Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Ecosystem Services”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2016

Fishing for ecosystem services

Ecosystems are commonly exploited and manipulated to maximize certain human benefits. Such changes can degrade systems, leading to cascading negative effects that may be initially undetected, yet ultimately result in a reduction, or complete loss, of certain valuable ecosystem services. Ecosystem-based management is intended to maintain ecosystem quality and minimize the risk of irreversible change to natural assemblages of species and to ecosystem processes while obtaining and maintaining long-term socioeconomic benefits. We discuss policy decisions in fishery management related to commonly manipulated environments with a focus on influences to ecosystem services. By focusing on broader scales, managing for ecosystem services, and taking a more proactive approach, we expect sustainable, quality fisheries that are resilient to future disturbances. To that end, we contend that: (1) management always involves tradeoffs; (2) explicit management of fisheries for ecosystem services could facilitate a transition from reactive to proactive management; and (3) adaptive co-management is a process that could enhance management for ecosystem services. We propose adaptive co-management with an ecosystem service framework where actions are implemented within ecosystem boundaries, rather than political boundaries, through strong interjurisdictional relationships.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2016

Adaptive management for soil ecosystem services

Ecosystem services provided by soil include regulation of the atmosphere and climate, primary (including agricultural) production, waste processing, decomposition, nutrient conservation, water purification, erosion control, medical resources, pest control, and disease mitigation. The simultaneous production of these multiple services arises from complex interactions among diverse aboveground and belowground communities across multiple scales. When a system is mismanaged, non-linear and persistent losses in ecosystem services can arise. Adaptive management is an approach to management designed to reduce uncertainty as management proceeds. By developing alternative hypotheses, testing these hypotheses and adjusting management in response to outcomes, managers can probe dynamic mechanistic relationships among aboveground and belowground soil system components. In doing so, soil ecosystem services can be preserved and critical ecological thresholds avoided. Here, we present an adaptive management framework designed to reduce uncertainty surrounding the soil system, even when soil ecosystem services production is not the explicit management objective, so that managers can reach their management goals without undermining soil multifunctionality or contributing to an irreversible loss of soil ecosystem services.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2006

Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services

Ecosystem service (ES) trade-offs arise from management choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude, and relative mix of services provided by ecosystems. Trade-offs occur when the provision of one ES is reduced as a consequence of increased use of another ES. In some cases, a trade-off may be an explicit choice; but in others, trade-offs arise without premeditation or even awareness that they are taking place. Trade-offs in ES can be classified along three axes: spatial scale, temporal scale, and reversibility. Spatial scale refers to whether the effects of the trade-off are felt locally or at a distant location. Temporal scale refers to whether the effects take place relatively rapidly or slowly. Reversibility expresses the likelihood that the perturbed ES may return to its original state if the perturbation ceases. Across all four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios and selected case study examples, trade-off decisions show a preference for provisioning, regulating, or cultural services (in that order). Supporting services are more likely to be "taken for granted." Cultural ES are almost entirely unquantified in scenario modeling; therefore, the calculated model results do not fully capture losses of these services that occur in the scenarios. The quantitative scenario models primarily capture the services that are perceived by society as more important - provisioning and regulating ecosystem services - and thus do not fully capture trade-offs of cultural and supporting services. Successful management policies will be those that incorporate lessons learned from prior decisions into future management actions. Managers should complement their actions with monitoring programs that, in addition to monitoring the short-term provisions of services, also monitor the long-term evolution of slowly changing variables. Policies can then be developed to take into account ES trade-offs at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Successful strategies will recognize the inherent complexities of ecosystem management and will work to develop policies that minimize the effects of ES trade-offs. Copyright ?? 2006 by the author(s).

