that switchgrass can be implemented at a commercial scale without negatively impacting the hydrological cycle, while potentially reducing N losses through nitrate-N leaching and soil N 2 O emissions, and enhancing belowground C storage.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Data for "Field-scale Evaluation of Ecosystem Service Benefits of Bioenergy Switchgrass"
Purpose-grown perennial herbaceous species are nonfood crops specifically cultivated for bioenergy production and have the potential to secure bioenergy feedstock resources while enhancing ecosystem services. This study assessed soil greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and N2O), nitrate (NO3-N) leaching reduction potential, evapotranspiration (ET), and water-use efficiency (WUE) of bioenergy switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.) in comparison to corn ( Zea mays L.). The study was conducted on field-scale plots in Urbana, IL, during the 2020–2022 growing seasons. Switchgrass was established in 2020 and urea-fertilized at 56 kg N ha−1 year−1. Corn management followed best management practices for the US Midwest, including no-till and 202 kg N ha−1 year−1 fertilization, applied as urea–ammonium nitrate (32%). Our results showed lower direct N2O emissions in switchgrass compared to corn. Although soil CO2 emissions did not differ significantly during the establishment year, emissions in subsequent years were over 50% higher in switchgrass than in corn, likely due to increased belowground biomass, which was over five times higher in switchgrass. Nitrate-N leaching decreased as the switchgrass stand matured, reaching 80% lower than in corn by the third year. Differences in ET and WUE between corn and switchgrass were not significant; however, results indicate a trend toward reduced WUE in switchgrass under drought, driven by lower aboveground biomass production. Our study demonstrates that switchgrass can be implemented at a commercial scale without negatively impacting the hydrological cycle, while potentially reducing N losses through nitrate-N leaching and soil N2O emissions, and enhancing belowground C storage.
field data↗
Integrating online deliberation into ecosystem service valuation
Not provided.
Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
One hundred priority questions for advancing seagrass conservation in Europe
Societal Impact Statement Seagrass ecosystems are of fundamental importance to our planet and wellbeing. Seagrasses are marine flowering plants, which engineer ecosystems that provide a multitude of ecosystem services, for example, blue foods and carbon sequestration. Seagrass ecosystems have largely been degraded across much of their global range. There is now increasing interest in the conservation and restoration of these systems, particularly in the context of the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis. The collation of 100 questions from experts across Europe could, if answered, improve our ability to conserve and restore these systems by facilitating a fundamental shift in the success of such work. Summary Seagrass meadows provide numerous ecosystem services including biodiversity, coastal protection, and carbon sequestration. In Europe, seagrasses can be found in shallow sheltered waters along coastlines, in estuaries & lagoons, and around islands, but their distribution has declined. Factors such as poor water quality, coastal modification, mechanical damage, overfishing, land‐sea interactions, climate change and disease have reduced the coverage of Europe’s seagrasses necessitating their recovery. Research, monitoring and conservation efforts on seagrass ecosystems in Europe are mostly uncoordinated and biased towards certain species and regions, resulting in inadequate delivery of critical information for their management. Here, we aim to identify the 100 priority questions, that if addressed would strongly advance seagrass monitoring, research and conservation in Europe. Using a Delphi method, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with seagrass experience from across Europe and with diverse seagrass expertise participated in the process that involved the formulation of research questions, a voting process and an online workshop to identify the final list of the 100 questions. The final list of questions covers areas across nine themes: Biodiversity & Ecology; Ecosystem services; Blue carbon; Fishery support; Drivers, Threats, Resilience & Response; Monitoring & Assessment; Conservation & Restoration; Governance, Policy & Management; and Communication. Answering these questions will fill current knowledge gaps and place European seagrass onto a positive trajectory of recovery.
Nordlund, Lina Mtwana↗
Grassland intensification effects cascade to alter multifunctionality of wetlands within metaecosystems
Sustainable agricultural intensification could improve ecosystem service multifunctionality, yet empirical evidence remains tenuous, especially regarding consequences for spatially coupled ecosystems connected by flows across ecosystem boundaries (i.e., metaecosystems). Here we aim to understand the effects of land-use intensification on multiple ecosystem services of spatially connected grasslands and wetlands, where management practices were applied to grasslands but not directly imposed to wetlands. We synthesize long-term datasets encompassing 53 physical, chemical, and biological indicators, comprising >11,000 field measurements. Our results reveal that intensification promotes high-quality forage and livestock production in both grasslands and wetlands, but at the expense of water quality regulation, methane mitigation, non-native species invasion resistance, and biodiversity. Land-use intensification weakens relationships among ecosystem services. The effects on grasslands cascade to alter multifunctionality of embedded natural wetlands within the metaecosystems to a similar extent. These results highlight the importance of considering spatial flows of resources and organisms when studying land-use intensification effects on metaecosystems as well as when designing grassland and wetland management practices to improve landscape multifunctionality.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
RanchES Data & R code
Securing food production while safeguarding ecosystem stability and resilience remains a grand challenge in the Anthropocene. Sustainable agricultural intensification holds promise in achieving ecosystem service multifunctionality beyond food production, yet empirical evidence remains tenuous, especially regarding consequences for the metaecosystems (i.e., spatially coupled ecosystems connected by flows across ecosystem boundaries). Here we synthesized long-term datasets encompassing 53 physical, chemical, and biological indicators, comprising >11,000 field measurements, to understand effects of land-use intensification on multiple ecosystem services of spatially connected grasslands and wetlands. The management practices applied to grasslands were not directly imposed on wetlands, except for grazing intensity. Our results revealed that intensification promoted high-quality forage and livestock production in both grasslands and wetlands, but at the expense of water quality regulation, methane mitigation, non-native species invasion resistance, and biodiversity, and further weakened relationships among ecosystem services. Such intensification effects on grasslands cascaded to alter multifunctionality of embedded natural wetlands within the metaecosystems to a similar extent. Our results highlight the need to integrate holistic and systematic perspectives into land-use intensification strategies to achieve multifunctional agricultural landscapes.
