Ecosystem services modeling as a tool for defining priority areas for conservation

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2016, Pages

  Duarte, Gabriela Teixeira ^a   Ribeiro, Milton Cezar ^b   Paglia, Adriano Pereira ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

^b SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIODIVERSITY; BRAZIL; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; BRAZIL; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 85013319050     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154573     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Daily GC, editor. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997.
2. Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
4. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68(3):643–53.
5. Convention on Biological Diversity CBD. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets [Internet]. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting. Montreal,QC; 2010. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10 Accessed 05 July 2014
6. Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(27):9445–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 0800208105 PMID: 18591667
7. Robertson N, Wunder S. Fresh tracks in the forest: Assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR; 2005. 152 p.
8. McBride MF, Wilson K A, Bode M, Possingham HP. Incorporating the effects of socioeconomic uncertainty into priority setting for conservation investment. Conserv Biol. 2007; 21(6):1463–74. doi: 10. 1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00832.x PMID: 18173470
9. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000; 403:853–8. PMID: 10706275
10. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 21(12):681–7. PMID: 17050033
11. Ribeiro MC, Martensen AC, Metzger JP, Tabarelli M, Scarano F, Fortin M-J. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: a shrinking biodiversity hotspot. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC, editors. Biodiversity hotspots: distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. 1st ed. London New York: Springer; 2011. p. 405–34.
12. Faleiro F V., Loyola RD. Socioeconomic and political trade-offs in biodiversity conservation: a case study of the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot, Brazil. Divers Distrib. 2013; 19(8):977–87.
13. Goldman RL, Tallis H. A critical analysis of ecosystem services as a tool in conservation projects: the possible perils, the promises and the partnerships. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009; 1162:63–78. doi: 10.1111/ j.1749-6632.2009.04151.x PMID: 19432645
14. Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E, Fackler P, Starfield A. Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecol Appl. 2005; 15(4):1387–401.
15. Wendland KJ, Honzák M, Portela R, Vitale B, Rubinoff S, Randrianarisoa J. Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecol Econ. 2010; 69(11):2093–107.
16. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. 42nd ed. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR; 2005. 25 p.
17. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65(4):834–52.
18. Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65(4):822–33.
19. Daily GC, Matson PA. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(28):9455–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804960105 PMID: 18621697
20. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol. 2006; 20(2):408–19. PMID: 16903102
21. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv. 2012; 1:31–9.
22. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink F V., Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol. 2011; 48(3):630–6.
23. Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJB, Collen B. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science. 2014; 345(6195):401–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1251817 PMID: 25061202
24. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4(11):2138–52.
25. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2008; 127:135–40.
26. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(28):9495–500. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.0707823105 PMID: 18621701
27. Gurmendi AC. The Mineral Industry of Brazil. 2011 Minerals Yearbook. Volume 3. Brazil: U.S. Geological Survey; 2013.
28. Drummond GM, Martins CS, Machado ABM, Sebaio FA, Antonini Y. Biodiversity in Minas Gerais. 2nd ed. Belo Horizonte: Fundação Biodiversitas; 2005. 222 p.
29. Fernandes GW, Barbosa NPU, Negreiros D, Paglia AP. Challenges for the conservation of vanishing megadiverse rupestrian grasslands. Nat Conserv. 2014; 12(2):162–5.
30. Sonter LJ, Barrett DJ, Soares-filho BS, Moran CJ. Global demand for steel drives extensive land-use change in Brazil’s Iron Quadrangle. Glob Environ Chang. 2014; 26:63–72.
31. Davis EG, Pinto EJA, Pinto MCF. APA Sul RMBH project: environment studies. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: SEMAD/CPRM; 2005.
32. Jacobi CM, do Carmo FF. The contribution of ironstone outcrops to plant diversity in the Iron Quadrangle, a threatened Brazilian landscape. Ambio. 2008; 37(4):324–6. PMID: 18686515
33. Vincent R, Meguro M. Influence of soil properties on the abundance of plant species in ferruginous rocky soils vegetation, southeastern Brazil. Rev Bras Botânica. 2008; 31(3):377–88.
34. Neteler M, Mitasova H. Open Source GIS: A GRASS GIS Approach. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2008.
35. Jenson SK, Domingue JO. Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing. 1988; 54(11):1593–600.
36. Tallis EH, Ricketts T, Guerry A, Wood S, Sharp R, Chaplin-kramer R, et al. InVEST 3.0.1 User’s Guide. Stanford, USA: The Natural Capital Project; 2013. 321 p.
37. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009; 7(1):4–11.
38. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D, Johnson KA. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environ Resour Econ. 2010; 48(2):219–42.
39. Nelson E, Bhagabati N, Ennaanay D, Lonsdorf E, Pennington D, Sharma M. Modeling terrestrial ecosystem services. In: Levin S, editor. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. 2nd Volume. Waltham, MA: Academic Press; 2013. p. 347–61.
40. LEEC, Spatial Ecology and Conservation Lab. Potential biodiversity index for Velhas, Paraopeba e Piracicaba watersheds based on landscape structure analyzes. 2015. Available from: http://www.leec.eco.br/data/potential_biodiv_index_ValeSA.html. Accessed 30 November 2015.
41. Esri. ArcGIS 10.2. California, USA: Redlands; 2013.
42. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett. 2006; 9(10):1146–56. PMID: 16972878
43. Gray S, Chan A, Clark D, Jordan R. Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity. Ecol Modell. 2012; 229:88–96.
44. Gustafson EJ, Perera AH, Drew CA, Johnson CJ, Gustafson EJ. Using expert knowledge in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 2013; 28(2):365–6.
45. Price J, Silbernagel J, Miller N, Swaty R, White M, Nixon K. Eliciting expert knowledge to inform landscape modeling of conservation scenarios. Ecol Modell. 2012; 229:76–87.
46. Hsu C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assessment, Res Eval. 2007; 12(10):1–8.
47. Medeiros R, Araújo FFS. Ten years of the National Nature Conservation Areas System: lessons from the past, present achievements and future prospects. Brasília, Brasil: MMA; 2011.
48. Eswaran H, Berg EVD, Reich P. Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1993; 57:1992–4.
49. Laurance WF. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science. 1997; 278:1117–8.
50. Numata I, Cochrane MA, Souza CM Jr, Sales MH. Carbon emissions from deforestation and forest fragmentation in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ Res Lett. 2011; 6:1–7.
51. Santos BA, Peres CA, Oliveira MA, Grillo A, Alves-Costa CP, Tabarelli M. Drastic erosion in functional attributes of tree assemblages in Atlantic forest fragments of northeastern Brazil. Biol Conserv. 2008; 141:249–60.
52. Tabarelli M, Lopes A V., Peres C A. Edge-effects drive tropical forest fragments towards an early-successional system. Biotropica. 2008; 40(6):657–61.
53. Pearson T, Walker S, Brown S. Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Washington, DC: BioCarbonFund; 2005. 62 p.
54. Brown S, Lugo AE. Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volumes. Science. 1984; 223(4642):1290–3. PMID: 17759366
55. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall erosion losses—A guide to conservation planning. Washington, DC: USDA; 1978. 58 p.
56. Moreira MC, Pruski FF, de Oliveira TEC, de de Pinto FAC, da Silva DD. Neterosividade MG: rainfall erosivity in Minas Gerais. Rev Bras Ciência do Solo. 2008; 32:1349–53.
57. Foster RG, McCool DK, Renard KG, Moldenhauer WC. Conversion of the universal soil loss equation to SI metric units. J Soil Water Conserv. 1981; 36:355–9.
58. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, et al. Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007.
59. Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos. 1993; 68(3):571–3.
60. Lyra-Jorge MC, Ribeiro MC, Ciocheti G, Tambosi LR, Pivello VR. Influence of multi-scale landscape structure on the occurrence of carnivorous mammals in a human-modified savanna, Brazil. Eur J Wildl Res. 2010; 56:359–68.
61. Di Bitetti MS, Paviolo A, De Angelo C. Density, habitat use and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. J Zool. 2006; 270:153–63.
62. Soares-Filho B, Rajão R, Macedo M, Carneiro A, Costa W, Coe M, et al. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science. 2014; 344:363–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1246663 PMID: 24763575
63. Sparovek G, Berndes G, Klug ILF, Barretto AGOP. Brazilian agriculture and environmental legislation: status and future challenges. Environ Sci Technol. 2010; 44(16):6046–53. doi: 10.1021/es1007824 PMID: 20704198
64. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson D. Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Conserv. 2009; 142(3):553–62.
65. Larsen FW, Londoño-Murcia MC, Turner WR. Global priorities for conservation of threatened species, carbon storage, and freshwater services: scope for synergy? Conserv Lett. 2011; 4(5):355–63.
66. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Lonsdorf E, White D, et al. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(28):9471–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706178105 PMID: 18621703
67. Strassburg BBN, Kelly A, Balmford A, Davies RG, Gibbs HK, Lovett A, et al. Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv Lett. 2010; 3(2):98–105.
68. Miles L, Kapos V. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: global land-use implications. Science. 2008; 320:1454–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1155358 PMID: 18556549
69. Tallis EH, Ricketts T, Guerry A, Wood S, Sharp R, Authors C, et al. InVEST 2.0.0 User’s Guide. Stanford, USA: The Natural Capital Project; 2011. 318 p.
70. Porter-Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Reyes-García V. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For Ecol Manage. 2012; 268:6–17.
71. Adams VM, Pressey RL, Naidoo R. Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation? Biol Conserv. 2010; 143(2):439–48.
72. Naidoo R, Ricketts TH. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4 (11):2153–64.
73. Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, Knight AT, Cowling RM, van Jaarsveld AS, et al. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. Ecol Econ. 2007; 63(4):714–21.
74. Goldman-Benner RL, Benitez S, Boucher T, Calvache A, Daily G, Kareiva P, et al. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx. 2012; 46(01):55–63.
75. Cidu R, Biddau R, Fanfani L. Impact of past mining activity on the quality of groundwater in SW Sardinia (Italy). J Geochemical Explor. 2009; 100(2–3):125–32.
76. Thornton I. Impacts of mining on the environment; some local, regional and global issues. Appl Geochemistry. 1996; 11:355–61.
77. Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais, COPASA. Water production for the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.copasa.com.br/Producao_de_agua/ PAGINA Accessed 28 March 2014
78. Morcatty TQ, El Bizri HR, Carneiro HCS, Biasizzo RL, de Alméri CRO, da Silva ES, et al. Habitat loss and mammalian extinction patterns: Are the reserves in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, southeastern Brazil, effective in conserving mammals? Ecol Res. 2013; 28(6):935–47.
79. Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G, et al. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(19):7565–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109 PMID: 22529388
80. Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, Bernhardt JR, Guannel G, Kim C-K, et al. Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 2012; 8:1–15.
81. Nelson EJ, Daily GC. Modeling ecosystem services in terrestrial systems. F1000 Biol Rep. 2010; 2 (53). Available from: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/b/2/53/pdf Accessed 20 May 2013
82. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf E, et al. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv. 2008; 141(6):1505–24.