Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Region
2.2. Assessment of Ecosystem Service Supply
2.2.1. Water Provision
2.2.2. Timber Supply
2.2.3. Food Production
2.2.4. Carbon Storage
2.2.5. Erosion Control
2.2.6. Outdoor Recreation
2.3. Spatial Relationships among Ecosystem Services
3. Results
3.1. Spatial Patterns of Ecosystem Service Supply
3.2. Relationships among Ecosystem Services
4. Discussion
4.1. Assessment of Ecosystem Service Supply
4.2. Relationships among Multiple Ecosystem Services
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix
LULC Description | Detailed Crop Description | Carbon Storage | Erosion Control | Water Provision | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aboveground Biomass | Belowground Biomass | Soil (30 cm) | USLE C | USLE P | Max. Rooting Depth | Kc | ||
(Mg·ha−1) | (Mg·ha−1) | (Mg·ha−1) | (mm) | |||||
[65,65] | [65] | [65] | [73,102] | [103,104,105,106] | [107] | |||
Urban, residence | 9.91 | 3.5 | 58.67 | 0.01 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Industry and commercial | 9.91 | 3.5 | 58.67 | 0.01 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Infrastructure | 0 | 0 | 58.67 | 0.001 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Mining and dumping area | 0 | 0 | 55.6 | 0.2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Artificial veg. area (tree dom.) | 9.91 | 3.5 | 58.67 | 0.001 | 1 | 2930 | 0.85 | |
Artificial veg. area (grass dom.) | 9.91 | 3.5 | 58.67 | 0.004 | 1 | 1440 | 0.69 | |
Water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 1 | 500 | 1.25 | |
Wood | 35.27 | 11.66 | 73.18 | 0.001 | 1 | 2270 | 1.02 | |
Mixed forest | According to forest inventory | According to forest inventory | 62.45 | 0.001 | 1 | 3480 | 1.01 | |
Deciduous forest | According to forest inventory | According to forest inventory | 62.45 | 0.001 | 1 | 3480 | 1.02 | |
Coniferous forest | According to forest inventory | According to forest inventory | 62.45 | 0.001 | 1 | 3460 | 1 | |
Abandoned area | 4.36 | 2.33 | 55.6 | 0.004 | 1 | 3300 | 0.69 | |
Wetland | 14.67 | 5.44 | 74 | 0.004 | 1 | 2700 | 0.81 | |
Grassland | 4.36 | 2.33 | 77.43 | 0.004 | 1 | 2700 | 0.69 | |
Permanent crops | 8.23 | 2.99 | 55.6 | 0.03 | 1 | 1100 | 0.55 | |
Summer crops | corn-cob-mix | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.35 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 |
durum wheat | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.12 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
maize | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.35 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
oats | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.14 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
potatoes | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.29 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
spring barley | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.17 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
spring wheat | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.14 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
sugar beet | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.32 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
summer rapeseed | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.1 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
sweet corn | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.35 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
other summer crops | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.12 | 1 | 1200 | 0.81 | |
Winter crops | rye | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.08 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 |
spelt | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.12 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
triticale | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.12 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
winter barley | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.07 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
winter oats | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.2 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
winter rapeseed | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.1 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
winter wheat | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.12 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
other winter crops | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.1 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 | |
Legumes | alfalfa | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.03 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 |
beans | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.3 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
clover | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.03 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
clover-alfalfa-mix | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.03 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
lupine | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.3 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
other legumes | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.07 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
peas | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.2 | 1 | 1850 | 0.78 | |
Orchard | 8.23 | 2.99 | 73.18 | 0.03 | 1 | 2400 | 0.99 | |
Fallow | 4.36 | 2.33 | 77.43 | 0.004 | 1 | 2700 | 0.69 | |
Other agriculture | 6.05 | 1.43 | 60.03 | 0.2 | 1 | 1010 | 0.87 |
References
- Wrbka, T.; Erb, K.H.; Schulz, N.B.; Peterseil, J.; Hahn, C.; Haberl, H. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jongeneel, R.A.; Polman, N.B.P.; Slangen, L.H.G. Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koschke, L.; Fürst, C.; Frank, S.; Makeschin, F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauck, J.; Schweppe-Kraft, B.; Albert, C.; Goerg, C.; Jax, K.; Jensen, R.; Fuerst, C.; Maes, J.; Ring, I.; Hoenigova, I.; et al. The Promise of the Ecosystem Services Concept for Planning and Decision-Making. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2013, 22, 232–236. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K.; Swinton, S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billeter, R.; Liira, J.; Bailey, D.; Bugter, R.; Arens, P.; Augenstein, I.; Aviron, S.; Baudry, J.; Bukacek, R.; Burel, F.; et al. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: A pan-European study. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodriguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. [Google Scholar]
