Biodiversity: back to basics of ecosystem services Biodiversidade: voltar à origem dos serviços de ecossistema

Cristina Branquinho, Pedro Pinho, Alice Nunes, Paula Gonçalves, Inês Teixeira do Rosário, Artur

Santos, Joana Vieira & Margarida Santos-Reis

cE3c, Centro de Ecologia, Evolução e Alterações Globais, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa

cmbranquinho@fc.ul.pt

A man made world. The influence of man on earth: “People and societies are the biggest drivers of global change“.

The world we live in

The net gains in human well-being and economic development occurred at the cost of degradation of ecosystems.

Is it sustainable?

Ecosystem services rely on biodiversity

Maintaining biodiversity is essential to the supply of

ecosystem services, as well as their health and resilience

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem functioning

Cardinale et al. 2012

Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem services

Biodiversity plays a wide range of functional roles in ecosystems (well established).

+ Ecosystem functions are more stable through time in experimental ecosystems with relatively high levels of biodiversity (established but incomplete evidence); and there are comparable effects in natural ecosystems (likely).

the level and stability of ecosystem services tend to improve with increasing biodiversity.

Biodiversity is at the basis

UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report

Biodiversity underpins all ecosystem services

Biodiversity plays a wide range of functional roles in ecosystems (well established).

+ Ecosystem functions are more stable through time in experimental ecosystems with relatively high levels of biodiversity (established but incomplete evidence); and there are comparable effects in natural ecosystems (likely).

the level and stability of ecosystem services tend to improve with increasing biodiversity.

Biodiversity is at the basis

UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report

Transitions between states occur in many ecological systems – states differ in their capacity to provide ecosystem services

• Nonlinear critical transitions are forecast to increase

Scheffer et al. (2009) Nature; Bestelmeyer et al. (2011) Ecosphere

Mechanisms of transitions (following the authors terminology)

• Need for early-warning signs, not only looking to drivers, but to measure effects on ecosystems

Clim

ate

Biodiversity

Tipping points and early warning

Mechanisms of transitions between ecosystems states and tipping points

An ecosystem can experience a shift to a new state, with significant changes to biodiversity and the services they provide.

Tipping points also have at least 1 of the following characteristics: ✤ The change becomes self perpetuating (deforestation reduces regional rainfall, which increases fire-risk, which causes forest dieback and further drying). ✤ There is a threshold beyond which an abrupt shift of ecological states occurs. ✤ The changes are long-lasting and hard to reverse. ✤ There is a significant time lag between the pressures and the appearance of impacts.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.

early warning

Small Pressure

Ecosystem functioning is extremely complex and thus monitoring the effects of environmental change factors in ecosystems in an integrative perspective can make use of ecological indicators. Common ecological Indicators are based on biodiversity measures since they integrate the ecosystem functioning.

M. Scherer-Lorenzen, (2005), BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: BASIC PRINCIPLES, in Biodiversity: Structure and Function, [Eds. Wilhelm Barthlott, K. Eduard Linsenmair, and Stefan Porembski], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),, Oxford ,UK

Biodiversity

Eco

syst

em

Pro

cess

es

Does all species have the same value?

Functional Diversity – Potentially Universal

Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. (2001) Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 646-655.

Functional diversity groups: groups of species respond similarly to an environmental factor or that have similar functions in ecosystems; Functional diversity is associated with the functioning of the ecosystem it is right also associated with the service rendered by this.

Lavorel, S. et al. (2007) Plant Functional Types: Are We Getting Any Closer to the Holy Grail? Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 149-160.

Diaz et al. (2007) The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Functional trait: a characteristic of an organism which has demonstrable links with

its function(s)

Response

Effect

Functional Diversity

Eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

Ecosystem processes Eco

syst

em p

roce

sses

Functional diversity

Diaz et al. (2007) The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Plant traits, ecosystem processes and ecosystem services

Trait–service clusters

Many services are provided by multiple traits

De Bello et al. (2010) Biodiversity Conservation

3. F

un

ctio

nal

div

ers

ity

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services

Land use intensity

Biodiversity

COPI, 2008

€

Sampling Holm-oak woodlands

50 cm

Point-intercept method

• Based on direct mesurements, regional and global databases, other bibliographic

sources

From species to traits

•Species characterization regarding relevant functional traits

Species

Frequently, species that make up at least 80% of the community

Functional divergence: the degree of functional dissimilarity within the community (ecological differences between species)

