Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 894–908

Linking Landscape Connectivity and Ecosystem Service Provision: Current Knowledge and Research Gaps

  • Matthew G. E. Mitchell
  • Elena M. Bennett
  • Andrew Gonzalez
Article

Abstract

Human activities are rapidly changing ecosystems, landscapes and ecosystem service provision, yet there remain significant gaps in our understanding of the spatial ecology of ecosystem services. These gaps hinder our ability to manage landscapes effectively for multiple ecosystem services. In particular, we do not fully understand how changes in landscape connectivity affect ecosystem service provision, despite theory suggesting that connectivity is important. Here, we perform a semi-quantitative review of the literature that investigates how landscape connectivity affects the provision of specific ecosystem services. The vast majority of studies, including reviews, models, and field studies, suggest that decreased connectivity will have negative effects on ecosystem service provision. However, only 15 studies provided empirical evidence of these effects. Average effect sizes from these 15 studies suggest negative effects of connectivity loss on pollination and pest regulation. We identify a number of significant gaps in the connectivity-ecosystem services literature, including: a lack of multiple service studies, which precludes identification of trade-offs between services as connectivity changes; few studies that directly measure organism movement and its effects on ecosystem services; and few empirical studies that investigate the importance of abiotic flows on service provision. We propose that future research should aim to understand how different aspects of connectivity affect ecosystem service provision; which services are most influenced by connectivity; and how connectivity influences how humans access and benefit from ecosystem services. Studies that answer these questions will advance our understanding of connectivity-ecosystem service provision relationships and allow for better ecosystem and landscape management and restoration.

Key words

biodiversity connectivity ecosystem management ecosystem services fragmentation landscape dispersal 

Supplementary material

10021_2013_9647_MOESM1_ESM.docx (60 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