- van Zanten, B.T.; Verburg, P.H.; Espinosa, M.; Gomez-y-Paloma, S.; Galimberti, G.; Kantelhardt, J.; Kapfer, M.; Lefebvre, M.; Manrique, R.; Piorr, A.; et al. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: A review. Agronom. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodge, I.; Hauck, J.; Bonn, A. The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 996–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Strohbach, M.W.; Kohler, M.L.; Dauber, J.; Klimek, S. High Nature Value farming: From indication to conservation. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, R.S. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galler, C.; von Haaren, C.; Albert, C. Optimizing environmental measures for landscape multifunctionality: effectiveness, efficiency and recommendations for agri-environmental programs. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seppelt, R.; Dormann, C.F.; Eppink, F.V.; Lautenbach, S.; Schmidt, S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1394–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qiu, J.; Turner, M.G. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 12149–12154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Burkhard, B.; Bhandari, S.P.; Keenan, R.J. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarandian, A.; Baral, H.; Yavari, A.; Jafari, H.; Stork, N.; Ling, M.; Amirnejad, H. Anthropogenic Decline of Ecosystem Services Threatens the Integrity of the Unique Hyrcanian (Caspian) Forests in Northern Iran. Forests 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Clement, J.M. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Oort, B.; Bhatta, L.D.; Baral, H.; Rai, R.K.; Dhakal, M.; Rucevska, I.; Adhikari, R. Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Petrosillo, I.; Costanza, R. Ecosystem services—Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 257–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J.; Sharma, S.K.; Stork, N.E.; Kasel, S. Spatial assessment and mapping of biodiversity and conservation priorities in a heavily modified and fragmented production landscape in north-central Victoria, Australia. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemec, K.T.; Raudsepp-Hearne, C. The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossman, N.D.; Burkhard, B.; Nedkov, S. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigerstol, K.L.; Aukema, J.E. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2403–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tallis, H.; Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M.; Chang, A. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9457–9464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Müller, F.; Windhorst, W. Landscapes’ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services - a Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessment. Landscape Online 2009, 15, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Termorshuizen, J.W.; Opdam, P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology. 2009, 24, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lautenbach, S.; Kugel, C.; Lausch, A.; Seppelt, R. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 676–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastian, O.; Syrbe, R.-U.; Rosenberg, M.; Rahe, D.; Grunewald, K. The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; d Arge, R.; de Groot, R.S.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; ONeill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.R.; Chan, K.M.A.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brauman, K.A.; Daily, G.C.; Duarte, T.K.; Mooney, H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 32, 67–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jopke, C.; Kreyling, J.; Maes, J.; Koellner, T. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 49, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ungaro, F.; Zasada, I.; Piorr, A. Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutscher Wetterdienst. Langjährige Mittelwerte 1961–1990, Aktueller Standort; 2015. Available online: https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/klimadatendeutschland/langj_mittelwerte.html?lsbId=343278 (accessed on 14 December 2015).
- HGS. Hessische Gemeindestatistik 2014: Ausgewählte Strukturdaten aus Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft 2013, 35th ed.; Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- HLBG. ALKIS®: Amtliches Liegenschaftskatasterinformationssystem; Hessische Verwaltung für Bodenmanagement und Geoinformation: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- HMUELV. InVeKoS: Integriertes Verwaltungs- und Kontrollsystem der Agrarverwaltung; Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003 2012. Available online: http://cices.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2015).
- Marzelli, S.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Moning, C.; Rabe, S.-E.; Koellner, T.; Daube, S. Die Erfassung von Ökosystemleistungen: Erste Schritte für eine Nutzung des Konzepts auf nationaler Ebene für Deutschland. Nat. Landsc. 2014, 89. [Google Scholar]
- R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 3.2.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sharp, R.; Tallis, H.T.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.D.; Wood, S.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Nelson, E.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Olwero, N.; et al. InVEST: InVest User’s Guide: Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs; The Natural Capital Project: Stanford, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kareiva, P.; Tallis, H.; Ricketts, T.H.; Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S. Natural capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Terrado, M.; Acuna, V.; Ennaanay, D.; Tallis, H.; Sabater, S. Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Canales, M.; López Benito, A.; Passuello, A.; Terrado, M.; Ziv, G.; Acuña, V.; Schuhmacher, M.; Elorza, F.J. Sensitivity analysis of ecosystem service valuation in a Mediterranean watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 440, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DWD. CDC, Climate Data Center—Deutscher Wetterdienst. Available online: ftp://ftp-cdc.dwd.de/pub/CDC/ (accessed on 11 May 2014).
- HLUG. BFD50 Digitale Bodenflächendaten mit Sachdaten von Hessen 1:50000, 2012th ed.; Hessisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie, FISBO (Fachinfomationssystem Boden/Bodenschutz): Wiesbaden, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Scanlon, B.R.; Zhang, L.; Pan, M. Local and global factors controlling water-energy balances within the Budyko framework. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2013, 40, 6123–6129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donohue, R.J.; Roderick, M.L.; McVicar, T.R. Roots, storms and soil pores: Incorporating key ecohydrological processes into Budyko’s hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 2012, 436–437, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HVBG. Digitales Geländemodell (DGM 10); Hessisches Landesamt für Bodenmanagement und Geoinformation: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hamel, P.; Guswa, A.J. Uncertainty analysis of a spatially explicit annual water-balance model: Case study of the Cape Fear basin, North Carolina. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2015, 19, 839–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, P.A.; Vandewalle, M.; Sykes, M.T.; Berry, P.M.; Bugter, R.; de Bello, F.; Feld, C.K.; Grandin, U.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; et al. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2791–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HMUKLV. Forests and Forestry in Hesse: Multipurpose Sustainable Forest Management Commitment for Generations; HMUKLV: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- FENA. Forsteinrichtung mit Sachdaten, 2014th ed.; State Forest Enterprise Hessen-Forst: Gießen, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Thünen-Institut. Third German National Forest Inventory (2011–2012), Result Database. Available online: https://bwi.info (accessed on 6 November 2015).
- Maes, J.; Paracchini, M.-L.; Zulian, G. A European Assessment of the Provision of Ecosystem Services—Towards an Atlas of Ecosystem Services; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bastian, O.; Haase, D.; Grunewald, K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedrich, K.; Vorderbrügge, T. Ertragspotenzial des Bodens. Available online: http://www.hlug.de/static/medien/boden/fisbo/bk/bfd50/extdoc/m_ertrag.html (accessed on 3 December 2015).
- NIR. National Inventory Report for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2011: Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pistorius, T.; Zell, J.; Hartebrodt, C. Untersuchungen zur Rolle des Waldes und der Forstwirtschaft im Kohlenstoffhaushalt des Landes Baden-Württemberg; Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Knigge, W.; Schulz, H. (Eds.) Grundriss der Forstbenutzung; Paul Parey Verlag: Hamburg and Berlin, Germany, 1966.
- Löwe, H.; Seufert, G.; Raes, F. Comparison of methods used within Member States for estimating CO2 emissions and sinks according to UNFCCC and EU Monitoring Mechanism: forest and other wooded land. Biotechnol. Agronom. Soc. Environ. 2000, 4, 315–319. [Google Scholar]
- Penman, J. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Published by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies for the IPCC: Kanagawa, Japan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning; Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. (Eds.) US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
- Dorioz, J.M.; Wang, D.; Poulenard, J.; Trevisan, D. The effect of grass buffer strips on phosphorus dynamics—A critical review and synthesis as a basis for application in agricultural landscapes in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 117, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renard, K.G. Predicting soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
- HLUG. Bodenerosionsatlas Hessen. Hessisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie 2014. Available online: http://www.hlug.de/start/boden/auswertung/bodenerosion/bodenerosionsatlas.html (accessed on 3 March 2015).
- Schwertmann, U.; Vogl, W.; Kainz, M. Bodenerosion durch Wasser: Vorhersage des Abtrags und Bewertung von Gegenmaßnahmen; Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- DIN 19708: Bodenbeschaffenheit—Ermittlung der Erosionsgefährdung durch Wasser mit Hilfe der ABAG; Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2005.
- Paracchini, M.L.; Zulian, G.; Kopperoinen, L.; Maes, J.; Schaegner, J.P.; Termansen, M.; Zandersen, M.; Perez-Soba, M.; Scholefield, P.A.; Bidoglio, G. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 45, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paracchini, M.L.; Capitani, C. Implementation of a EU Wide Indicator for the Rural-Agrarian Landscape: In Support of COM(2006) 508 "Development of Agri-Environmental Indicators for Monitoring the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy"; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Maes, J.; Paracchini, M.L.; Zulian, G.; Dunbar, M.B.; Alkemade, R. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kienast, F.; Degenhardt, B.; Weilenmann, B.; Waeger, Y.; Buchecker, M. GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. European Inventory of Nationally Designated Areas 2005. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/nationally-designated-areas-national-cdda-9 (accessed on 23 February 2015).
- BNatSchG. Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) vom 25. März 2002: BGBl. I Nr. 51(German Nature Conservation Act); Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz: Berlin, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- HLUG. WMS Naturschutz 2015. Available online: http://www.hlug.de/start/geografische-informationssysteme/geodienste/naturschutz.html (accessed on 24 February 2015).
- Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S.; Hoffman, A.; Giovannini, E. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hijmans, R. Raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (accessed on 12 November 2015).
- McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.A.; Neel, M.C.; Ene, E. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Available online: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (accessed on 5 January 2016).
- VanDerWal, J.; Falconi, L.; Januchowski, S.; Shoo, L.; Storlie, C. Species Distribution Modelling Tools: Package ‘SDMTools’. Available online: http://www.rforge.net/SDMTools/ (accessed on 20 November 2015).
- Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie. Verwaltungsgebiete 1:250.000: © GeoBasis-DE/BKG; BKG: Frankfurt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Venables, W.N.; Ripley, B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Legendre, P.; Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseeuw, P.J.; Ruts, I.; Tukey, J.W. The Bagplot: A Bivariate Boxplot. The American Statistician 1999, 53, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, H.P.; Bielefeld, U. Another Plot PACKage: Stem.Leaf, Bagplot, Faces, spin3R, Plotsummary, Plothulls, and Some Slider Functions. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=aplpack (accessed on 20 June 2016).
- Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 2009, 68, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eigenbrod, F.; Armsworth, P.R.; Anderson, B.J.; Heinemeyer, A.; Gillings, S.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D.; Gaston, K.J. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB; TEEB: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wiesmeier, M.; Sporlein, P.; Geuss, U.; Hangen, E.; Haug, S.; Reischl, A.; Schilling, B.; von Lutzow, M.; Kogel-Knabner, I. Soil organic carbon stocks in southeast Germany (Bavaria) as affected by land use, soil type and sampling depth. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 2233–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquès, M.; Bangash, R.F.; Kumar, V.; Sharp, R.; Schuhmacher, M. The impact of climate change on water provision under a low flow regime: A case study of the ecosystems services in the Francoli river basin. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 263, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Villa, F.; Batker, D.; Harrison-Cox, J.; Voigt, B.; Johnson, G.W. From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Congalton, R.G. Exploring and evaluating the consequences of vector-to-raster and raster-to-vector conversion. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1997, 63, 425–434. [Google Scholar]
- Jopke, C.; Kreyling, J.; Maes, J.; Koellner, T. Corrigendum to ‘Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns’. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 53, 295–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roose, E. Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kutschera, L. Wurzelatlas mitteleuropäischer Ackerunkräuter und Kulturpflanzen; DLG-Verlags GmbH: Frankfurt, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kutschera, L.; Lichtenegger, E. Wurzelatlas mitteleuropäischer Waldbäume und Sträucher, 6. Band der Wurzelatlas-Reihe; Leopold Stocker Verlag: Graz-Stuttgart, Austria, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kutschera, L.; Lichtenegger, E.; Sobotik, M. Wurzelatlas der Kulturpflanzen Gemäßigter Gebiete mit Arten des Feldgemüsebaues; DLG-Verlags-GmbH: Frankfurt, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Canadell, J.; Jackson, R.B.; Ehleringer, J.B.; Mooney, H.A.; Sala, O.E.; Schulze, E.D. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 1996, 108, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Section | Ecosystem Service | Indicator | Proxy | Unit |
---|---|---|---|---|
Provisioning | Freshwater supply | Water provision | Surface water yield (Mean annual precipitation-mean annual evapotranspiration) | (mm) |
Provision of biomass | Timber supply | Solid cubic meter of timber | (m3·ha−1) | |
Agricultural production | Food production | Soil fertility of arable land | (m2) | |
Regulating | Global climate regulation | Carbon storage | C in aboveground biomass | (t·ha−1) |
C in belowground biomass | (t·ha−1) | |||
C stored in soil | (t·ha−1) | |||
Water quality regulation | Erosion control | Sediment retained by permanent vegetation types | (kg/m2) | |
Cultural | Outdoor recreation | Recreational potential | Degree of naturalness | (m2) |
Protected areas | (m2) | |||
Attractiveness of waterbodies | (m2) |
Ecosystem Service | Min | 25th Percentile | Mean | 75th Percentile | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water provision (mm) | 27.4 | 118.9 | 255.3 | 373.7 | 1015.4 |
Timber supply (m3·ha−1) | 0 | 0 | 103 | 226 | 312 |
Food production (-) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 5.0 |
Carbon storage (t·ha−1) | 0.0 | 67.5 | 100.0 | 129.9 | 398.6 |
Erosion control (kg/m2) | 0.0000 | 0.0004 | 0.0047 | 0.0049 | 6.7253 |
Outdoor recreation (-) | 0.0015 | 0.4069 | 0.6038 | 0.8303 | 1.0000 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Früh-Müller, A.; Hotes, S.; Breuer, L.; Wolters, V.; Koellner, T. Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes. Land 2016, 5, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020017
Früh-Müller A, Hotes S, Breuer L, Wolters V, Koellner T. Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes. Land. 2016; 5(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020017
Chicago/Turabian StyleFrüh-Müller, Andrea, Stefan Hotes, Lutz Breuer, Volkmar Wolters, and Thomas Koellner. 2016. "Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes" Land 5, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020017