Ecology and Society↗
USGS2011

Alternative states of a semiarid grassland ecosystem: implications for ecosystem services

Ecosystems can shift between alternative states characterized by persistent differences in structure, function, and capacity to provide ecosystem services valued by society. We examined empirical evidence for alternative states in a semiarid grassland ecosystem where topographic complexity and contrasting management regimes have led to spatial variations in levels of livestock grazing. Using an inventory data set, we found that plots (n = 72) cluster into three groups corresponding to generalized alternative states identified in an a priori conceptual model. One cluster (biocrust) is notable for high coverage of a biological soil crust functional group in addition to vascular plants. Another (grass-bare) lacks biological crust but retains perennial grasses at levels similar to the biocrust cluster. A third (annualized-bare) is dominated by invasive annual plants. Occurrence of grass-bare and annualized-bare conditions in areas where livestock have been excluded for over 30 years demonstrates the persistence of these states. Significant differences among all three clusters were found for percent bare ground, percent total live cover, and functional group richness. Using data for vegetation structure and soil erodibility, we also found large among-cluster differences in average levels of dust emissions predicted by a wind-erosion model. Predicted emissions were highest for the annualized-bare cluster and lowest for the biocrust cluster, which was characterized by zero or minimal emissions even under conditions of extreme wind. Results illustrate potential trade-offs among ecosystem services including livestock production, soil retention, carbon storage, and biodiversity conservation. Improved understanding of these trade-offs may assist ecosystem managers when evaluating alternative management strategies.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2023

Gains and gaps in knowledge surrounding freshwater mollusk ecosystem services

Ecosystems provide essential services to people including food, water, climate regulation, and aesthetic experiences. Biodiversity can enhance and stabilize ecosystem function and the resulting services natural systems provide. Freshwater mollusks are a diverse group that provide a variety of ecosystem services through their feeding habits (e.g., filter feeding, grazing), top-down and bottom-up effects on food webs, provisioning of habitat, use as a food resource by people, and cultural importance. Research focused on quantifying the direct and indirect ways mollusks influence ecosystem services may help inform policy makers and the public about the value of mollusk communities to society. The Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society highlighted the need to evaluate mollusk ecosystem services in their 2016 National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks, and, while significant progress has been made, considerable work remains across the research, management, and outreach communities. We briefly review the global status of native freshwater mollusks, assess the current state of knowledge regarding their ecosystem services, and highlight recent advances and knowledge gaps to guide further research and conservation actions. Our intention is to provide ecologists, conservationists, economists, and social scientists with information to improve science-based consideration of the social, ecological, and economic value of mollusk communities to healthy aquatic systems.

Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation↗
USGS2014

From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments

Ecosystem services mapping and modeling has focused more on supply than demand, until recently. Whereas the potential provision of economic benefits from ecosystems to people is often quantified through ecological production functions, the use of and demand for ecosystem services has received less attention, as have the spatial flows of services from ecosystems to people. However, new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems’ capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems. Our analysis includes five ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, riverine flood regulation, sediment regulation for reservoirs, open space proximity, and scenic viewsheds. Each ecosystem service is characterized by different beneficiary groups and means of service flow. Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use. With the exception of the carbon sequestration service, regions that actually provided services to people, i.e., connected to beneficiaries via flow paths, amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying services, i.e., all ecosystems across the landscape. These results offer a more complete understanding of the spatial dynamics of ecosystem services and their effects, and may provide a sounder basis for economic valuation and policy applications than studies that consider only theoretical service provision and/or use.

Washington↗
USGS2015

Ecosystem services science, practice, and policy: Perspectives from ACES, A Community on Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are at a crossroad. The natural capital needed to produce them is diminishing (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). At the same time, the science relating to their identification, production, and valuation is advancing. Examples of ecosystem services applications are abundant in the literature. In addition, the concept of ecosystem services and its applications are attracting attention and are becoming more visible. The concept of ecosystem services, however, is still not routinely applied to many natural resource management decisions.

