4.7 Article

Relationships between anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem functions in UK blanket bogs: Linking process understanding to ecosystem service valuation

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 5-19

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.013

关键词

Peat; Climate regulation; Carbon; Water quality; Ecosystem function

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/H037144/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010010] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. ESRC [ES/H037144/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services are critically dependent on the quality of underpinning science. While key ecological processes may be understood, translating this understanding into quantitative relationships suitable for use in an ecosystem services context remains challenging. Using blanket bogs as a case study, we derived quantitative 'pressure-response functions linking anthropogenic pressures (drainage, burning, sulphur and nitrogen deposition) with ecosystem functions underpinning key climate, water quality and flood regulating services. The analysis highlighted: i) the complex, sometimes conflicting or interactive effects of multiple anthropogenic pressures on different ecosystem functions; ii) the role of 'biodiversity' (primarily presence/absence of key plant functional types) as an intermediate factor determining how anthropogenic pressures translate into changes in flows of some ecosystem services; iii) challenges relating to the spatial scale and configuration of anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem service beneficiaries; and iv) uncertainties associated with the lags between anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem responses. The conceptual approach described may provide a basis for a more quantitative, multi parameter approach to the valuation of ecosystem services and the evidence based optimisation of policy and land management for ecosystem services. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据