Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Eastburn, Danny J ^a   O'Geen, Anthony T ^a   Tate, Kenneth W ^a   Roche, Leslie M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE; DECISION MAKING; FOREST; HABITAT; HUMAN; INVASIVE SPECIES; LANDSCAPE; NONHUMAN; NUTRIENT; PRODUCTIVITY; SAVANNA; SOIL; VEGETATION; ECOSYSTEM;

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE; ECOSYSTEM;

EID: 85029558329     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166595     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. MEA. Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC; 2005.
2. Briske DD. Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Lawrence, Kansas, USA: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; 2011. 429 p.
3. Claassen R. USDA conservation spending on working agricultural lands bucks long-term trend. Amber Waves. 2011:9-60.
4. Goldstein JH, Presnall CK, López-Hoffman L, Nabhan GP, Knight RL, Ruyle GB, et al. Beef and Beyond: Paying for Ecosystem Services on Western US Rangelands. Rangelands. 2011; 33(5):4-12.
5. Havstad KM, Peters DPC, Skaggs R, Brown J, Bestelmeyer B, Fredrickson E, et al. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol Econ. 2007; 64(2):261-8.
6. Huntsinger L, Johnson M, Stafford M, Fried J. Hardwood Rangeland Landowners in California from 1985 to 2004: Production, Ecosystem Services, and Permanence. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2010; 63 (3):324-34.
7. Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK. Land trusts and conservation easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conserv Biol. 2004; 18(1):65-75.
8. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Kumar P, editor. London and Washington: Earthscan; 2010.
9. Kremen C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett. 2005; 8(5):468-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x PMID: 21352450
10. Shaw MR, Pendleton L, Cameron DR, Morris B, Bachelet D, Klausmeyer K, et al. The impact of climate change on California's ecosystem services. Clim Change. 2011; 109:465-84.
11. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology letters. 2009; 12(12):1394-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x PMID: 19845725
12. Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, et al. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science. 2006; 314(5797):257-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1131946 PMID: 17038608
13. Rudd MA, Fleishman E. Policymakers' and Scientists' Ranks of Research Priorities for Resource-Management Policy. Bioscience. 2014; 64(3):219-28.
14. Brown J, MacLeod N. A site-based approach to delivering rangeland ecosystem services. The Rangeland Journal. 2011; 33(2):99-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ11006.
15. Briske DD, Fuhlendorf SD, Smeins EE. State-and-transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: A synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 2005; 58 (1):1-10.
16. Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I. Opportunistic Management for Rangelands Not at Equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. 1989; 42(4):266-74.
17. Twidwell D, Allred BW, Fuhlendorf SD. National-scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework. Ecosphere. 2013; 4(8):art94.
18. Rumpff L, Duncan DH, Vesk PA, Keith DA, Wintle BA. State-and-transition modelling for Adaptive Management of native woodlands. Biol Conserv. 2011; 144(4):1224-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2010.10.026.
19. Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J, Pausas JG. Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ. 2011; 9(5):278-86.
20. Roche LM, Rice KJ, Tate KW. Oak conservation maintains native grass stands in an oak woodlandannual grassland system. Biodivers Conserv. 2012; 21(10):2555-68.
21. Marañón T, Pugnaire FI, Callaway RM. Mediterranean-climate oak savannas: The interplay between abiotic environment and species interactions. Web Ecology. 2009; 9:30-43.
22. McCreary D. A quarter century of oak woodland research in the Sierra foothills supports oak restoration. California Agriculture. 2010; 64(2):63-8.
23. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107(11):5242-7.
24. Ecological site description (ESD) system for rangeland and forestland data. [Internet]. 2011.
25. Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ. Plot shape effects on plant species diversity measurements. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2005; 16(2):249-56.
26. Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ. Species-area relationships in Mediterranean-climate plant communities. Journal of Biogeography. 2003; 30(11):1629-57.
27. Interagency. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency technical reference BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730. Denver, Colorado, USA: USDI Bureau of Land Management's National Applied Resources Science Center; 1996.
28. CDFA. California agricultural statistics review 2013-2014. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Food and Agriculture; 2014.
29. Holechek J, Pieper R, Herbel C. Range management, principles and practices. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall; 1989. 456 p.
30. Bartolome JW, Frost WE, McDougald NK, Connor M. California guidelines for residual dry matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; 2002.
31. Bonham CD. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons; 1989. 338 p.
32. DiTomaso JM, Healy EA. Weeds of California and other western states. Oakland, California, USA: Regents of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; 2007. 834 p.
33. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012; 27(1):19-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 PMID: 21943703
34. Costech Analytical Technologies Inc. Total C/N analysis using a dry combustion elemental analyzer Valencia, CA: Costech Analytical Technologies Inc.
35. Rossi AM, Hirmas DR, Graham RC, Sternberg PD. Bulk Density Determination by Automated Three-Dimensional Laser Scanning. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2008; 72(6):1591-3.
36. Inc. N. NextEngine DeskTop 3D Scanner Model 2020i. Santa Monica, CA.
37. Roche LM, Schohr TK, Derner JD, Lubell MN, Cutts BB, Kachergis E, et al. Sustaining Working Rangelands: Insights from Rancher Decision Making. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2015; 68(5):383-9.
38. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Generalized linear mixed-effects models. Ch Crc Handb Mod Sta. 2009:79-106.
39. Pinheiro J, Bates D. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing, Springer-Verlag, New York. 2000.