Ecological Economics↗
USGS2010

Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): using GIS to include social values information in ecosystem services assessments

Ecosystem services can be defined in various ways; simply put, they are the benefits provided by nature, which contribute to human well-being. These benefits can range from tangible products such as food and fresh water to cultural services such as recreation and esthetics. As the use of these benefits continues to increase, additional pressures are placed on the natural ecosystems providing them. This makes it all the more important when assessing possible tradeoffs among ecosystem services to consider the human attitudes and preferences that express underlying social values associated with their benefits. While some of these values can be accounted for through economic markets, other values can be more difficult to quantify, and attaching dollar amounts to them may not be very useful in all cases. Regardless of the processes or units used for quantifying such values, the ability to map them across the landscape and relate them to the ecosystem services to which they are attributed is necessary for effective assessments. To address some of the needs associated with quantifying and mapping social values for inclusion in ecosystem services assessments, scientists at the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC), in collaboration with Colorado State University, have developed a public domain tool, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). SolVES is a geographic information system (GIS) application designed to use data from public attitude and preference surveys to assess, map, and quantify social values for ecosystem services. SolVES calculates and maps a 10-point Value Index representing the relative perceived social values of ecosystem services such as recreation and biodiversity for various groups of ecosystem stakeholders. SolVES output can also be used to identify and model relationships between social values and physical characteristics of the underlying landscape. These relationships can then be used to generate predicted Value Index maps for areas where survey data are not available. RMGSC will continue to develop more robust versions of SolVES by pursuing opportunities to work with land and resource managers as well as other researchers to apply SolVES to specific ecosystem management problems.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Recent ecosystem services research has highlighted the importance of spatial connectivity between ecosystems and their beneficiaries. Despite this need, a systematic approach to ecosystem service flow quantification has not yet emerged. In this article, we present such an approach, which we formalize as a class of agent-based models termed “Service Path Attribution Networks” (SPANs). These models, developed as part of the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) project, expand on ecosystem services classification terminology introduced by other authors. Conceptual elements needed to support flow modeling include a service's rivalness, its flow routing type (e.g., through hydrologic or transportation networks, lines of sight, or other approaches), and whether the benefit is supplied by an ecosystem's provision of a beneficial flow to people or by absorption of a detrimental flow before it reaches them. We describe our implementation of the SPAN framework for five ecosystem services and discuss how to generalize the approach to additional services. SPAN model outputs include maps of ecosystem service provision, use, depletion, and flows under theoretical, possible, actual, inaccessible, and blocked conditions. We highlight how these different ecosystem service flow maps could be used to support various types of decision making for conservation and resource management planning.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2009

Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer-reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass- and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro-ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico-chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem-specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub-global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity. ?? 2009 Oikos.

Oikos↗
USGS2024

Advancing knowledge pluralism and cultural benefits in ecosystem services theory and application

Improved consideration of the cultural benefits of ecosystem services (ES) requires attention to knowledge pluralism in addition to value pluralism. Theorists have increasingly argued that meaningful inclusion of cultural benefits of ES requires attention to plural values, beyond the individual, instrumental values associated with ecosystems. However, there has been little engagement around the role of knowledge pluralism as a foundational enabling factor for meaningful consideration of plural values. This paper contributes to a conceptual toolkit for implementation of knowledge pluralism in ES theory and application by (re)conceptualizing ES-knowledge as a knowledge system. This can support personal and collective reflexivity around the role of worldviews embedded in our institutions, and illuminate what is at stake when assumptions about human-nature relationship and well-being remain hidden. Further, by locating benefits-knowledge as a core element of the ES-knowledge-system, we can imagine a greater range of possible cultural-benefits-knowledge-forms and improve our ability to comprehend and convey the plural values of cultural benefits of ES, as they arise across cultural contexts.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2012

A spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem service valuation by regional stakeholders in Florida: a coastal application of the social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) tool