Agricultural land management↗
Valued peaks: Sustainable water allocation for small hydropower plants in an era of explicit ecological needs
Optimizing hydropower operations to balance economic profitability and support functioning ecosystem services is integral to river management policy. In this article, we propose a dynamic, constrained optimization framework for small hydropower plants (SHPs) to evaluate trade-offs between economic profitability and socio-ecological requirements. Specifically, we examine the balance between short-term losses in hydropower generation and the potential for compensatory benefits in the form of revenue from recreational ecosystem services, irrespective of the direct beneficiary. Our framework integrates a fish habitat model, a hydropower optimization model, and a recreational ecosystem service estimate to evaluate different environmental flow scenarios. The optimization process gives three outflow release scenarios, informed by previous streamflow realisations (dam inflow), and designed environmental flow constraints. The framework is applied and tested for the river Kuusinkijoki in North-eastern Finland, which is a habitat for migratory brown trout and grayling populations. We show that the revenue loss due to the environmental flow constraints arises through a reduction in revenue per generated energy unit and through a reduction in turbine efficiency. Additionally, the simulation results reveal that all the designed environmental flow constraints cannot be met simultaneously. Under the environmental flow scenario with both minimum flow and flow ramping rate constraints, the annual hydropower revenue decreases by 16.5 %. An annual increase of 8 % in recreational fishing visits offsets the revenue loss. In conclusion, the developed framework provides knowledge of the costs and benefits of hydropower environmental flow constraints and guides the prioritizing process of environmental measures.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Informing climate adaptation strategies using ecological simulation models and spatial decision support tools
Introduction: Forest landscapes offer resources and ecosystem services that are vital to the social, economic, and cultural well-being of human communities, but managing for these provisions can require socially and ecologically relevant trade-offs. We designed a spatial decision support model to reveal trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services in a large eastern Cascade Mountain landscape in Washington State, USA. Methods: We used process-based forest landscape (LANDIS-II) and hydrology (DHSVM) models to compare outcomes associated with 100 years of simulated forest and wildfire dynamics for two management scenarios, Wildfire only and Wildfire + Treatments. We then examined the strength and spatial distribution of potential treatment effects and trends in a set of resources and ecosystem services over the simulation period. Results: We found that wildfire area burned increased over time, but some impacts could be mitigated by adaptation treatments. Treatment benefits were not limited to treated areas. Interestingly, we observed neighborhood benefits where fire spread and severity were reduced not only in treated patches but in adjacent patches and landscapes as well, creating potential synergies among some resource benefits and services. Ordinations provided further evidence for two main kinds of outcomes. Positive ecological effects of treatments were greatest in upper elevation moist and cold forests, while positive benefits to human communities were aligned with drier, low- and mid-elevation forests closer to the wildland urban interface. Discussion: Our results contribute to improved understanding of synergies and tradeoffs linked to adaptation and restoration efforts in fire-prone forests and can be used to inform management aimed at rebuilding resilient, climate-adapted landscapes.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Social–ecological benefits of land–sea planning at multiple scales in Mesoamerica
Deforestation impacts the ecosystem services provided by downstream coral reefs to coastal communities in multiple ways, such as through increased sedimentation and nutrification. However, connections between terrestrial and marine ecosystems are generally assessed at a single scale and from an ecological perspective alone, limiting our understanding of how watershed management affects the benefits accrued by coastal communities at different scales. Here we explore how ecological and societal benefits of watershed interventions (restoration, protection and sustainable agriculture) differ when considered regionally versus nationally in the Mesoamerican Reef region, by using linked land–sea ecosystem service models. Results from a regional approach prioritize implementing interventions in larger multinational watersheds, leading to neighbouring nations benefiting from increased sediment retention and healthy corals. For the national prioritization approach, selecting for smaller watersheds within individual countries resulted in more societal benefits, particularly increased coastal protection and nature-based tourism, at the cost of improved coral health for neighbouring nations. Finally, we demonstrate how planning at multiple scales across the region can improve ecosystem and societal benefits, resulting in win–win outcomes.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
Solar Farm’s Microclimates Effects: Predicting Abundance and Visiting Frequency of Pollinators
The solar farm is garnering attention for its contribution to ecosystem services, particularly in supporting pollinators. Although numerous studies have focused on the distinct microclimates of solar farms, there has been limited effort to validate and model the impact of these conditions on insects [1]. To effectively evaluate and leverage the ecosystem services from solar farms in policymaking, understanding how insects react to microclimate variations in diverse designs and management methods is essential. This study aims to validate and model the impact of temperature and shade at solar farms on pollinator populations and their frequency of pollination as well as compare the potential for increased pollination under different types of panels within a solar grazing setup.
Chung, Hyun Yong↗