4.7 Article

Trade-offs in water and carbon ecosystem services with land-use changes in grasslands

期刊

ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1633-1644

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/15-0863.1

关键词

agriculture; carbon sequestration; ecosystem service; land-use change; water provisioning; woody plant invasion

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [DEB 0717191, IOS 0920355, GRFP 2006044266, DDIG 0910294]
  2. USDA/NIFA [2012-68002-19795]
  3. NIFA [2012-68002-19795, 578306] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing pressures for food, fiber, and fuel continue to drive global land-use changes. Efforts to optimize ecosystem services under alternative land uses are often hampered by the complex interactions and trade-offs among them. We examined the effects of land-use changes on ecosystem carbon storage and groundwater recharge in grasslands of Argentina and the United States to (1) understand the relationships between both services, (2) predict their responses to vegetation shifts across environmental gradients, and (3) explore how market or policy incentives for ecosystem services could affect land-use changes. A trade-off of ecosystem services was evident in most cases, with woody encroachment increasing carbon storage (+29 Mg C/ha) but decreasing groundwater recharge (-7.3 mm/yr) and conversions to rain-fed cultivation driving opposite changes (-32 Mg C/ha vs. +13 mm/yr). In contrast, crops irrigated with ground water tended to reduce both services compared to the natural grasslands they replaced. Combining economic values of the agricultural products together with the services, we highlight potentials for relatively modest financial incentives for ecosystem services to abate land-use changes and for incentives for carbon to drive land-use decisions over those of water. Our findings also identify key opportunities and caveats for some win-win and lose-lose land-use changes for more integrative and sustainable strategies for land management.

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