Scenarios reveal pathways to sustain future ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape.

Sustaining food production, water quality, soil retention, flood, and climate regulation in agricultural landscapes is a pressing global challenge given accelerating environmental changes. Scenarios are stories about plausible futures, and scenarios can be integrated with biophysical simulation models to explore quantitatively how the future might unfold. However, few studies have incorporated a wide range of drivers (e.g., climate, land-use, management, population, human diet) in spatially explicit, process-based models to investigate spatial-temporal dynamics and relationships of a portfolio of ecosystem services. Here, we simulated nine ecosystem services (three provisioning and six regulating services) at 220 × 220 m from 2010 to 2070 under four contrasting scenarios in the 1,345-km2 Yahara Watershed (Wisconsin, USA) using Agro-IBIS, a dynamic model of terrestrial ecosystem processes, biogeochemistry, water, and energy balance. We asked (1) How does ecosystem service supply vary among alternative future scenarios? (2) Where on the landscape is the provision of ecosystem services most susceptible to future social-ecological changes? (3) Among alternative future scenarios, are relationships (i.e., trade-offs, synergies) among food production, water, and biogeochemical services consistent over time? Our results showed that food production varied substantially with future land-use choices and management, and its trade-offs with water quality and soil retention persisted under most scenarios. However, pathways to mitigate or even reverse such trade-offs through technological advances and sustainable agricultural practices were apparent. Consistent relationships among regulating services were identified across scenarios (e.g., trade-offs of freshwater supply vs. flood and climate regulation, and synergies among water quality, soil retention, and climate regulation), suggesting opportunities and challenges to sustaining these services. In particular, proactive land-use changes and management may buffer water quality against undesirable future climate changes, but changing climate may overwhelm management efforts to sustain freshwater supply and flood regulation. Spatially, changes in ecosystem services were heterogeneous across the landscape, underscoring the power of local actions and fine-scale management. Our research highlights the value of embracing spatial and temporal perspectives in managing ecosystem services and their complex interactions, and provides a system-level understanding for achieving sustainability of the food-water-climate nexus in agricultural landscapes.

[1]  C. Arnold,et al.  IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: THE EMERGENCE OF A KEY ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR , 1996 .

[2]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes , 1996 .

[3]  K. Walker,et al.  Tolerance of riverine plants to flooding and exposure indicated by water regime , 1999 .

[4]  Michael T. Coe,et al.  Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure , 2000 .

[5]  S. Polasky,et al.  Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices , 2002, Nature.

[6]  C. Kucharik Evaluation of a Process-Based Agro-Ecosystem Model (Agro-IBIS) across the U.S. Corn Belt: Simulations of the Interannual Variability in Maize Yield , 2003 .

[7]  C. Kucharik,et al.  Evaluating the impacts of land management and climate variability on crop production and nitrate export across the Upper Mississippi Basin , 2003 .

[8]  C. Tucker,et al.  Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999 , 2003, Science.

[9]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World , 2003, Conservation Biology.

[10]  P. Raskin Global Scenarios: Background Review for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2005, Ecosystems.

[11]  Denis White,et al.  ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON , 2004 .

[12]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management , 2004 .

[13]  N. Fageria,et al.  Enhancing Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crop Plants , 2005 .

[14]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe , 2005, Science.

[15]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration , 2005, Science.

[16]  S. Larsen,et al.  Nutrient pressures and ecological responses to nutrient loading reductions in Danish streams, lakes and coastal waters , 2005 .

[17]  R. Naiman,et al.  Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

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

[19]  Belinda Reyers,et al.  Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern African River Basin: a Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  S. Long,et al.  Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations , 2006, Science.

[21]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change , 2006 .

[22]  R. B. Hammer,et al.  Understanding Regional Change: A Comparison of Two Lake Districts , 2007 .

[23]  A. Hansen,et al.  Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[24]  C. Kucharik,et al.  Residue, respiration, and residuals: Evaluation of a dynamic agroecosystem model using eddy flux measurements and biometric data , 2007 .

[25]  C. Field,et al.  Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming , 2007, Environmental Research Letters.

[26]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling , 2007 .

[27]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[28]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Tracy E. Twine,et al.  Climate impacts on net primary productivity trends in natural and managed ecosystems of the central and eastern United States , 2009 .

[30]  Paul C. West,et al.  Trading carbon for food: Global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  James R. Craig,et al.  Runoff–infiltration partitioning using an upscaled Green–Ampt solution , 2010 .

[32]  S. Vermeulen,et al.  Breeding Technologies to Increase Crop Production in a Changing World , 2010 .

[33]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[34]  L. P. Koh,et al.  Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural expansion, forest protection, and carbon conservation in Indonesia , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Hugo Fort,et al.  Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems: spatial early warnings and management procedures (Inspired in the physics of phase transitions) , 2010 .

[36]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain , 2011 .

[37]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Solutions for a cultivated planet , 2011, Nature.

[39]  V. Bell,et al.  The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  G. Daily,et al.  Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Scenario Studies as a Synthetic and Integrative Research Activity for Long-Term Ecological Research , 2012 .

[42]  N. Ramankutty,et al.  Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management , 2012, Nature.

[43]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe , 2012 .

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

[45]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Need for and Use of Socio-Economic Scenarios for Climate Change Analysis , 2012 .

[46]  G. Mace,et al.  Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom , 2013, Science.

[47]  Claudia Bieling,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes: Analysis and Management Options Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany , 2013 .

[48]  François Gillet,et al.  A Contextual Analysis of Land-Use and Vegetation Changes in Two Wooded Pastures in the Swiss Jura Mountains , 2013 .

[49]  Jiangxiao Qiu,et al.  Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  Christopher J. Kucharik,et al.  Climate‐induced changes in biome distribution, NPP, and hydrology in the Upper Midwest U.S.: A case study for potential vegetation , 2013 .

[51]  G. Hofman,et al.  Mitigation options to reduce phosphorus losses from the agricultural sector and improve surface water quality: a review. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[52]  Fabien Quétier,et al.  Plant trait-based models identify direct and indirect effects of climate change on bundles of grassland ecosystem services , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  H. Wehrden,et al.  A holistic approach to studying social-ecological systems and its application to southern Transylvania , 2014 .

[54]  Steven P. Loheide,et al.  Influence of groundwater on plant water use and productivity: Development of an integrated ecosystem ― Variably saturated soil water flow model , 2014 .

[55]  P. Willems,et al.  Developing tailored climate change scenarios for hydrological impact assessments , 2014 .

[56]  Tracy K. Teal,et al.  Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[57]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[58]  Eric G. Booth,et al.  Shifting drivers and static baselines in environmental governance: challenges for improving and proving water quality outcomes , 2016, Regional Environmental Change.

[59]  Benjamin M. Sleeter,et al.  Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[60]  Samuel C. Zipper,et al.  Untangling the effects of shallow groundwater and soil texture as drivers of subfield‐scale yield variability , 2015 .

[61]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet , 2015, Science.

[62]  Erle C. Ellis Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere , 2015 .

[63]  Mark Rounsevell,et al.  Drivers for global agricultural land use change: The nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy , 2015 .

[64]  M. Turner,et al.  Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed , 2015 .

[65]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA , 2015 .

[66]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies , 2015 .

[67]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America , 2015 .

[68]  E. Corbera,et al.  Participatory scenarios to explore local adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves: Experiences from Bolivia and Mexico , 2015 .

[69]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social norms as solutions , 2016, Science.

[70]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Dominant flood generating mechanisms across the United States , 2016 .

[71]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  Trade-offs in water and carbon ecosystem services with land-use changes in grasslands. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[72]  Min Fan,et al.  Optimal conservation planning of multiple hydrological ecosystem services under land use and climate changes in Teshio river watershed, northernmost of Japan , 2016 .

[73]  E. Bennett Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science , 2016, Ecosystems.

[74]  Jiangxiao Qiu,et al.  Flashiness and Flooding of Two Lakes in the Upper Midwest During a Century of Urbanization and Climate Change , 2017, Ecosystems.

[75]  Xi Chen,et al.  From qualitative to quantitative environmental scenarios: Translating storylines into biophysical modeling inputs at the watershed scale , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[76]  E. Broadbent,et al.  The consequences of four land‐use scenarios for forest ecosystems and the services they provide , 2016 .

[77]  J. Canadell,et al.  The nitrogen legacy: emerging evidence of nitrogen accumulation in anthropogenic landscapes , 2016 .

[78]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[79]  M. Turner,et al.  Spatial fit between water quality policies and hydrologic ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural landscape , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[80]  Samuel C. Zipper,et al.  Quantifying indirect groundwater-mediated effects of urbanization on agroecosystem productivity using MODFLOW-AgroIBIS (MAGI), a complete critical zone model , 2017 .