Flashcards in Naidoo et al., 2008 - global mapping of ecosystems and conservation priorities Deck (7)
What ecosystem services were mapped? Why these services?
- carbon sequestration
- carbon storage
- grassland production of livestock
- water provision
- only services spatial proxies could be developed for
- major interdisciplinary efforts to quantify & map other services are needed
What proxies were used to map the ecosystem services?
- net carbon exchange (NCE) produced in simulations using the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM)
- Olson's classic estimates of above and below ground C updated using the global land cover 2000 (GLC2000) map
grassland production of livestock:
- combining global data on livestock distributions, producer prices, and current and potential vegetation
- doesn't account for different values of economic value of livestock in different regions of the world
- remote sensing: difficult to tell if grasslands are natural or have been "improved with non-native species"
- water used for irrigation, industry, domestic consumption, and livestock production
- used WaterGAP model, attributed water to source point upstream
- ignores spatial variation in water value e.g. scarcity/type of use
- doesn't show changed in water provision related to land use change
How did ecosystem services correlate with each other?
- little correspondence between ecosystem services
- none had a correlation above +0.2
- calculated a mean per-unit-area ecosystem service provision score
How well do areas selected for high ecosystem services capture biodiversity?
- average for all taxa (mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian) for levels up to 90% of species representation
- optimising for individual ecosystem services conserved only 22–35% as many species for a given area as did optimising for species
-no more than were conserved by selecting ecoregions at random
How well do areas selected for high biodiversity ecosystem services capture?
- maximizing species representation for a given area captured only 17–53% of maximum ecosystem service provision
- depending on service was looked at/what spatial area considered
How well do different existing priority areas (high biodiversity wilderness areas, biodiversity hotspots, global 200 ecoregions) conserve ecosystem services?
- highest in HBWAs
- lowest in biodiversity hotspots, which were net C emitters in 1980s
- global 200 ecoregions intermediate
- globally dispersed and do not depend on local beneficiaries
grassland production of livestock/water provision:
- highest in biodiversity hotspots
- lowest in HWBAs
- g200 ecoregions intermediate
- services mostly benefit locals
- highest in densely populated biodiversity hotspots