Naidoo et al., 2008 - global mapping of ecosystems and conservation priorities Flashcards Preview

APS271 Conservation Principles > Naidoo et al., 2008 - global mapping of ecosystems and conservation priorities > Flashcards

Flashcards in Naidoo et al., 2008 - global mapping of ecosystems and conservation priorities Deck (7)
Loading flashcards...

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?

carbon sequestration:
- net carbon exchange (NCE) produced in simulations using the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM)

carbon storage:
- 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 provision:
- 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?

carbon storage/sequestration:
- 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


What are win-win areas?

ecoregions important for both types of targets
- PES are more likely than elsewhere to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives in this areas

- tend to be in tropical areas
- least likely to be in tundra/desert

- win-win areas may have trade off areas on a finer scale
- trade off areas may have win-win areas on a finer scale