Livelihoods and lifestyles of people throughout the world depend on essential goods and services provided by marine and coastal ecosystems. However, as societal demand increases and available ocean and coastal space diminish, better methods are needed to spatially and temporally allocate ocean and coastal activities such as shipping, energy production, tourism, and fishing. While economic valuation is an important mechanism for doing so, cultural ecosystem services often do not lend themselves to this method. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey are working collaboratively with the Florida Sea Grant College Program to map nonmonetary values of cultural ecosystem services for a pilot area (Sarasota Bay) in the Gulf of Mexico. The research seeks to close knowledge gaps about the attitudes and perceptions, or nonmonetary values, held by coastal residents toward cultural ecosystem services, and to adapt related, terrestrial-based research methods to a coastal setting. A critical goal is to integrate research results with coastal and marine spatial planning applications, thus making them relevant to coastal planners and managers in their daily efforts to sustainably manage coastal resources. Using information about the attitudes and preferences of people toward places and uses in the landscape, collected from value and preference surveys, the USGS SolVES 2.0 tool will provide quantitative models to relate social values, or perceived nonmonetary values, assigned to locations by survey respondents with the underlying environmental characteristics of those same locations. Project results will increase scientific and geographic knowledge of how Sarasota Bay residents value their area’s cultural ecosystem services.

Florida↗
USGS2014

A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment

Ecosystem Services (ES) are an established conceptual framework for attributing value to the benefits that nature provides to humans. As the promise of robust ES-driven management is put to the test, shortcomings in our ability to accurately measure, map, and value ES have surfaced. On the research side, mainstream methods for ES assessment still fall short of addressing the complex, multi-scale biophysical and socioeconomic dynamics inherent in ES provision, flow, and use. On the practitioner side, application of methods remains onerous due to data and model parameterization requirements. Further, it is increasingly clear that the dominant “one model fits all” paradigm is often ill-suited to address the diversity of real-world management situations that exist across the broad spectrum of coupled human-natural systems. This article introduces an integrated ES modeling methodology, named ARIES (ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services), which aims to introduce improvements on these fronts. To improve conceptual detail and representation of ES dynamics, it adopts a uniform conceptualization of ES that gives equal emphasis to their production, flow and use by society, while keeping model complexity low enough to enable rapid and inexpensive assessment in many contexts and for multiple services. To improve fit to diverse application contexts, the methodology is assisted by model integration technologies that allow assembly of customized models from a growing model base. By using computer learning and reasoning, model structure may be specialized for each application context without requiring costly expertise. In this article we discuss the founding principles of ARIES - both its innovative aspects for ES science and as an example of a new strategy to support more accurate decision making in diverse application contexts.

PLoS ONE↗
USGS2023

Expanding our view of the cold-water coral niche and accounting of the ecosystem services of the reef habitat

Coral reefs are iconic ecosystems that support diverse, productive communities in both shallow and deep waters. However, our incomplete knowledge of cold-water coral (CWC) niche space limits our understanding of their distribution and precludes a complete accounting of the ecosystem services they provide. Here, we present the results of recent surveys of the CWC mound province on the Blake Plateau off the U.S. east coast, an area of intense human activity including fisheries and naval operations, and potentially energy and mineral extraction. At one site, CWC mounds are arranged in lines that total over 150 km in length, making this one of the largest reef complexes discovered in the deep ocean. This site experiences rapid and extreme shifts in temperature between 4.3 and 10.7 °C, and currents approaching 1 m s −1 . Carbon is transported to depth by mesopelagic micronekton and nutrient cycling on the reef results in some of the highest nitrate concentrations recorded in the region. Predictive models reveal expanded areas of highly suitable habitat that currently remain unexplored. Multidisciplinary exploration of this new site has expanded understanding of the cold-water coral niche, improved our accounting of the ecosystem services of the reef habitat, and emphasizes the importance of properly managing these systems.