References

  1. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. 2012. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012.
  2. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9:1146–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81:169–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélisle M. 2005. Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bianchi FJ, Schellhorn NA, Buckley YM, Possingham HP. 2010. Spatial variability in ecosystem services: simple rules for predator-mediated pest suppression. Ecol Appl 20:2322–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin O, Tengo M, Norman A, Lundberg J, Elmqvist T. 2006. The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol Appl 16:440–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks C. 2003. A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102:433–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brosi BJ, Armsworth PR, Daily GC. 2008. Optimal design of agricultural landscapes for pollination services. Conserv Lett 1:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava D, Naeem S. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Reynolds H, Hooper D, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack M, Diaz S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debinski D, Holt R. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deza AA, Anderson TW. 2010. Habitat fragmentation, patch size, and the recruitment and abundance of kelp forest fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 416:229–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Groot R, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy JE. 2009. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 7:437–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehrlich G, Alexander S, Ehrlich P, Goulder L, Lubchenco J, Matson P, Mooney H, Postel S, Schneider S, Tilman D, Woodwell G. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues Ecol 2:1–16.Google Scholar
  19. Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foley J, DeFries R, Asner G, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter S, Chapin FS, Coe M, Daily G, Gibbs H, Helkowski J, Holloway T, Howard E, Kucharik C, Monfreda C, Patz J, Prentice I, Ramankutty N, Snyder P. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzalez A, Rayfield B, Lindo Z. 2011. The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks. Am J Bot 98:503–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzalez A, Mouquet N, Loreau M. 2009. Biodiversity as spatial insurance: the effects of habitat fragmentation and dispersal on ecosystem functioning. In: Naeem S, Bunker DE, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C, Eds. Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human wellbeing. New York: Oxford University Press. p 134–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gundersen P, Lauren A, Finer L, Ring E, Koivusalo H, Saetersdal M, Weslien J-O, Sigurdsson BD, Hogbom L, Laine J, Hansen K. 2010. Environmental services provided from riparian forests in the Nordic countries. Ambio 39:555–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hadley AS, Betts MG. 2012. The effects of landscape fragmentation on pollination dynamics: absence of evidence not evidence of absence. Biol Rev 87:526–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hilborn R, Quinn TP, Schindler DE, Rogers DE. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:6564–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoehn P, Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Steffan-Dewenter I. 2008. Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proc Biol Sci 275:2283–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt RD. 1993. Ecology at the mesoscale: the influence of regional processes on local communities. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D, Eds. Species diversity in ecological communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p 77–88.Google Scholar
  29. Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. 2010. How do landscape composition and configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids? J Anim Ecol 79:491–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M. 2011. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kindlmann P, Burel F. 2008. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–90.Google Scholar
  33. Kremen C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kremen C, Ostfeld RS. 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 3:540–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16812–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vazquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J, Ricketts TH. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amaresekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loreau M, Mouquet N, Gonzalez A. 2003a. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:12765–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loreau M, Mouquet N, Holt R. 2003b. Meta-ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol Lett 6:673–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6:87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being. Washington DC: Island Press. p 137p.Google Scholar
  42. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Margosian ML, Garrett KA, Hutchinson JMS, With KA. 2009. Connectivity of the American agricultural landscape: assessing the national risk of crop pest and disease spread. Bioscience 59:141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meynecke J-O, Lee SY, Duke NC. 2008. Linking spatial metrics and fish catch reveals the importance of coastal wetland connectivity to inshore fisheries in Queensland, Australia. Biol Conserv 141:981–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nathan R, Schurr FM, Spiegel O, Steinitz O, Trakhtenbrot A, Tsoar A. 2008. Mechanisms of long-distance seed dispersal. Trends Ecol Evol 23:638–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicholson E, Mace GM, Armsworth PR, Atkinson G, Buckle S, Clements T, Ewers RM, Fa JE, Gardner TA, Gibbons J, Grenyer R, Metcalfe R, Mourato S, Muuls M, Osborn D, Reuman DC, Watson C, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2009. Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. J Appl Ecol 46:1139–44.Google Scholar
  47. Opperman JJ, Luster R, McKenney BA, Roberts M, Meadows AW. 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perz SG, Cabrera L, Carvalho LA, Castillo J, Chacacanta R, Cossio RE, Solano YF, Hoelle J, Perales LM, Puerta I, Céspedes DR, Camacho IR, Silva AC. 2012. Regional integration and local change: road paving, community connectivity, and social-ecological resilience in a tri-national frontier, southwestern Amazonia. Reg Environ Change 12:35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. 2010. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:5242–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A. 2011. Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein A-M, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng A, Viana BF. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steinman AD, Denning R. 2005. The role of spatial heterogeneity in the management of freshwater resources. In: Lovett GM, Turner MG, Jones CG, Weathers KC, Eds. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. New York: Springer. p 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A. 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9457–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tomlinson M, Boulton AJ. 2010. Ecology and management of subsurface groundwater dependent ecosystems in Australia—a review. Mar Freshw Res 61:936–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tscharntke T, Klein A-M, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tscharntke T, Brandl R. 2004. Plant-insect interactions in fragmented landscapes. Annu Rev Entomol 49:405–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2006. Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Nairobi: UNEP. p 64p.Google Scholar
  61. van der Zee D. 1990. The complex relationship between landscape and recreation. Landscape Ecol 4:225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Geert A, van Rossum F, Triest L. 2010. Do linear landscape elements in farmland act as biological corridors for pollen dispersal? J Ecol 98:178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vihervaara P, Ronka M, Walls M. 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39:314–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vázquez DP, LeBuhn G, Aizen MA. 2009. A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90(8):2068–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J, Yang S, Hu L, Leung H, Mew TW, Teng PS, Wang Z, Mundt CC. 2000. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406:718–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew G. E. Mitchell
    • 1
  • Elena M. Bennett
    • 2
  • Andrew Gonzalez
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource SciencesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource Sciences and School of EnvironmentMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations