Landscape management for grassland multifunctionality

Land-use intensification has contrasting effects on different ecosystem services, often leading to land-use conflicts. While multiple studies have demonstrated how landscape-scale strategies can minimise the trade-off between agricultural production and biodiversity conservation, little is known about which land-use strategies maximise the landscape-level supply of multiple ecosystem services (landscape multifunctionality), a common goal of stakeholder communities.We combine comprehensive data collected from 150 German grassland sites with a simulation approach to identify landscape compositions, with differing proportions of low-, medium-, and high-intensity grasslands, that minimise trade-offs between the six main grassland ecosystem services prioritised by local stakeholders: biodiversity conservation, aesthetic value, productivity, carbon storage, foraging, and regional identity. Results are made accessible through an online tool that provides information on which compositions best meet any combination of user-defined priorities (https://neyret.shinyapps.io/landscape_composition_for_multifunctionality/).Results show that an optimal landscape composition can be identified for any pattern of ecosystem service priorities. However, multifunctionality was similar and low for all landscape compositions in cases where there are strong trade-offs between services (e.g. aesthetic value and fodder production), where many services were prioritised, and where drivers other than land use played an important role. We also found that if moderate service levels are deemed acceptable, then strategies in which both high and low intensity grasslands are present can deliver landscape multifunctionality. The tool presented can aid informed decision-making by predicting the impact of future changes in landscape composition, and by allowing for the relative roles of stakeholder priorities and biophysical trade-offs to be understood by scientists and practitioners alike.An online tool identifies optimal landscape compositions for desired ecosystem servicesWhen the desired services are synergic, the optimum is their common best landscape compositionWhen the desired services trade-off, a mix of grassland intensity is most multifunctionalSuch tools could support decision-making processes and aid conflict resolution

[1]  J. Thiele,et al.  Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity , 2021, Nature Communications.

[2]  E. Allan,et al.  Stakeholder priorities determine the impact of an alien tree invasion on ecosystem multifunctionality , 2021, People and Nature.

[3]  María Triviño,et al.  Data from: Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a boreal forest landscape , 2017, JYX.

[4]  J. Rhodes,et al.  Ecosystem services at risk: integrating spatiotemporal dynamics of supply and demand to promote long-term provision , 2020 .

[5]  E. Gosling,et al.  Accounting for multiple ecosystem services in a simulation of land‐use decisions: Does it reduce tropical deforestation? , 2020, Global change biology.

[6]  Manuel K. Schneider,et al.  Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[7]  A. Balmford,et al.  Land sparing to make space for species dependent on natural habitats and high nature value farmland , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[8]  C. Everson,et al.  Grasslands-more important for ecosystem services than you might think , 2019, Ecosphere.

[9]  M. Schloter,et al.  Towards the development of general rules describing landscape heterogeneity–multifunctionality relationships , 2018, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[10]  Gabriela Teixeira Duarte,et al.  The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services , 2018, Landscape Ecology.

[11]  V. Seufert,et al.  Bright spots in agricultural landscapes: Identifying areas exceeding expectations for multifunctionality and biodiversity , 2018, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[12]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief , 2018, One Ecosystem.

[13]  B. Phalan.  What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model? , 2018, Sustainability.

[14]  G. Mace,et al.  Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[15]  M. C. Diaw,et al.  Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2018 .

[16]  Veerle Van Eetvelde,et al.  Landscape Perspectives , 2017, Landscape Series.

[17]  Mark A. Lee.  A global comparison of the nutritive values of forage plants grown in contrasting environments , 2017, Journal of Plant Research.

[18]  T. Bell,et al.  The importance of species identity and interactions for multifunctionality depends on how ecosystem functions are valued. , 2017, Ecology.

[19]  E. Veldkamp,et al.  Direct and cascading impacts of tropical land-use change on multi-trophic biodiversity , 2017, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[20]  Gaëtane Le Provost,et al.  Trait‐matching and mass effect determine the functional response of herbivore communities to land‐use intensification , 2017 .

