4.7 Article

Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 289, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.010

关键词

Biodiversity; Carbon storage; Ecosystem services; Forest plantation; Hotspot; Water flow regulation

类别

资金

  1. Department of Environment of the County Council of Biscay
  2. Department of Education of the Basque Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation were analysed in a biosphere reserve area. With the aim of proposing criteria for conservation plans that would include ecosystem services and biodiversity, a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based approach was designed to estimate and map the value of the biodiversity and ecosystem services. The actual protected areas, namely, coastal ecosystems and Cantabrian evergreen-oak forests, were found to be important for the overall biodiversity and included some important portions of the other services. The non-protected natural forests, such as the mixed-oak, beech and riparian forests, are biodiversity hotspots, and they contribute to the carbon storage and water flow regulation services. Thus, even though these areas are small, their inclusion in conservation proposals should be considered. The pine and eucalyptus plantations contribute to ecosystem services but have negative effects on biodiversity and cause environmental problems. In contrast to the plantations of fast-growing species, the increase in broadleaf plantations will exhibit a positive trend due to the benefits they provide. Our study highlights that the inclusion of ecosystem services in conservation planning has a great potential to provide opportunities for biodiversity protection; however, strategies of conservation based only on specific ecosystem services may be detrimental to the biodiversity and may cause other environmental problems. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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