Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation of Atmospheric Magnesium Deposition
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Accounting Framework
2.2. The Monetary Valuation
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. The Value of Annual Mean Wet Mg2+ Deposition at the Country Scale by State, Region (2000–2015)
3.2. The Value of Annual Mean Dry Mg2+ Deposition at the Country Scale by State, Region (2000–2015)
3.3. The Value of Average Annual Total Mg2+ Deposition at the Country Scale by State, Region (2000–2015)
3.4. Implications for Ecosystem Services
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 155. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, 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]
- Wood, S.L.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 29, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heal, G. Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. 2000, 3, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, J.P.; Breshears, D.D.; Law, D.J.; Villegas, C.; López-Hoffman, L.; Brooks, P.D.; Chorover, J.; Pelletier, J.D. Understanding ecosystem services from a geosciences perspective. Eos 2016, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, L.; Norton, L.; Austin, Z.; Browne, A.L.; Donovan, D.; Emmett, B.A.; Grabowski, Z.J.; Howard, D.C.; Jones, J.P.G.; Kenter, J.O.; et al. Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Cope, M.P.; Zhang, L. A systems-based approach to ecosystem services valuation of various atmospheric calcium deposition flows. Resources 2019, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keestra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerda, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; Van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2016, 2, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mikkelsen, R. Soil and fertilizer magnesium. Better Crop. 2010, 94, 26–28. [Google Scholar]
- Senbayram, M.; Gransee, A.; Wahle, V.; Thiel, H. Role of magnesium fertilizers in agriculture: Plant-Soil continuum. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015, 66, 1219–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cakmak, I. Magnesium in crop production, food quality and human health. Plant Soil. 2013, 368, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, F.H. Importance of plant sources of magnesium for human health. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015, 66, 1259–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berner, E.K.; Berner, R.A. Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles, 2nd ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kisters, K.; Grober, U. Magnesium in health and disease. Plant Soil. 2013, 368, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groshans, G.; Mikhailova, E.; Post, C.; Schlautman, M.; Cope, M.; Zhang, L. Contribution of atmospheric deposition to soil provisioning ecosystem services in the contiguous United States: Part. 2. Magnesium. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Atmospheric Dust—DUST 2018, Bari, Italy, 14 December 2018; pp. 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Minerals Yearbook, 2014: Stone, crushed [Advance Release]; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Virgina, VA, USA, April 2016. Available online: https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/myb1-2014-stonc.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2019).
- Goddard, M.A.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A. Atmospheric Mg2+ wet deposition within the continental U.S. in relation to soil inorganic carbon sequestration. Tellus 2007, 59B, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connolly, S.J.; Cain, T.C.; Vestal, J.S.; Edwards, P.J. The potential effects of acid deposition: What’s a National Forest to do? Advancing the Fundamental Sciences. In Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–22 October 2004; pp. 428–437. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.297.6318&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=158 (accessed on 20 July 2019).
- Draaijers, G.P.J.; Van Leeuwen, E.P.; De Jong, P.G.H.; Erisman, J.W. Base-cation deposition in Europe–Part II. Acid neutralization capacity and contribution to forest nutrition. Atmos. Environ. 1997, 31, 4159–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watmough, S.A.; Whitfield, C.J.; Fenn, M.E. The importance of atmospheric base cation deposition for preventing soil acidification in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region of Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Ree, C.C.D.F.; Van Beukering, P.J.H. Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 20, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3); NADP Program Office, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene: Madison, WI, USA, 2018. Available online: http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/ (accessed on 20 July 2019).
- Gray, M. The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reith, J.S. The magnesium contents of soils and crops. J. Sci. Ed. Agric. 1963, 14, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groshans, G.; Mikhailova, E.; Post, C.; Schlautman, M.; Zurqani, H.; Zhang, L. Assessing the value of soil inorganic carbon for ecosystem services in the contiguous United States based on liming replacement costs. Land 2018, 7, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ArcGIS Desktop: Release, version 10.4; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2016.
- Van Ree, C.C.D.F.; Van Beukering, P.J.H.; Boekestijn, J. Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornes, J.; Bloss, W.; Bouzarovski, S.; Cai, X.; Chapman, L.; Clark, J.; Dessai, S.; Du, S.; van der Horst, D.; Kendall, M.; et al. Communicating the value of atmospheric services. Meteorol. Appl. 2010, 17, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swinton, S.M.; Lupi, F.; Robertson, G.P.; Hamilton, S.K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunwald, S.; Thompson, J.A.; Boettinger, J.L. Digital soil mapping and modeling at continental scales: Finding solutions to global issues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 1201–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, R.; Brander, L.; Kuik, O.; Papyrakis, E.; Bateman, I. A Synthesis of Approaches to Assess and Value Ecosystem Services in the EU in the Context of TEEB; TEEB Follow-up Study for Europe; VU University Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 2013; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2019).
TEEB Ecosystem Service Categories | TEEB Typology | Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) |
---|---|---|
Provisioning | Resources | SDG 2, 3, 12, 13, 15 |
Regulating | Maintenance of soil fertility | SDG 2, 3, 12, 13, 15 |
Supporting | Maintenance of life cycles | SDG 2, 3, 12, 13, 15 |
Lithosphere | ⟷ | Pedosphere | ⟷ | Atmosphere |
---|---|---|---|---|
Abiotic–Biotic | Biotic–Abiotic | Abiotic–Biotic | ||
Mineral stock | Soil-based stock | Atmospheric stock | ||
(Mg2+ in primary minerals) | (Mg2+ in soil solution) | (Mg2+ in deposition) | ||
Not available | Slowly available | Readily available | ||
Biosphere (e.g., plant removal, etc.) Biotic |
Soil Order | Total Area (ha) | Based on Average Price of Dolomite | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean Value ($ ha−1) | Total Value ($) | ||
Slight weathering | |||
Entisols | 9.2 × 107 | 0.02 | 1.83 × 106 |
Inceptisols | 6.0 × 107 | 0.03 | 1.62 × 106 |
Histosols | 6.8 × 106 | 0.05 | 3.67 × 105 |
Gelisols | - | - | - |
Andisols | 5.9 × 106 | 0.06 | 3.56 × 105 |
Intermediate weathering | |||
Aridisols | 7.8 × 107 | 0.01 | 9.39 × 105 |
Vertisols | 1.5 × 107 | 0.04 | 5.39 × 105 |
Alfisols | 1.3 × 108 | 0.03 | 3.88 × 106 |
Mollisols | 1.8 × 108 | 0.02 | 3.99 × 106 |
Strong weathering | |||
Spodosols | 2.6 × 107 | 0.04 | 9.82 × 105 |
Ultisols | 9.1 × 107 | 0.03 | 3.02 × 106 |
Oxisols | - | - | - |
Totals or averages | 6.9 × 108 | 0.03 | 1.75 × 107 |
Biophysical Accounts (Science-Based) | Administrative Accounts (Boundary-Based) | Monetary Accounts | Benefit | Total Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Science-based extent: | Administrative extent: | Ecosystem good(s) and service(s): | Sector: | Types of value: |
Separate constituent flow 1: Annual mean atmospheric wet Mg2+ deposition Separate constituent flow 2: Annual mean atmospheric dry Mg2+ deposition Composite flow (sum of constituent flows: wet + dry): Annual mean atmospheric total Mg2+ deposition | ||||
- Not determined | - Country - State - Region | Abiotic goods and services: - Mg2+ in wet, dry deposition Services: - Provisioning (e.g., food) - Supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling) - Others | Agriculture: - Liming equivalent (e.g., pH buffering) - Fertilizer equivalent (e.g., Mg2+ as an essential nutrient) | Market valuation using replacement cost method based on market-based value of commodities: - Price of agricultural dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) [12] if soil pH needs to be raised |
State (Region) | Area (ha) | Mean Wet Mg2+ (kg ha−1) | Mean Dry Mg2+ (kg ha−1) | Mean Total Mg2+ (kg ha−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Connecticut | 1.28 × 106 | 0.58 | 0.35 | 0.93 |
Delaware | 5.24 × 105 | 0.54 | 0.42 | 0.96 |
Massachusetts | 2.08 × 106 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.87 |
Maryland | 2.48 × 106 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.71 |
Maine | 8.26 × 106 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.53 |
New Hampshire | 2.38 × 106 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.47 |
New Jersey | 1.93 × 106 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.99 |
New York | 1.25 × 107 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.44 |
Pennsylvania | 1.17 × 107 | 0.23 | 0.29 | 0.52 |
Rhode Island | 2.61 × 105 | 0.56 | 0.44 | 1.00 |
Vermont | 2.49 × 106 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
West Virginia | 6.28 × 106 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 0.53 |
(East) | 5.22 × 107 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.55 |
Iowa | 1.46 × 107 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.71 |
Illinois | 1.46 × 107 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.75 |
Indiana | 9.43 × 106 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.70 |
Michigan | 1.50 × 107 | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.62 |
Minnesota | 2.18 × 107 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.50 |
Missouri | 1.81 × 107 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.53 |
Ohio | 1.07 × 107 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.62 |
Wisconsin | 1.45 × 107 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.68 |
(Midwest) | 1.19 × 108 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.63 |
Arkansas | 1.37 × 107 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.58 |
Louisiana | 1.18 × 107 | 0.48 | 0.70 | 1.18 |
Oklahoma | 1.81 × 107 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.49 |
Texas | 6.83 × 107 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 1.00 |
(South Central) | 1.12 × 108 | 0.28 | 0.61 | 0.88 |
Alabama | 1.34 × 107 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.66 |
Florida | 1.43 × 107 | 0.66 | 0.98 | 1.63 |
Georgia | 1.52 × 107 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.65 |
Kentucky | 1.04 × 107 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.46 |
Mississippi | 1.23 × 107 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.73 |
North Carolina | 1.26 × 107 | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.78 |
South Carolina | 7.96 × 106 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.74 |
Tennessee | 1.09 × 107 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.48 |
Virginia | 1.03 × 107 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.54 |
(Southeast) | 1.07 × 108 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.77 |
Colorado | 2.70 × 107 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.34 |
Kansas | 2.13 × 107 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.41 |
Montana | 3.81 × 107 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.26 |
North Dakota | 2.00 × 107 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.39 |
Nebraska | 2.00 × 107 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.35 |
South Dakota | 2.00 × 107 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.35 |
Wyoming | 2.53 × 107 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.28 |
(Northern Plains) | 1.72 × 108 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.33 |
Arizona | 2.94 × 107 | 0.10 | 0.35 | 0.44 |
California | 4.08 × 107 | 0.13 | 0.41 | 0.53 |
Idaho | 2.16 × 107 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.28 |
New Mexico | 3.15 × 107 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.38 |
Nevada | 2.87 × 107 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.33 |
Oregon | 2.51 × 107 | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.41 |
Utah | 2.20 × 107 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.47 |
Washington | 1.74 × 107 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.49 |
(West) | 2.17 × 108 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.42 |
Totals or averages | 7.78 × 108 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.56 |
State (Region) | Wet Mg2+ Deposition | Dry Mg2+ Deposition | Total Mg2+ Deposition | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean Value ($ ha−1) | Total Value ($) | Mean Value ($ ha−1) | Total Value ($) | Mean Value ($ ha−1) | Total Value ($) | |
Connecticut | 0.06 | 8.05 × 104 | 0.04 | 4.79 × 104 | 0.10 | 1.28 × 105 |
Delaware | 0.06 | 3.07 × 104 | 0.05 | 2.39 × 104 | 0.10 | 5.45 × 104 |
Massachusetts | 0.05 | 1.03 × 105 | 0.05 | 9.37 × 104 | 0.09 | 1.96 × 105 |
Maryland | 0.04 | 9.66 × 104 | 0.04 | 9.38 × 104 | 0.08 | 1.90 × 105 |
Maine | 0.03 | 2.35 × 105 | 0.03 | 2.37 × 105 | 0.06 | 4.72 × 105 |
New Hampshire | 0.03 | 6.23 × 104 | 0.02 | 5.94 × 104 | 0.05 | 1.22 × 105 |
New Jersey | 0.06 | 1.20 × 105 | 0.04 | 8.54 × 104 | 0.11 | 2.05 × 105 |
New York | 0.02 | 2.81 × 105 | 0.02 | 3.13 × 105 | 0.05 | 5.94 × 105 |
Pennsylvania | 0.03 | 2.94 × 105 | 0.03 | 3.70 × 105 | 0.06 | 6.64 × 105 |
Rhode Island | 0.06 | 1.58 × 104 | 0.05 | 1.24 × 104 | 0.11 | 2.82 × 104 |
Vermont | 0.02 | 4.64 × 104 | 0.02 | 5.56 × 104 | 0.04 | 1.02 × 105 |
West Virginia | 0.02 | 1.33 × 105 | 0.04 | 2.27 × 105 | 0.06 | 3.60 × 105 |
(East) | 0.03 | 1.50 × 106 | 0.03 | 1.62 × 106 | 0.06 | 3.12 × 106 |
Iowa | 0.04 | 5.30 × 105 | 0.04 | 5.80 × 105 | 0.08 | 1.11 × 106 |
Illinois | 0.04 | 5.17 × 105 | 0.05 | 6.63 × 105 | 0.08 | 1.18 × 106 |
Indiana | 0.04 | 3.53 × 105 | 0.04 | 3.61 × 105 | 0.08 | 7.14 × 105 |
Michigan | 0.03 | 4.14 × 105 | 0.04 | 5.84 × 105 | 0.07 | 9.98 × 105 |
Minnesota | 0.03 | 5.74 × 105 | 0.03 | 6.13 × 105 | 0.05 | 1.19 × 106 |
Missouri | 0.03 | 5.78 × 105 | 0.03 | 4.62 × 105 | 0.06 | 1.04 × 106 |
Ohio | 0.03 | 3.09 × 105 | 0.04 | 4.08 × 105 | 0.07 | 7.17 × 105 |
Wisconsin | 0.03 | 4.46 × 105 | 0.04 | 6.13 × 105 | 0.07 | 1.06 × 106 |
(Midwest) | 0.03 | 3.72 × 106 | 0.04 | 4.28 × 106 | 0.07 | 8.01 × 106 |
Arkansas | 0.03 | 4.49 × 105 | 0.03 | 4.12 × 105 | 0.06 | 8.61 × 105 |
Louisiana | 0.05 | 6.09 × 105 | 0.08 | 8.91 × 105 | 0.13 | 1.50 × 106 |
Oklahoma | 0.03 | 4.64 × 106 | 0.03 | 4.87 × 105 | 0.05 | 9.51 × 105 |
Texas | 0.03 | 1.82 × 106 | 0.08 | 5.55 × 106 | 0.11 | 7.37 × 106 |
(South Central) | 0.03 | 3.34 × 106 | 0.07 | 7.34 × 106 | 0.10 | 1.07 × 107 |
Alabama | 0.04 | 5.42 × 105 | 0.03 | 4.07 × 105 | 0.07 | 9.49 × 105 |
Florida | 0.07 | 1.01 × 106 | 0.11 | 1.51 × 106 | 0.18 | 2.52 × 106 |
