Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services

Abstract Recently, the science and policy agenda on biodiversity moved to include ecosystem services assessments and it is recognised that for determining the effectiveness and progress of policy frameworks monitoring is crucial. Within European monitoring schemes, data is collected following different sampling protocols for a range of biodiversity or context related aspects; from EU-wide general land cover mapping to red list species within Annex I habitats. In this paper, we analysed field instructions of seven monitoring schemes on the extent to which they can provide data on the provision of ecosystem services and what additional information may be needed for future monitoring of ecosystem services. We compared seven monitoring schemes (i.e. CORINE Land Cover, Land Use Cover Area Survey (LUCAS), European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE), biodiversity monitoring on organic and low-input farming systems (BioBio), National Inventory of the Landscape of Sweden (NILS) and Pan-European Common Birds Monitoring (PECBM) and UK Butterfly monitoring (UK-BM)) by scoring the quality of recorded parameters and the adequacy of sampling protocols for ecosystem service monitoring. All the examined schemes were able to provide some parameters on ecosystem services, but the quality of the parameters on average did not exceed the level of qualitative data. Additionally, the divergence between the sampling designs of the schemes and the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services reduced the potential monitoring value of all schemes. Monitoring schemes including a range of sampling methods, scales and included the recording of data on habitats, such as EBONE, BioBio and NILS, provided the best data on the provision of ecosystem services. We conclude that improvement of the monitoring of ecosystem services is hindered by several knowledge gaps: (1) a robust definition and conceptual framework of ecosystem services; (2) the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (3) the interpretation of monitoring data. In addition to ecosystem service monitoring, biodiversity monitoring unremittingly remains very important, at least to identify trade-offs between the management for services and the resulting biodiversity status.

[1]  G. Daily,et al.  Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity , 2012, Nature.

[2]  K. Wallace.  Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions , 2007 .

[3]  C. Dormann,et al.  A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead , 2011 .

[4]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[5]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .

[6]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  A Framework for Improved Monitoring of Biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on Sustainable Development , 2005 .

[7]  P. Pingali,et al.  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being , 2005 .

[8]  Daniel R. Brumbaugh,et al.  An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean , 2012, Nature.

[9]  P. Voříšek,et al.  A best practice guide for wild bird monitoring schemes , 2008 .

[10]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[11]  J. Boyd,et al.  What are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units , 2006 .

[12]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services , 2006 .

[13]  H. Pereira,et al.  Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[14]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies , 2012 .

[15]  Peter Rothery,et al.  Reduced‐effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations , 2007 .

[16]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[17]  E. Turnhout,et al.  Databases, scaling practices, and the globalization of biodiversity , 2011 .

[18]  F. Herzog,et al.  Biodiversity in organic and low-input farming systems : handbook for recording key indicators , 2012 .

[19]  Richard D. Gregory,et al.  Birds as biodiversity indicators for Europe , 2006 .

[20]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services , 2006, PLoS biology.

[21]  P. Leadley,et al.  Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[22]  R. Naiman.  A Perspective on Interdisciplinary Science , 1999, Ecosystems.

[23]  M. Patterson,et al.  A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils , 2010 .

[24]  M. Bossard,et al.  CORINE land cover technical guide - Addendum 2000 , 2000 .

[25]  C. Kremen.  Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? , 2005, Ecology letters.

[26]  F. Chapin,et al.  EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE , 2005 .

[27]  Geo Bon,et al.  Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network , 2010 .

[28]  R. Costanza.  Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed , 2008 .

[29]  Pierre-Yves Henry,et al.  Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[30]  J. Emmett Duffy.  Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real‐world ecosystems , 2009 .

[31]  Jarrett E. K. Byrnes,et al.  A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change , 2012, Nature.

[32]  R. Costanza,et al.  Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The impact of proxy‐based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services , 2010 .

[34]  F. Jiguet,et al.  An Indicator of the Impact of Climatic Change on European Bird Populations , 2009, PloS one.

[35]  Rob H. G. Jongman,et al.  Manual for habitat and vegetation surveillance and monitoring : temperate, mediterranean and desert biomes , 2011 .

[36]  Björn Nilsson,et al.  National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)—scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system , 2011, Environmental monitoring and assessment.