Priorities to advance monitoring of ecosystem services using Earth observation

Managing ecosystem services in the context of global sustainability policies requires reliable monitoring mechanisms. While satellite Earth observation offers great promise to support this need, significant challenges remain in quantifying connections between ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, and human well-being benefits. Here, we provide a framework showing how Earth observation together with socioeconomic information and model-based analysis can support assessments of ecosystem service supply, demand, and benefit, and illustrate this for three services. We argue that the full potential of Earth observation is not yet realized in ecosystem service studies. To provide guidance for priority setting and to spur research in this area, we propose five priorities to advance the capabilities of Earth observation-based monitoring of ecosystem services

When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services: Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models

Many decision-makers are looking to science to clarify how nature supports human well-being. Scientists\u27 responses have typically focused on empirical models of the provision of ecosystem services (ES) and resulting decision-support tools. Although such tools have captured some of the complexities of ES, they can be difficult to adapt to new situations. Globally useful tools that predict the provision of multiple ES under different decision scenarios have proven challenging to develop. Questions from decision-makers and limitations of existing decision-support tools indicate three crucial research frontiers for incorporating cutting-edge ES science into decision-support tools: (1) understanding the complex dynamics of ES in space and time, (2) linking ES provision to human well-being, and (3) determining the potential for technology to substitute for or enhance ES. We explore these frontiers in-depth, explaining why each is important and how existing knowledge at their cutting edges can be incorporated to improve ES decision-making tools

Model Ensembles of Ecosystem Services Fill Global Certainty and Capacity Gaps

Sustaining ecosystem services (ES) critical to human wellbeing is hindered by many practitioners lacking access to ES models (‘the capacity gap’) or knowledge of the accuracy of available models (‘the certainty gap’), especially in the world’s poorer regions. We developed ensembles of multiple models at an unprecedented global scale for five ES of high policy relevance. Ensembles were 2-14% more accurate than individual models. Ensemble accuracy was not correlated with proxies for research capacity – indicating accuracy is distributed equitably across the globe and that countries less able to research ES suffer no accuracy penalty. By making these ES ensembles and associated accuracy estimates freely available, we provide globally consistent ES information that can support policy and decision making in regions with low data availability or low capacity for implementing complex ES models. Thus, we hope to reduce the capacity and certainty gaps impeding local to global-scale movement towards ES sustainability

Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production

Pollinators contribute around 10% of the economic value of crop production globally, but the contribution of these pollinators to human nutrition is potentially much higher. Crops vary in the degree to which they benefit from pollinators, and many of the most pollinator-dependent crops are also among the richest in micronutrients essential to human health. This study examines regional differences in the pollinator-dependence of crop micronutrient content and reveals overlaps between this dependency and the severity of micronutrient deficiency in people around the world. As much as 50% of the production of plant-derived sources of vitamin A requires pollination throughout much of Southeast Asia, while other essential micronutrients such as iron and folate have lower dependencies, scattered throughout Africa, Asia and Central America. Micronutrient deficiencies are three times as likely to occur in areas of highest pollination dependence for vitamin A and iron, suggesting that disruptions in pollination could have serious implications for the accessibility of micronutrients for public health. These regions of high nutritional vulnerability are understudied in the pollination literature, and should be priority areas for research related to ecosystem services and human well-being

Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital

The great expansion of economic activity since the end of World War II has caused an unprecedented rise in living standards, but it has also caused rapid changes in earth systems. Nearly all types of natural capital—the world’s stock of resources and services provided by nature—are in decline. Clean air, abundant and clean water, fertile soils, productive fisheries, dense forests, and healthy oceans are critical for healthy lives and healthy economies. Mounting pressures, however, suggest that the trend of declining natural capital may cast a long shadow into the future. "Nature’s Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital" presents a novel approach to address these foundational challenges of sustainability. A methodology combining innovative science, new data sources, and cutting-edge biophysical and economic models builds sustainable resource efficiency frontiers to assess how countries can sustainably use their natural capital more efficiently. The analysis provides recommendations on how countries can better use their natural capital to achieve their economic and environ mental goals. The report indicates that significant efficiency gaps exist in nearly every country. Closing these gaps can address many of the world’s pressing economic and environmental problems—economic productivity, health, food and water security, and climate change. Although the approach outlined in this report will entail demanding policy reforms, the costs of inaction will be far higher

The challenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for strategic decision-making in companies with global supply chains

