2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A review of regulation ecosystem services and disservices from faunal populations and potential impacts of agriculturalisation on their provision, globally

      ,

      Nature Conservation

      Pensoft Publishers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Land use and cover change (LUCC) is the main cause of natural ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss and can cause a decrease in ecosystem service provision. Animal populations are providers of some key regulation services: pollination, pest and disease control and seed dispersal, the so-called faunal ecosystem services (FES). Here we aim to give an overview on the current and future status of regulation FES in response to change from original habitat to agricultural land globally. FES are much more tightly linked to wildlife populations and biodiversity than are most ecosystem services, whose determinants are largely climatic and related to vegetation structure. Degradation of ecosystems by land use change thus has much more potential to affect FES. In this scoping review, we summarise the main findings showing the importance of animal populations as FES providers and as a source of ecosystem disservices; underlying causes of agriculturalisation impacts on FES and the potential condition of FES under future LUCC in relation to the expected demand for FES globally. Overall, studies support a positive relationship between FES provision and animal species richness and abundance. Agriculturalisation has negative effects on FES providers due to landscape homogenisation, habitat fragmentation and loss, microclimatic changes and development of population imbalance, causing species and population losses of key fauna, reducing services whilst enhancing disservices. Since evidence suggests an increase in FES demand worldwide is required to support increased farming, it is imperative to improve the understanding of agriculturalisation on FES supply and distribution. Spatial conservation prioritisation must factor in faunal ecosystem functions as the most biodiversity-relevant of all ecosystem services and that which most closely links sites of service provision of conservation value with nearby sites of service use to provide ecosystem services of agricultural and economic value.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 134

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services.

            Concern is growing about the consequences of biodiversity loss for ecosystem functioning, for the provision of ecosystem services, and for human well being. Experimental evidence for a relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem process rates is compelling, but the issue remains contentious. Here, we present the first rigorous quantitative assessment of this relationship through meta-analysis of experimental work spanning 50 years to June 2004. We analysed 446 measures of biodiversity effects (252 in grasslands), 319 of which involved primary producer manipulations or measurements. Our analyses show that: biodiversity effects are weaker if biodiversity manipulations are less well controlled; effects of biodiversity change on processes are weaker at the ecosystem compared with the community level and are negative at the population level; productivity-related effects decline with increasing number of trophic links between those elements manipulated and those measured; biodiversity effects on stability measures ('insurance' effects) are not stronger than biodiversity effects on performance measures. For those ecosystem services which could be assessed here, there is clear evidence that biodiversity has positive effects on most. Whilst such patterns should be further confirmed, a precautionary approach to biodiversity management would seem prudent in the meantime.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature Conservation
                NC
                Pensoft Publishers
                1314-3301
                1314-6947
                October 24 2018
                October 24 2018
                : 30
                : 1-39
                Article
                10.3897/natureconservation.30.26989
                © 2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article