Georgia | 0.04 | 5.59 × 105 | 0.03 | 5.03 × 105 | 0.07 | 1.06 × 106 |
Kentucky | 0.03 | 2.61 × 105 | 0.02 | 2.60 × 105 | 0.05 | 5.21 × 105 |
Mississippi | 0.04 | 5.24 × 105 | 0.04 | 4.45 × 105 | 0.08 | 9.69 × 105 |
North Carolina | 0.04 | 4.80 × 105 | 0.05 | 5.80 × 105 | 0.08 | 1.06 × 106 |
South Carolina | 0.04 | 3.48 × 105 | 0.04 | 2.85 × 105 | 0.08 | 6.33 × 105 |
Tennessee | 0.03 | 2.89 × 105 | 0.03 | 2.75 × 105 | 0.05 | 5.64 × 105 |
Virginia | 0.03 | 2.72 × 105 | 0.03 | 3.26 × 105 | 0.06 | 5.97 × 105 |
(Southeast) | 0.04 | 4.29 × 106 | 0.04 | 4.59 × 106 | 0.08 | 8.87 × 106 |
Colorado | 0.01 | 3.28 × 105 | 0.02 | 6.56 × 105 | 0.04 | 9.83 × 105 |
Kansas | 0.02 | 4.69 × 105 | 0.02 | 4.74 × 105 | 0.04 | 9.43 × 105 |
Montana | 0.01 | 3.97 × 105 | 0.02 | 6.72 × 105 | 0.03 | 1.07 × 106 |
North Dakota | 0.02 | 3.93 × 105 | 0.02 | 4.57 × 105 | 0.04 | 8.50 × 105 |
Nebraska | 0.02 | 3.74 × 105 | 0.02 | 3.86 × 105 | 0.04 | 7.60 × 105 |
South Dakota | 0.02 | 3.66 × 105 | 0.02 | 3.84 × 105 | 0.04 | 7.50 × 105 |
Wyoming | 0.01 | 2.69 × 105 | 0.02 | 4.99 × 105 | 0.03 | 7.68 × 105 |
(Northern Plains) | 0.02 | 2.60 × 106 | 0.02 | 3.53 × 106 | 0.04 | 6.12 × 106 |
Arizona | 0.01 | 3.07 × 105 | 0.04 | 1.11 × 106 | 0.05 | 1.41 × 106 |
California | 0.01 | 5.58 × 105 | 0.04 | 1.78 × 106 | 0.06 | 2.34 × 106 |
Idaho | 0.01 | 2.63 × 105 | 0.02 | 3.95 × 105 | 0.03 | 6.58 × 105 |
New Mexico | 0.01 | 3.19 × 105 | 0.03 | 9.88 × 105 | 0.04 | 1.31 × 106 |
Nevada | 0.01 | 1.94 × 105 | 0.03 | 8.24 × 105 | 0.04 | 1.02 × 106 |
Oregon | 0.02 | 5.06 × 105 | 0.02 | 6.10 × 105 | 0.04 | 1.12 × 106 |
Utah | 0.02 | 3.76 × 105 | 0.03 | 7.49 × 105 | 0.05 | 1.13 × 106 |
Washington | 0.03 | 5.12 × 105 | 0.02 | 3.98 × 105 | 0.05 | 9.10 × 105 |
(West) | 0.01 | 3.04 × 106 | 0.03 | 6.85 × 106 | 0.05 | 9.89 × 106 |
Totals or averages | 0.02 | 1.85 × 107 | 0.04 | 2.82 × 107 | 0.06 | 4.67 × 107 |
Atmosphere | ⟷ | Pedosphere |
---|---|---|
Atmospheric Mg2+ stock | Soil-based Mg2+ stock | |
Ownership | ||
Common-pool resource | Mixed (e.g., government, private) | |
The market information | ||
Unidentified market value | Partially identified market value | |
(e.g., replacement cost) | ||
The degree of market information availability | ||
Little or no market information | Partial market information |
© 2019 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
Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Cope, M.P.; Zhang, L. Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation of Atmospheric Magnesium Deposition. Geosciences 2019, 9, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9080331
Groshans GR, Mikhailova EA, Post CJ, Schlautman MA, Cope MP, Zhang L. Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation of Atmospheric Magnesium Deposition. Geosciences. 2019; 9(8):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9080331
Chicago/Turabian StyleGroshans, Garth R., Elena A. Mikhailova, Christopher J. Post, Mark A. Schlautman, Michael P. Cope, and Lisha Zhang. 2019. "Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation of Atmospheric Magnesium Deposition" Geosciences 9, no. 8: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9080331
APA StyleGroshans, G. R., Mikhailova, E. A., Post, C. J., Schlautman, M. A., Cope, M. P., & Zhang, L. (2019). Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation of Atmospheric Magnesium Deposition. Geosciences, 9(8), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9080331