Functional Diversity metrics

Garnier et al 2007 (Annals of Botany); Laliberté & Legendre 2010 (Ecology)

Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions

Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance

Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance

SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition

N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling

Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy

Duration of flowering ns -0.62**

Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)

Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions

Ecosystem services

Carbon sequestration (water and climate

regulation)

Soil formation, fertility and stability

Food and shelter

Cultural and aesthetic ES

Habitat and gene pool maintenance

(Resilience)

Biocontrol

Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services

Pollination and seed dispersal

Aridity

N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean

Biomass production

p = 0,0019

R² = 0.5382

1.6

2.1

2.6

0.10 0.30 0.50

(lo

g) p

rod

ucti

on

of b

iom

ass

by

an

nu

al p

lan

ts (g

m-2

) [2

01

4]

annual NDVI increment (amplitude)

[average 2002-2012]Maes, 2016

NDVI from 2000 to 2011

time (years)

ND

VI

①

③

④

⑤

⑥

⑦

②

1. season start 2. season end 3. season length 4. growth rate

5. all ecosystem productivity 6. seasonal productivity 7. senescence rate 8. base level

⑧

Biomass production

mean annual precipitation

Perennial vegetation r=0.58

8

Ramos et al., 2015

Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions

Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance

Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance

SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition

N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling

Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy

Duration of flowering ns -0.62**

Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)

Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions

Ecosystem services

Carbon sequestration (water and climate

regulation)

Soil formation, fertility and stability

Food and shelter

Cultural and aesthetic ES

Habitat and gene pool maintenance

(Resilience)

Biocontrol

Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services

Pollination and seed dispersal

Aridity

N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean

Phenology

model 1 (53.6%) exponential range 2390 m isotropic

model 2 (46.4%) spherical max. range 45 km min. range 35 km direction 100°

model 1 (45.2%) exponential range 3020 m isotropic

model 2 (54.8%) spherical max. range 48 km min. range 42 km direction 156°

model 1 (52.5%) exponential range 2500 m isotropic

model 2 (47.5%) spherical max. range 38 km min. range 30 km direction 156°

model 1 (53.1%) exponential range 3560 m isotropic

model 2 (46.9%) spherical max. range 38 km min. range 30 km direction 120°

model 1 (50.8%) exponential range 3380 m isotropic

model 2 (49.2%) spherical max. range 49 km min. range 42 km direction 152°

model 1 (48.4%) exponential range 2600 m isotropic

model 2 (51.6%) spherical max. range 41 km min. range 28 km direction 127°

season end r=0.65

season length r=0.59

time (years)

ND

VI

①

③

④

⑤

⑥

⑦

②

⑧

time (years)

ND

VI

①

③

④

⑤

⑥

⑦

②

⑧

Ramos et al., 2015

Trait FD CWM Ecosystem functions

Life cycle -0.45*** Soil protection, biomass production, nutrient cycling, resistance to disturbance

Height -0.31* Dispersal distance, light capture, above-ground competition, resistance to disturbance

SLA -0.45*** Photosynthesis and growth, leaf longevity, decomposition

N-fixing ability ns -0.57* Nutrient availability and cycling

Onset of flowering ns -0.57* Phenological and reproductive strategy

Duration of flowering ns -0.62**

Dispersal mode -0.39** Dispersal ability under spatial and temporal heterogeneity, stability (species pool)

Seed persistence -0.33** Diversity ‘storage’, dispersal ability under unpredictable/harsh conditions

Ecosystem services

Carbon sequestration (water and climate

regulation)

Soil formation, fertility and stability

Food and shelter

Cultural and aesthetic ES

Habitat and gene pool maintenance

(Resilience)

Biocontrol

Linking functional diversity to ecosystem services

Pollination and seed dispersal

Aridity

N=54 FD-Functional Dispersion CWM-Community weighted mean

Multi-trait functional diversity decreased non-linearly with aridity

Aridity

Aridity

Eco

syst

em

se

rvic

es

Time or space

Reflecting ES loss

17-Dec-15 25

• Stakeholders can easily identify benefits given by the montado altough they cannot recognize them as Ecosystem Services

• Strenghts, weaknesses, challenges and drivers of change identified by the stakeholders:

