Ambio

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Ecosystem service flows from a migratory species: Spatial subsidies of the northern pintail

  • Kenneth J. Bagstad
  • Darius J. Semmens
  • James E. Diffendorfer
  • Brady J. Mattsson
  • James Dubovsky
  • Wayne E. Thogmartin
  • Ruscena Wiederholt
  • John Loomis
  • Joanna A. Bieri
  • Christine Sample
  • Joshua Goldstein
  • Laura López-Hoffman
Research Article

Abstract

Migratory species provide important benefits to society, but their cross-border conservation poses serious challenges. By quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services (ESs) provided across a species’ range and ecological data on a species’ habitat dependence, we estimate spatial subsidies—how different regions support ESs provided by a species across its range. We illustrate this method for migratory northern pintail ducks in North America. Pintails support over $101 million USD annually in recreational hunting and viewing and subsistence hunting in the U.S. and Canada. Pintail breeding regions provide nearly $30 million in subsidies to wintering regions, with the “Prairie Pothole” region supplying over $24 million in annual benefits to other regions. This information can be used to inform conservation funding allocation among migratory regions and nations on which the pintail depends. We thus illustrate a transferrable method to quantify migratory species-derived ESs and provide information to aid in their transboundary conservation.

Keywords

Migration Northern pintail duck Spatial subsidies Species conservation Telecoupling Transborder conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey’s John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis working group Animal migration and Spatial Subsidies: Establishing a Framework for Conservation Markets, National Science Foundation awards (DEB-1118975 and DEB-1518359), and USGS’ Land Change Science Program. We thank Jeremy Havens for assistance with the figures, and Autumn-Lynn Harrison for a constructive review of an earlier draft manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Supplementary material

13280_2018_1049_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 80 kb)

References

  1. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015. State contributions to Canadian NAWMP/NAWCA projects. Retrieved 29 November, 2017 from http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/StateContributions_Report_2015_final-duc2.pdf.
  2. Batt, B.D.J., M.G. Anderson, C.D. Anderson, and F.D. Caswell. 1989. The use of prairie potholes by North American ducks. In Northern prairie wetlands, ed. A. van der Valk, 204–227. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, S., and B.J. Hoye. 2014. Migratory animals couple biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science 344: 1242552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellrose, F.C. 1979. Species distribution, habitats, and characteristics of breeding dabbling ducks in North America. In Waterfowl and wetlands: An integrated review, ed. T.A. Bookhout, 1–15. La Crosse, WI: La Crosse Printing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books.Google Scholar
  6. BirdLife International. 2018. Species factsheet: Anas acuta. Retrieved 16 January, 2018 from http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/Northern-Pintail.
  7. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Retrieved 14 September, 2015 from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
  8. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California State Duck Stamp Project. Retrieved 6 February, 2018 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Duck-Stamp.
  9. Carver, E. 2013. Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis. Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved 7 June, 2016, from https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/1874.
  10. Christie, K.S., S.L. Gilbert, C.L. Brown, M. Hatfield, and L. Hanson. 2016. Unmanned aircraft systems in wildlife research: Current and future applications of a transformative technology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, R.G., J.P. Fleskes, K.L. Guyn, D.A. Haukos, J.E. Austin, and M.R. Miller. 2014. Northern Pintail (Anas acuta). In The Birds of North America, ed. P.G. Rodewald. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved 15 August, 2017, from https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/norpin.
  12. Colorado State University. 2018. Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Tools: The Benefit Transfer and Use Estimating Model Toolkit. Retrieved 12 January, 2018 from http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/outreach/tools/.
  13. Ducks Unlimited. 2017. Fact sheet. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Memphis, TN. Retrieved 4 October, 2017, from https://www.ducks.org/media/_global/_documents/stateFactSheets/NationalFactSheet.pdf.
  14. DuWors, E., M. Villeneuve, F.L. Filion, R. Reid, P. Bouchard, D. Legg, P. Boxall, T. Williamson, et al. 1999. The importance of nature to Canadians: Survey highlights. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=18641.
  15. eBird. 2016. Basic dataset. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from http://ebird.org/ebird/explore.
  16. Environment Canada. 2016. 2012 Canadian Nature Survey dataset. Gatineau, Quebec: Environment Canada. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/694b9da8-1f06-4ebe-ad38-1b14bdaf756e.
  17. Erickson, R.A., J.E. Diffendorfer, D.R. Norris, J.A. Bieri, J.E. Earl, P. Federico, J.M. Fryxell, K.R. Long, et al. 2018. Defining and classifying migratory habitats as sources and sinks: The migratory pathway approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gascoigne, W.R., D. Hoag, L. Koontz, B.A. Tangen, T.L. Schaffer, and R.A. Gleason. 2011. Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecological Economics 70: 1715–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gendron, M.H., and A.C. Smith. 2016. National Harvest Survey web site. Bird Populations Monitoring. Ottawa, Ontario: National Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service. Retrieved 15 August, 2017, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/reom-mbs/enp-nhs/index.cfm?do=def&lang=e.
  20. Goldstein, J.H., W.E. Thogmartin, K.J. Bagstad, J.A. Dubovsky, B.J. Mattsson, D.J. Semmens, L. López-Hoffman, and J.E. Diffendorfer. 2014. Replacement cost valuation of northern pintail (Anas acuta) subsistence harvest in arctic and sub-arctic North America. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19: 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, A.J., and J. Elmberg. 2014. Ecosystem services provided by waterbirds. Biological Reviews 89: 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guyn, K., Miller, M., Duncan, D., Clark, R., Anderson, M. 2003. Northern pintail: Prospectus for an action group. Pintail Action Group. Retrieved 15 August, 2017, from http://www.pintailactiongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PAGProspectus.pdf.
  23. Harris, G., S. Thirgood, J.G.C. Hopcraft, J. Cromsight, and J. Berger. 2009. Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endangered Species Research 7: 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hatvany, M.G. 2017. Imagining Duckland: Postnationalism, waterfowl migration, and ecological commons. The Canadian Geographer 61: 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunz, T.H., E. Braun de Torrez, D. Bauer, T. Lobova, and T.H. Fleming. 2011. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, T.M., and W. Jetz. 2008. Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 1261–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leigh, L., E. DuWors, M. Villeneuve, A. Bath, P. Bouchard, P. Boxall, D. Legg, S. Meis, et al. 2000. The importance of nature to Canadians: The economic significance of nature related activities. Ottawa, Ontario: Environment Canada. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En47-312-2000E.pdf.
  28. Liu, J.G., W. Yang, and S.X. Li. 2016. Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loomis, J., T. Kroeger, L. Richardson, and F. Casey. 2008. A benefit transfer toolkit for fish, wildlife, wetlands, and open space. Western Economics Forum 7: 33–43.Google Scholar
  30. López-Hoffman, L., C.C. Chester, D.J. Semmens, W.E. Thogmartin, M.S. Rodriguez McGoffin, R. Merideth, and J.E. Diffendorfer. 2017a. Ecosystem services from transborder migratory species: Implications for conservation governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. López-Hoffman, L., J.E. Diffendorfer, R. Wiederholt, W. Thogmartin, G. McCracken, R. Medellin, K.J. Bagstad, A. Russell, et al. 2017b. Operationalizing the telecoupling framework for migratory species using the spatial subsidies approach to examine ecosystem services provided by Mexican free-tailed bats. Ecology and Society 22: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. López-Hoffman, L., D. Semmens, and J. Diffendorfer. 2013. How do migratory species add ecosystem service value to wilderness? Calculating the spatial subsidies provided by protected areas. International Journal of Wilderness 19: 14–19.Google Scholar
  33. López-Hoffman, L., R.G. Varady, K.W. Flessa, and P. Balvanera. 2010. Ecosystem services across borders: A framework for transboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lundberg, J., and F. Moberg. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, T.G., I. Chadès, P. Arcese, P.P. Marra, H.P. Possingham, and D.R. Norris. 2007. Optimal conservation of migratory species. PLoS ONE 2: e751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattsson, B., J. Dubovsky, W. Thogmartin, K.J. Bagstad, J. Goldstein, J. Loomis, J. Diffendorfer, D. Semmens, et al. 2018. Recreation economics to inform migratory species conservation: Case study of the Northern Pintail. Journal of Environmental Management 206: 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mattsson, B.J., M.C. Runge, J.H. Devries, G.S. Boomer, J.M. Eadie, D.A. Haukos, J.P. Fleskes, D.N. Koons, et al. 2012. A modeling framework for integrated harvest and habitat management of North American waterfowl: Case-study of northern pintail metapopulation dynamics. Ecological Modelling 225: 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 2014. Revised objectives: An addendum to the 2012 North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Retrieved 4 October, 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/NAWMP/2012NAWMPRevisedObjectives.pdf.
  39. Pimm, S.L., S. Alibhai, R. Bergl, A. Dehgan, C. Giri, Z. Jewell, L. Joppa, R. Kays, et al. 2015. Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30: 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 2017. Federal Duck Stamp. Retrieved 6 February, 2018 from http://ppjv.org/prairie-conservation/federal-duck-stamp.
  41. Raftovich, R., and K. Wilkins 2013. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2011–12 and 2012–13 hunting seasons. Laurel, MD: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/HarvestSurveys/MBHActivityHarvest2011-12and2012-13.pdf.
  42. Robbins, P. 2011. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  43. Rubio-Cisneros, N.T., O. Aburto-Oropez, J. Murray, C.E. Gonzalez-Abraham, J. Jackson, and E. Ezcurra. 2014. Transnational ecosystem services: The potential of habitat conservation for waterfowl through recreational hunting activities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Runge, C.A., T.G. Martin, H.P. Possingham, S.G. Willis, and R.A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Runge, C.A., J.E. Watson, S.H. Butchart, J.O. Hanson, H.P. Possingham, and R.A. Fuller. 2015. Protected areas and global conservation of migratory birds. Science 350: 1255–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saskatchewan Environment. 2006. Final Report: Economic evaluation of hunting in Saskatchewan. Regina, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Environment. Retrieved 15 August, 2017, from http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=2e16e8a2-93d2-4bcb-9d5a-c5987a6c4681.
  47. Schröter, M., T. Koellner, R. Alkemade, S. Arnhold, K.J. Bagstad, K. Erb, K. Frank, T. Kastner, et al. Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology, and four cases. Ecosystem Services (in press).Google Scholar
  48. Semmens, B.X., D.J. Semmens, W.E. Thogmartin, R. Widerholt, L. López-Hoffman, J.E. Diffendorfer, J.M. Pleasants, K.S. Oberhauser, et al. 2016. Quasi-extinction risk and population targets for the Eastern, migratory population of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Scientific Reports 6: 23265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Semmens, D.J., J.E. Diffendorfer, K.J. Bagstad, R. Wiederholt, K. Oberhauser, L. Ries, B.X. Semmens, J. Goldstein, et al. Quantifying ecosystem service flows at multiple scales across the range of a long-distance migratory species. Ecosystem Services (in press).Google Scholar
  50. Semmens, D.J., J.E. Diffendorfer, L. López-Hoffman, and C.D. Shapiro. 2011. Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies. Ecological Economics 70: 2236–2242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Statistics Canada. 2014. Average spending on goods and services and shares of spending of major categories by province, 2012. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada. Retrieved 15 August, 2017, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140129/t140129a001-eng.htm.
  52. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Economic analysis of the migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2008-2009 season. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Business Management and Operations. Retrieved 6 June, 2017, from https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/DOI%20birds%20ria.pdf.
  53. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 7 June, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html.
  54. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Waterfowl population status, 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved 4 October, 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and-data/Population-status/Waterfowl/WaterfowlPopulationStatusReport17.pdf.
  55. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017b. History of the Federal Duck Stamp. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved 4 October, 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/duck-stamp/history-of-the-federal-duck-stamp.php.
  56. Vrtiska, M.P., J.H. Gammonley, L.W. Naylor, and A.H. Raedeke. 2013. Economic and conservation ramifications from the decline of waterfowl hunters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wenny, D.G., T.L. Devault, M.D. Johnson, D. Kelly, C.H. Sekercioglu, D.F. Tomback, and C.J. Whelan. 2011. The need to quantify ecosystem services provided by birds. The Auk 128: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiederholt, R., B.J. Mattsson, W.E. Thogmartin, M.C. Runge, J.E. Diffendorfer, R.A. Erickson, P. Federico, L. López-Hoffman, et al. Estimating the per-capita contribution of habitats and pathways in a migratory network: A modelling approach. Ecosystem Services (in press).Google Scholar
  59. Wilcove, D.S., and M. Wikelski. 2008. Going, going, gone: Is animal migration disappearing? PLoS Biology 6: e188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth J. Bagstad
    • 1
  • Darius J. Semmens
    • 1
  • James E. Diffendorfer
    • 1
  • Brady J. Mattsson
    • 2
    • 11
  • James Dubovsky
    • 3
  • Wayne E. Thogmartin
    • 4
  • Ruscena Wiederholt
    • 5
  • John Loomis
    • 6
  • Joanna A. Bieri
    • 7
  • Christine Sample
    • 8
  • Joshua Goldstein
    • 9
  • Laura López-Hoffman
    • 10
  1. 1.Geosciences & Environmental Change Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyDenverUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Wildlife Biology & Game ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources & Life ScienceViennaAustria
  3. 3.Division of Migratory Bird ManagementU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLakewoodUSA
  4. 4.Upper Midwest Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyLa CrosseUSA
  5. 5.Everglades FoundationPalmetto BayUSA
  6. 6.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFt. CollinsUSA
  7. 7.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Redlands CollegeUniversity of RedlandsRedlandsUSA
  8. 8.Department of MathematicsEmmanuel CollegeBostonUSA
  9. 9.The Nature ConservancyFt. CollinsUSA
  10. 10.School of Natural Resources and Environment and Udall Center for Studies in Public PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  11. 11.Institute of Silviculture (WALDBAU)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations