Abstract
Ecosystem services (ESs) associated with surficial processes may change according to shifts in land use, land cover, and climate parameters. Estimating these shifts can be important for land development planning, as urbanization alters soil processes that can manifest legacy effects. We employed the InVEST suite of models for sediment retention, nutrient delivery, and carbon storage to postulate how these ESs will change in the Upstate of South Carolina under future precipitation and land use and land cover (LULC) scenarios. We used the average precipitation from 1981–2010 and WorldClim precipitation projections for 2021–2040 and 2041–2060 to embody climatic precipitation shifts. For our LULC scenarios, we used 2011 and 2016 NLCD landscapes, then projected future LULC to hypothesize four future scenarios. We found that for the ES models that included both precipitation and LULC as inputs, precipitation dictated ES delivery far more heavily than land use or land cover. LULC scenarios produced consistent changes in ES delivery for all models except sediment export. Phosphorus and sediment exports increased between 2011 and 2016 due to LULC change, while nitrogen export stayed the same and carbon storage decreased. Land development that prioritizes forest cover will cause the least change in ESs, but allowing for continued forest loss to low-density development will have the most intense implications for ESs. Prioritization of land uses that preserve ESs associated with surficial processes will be critical to the longevity of agriculture and ecosystem integrity in this rapidly developing region. Land development planners should integrate consideration of ESs associated with surficial processes into future regional planning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Babí Almenar J, Rugani B, Geneletti D, Brewer T (2018) Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective. Landsc Ecol 33(12):2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0727-8
Baston D (2021) exactextractr: Fast Extraction from Raster Datasets using Polygons. R package version 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=exactextractr
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effect models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Baveye PC, Baveye J, Gowdy J (2016) Soil “Ecosystem“ Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground. Front Environ Sci 4(41). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041
Blum WEH (2013) Soil and land resources for agricultural production: General trends and future scenarios: A worldwide perspective. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30026-5
Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Fleischer LR, Lugato E, Ballabio C, Alewell C, Meusburger K, Modugno S, Schütt B, Ferro V, Bagarello V, Oost KV, Montanarella L, & Panagos P (2013) An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7
Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Panagos P, Lugato E, Yang JE, Alewell C, Wuepper D, Montanarella L, Ballabio C (2020) Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015-2070). Proc Natl Acad Sci - PNAS 117(36):21994–22001. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001403117
Breure A, De Deyn G, Dominati E, Eglin T, Hedlund K, Van Orshoven J, Posthuma L (2012) Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy making. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 4(5):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.010
Brown MG, Quinn JE (2018) Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA. Ecosyst Serv 34:254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.009
Comerford NB, Franzluebbers AJ, Stromberger ME, Morris L, Markewitz D, Moore R (2013) Assessment and Evaluation of Soil Ecosystem Services. Soil Horiz 54(3):1–14. https://doi.org/10.2136/sh12-10-0028
Delibas M, Tezer A, Kuzniecow Bacchin T (2021) Towards embedding soil ecosystem services in spatial planning. Cities 113:103150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103150
Dominati EJ (2013) Natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. In: Dymond JR (Ed.), Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends (pp. 132–142). Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand
Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69(9):1858–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.002
Ellis EC, Gauthier N, Klein Goldewijk K, Bliege Bird R, Boivin N, Díaz S, Fuller DQ, Gill JL, Kaplan JO, Kingston N, Locke H (2021) People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118(17):e2023483118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023483118
Fossey M, Angers D, Bustany C, Cudennec C, Durand P, Gascuel-Odoux C, Jaffrezic A, Pérès G, Besse C, Walter C (2020) A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning. Front Environ Sci 8 10.3389/fenvs.2020.00028
Gibson D, Quinn J (2017) Application of Anthromes to Frame Scenario Planning for Landscape-Scale Conservation Decision Making. Land (Basel) 6(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020033
Han B, Reidy A, Li A (2021) Modeling nutrient release with compiled data in a typical Midwest watershed. Ecol Indic 121:107213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107213
Jackson CR, West LT, Martin JK, Leigh DS (2005) A southeastern piedmont watershed sediment budget: Evidence for a multi-millennial agricultural legacy. J Soil Water Conserv 60(6):298–310. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-28991-9_1
Jost E, Schönhart M, Skalský R, Balkovič J, Schmid E, Mitter H (2021) Dynamic soil functions assessment employing land use and climate scenarios at regional scale. J Environ Manag 287:112318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112318
Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50:370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
McElwee P (2021) The role of soils in learning and inspiration, physical and psychological experiences, and in supporting identities. Philos Trans Biol Sci 376(1834):20200184. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0184
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington, DC
Mohammad AG, Adam MA (2010) The impact of vegetative cover type on runoff and soil erosion under different land uses. Catena 81:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.008
Morgan CLS, Yimam YT, Barlage M, Gochis D, & Dornblaser B (2017) Valuing of Soil Capability in Land Surface Modeling. Global Soil Security. Springer International Publishing. pp. 53–61 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43394-3_5
Mullan D, Favis-Mortlock D, Fealy R (2012) Addressing key limitations associated with modeling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric For Meteorol 156:18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004
National Weather Service. Greenville/Spartanburg area detailed climate information. https://www.weather.gov/gsp/gspcli
Nearing MA (2001) Potential changes in rainfall erosivity in the US with climate change during the 21st century. Soil Water Conserv Soc 56(3):229–233. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A81765187/AONE?u=furmanuniv&sid=googleScholar&xid=bcce8d71
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GV, Underwood EC, D'amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51(11):933–938
Pavao-Zuckerman M, Pouyat RV (2017) The effects of urban expansion on soil health and ecosystem services: An overview. Urban Expansion, Land Cover Soil Ecosys Services 123–145
Peake L, Robb C (2021) Saving the ground beneath our feet: Establishing priorities and criteria for governing soil use and protection. Royal Soc Open Sci 8(11) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201994
Pereira P, Brevik EC, Muñoz-Rojas M, Miller BA, Smetanova A, Depellegrin D, Misiune I, Novara A, Cerdà A (2017) Soil mapping and processes modeling for sustainable land management. 29–60.
Redhead JW, May L, Oliver TH, Hamel P, Sharp R, Bullock JM (2018) National scale evaluation of the InVEST nutrient retention model in the United Kingdom. Sci Total Environ 610-611:666–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.092
Reyes Rojas LA, Adhikari K, Ventura SJ (2018) Projecting Soil Organic Carbon Distribution in Central Chile under Future Climate Scenarios. J Environ Qual 47(4):735–745. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.08.0329
Robinson DA, Hockley N, Dominati E, Lebron I, Scow KM, Reynolds B, Emmett BA, Keith AM, de Jonge LW, Schjonning P, Moldrup P, Jones SB, Tuller M (2012) Natural capital, ecosystem services, and soil change; why soil science must embrace an ecosystems approach. Vadose Zone J 11(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2011.0051
Salata S, Garnero G, Barbieri C, Giaimo C (2017) The integration of ecosystem services in planning: An evaluation of the nutrient retention model using InVEST software. Land (Basel) 6(3):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6030048
Schwilch G, Bernet L, Fleskens L, Giannakis E, Leventon J, Maranon T, Mills J, Short C, Stolte J, van Delden H, Verzandvoort S (2016) Operationalizing ecosystem services for the mitigation of soil threats: A proposed framework. 568–597. https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.81848
Segura C, Sun G, McNulty S, Zhang Y (2014) Potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the conterminous United States. J Soil Water Conserv 69(2):171–181. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.171
State Tax Commission of Missouri (2008) Ag Land Valuation Section II: Agricultural Land Grade Definitions. Assessor Manual, pp. 12–18
Terando AJ, Costanza J, Belyea C, Dunn RR, McKerrow A, Collazo JA (2014) The southern megalopolis: using the past to predict the future of urban sprawl in the Southeast US. PloS One 9(7):e102261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102261
Terrado M, Acuña V, Ennaanay D, Tallis H, Sabater S (2013) Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecol Indic 37:199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.016
USGS EROS Data Center. (2018). National Elevation Dataset [Data set]. USGS. https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/GDGHome.aspx
USGS Water Resources of the United States. (2020). The Watershed Boundary Dataset [Data set]. USGS. https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen TL, Miller E, Bache SM, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel DP, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4(43):1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Yang D, Kanae S, Oki T, Koike T, Musiake K (2003) Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological Process 17(14):2913–2928. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1441
Zare M, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2017) Modeling the effect of land use and climate change scenarios on future soil loss rate in Kasilian watershed of northern Iran. Environ Earth Sci 76(8):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6626-5
Funding
Funding was provided by Furman University and USDA SSARE Grant LS21-359.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CEV and JEQ conceived of and designed the research. CEV performed the scenarios and models. CEV and JEQ analyzed the data. CEV and JEQ wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Default Parameters
The default values for model parameters for which regionally specific values were unavailable.
Model | Parameter | Default Value |
|---|---|---|
NDR | Subsurface Critical Length (Nitrogen) | 200 |
Subsurface Critical Length (Phosphorus) | 200 | |
Subsurface Maximum Retention Efficiency (Nitrogen) | 0.8 | |
Subsurface Maximum Retention Efficiency (Phosphorus) | 0.8 | |
SDR | Borselli IC0 Parameter | 0.5 |
Max SDR Value | 0.8 | |
Both NDR and SDR | Borselli k Parameter | 2 |
Threshold Flow Accumulation | 1000 |
Appendix 2 Scenario Descriptions
-
(1)
Forest loss to low-density development: Using the InVEST Scenario Generator, 5% of forest cover area (deciduous, evergreen, or mixed) was converted to low-density development. Low-density development (i.e., subdivisions) has increased in recent years in the Upstate to accommodate the rapid population growth and is predicted to continue increasing (Terando et al. 2014). This scenario explores the effects of continued low-density development, which monopolizes greater land area but less intensely alters the landscape compared to high-density development (i.e., densely populated urban areas).
-
(2)
Forest loss to medium-density development: Similar to Scenario (1), the InVEST Scenario Generator produced this land use scenario by converting 2% of forest area to medium-density development. This scenario presents a politically regulated reality that intensifies LULC change in a smaller area to preserve greater tracts of naturalized land, specifically forest cover throughout the Upstate, while still accommodating future population growth.
-
(3)
Forest increase: The InVEST Scenario Generator converted non-forest and non-water pixels to equal areas of evergreen, deciduous, and mixed forest cover. Forest cover increased 5% from the 2016 forested area.
-
(4)
Restoration of steep cultivated lands: Agricultural lands with grades greater than 10% are considered “steep cultivated lands”, as soils with slopes steeper than 10% are unsuited for cultivation (State Tax Commission of Missouri 2008). Using GIS, we identified all agricultural lands, which were then overlaid with the slope calculated from the elevation data. Pixels that were either cropland or pasture with a slope greater than or equal to 10% were converted to mixed forest or grassland, respectively. This scenario theorizes how sediment and nutrient retention would change if degraded cultivated lands with slopes greater than 10% were restored to their original land cover. We hypothesized that the original land cover would have greater nutrient and sediment retention as well as C storage due to greater and more complex vegetated cover.
Appendix 3 – Contextual map of ecoregions, counties, and 2016 NLCD LULC for the study area
Appendix 4 Enumerated InVEST Outputs for the 44 models included in this study
Output Number | Model | ES | LULC Scenario | Precipitation Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | NDR | N Export | 2011 Land Use | 2016 |
2 | NDR | N Export | 2016 Land Use | 2016 |
3 | NDR | N Export | 2016 Land Use | 2021–2040 |
4 | NDR | N Export | 2016 Land Use | 2041–2060 |
5 | NDR | N Export | FL to LD Development | 2016 |
6 | NDR | N Export | FL to LD Development | 2021–2040 |
7 | NDR | N Export | FL to LD Development | 2041–2060 |
8 | NDR | N Export | FL to MD Development | 2016 |
9 | NDR | N Export | FL to MD Development | 2021–2040 |
10 | NDR | N Export | FL to MD Development | 2041–2060 |
11 | NDR | N Export | Forest Increase | 2016 |
12 | NDR | N Export | Forest Increase | 2021–2040 |
13 | NDR | N Export | Forest Increase | 2041–2060 |
14 | NDR | N Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2016 |
15 | NDR | N Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2021–2040 |
16 | NDR | N Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2041–2060 |
17 | NDR | P Export | 2011 Land Use | 2016 |
18 | NDR | P Export | 2016 Land Use | 2016 |
19 | NDR | P Export | 2016 Land Use | 2021–2040 |
20 | NDR | P Export | 2016 Land Use | 2041–2060 |
21 | NDR | P Export | FL to LD Development | 2016 |
22 | NDR | P Export | FL to LD Development | 2021–2040 |
23 | NDR | P Export | FL to LD Development | 2041–2060 |
24 | NDR | P Export | FL to MD Development | 2016 |
25 | NDR | P Export | FL to MD Development | 2021–2040 |
26 | NDR | P Export | FL to MD Development | 2041–2060 |
27 | NDR | P Export | Forest Increase | 2016 |
28 | NDR | P Export | Forest Increase | 2021–2040 |
29 | NDR | P Export | Forest Increase | 2041–2060 |
30 | NDR | P Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2016 |
31 | NDR | P Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2021–2040 |
32 | NDR | P Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | 2041–2060 |
33 | CS | C Storage | 2011 Land Use | n/a |
34 | CS | C Storage | 2016 Land Use | n/a |
35 | CS | C Storage | FL to LD Development | n/a |
36 | CS | C Storage | FL to MD Development | n/a |
37 | CS | C Storage | Forest Increase | n/a |
38 | CS | C Storage | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | n/a |
39 | SDR | Sediment Export | 2011 Land Use | n/a |
40 | SDR | Sediment Export | 2016 Land Use | n/a |
41 | SDR | Sediment Export | FL to LD Development | n/a |
42 | SDR | Sediment Export | FL to MD Development | n/a |
43 | SDR | Sediment Export | Forest Increase | n/a |
44 | SDR | Sediment Export | Recovery of Steep Agriculture | n/a |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vickery, C.E., Quinn, J.E. Climate-altered Precipitation is more Important than Land Use when Modeling Ecosystem Services Associated with Surficial Processes. Environmental Management 72, 1216–1227 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01861-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01861-6