Strenghts

•Multifunctionality

•Resistence of the system

•Adaptability of trees

Weaknesses

•Quality of management

•Policies of support and territorial planning

•Susceptibilities of the system

•Knowledge and formation

•Economic valuation of provisioning services

Challenges

•Enhance economic sustainability and ecological continuity

•Adaptation and mitigation to climate change

•Quantify and valuate ES

Drivers of change

•Diversification of products (cork products, gourmet, aromatics, etc)

•Tourism opportinnities

•Greening and forest certification

•Mortality of trees

•Increasing overgrazing

• 2 workshops done with NGOs, researchers, companies, government agencies

Goal 1 - Evaluate stakeholders perceptions of ES delivered by the montado

First Results

• Workshops at the farmstead level with the stakeholders of each LTER montado area • Face-to-face surveys at the farm scale to identify preferences of montado natural values by visitors and other users and to evaluate economically this system • On-line surveys to evaluate public perception of Cultural ES of the montado with economic valuation

Future research

26 26

• The Forest Scenario was the most valuable;

• This high value is mainly due to cork;

• The Urbanization Scenario was the worst;

• Results are quite similar between methods.

Goal 2 - Evaluate system responses to changes trough the development of scenarios Goal 3 – Test instruments and tools

First Results

We assessed and mapped 3 ES (cork, carbon stock and sequestration) using InVEST and TESSA in Ca. das Lezírias in 4 scenarios

• Both tools were usefull to estimate and map ES under diferente scenarios;

• Both methods are largely dependente on the quality of primary data making them uncertain and user dependent;

• The specificity of some data input is also demanding for non-specialists;

• The complexity of the montado system increases the complexity of estimates

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services

Land use intensity

Biodiversity

COPI, 2008

€

MAES- tradeoffs

Adaptation to climate change

2006

2014

MAES- tradeoffs

landcover change in a local area

MAES- tradeoffs

carbon storage change

sediments discharge

nitrogen leaching

carbon water purification sediment

retention year Carbon storage

(Mg ha-1)

Nitrogen leaching

(Kg ha-1 year-1)

sediments discharge

(ton ha-1 year-1)

2006 75.22 0.23 0.034

2014 82.27 0.23 0.080

D 2006-2004 7.05 0.001 0.046

+9.4% +0.4% +135.3%

MAES- tradeoffs

non-target ESs tradeoffs

2014

Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services

Land use intensity

Biodiversity

COPI, 2008

€

Habitat quality provided by forest in urban areas?

total of 136 species of

lichens, butterflies, birds and

mammals and 18 orders of

other-invertebrates

however species richness

was unrelated to

environmental drivers

sampling

Henry Mühlpfordt

lichens butterflies

other-invertebrates birds mammals

Sandy Rae

mammals other-invertebrates birds

65 species 20 species

18 orders 47 species 4 species

modeling Habitat Quality

all forest were classified as

being closer to the “urban” or

“forest” type biodiversity

it is also a measure of quality of

each forest

Hygrophytes Frequency

mapping Climatic regulation Service

Lichens as ecological indicators in urban areas:

beyond the effects of pollutants Munzi et al.,

2014, Journal of Applied Ecology

+ -

Air purification service

(m2) (μg/m3)

Richness

0,461-3,174NO2+4,15Area

+1.7% +1.0% +2.3%

+14.1% +1.6% +5.1%

+3.9% +1.3% +2.6%

Icons from the Noun project: Alwx, Camilla Anderson, Ahmed Elzahra, James Keuning, Kamaksh Gangani

high background pollution

medium background pollution

low background pollution

0.1 ha 0.03 ha 5 ha Large green areas Small green areas Medium green areas

Resize, zoom or pan picture 1. Click on picture to activate

Picture-tool in top ribbon 2. Click on Crop-tool

to pan picture

3. Hold Shift and drag in

picturecorner to resize

Values and perceptions Social functioning?

• Face-to-face questionnaires with open questions addressing:

- motivation for visit and use of the parks

- place attachment and perceived benefits

- perception and valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem

services provided

- health and well-being

Ecosystem services assessment

• In your opinion which of these green areas contribute most for:

Food production, air purification, temperature regulation, carbon sequestration, flood regulation, pollination, habitat for species, social interaction, inspiration, spiritual experience, recreation

Final Remarks • Biodiversity is the basis of Ecosystem Services;

• Functional diversity is a good measure of Ecosystem Services;

• We must develop better the trade-offs methodology;

• We need to test this under different case studies

Obrigada Thanks