The Planetary Boundaries (PB) framework represents a significant advance in specifying the ecological constraints on human development. However, to enable decision-makers in business and public policy to respect these constraints in strategic planning, the PB framework needs to be developed to generate practical tools. With this objective in mind, we analyse the recent literature and highlight three major scientific and technical challenges in operationalizing the PB approach in decision-making: first, identification of thresholds or boundaries with associated metrics for different geographical scales; second, the need to frame approaches to allocate fair shares in the 'safe operating space' bounded by the PBs across the value chain and; third, the need for international bodies to co-ordinate the implementation of the measures needed to respect the Planetary Boundaries. For the first two of these challenges, we consider how they might be addressed for four PBs: climate change, freshwater use, biosphere integrity and chemical pollution and other novel entities. Four key opportunities are identified: (1) development of a common system of metrics that can be applied consistently at and across different scales; (2) setting 'distance from boundary' measures that can be applied at different scales; (3) development of global, preferably open-source, databases and models; and (4) advancing understanding of the interactions between the different PBs. Addressing the scientific and technical challenges in operationalizing the planetary boundaries needs be complemented with progress in addressing the equity and ethical issues in allocating the safe operating space between companies and sectors

Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets

Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems and processes that underpin human wellbeing is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we define critical natural assets as the natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature’s contributions to people (NCP), and we map the global locations of these critical natural assets at 2 km resolution. Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP) account for 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required to also maintain two global-scale NCP (carbon storage and moisture recycling). These areas overlap substantially with cultural diversity (areas containing 96% of global languages) and biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals). At least 87% of the world’s population live in the areas benefitting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% live on the lands containing these assets. Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets and the NCP they provide could simultaneously advance development, climate and conservation goals.We thank all the participants of two working groups hosted by Conservation International and the Natural Capital Project for their insights and intellectual contributions. For further advice or assistance, we thank A. Adams, K. Brandon, K. Brauman, A. Cramer, G. Daily, J. Fisher, R. Gould, L. Mandle, J. Montgomery, A. Rodewald, D. Rossiter, E. Selig, A. Vogl and T. M. Wright. The two working groups that provided the foundation for this analysis were funded by support from the Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg Foundation to the Natural Capital Project (R.C.-K. and R.P.S.) and the Betty and Gordon Moore to Conservation International (R.A.N. and P.M.C.)

Semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation in Europe:A review

Semi-natural habitats are integral to most agricultural areas and have the potential to support ecosystem services, especially biological control and pollination by supplying resources for the invertebrates providing these services and for soil conservation by preventing erosion and run-off. Some habitats are supported through agri-environment scheme funding in the European Union, but their value for ecosystem service delivery has been questioned. An improved understanding of previous research approaches and outcomes will contribute to the development of more sustainable farming systems, improve experimental designs and highlight knowledge gaps especially for funders and researchers. Here we compiled a systematic map to allow for the first time a review of the quantity of evidence collected in Europe that semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation. A literature search selected 2252 publications, and, following review, 270 met the inclusion criteria and were entered into the database. Most publications were of pest control (143 publications) with less on pollination (78 publications) or soil-related aspects (31). For pest control and pollination, most publications reported a positive effect of semi-natural habitats. There were weaknesses in the evidence base though because of bias in study location and the crops, whilst metrics (e.g. yield) valued by end users were seldom measured. Hedgerows, woodland and grassland were the most heavily investigated semi-natural habitats, and the wider landscape composition was often considered. Study designs varied considerably yet only 24% included controls or involved manipulation of semi-natural habitats. Service providers were commonly measured and used as a surrogate for ecosystem service delivery. Key messages for policymakers and funders are that they should encourage research that includes more metrics required by end users, be prepared to fund longer-term studies (61% were of only 1-year duration) and investigate the role of soils within semi-natural habitats in delivering ecosystem services

Abundance, movements and biodiversity of flying predatory insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems

[EN] Predatory insects are key natural enemies that can highly reduce crops pest damage. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the movements of flying predatory insects in agroecosystems throughout the year. In particular, it is still unclear how these predators move from crop to non-crop habitats, which are the preferred habitats to overwinter and to spread during the spring and if these predators leave or stay after chemical treatments. Here, the Neuroptera, a generalist, highly mobile, flying predator order of insects, was selected as model. We studied the effects of farming management and the efficiency of edge shelterbelts, ground cover vegetation, and fruit trees canopy on holding flying predatory insects in Mediterranean traditional agroecosystems. Seasonal movements and winter effects were also assessed. We evaluated monthly nine fruit agroecosystems, six organic, and three pesticides sprayed, of 0.5-1 ha in eastern Spain during 3 years using two complementary methods, yellow sticky traps and aspirator. Results show surprisingly that the insect abundance was highest in pesticide sprayed systems, with 3.40 insects/sample versus 2.32 insects/sample in organic systems. The biodiversity indices were highest in agroecosystems conducted under organic management, with S of 4.68 and D of 2.34. Shelterbelts showed highest biodiversity indices, S of 3.27 and D of 1.93, among insect habitats. Insect species whose adults were active during the winter preferred fruit trees to spend all year round. However, numerous species moved from fruit trees to shelterbelts to overwinter and dispersed into the orchard during the following spring. The ground cover vegetation showed statistically much lower attractiveness for flying predatory insects than other habitats. Shelterbelts should therefore be the first option in terms of investment in ecological infrastructures enhancing flying predators.Sorribas Mellado, JJ.; González Cavero, S.; Domínguez Gento, A.; Vercher Aznar, R. (2016). Abundance, movements and biodiversity of flying predatory insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 36(2). doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0360-3S362Altieri MA, Letourneau DK (1982) Vegetation management and biological control in agroecosystems. Crop Prot 1:405–430. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(82)90023-0Altieri MA, Schmidt LL (1986) The dynamics of colonizing arthropod communities at the interface of abandoned, organic and commercial apple orchards and adjacent woodland habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 16:29–43. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(86)90073-3Bengtsson J, Ahnström J, Weibull A (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J App Ecol 42:261–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.xBianchi F, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc B 273:1715–1727. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3530Chaplin-Kramer RM, Rourke E, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C (2011) A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol Lett 14:922–932. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01642.xCrowder DW, Northfield TD, Strand MR, Snyder WE (2010) Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature 466:109–112. doi: 10.1038/nature09183Dogramaci M, DeBano SJ, Kimoto C, Wooster DE (2011) A backpack-mounted suction apparatus for collecting arthropods from various habitats and vegetation. Entomol Exp et Appl 139:86–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01099.xDuelli P, Studer M, Marchland I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Conserv 54:193–207. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(90)90051-PEilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C (2001) Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. BioControl 46:387–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1014193329979Forman RTT, Baudry J (1984) Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology. Environ Manage 8:495–510. doi: 10.1007/BF01871575Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Luna JM (2003) Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic Appl Ecol 4:107–116. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00122Hole DG, Perkins AJ et al (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 122:113–130. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.018Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.175Long RF, Corbett A, Lamb C, Reberg-Horton C, Chandler J, Stimmann M (1998) Beneficial insects move from flowering plants to nearby crops. Calif Agr 52:23–26. doi: 10.3733/ca.v052n05p23Östman Ö, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2001) Landscape heterogeneity and farming practice influence biological control. Basic App Ecol 2:365–371. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00072Pantaleoni RA, Ticchiati V (1988) I Neurotteri delle colture agrarie: osservazioni sulle fluttuazioni stagionali di populazione in frutteti. Boll dell’Ist di Entomol 43:43–57Panzer R, Schwartz MW (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97051.xParedes D, Cayuela L, Gurr G, Campos M (2013) Effect of non-crop vegetation types on conservation biological control of pests in olive groves. PeerJ 1:1–16. doi: 10.7717/peerj.116Pekar S, Michalko R, Loverre P, Líznarová E, Cernecká L (2015) Biological control in winter: novel evidence for the importance of generalist predators. J Appl Ecol 52:270–279. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12363Pollard KA, Holland JM (2006) Arthropods within the woody element of hedgerows and their distribution pattern. Agric Forest Entomol 8:203–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-9563.2006.00297.xRand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00911.xSilva EB, Franco JC, Vasconcelos T, Branco M (2010) Effect of ground cover vegetation on the abundance and diversity of beneficial arthropods in citrus orchards. Bull Entomol Res 100:489–499. doi: 10.1017/S0007485309990526Smukler SM, Sánchez-Moreno S et al (2010) Biodiversity and multiple ecosystem functions in an organic farmscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:80–97. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.07.004Stelzl M, Devetak D (1999) Neuroptera in agricultural ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:305–321. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00040-7Straub CS, Finke DL, Snyder WE (2008) Are the conservation of natural enemy biodiversity and biological control compatible goals? Biol Control 45:225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.05.013Thierry D, Deutsch B, Paulian M, Villenave J, Canard M (2005) Typifying ecosystems by using green lacewing assemblages. Agron Sustain Dev 25:473–479. doi: 10.1051/agro:2005047Thomas CFG, Parkinson L, Griffiths GJK, García AF, Marshall EJP (2001) Aggregation and temporal stability of carabid beetle distributions in field and hedgerow habitats. J App Ecol 38:100–116. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00574.xVillenave J, Thierry D, Mamun A, Lode T, Rat-Morris E (2005) The pollens consumed by common green lacewings Chrysoperla spp. in cabbage crop environment in western France. Eur J Entomol 02:547–552, 10.14411/eje.2005.078You M, Hou Y, Liu Y, Yang G, Li Z, Cai H (2004) Non-crop habitat manipulation and integrated pest management in agroecosystems. Acta Entomol Sinica 47:260–268 (http://www.insect.org.cn/EN/Y2004/V47/I2/260