Regional conditions and land-use alter the potential contribution of soil arthropods to ecosystem services in grasslands

We investigated the impact of regional conditions and land-use intensity on eight selected arthropod taxa of Mesostigmata (Parasitidae), Oribatida (3 species), Collembola (1 species), Chilopoda (2 species) and Diplopoda (1 species) sampled in differently managed permanent grasslands of three German study regions. By jointly analyzing changes in abundance and trophic behavior (measured as natural variation in 15N/14N and 13C/12C ratios) we intended to develop a framework for evaluating the impact of local and regional conditions on the ecosystem services delivered by soil animals (mainly decomposition- and predation-related services). The investigated taxa could be assorted to three major groups: (1) numerical response only, (2) numerical and trophic response and (3) trophic response only. Since the combination of taxa assembled in the individual groups does not correspond to any of the conventional soil ecological classification systems, this grouping offers a new approach for analyzing soil communities. The complementing consideration of both the direction of the numerical response and the type of the trophic response (change of the basal food source vs. trophic level shift vs. variations in isotopic niches) provided a differential insight into the effect of management and geographic differences on soil arthropods. It could be shown that the effect of land-use on the abundance of detritivorous microarthropods varies among regions, but does not induce any changes in feeding behavior. Our findings on Parasitidae indicate that carnivorous microarthropods exert substantial predation pressure on soil mesofauna and may be quite resistant to environmental changes due to high trophic flexibility. If conditions are favorable, centipedes may reach comparatively high densities in permanent grasslands and could be very important for controlling belowground pests. Concerning millipedes, isotopic signatures suggest that some species could exert a substantial disservice by feeding on roots over a wide range of land-use intensities and regional conditions. We conclude that the many consistent and significant effects found in our study support our contention that the combined analysis of numerical and trophic responses provides a promising framework for designing spatially explicit models that quantify the impact of human interventions on the delivery of ecosystem services by the soil fauna

Ecosystem services - current challenges and opportunities for ecological research

e concept of ecosystem services was originally developed to illustrate the benefits that natural ecosystems generate for society and to raise awareness for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. In this article we identify major challenges and opportunities for ecologists involved in empirical or modeling ecosystem service research. The first challenge arises from the fact that the ecosystem service concept has not been generated in the context of managed systems. Ecologists need to identify the effect of anthropogenic interventions in order to propose practices to benefit service-providing organisms and associated services. The second challenge arises from the need to evaluate relationships between indicators of ecosystem services that are collected in ecological studies while accounting for uncertainties of ecological processes that underlie these services. We suggest basing the assessment of ecosystem services on the utilization of sets of indicators that cover aspects of service-providing units, ecosystem management and landscape modification. The third challenge arises from the limited understanding of the nature of relationships between services and a lack of a general statistical framework to address these links. To manage ecosystem service provisioning, ecologists need to establish whether services respond to a shared driver or if services are directly linked to each other. Finally, studies relating biodiversity to ecosystem services often focus on services at small spatial or short temporal scales, but research on the protection of services is often directed toward services providing benefits at large spatial scales. Ecological research needs to address a range of spatial and temporal scales to provide a multifaceted understanding of how nature promotes human well-being. Addressing these challenges in the future offers a unique opportunity for ecologists to act as promoters for the understanding about how to conserve benefits gained from nature

Sparing Land for Biodiversity at Multiple Spatial Scales

A common approach to the conservation of farmland biodiversity and the promotion of multifunctional landscapes, particularly in landscapes containing only small remnants of non-crop habitats, has been to maintain landscape heterogeneity and reduce land-use intensity. In contrast, it has recently been shown that devoting specific areas of non-crop habitats to conservation, segregated from high-yielding farmland (?land sparing?), can more effectively conserve biodiversity than promoting low-yielding, less intensively managed farmland occupying larger areas (?land sharing?). In the present paper we suggest that the debate over the relative merits of land sparing or land sharing is partly blurred by the differing spatial scales at which it is suggested that land sparing should be applied. We argue that there is no single correct spatial scale for segregating biodiversity protection and commodity production in multifunctional landscA common approach to the conservation of farmland biodiversity and the promotion of multifunctional landscapes, particularly in landscapes containing only small remnants of non-crop habitats, has been to maintain landscape heterogeneity and reduce land-use intensity. In contrast, it has recently been shown that devoting specific areas of non-crop habitats to conservation, segregated from high-yielding farmland (?land sparing?), can more effectively conserve biodiversity than promoting low-yielding, less intensively managed farmland occupying larger areas (?land sharing?). In the present paper we suggest that the debate over the relative merits of land sparing or land sharing is partly blurred by the differing spatial scales at which it is suggested that land sparing should be applied. We argue that there is no single correct spatial scale for segregating biodiversity protection and commodity production in multifunctional landscapes. Instead we propose an alternative conceptual construct, which we call ?multiple-scale land sparing,? targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services in transformed landscapes. We discuss how multiple-scale land sparing may overcome the apparent dichotomy between land sharing and land sparing and help to find acceptable compromises that conserve biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality.apes. Instead we propose an alternative conceptual construct, which we call ?multiple-scale land sparing,? targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services in transformed landscapes. We discuss how multiple-scale land sparing may overcome the apparent dichotomy between land sharing and land sparing and help to find acceptable compromises that conserve biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality.Fil: Ekroos, Johan. Lund University; SueciaFil: Ödman, Anja M.. Lund University; SueciaFil: Andersson, Karl Georg Sixten. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Lund University; SueciaFil: Birkhofer, Klaus. Lund University; SueciaFil: Herbertsson, Lina. Lund University; SueciaFil: Klatt, Björn K.. Lund University; SueciaFil: Olsson, Ola. Lund University; SueciaFil: Olsson, Pål Axel. Lund University; SueciaFil: Persson, Anna S.. Lund University; SueciaFil: Prentice, Honor C.. Lund University; SueciaFil: Rundlöf, Maj. Lund University; SueciaFil: Smith, Henrik G.. Lund University; Sueci