Scientific Reports↗
USGS2010

The need for simultaneous evaluation of ecosystem services and land use change

We are living in a period of massive global change. This rate of change may be almost without precedent in geologic history ( 1 ). Even the most remote areas of the planet are influenced by human activities. Modern landscapes have been highly modified to accommodate a growing human population that the United Nations has forecast to peak at 9.1 billion by 2050. Over this past century, reliance on services from ecosystems has increased significantly and, over past decades, sustainability of our modern, intensively managed ecosystems has been a topic of serious international concern ( 1 ). Numerous papers addressing a particular land-use change effect on specific ecosystem services have recently been published. For example, there is currently great interest in increasing biofuel production to achieve energy inde- pendence goals and recent papers have independently focused attention on impacts of land-use change on single ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration ( 2 ) and many others (e.g., water availability, biodiversity, pollination). However, land-use change clearly affects myriad ecosystem services simultaneously. Hence, a broader perspective and context is needed to evaluate and understand interrelated affects on multiple ecosystem services, especially as we strive for the goal of sustainably managing global ecosystems. Similarly, land uses affect ecosystem services synergistically; single land-use evaluations may be misleading because the overall impact on an ecosystem is not evaluated. A more holistic approach would provide a means and framework to characterize how land-use change affects provisioning of goods and services of complete ecosystems.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2013

Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery

Ecosystem services provide an instinctive way to understand the trade-offs associated with natural resource management. However, despite their apparent usefulness, several hurdles have prevented ecosystem services from becoming deeply embedded in environmental decision-making. Ecosystem service studies vary widely in focal services, geographic extent, and in methods for defining and measuring services. Dissent among scientists on basic terminology and approaches to evaluating ecosystem services create difficulties for those trying to incorporate ecosystem services into decision-making. To facilitate clearer comparison among recent studies, we provide a synthesis of common terminology and explain a rationale and framework for distinguishing among the components of ecosystem service delivery, including: an ecosystem's capacity to produce services; ecological pressures that interfere with an ecosystem's ability to provide the service; societal demand for the service; and flow of the service to people. We discuss how interpretation and measurement of these four components can differ among provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Our flexible framework treats service capacity, ecological pressure, demand, and flow as separate but interactive entities to improve our ability to evaluate the sustainability of service provision and to help guide management decisions. We consider ecosystem service provision to be sustainable when demand is met without decreasing capacity for future provision of that service or causing undesirable declines in other services. When ecosystem service demand exceeds ecosystem capacity to provide services, society can choose to enhance natural capacity, decrease demand and/or ecological pressure, or invest in a technological substitute. Because regulating services are frequently overlooked in environmental assessments, we provide a more detailed examination of regulating services and propose a novel method for quantifying the flow of regulating services based on estimates of ecological work. We anticipate that our synthesis and framework will reduce inconsistency and facilitate coherence across analyses of ecosystem services, thereby increasing their utility in environmental decision-making.

Ecological Complexity↗
USGS2021

Ecosystem service co-benefits provided through wetland carbon management

What is the role of wetland carbon management in providing ecosystem services? Ecosystem services are the benefits that nature provides to people, and they are often categorized as: provisioning (e.g., food and water), regulating (e.g., climate mitigation and flood protection), cultural (e.g., cultural and recreational), and supporting (e.g., nutrient cycling) services ( www.millenniumassessment.org/ ). Ecosystem services are a function of the quantity and quality of the ecosystem. External factors such as land development, pollution, fragmentation, resource overuse, and climate change can negatively influence an ecosystem's capacity to provide ecosystem services; conversely, management actions to conserve and restore systems can increase ecosystem services (Pindilli, 2019). Wetland carbon management is a set of preservation, conservation, or restoration actions used to preserve ecosystem function that protects or enhances stored carbon or biologic carbon sequestration, with the intent to regulate climate (see Moomaw et al., 2018). By managing for wetland carbon resources, there is often a co-benefit of the preservation or enhancement of other ecosystem services; it may also increase ecosystem disservices (such as mosquito production). This chapter provides an overview of the types of ecosystem service co-benefits provided by wetland carbon management, with specific examples from the literature.

Book chapter↗
USGS2014

On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping

Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

PLoS ONE↗