[21]  W. Weisser,et al.  Agricultural intensification without biodiversity loss is possible in grassland landscapes , 2017, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[22]  Marco Stampanoni,et al.  Fungus-like mycelial fossils in 2.4-billion-year-old vesicular basalt , 2017, Nature Ecology &Evolution.

[23]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  How spatial scale shapes the generation and management of multiple ecosystem services , 2017 .

[24]  M. Turner,et al.  Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Leslie M. Roche,et al.  Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape , 2017, PloS one.

[26]  Daniel M. Stoebel,et al.  Diminishing-returns epistasis decreases adaptability along an evolutionary trajectory , 2017, Nature Ecology &Evolution.

[27]  E. Bennett.  Changing the agriculture and environment conversation , 2017, Nature Ecology &Evolution.

[28]  Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure , 2017 .

[29]  M. Schloter,et al.  Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality , 2016, Nature.

[30]  A. Newton,et al.  Can landscape‐scale approaches to conservation management resolve biodiversity–ecosystem service trade‐offs? , 2016 .

[31]  Alfred E. Hartemink,et al.  Linking soils to ecosystem services — A global review , 2016 .

[32]  A. Balmford,et al.  Agricultural development and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Eurasian steppes: a comparison of land‐sparing and land‐sharing approaches , 2015 .

[33]  K. Gaston,et al.  Likeability of Garden Birds: Importance of Species Knowledge & Richness in Connecting People to Nature , 2015, PloS one.

[34]  Martin Schaefer,et al.  Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition , 2015, Ecology letters.

[35]  S. Gaba,et al.  Organic fields sustain weed metacommunity dynamics in farmland landscapes , 2015, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  M. Lange,et al.  Grassland management intensification weakens the associations among the diversities of multiple plant and animal taxa , 2015 .

[37]  Ben Collen,et al.  Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity , 2015, Nature.

[38]  T. Kuemmerle,et al.  Using optimization methods to align food production and biodiversity conservation beyond land sharing and land sparing. , 2015, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[39]  E. Bennett,et al.  Forest fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem services , 2014 .

[40]  I. Schöning,et al.  Controls on soil carbon storage and turnover in German landscapes , 2014, Biogeochemistry.

[41]  Jarrett E. K. Byrnes,et al.  Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: challenges and solutions , 2013, 1305.1985.

[42]  B. Gunnarsson,et al.  Bird song diversity influences young people's appreciation of urban landscapes , 2014 .

[43]  H. Wehrden,et al.  Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward , 2014 .

[44]  M. Obersteiner,et al.  Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  H. Wehrden,et al.  Traits of butterfly communities change from specialist to generalist characteristics with increasing land-use intensity , 2013 .

[46]  Claude A. Garcia,et al.  Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  J. Binkenstein,et al.  Increasing land-use intensity decreases floral colour diversity of plant communities in temperate grasslands , 2013, Oecologia.

[48]  R. Didham,et al.  Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses , 2012, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

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

[50]  John B. Bradford,et al.  Recognizing trade‐offs in multi‐objective land management , 2012 .

[51]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: Integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization , 2012 .

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

[53]  G. Mace,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[54]  Stef van Buuren,et al.  MICE: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R , 2011 .

[55]  A. Balmford,et al.  Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared , 2011, Science.

[56]  M. Whittingham.  The future of agri‐environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? , 2011 .

[57]  Sandra Lavorel,et al.  Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services , 2011 .

[58]  R. DeFries,et al.  Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[59]  Jens Nieschulze,et al.  Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: The Biodiversity Exploratories , 2010 .

[60]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[62]  K. Gaston,et al.  Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities , 2009 .

[63]  B. Bryan,et al.  Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services , 2009 .

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

[65]  B. Fisher,et al.  Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation , 2008 .

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

[67]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas , 2005 .

[68]  J. Seibert,et al.  On the calculation of the topographic wetness index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations , 2005 .

[69]  Carsten Thies,et al.  REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem service management , 2005 .

[70]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[71]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature , 2005, Science.

[72]  D. Clark,et al.  Feeding value of pastures for ruminants , 2004, New Zealand veterinary journal.

[73]  Paul E. Gessler,et al.  Soil-Landscape Modelling and Spatial Prediction of Soil Attributes , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..