Advertisement

Effects of Landscape Pattern on Pollination, Pest Control, Water Quality, Flood Regulation, and Cultural Ecosystem Services: a Literature Review and Future Research Prospects

  • Jiangxiao QiuEmail author
Social Dimensions of Landscape Ecology (S Gagne , SECTION EDITOR)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Social Dimensions of Landscape Ecology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review highlights recent progress on how landscape pattern (composition, configuration, landscape context, keystone landscape, scaling, and nonlinearity) affects pollination, pest control, water quality, flood control, and cultural ecosystem services (ES)—landscape esthetics and recreation.

Recent Findings

Landscape composition and configuration showed ES-specific effects. Recent studies confirmed that pollination increased in complex, heterogeneous landscapes with more surrounding natural/semi-natural habitats. Landscape pattern could also interact with local factors to affect pollination, with stronger effects at smaller spatial scales. For pest control, a comprehensive synthesis revealed inconsistent effects of non-crop habitat composition, perhaps due to diverse responses from different enemies and pests and complex tri-trophic interactions. Spatial configuration of land-covers, connectivity, and edge effects also mattered for pest control ES. Moreover, recent studies showed that configuration of land-covers could sometimes trump composition as the primary driver for water quality. Comparing across scales (e.g., riparian vs. watershed), landscape pattern effects on water quality tended to be more pronounced at small spatial scales. For flood control, studies showed that larger and less fragmented natural covers reduced peak runoffs, with a compositional threshold ~ 30–40%. Spatial location also mattered where imperviousness concentrated closer to outlet tended to increase peak runoffs. For cultural ES, landscape esthetics and recreation showed positive correlations with naturalness composition and landscape heterogeneity.

Summary

Five overarching themes emerge for future research to advance understanding of landscape pattern effects on ES: (1) using social-ecological measures of ES; (2) assessing ES supply, flow, and demand; (3) considering interactions among multiple drivers across scales; (4) addressing ES interactions; and (5) enhancing predictive capacity of landscape models.

Keywords

Landscape structure Composition and configuration Landscape metrics Landscape heterogeneity Spatial pattern Natural capital 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Lenore Fahrig and Sara Gagne for the opportunity to contribute to this review. I also acknowledge all the insightful discussions and ideas from the Turner lab at the University of Wisconsin—Madison over the years that shape the direction of this paper. Jiangxiao Qiu also acknowledges the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch (FLA-FTL-005640) and McIntire-Stennis (1014703) projects, and National Science Foundation (ICER-1830036) for partial financial support of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Crutzen PJ. Geology of mankind. Nature. 2002;415:23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis EC, Klein Goldewijk K, Siebert S, Lightman D, Ramankutty N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2010;19:589–606.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, et al. Untangling the Environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience. 2010;60:576–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krausmann F, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Bondeau A, Gaube V, et al. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:10324–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scholes R, Hassan R, Ash NJ, Condition and Trends Working Group. Summary: ecosystems and their services around the year 2000. In: Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. p. 1–24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:857–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:1305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 2015;347:1259855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Eigenbrod F. Redefining landscape structure for ecosystem services. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep. 2016;1:80–6. This review paper summarizes recent progress on landscape structure effects on ES, and calls for the need to consider social, biophysical and cultural drivers together to examine landscape effects on ES provision. It also provides a four-step procedure for conducting a landscape-scale ES study from a social-ecological perspective. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Parks KE, et al. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;47:37–50. This paper evaluates the current methods used to analyze ES bundles, and provides an in-depth discussion on the strength and limitations of these approaches using an empirical case study. It also points to the importance of hypothesis-driven, as opposed to pattern detection, approaches to better understand the mechanisms and improve predictions on ES relationships. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turner MG, Donato DC, Romme WH. Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:1081–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lovett GM, Jones CG, Turner MG, Weathers KC. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer; 2005. p. 1–4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A. Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems. 2013;16:894–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Duarte GT, Santos PM, Cornelissen TG, Ribeiro MC, Paglia AP. The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landsc Ecol. 2018;33:1247–57. A recent meta-analysis of 121 research articles that examines effects of landscape composition and configuration (e.g., percent natural cover, landscape connectivity, fragmentation, aggregation, and complexity) on five ES: pollination, pest control, water quality, disease control, and aesthetic value. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Bennett EM. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems. 2017;20:31–7. This paper highlights three key challenges in ES science: (1) nonlinearities, feedbacks and legacies in the sustainable and resilient provision of ES; (2) the role and interplay of ecological and social components in the ES provision; (3) co-design research with stakeholders for better decision-makings. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, et al. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett. 2008;11:499–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kennedy CM, Lonsdorf E, Neel MC, Williams NM, Ricketts TH, Winfree R, et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:584–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL. Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl. 2002;12:52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veres A, Petit S, Conord C, Lavigne C. Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2013;166:110–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Meehan TD, Martin EA, DeClerck F, Grab H, et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E7863–70. A synthesis of 132 studies and >6,700 sites challenges the long-held idea non-crop habitats can lead to win-wins with pest control, biodiversity and crop yields, and reveals that non-crop habitats does not consistently improve pest management, where local farming contexts may interact with surrounding landscape patterns to affect pest control ES. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Overgaard HJ, Ekbom B, Suwonkerd W, Takagi M. Effect of landscape structure on anopheline mosquito density and diversity in northern Thailand: implications for malaria transmission and control. Landsc Ecol. 2003;18:605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pradier S, Leblond A, Durand B. Land cover, landscape structure, and West Nile virus circulation in southern France. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8:253–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ziter C, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A. Functional diversity and management mediate aboveground carbon stocks in small forest fragments. Ecosphere. 2013;4:art85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, Butnar I, et al. Spatial patterns of agricultural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:7402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Qiu J, Turner MG. Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed. Ecosphere. 2015;6:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Chaplin-Kramer R, Hamel P, Sharp R, Kowal V, Wolny S, Sim S, et al. Landscape configuration is the primary driver of impacts on water quality associated with agricultural expansion. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:074012. Using a modeling approach, this paper reveals that landscape configuration (by controlling the same amount of habitat conversion) serves as the primary driver of water quality, and can override other physical factors such as soil type, slope and climate. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grêt-Regamey A, Rabe S-E, Crespo R, Lautenbach S, Ryffel A, Schlup B. On the importance of non-linear relationships between landscape patterns and the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol. 2014;29:201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Lamy T, Liss KN, Gonzalez A, Bennett EM. Landscape structure affects the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:124017. This paper develops a multivariate framework to analyze the role of composition and configuration of land use/cover on the provision and bundling of ES, and found that the relative contribution of composition vs. configuration is ES-dependent. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:1394–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mitchell MGE, Suarez-Castro AF, Martinez-Harms M, Maron M, McAlpine C, Gaston KJ, et al. Reframing landscape fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:190–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Potts SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca V, Ngo HT, Aizen MA, Biesmeijer JC, Breeze TD, et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature. 2016;540:220–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mallinger RE, Gibbs J, Gratton C. Diverse landscapes have a higher abundance and species richness of spring wild bees by providing complementary floral resources over bees’ foraging periods. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:1523–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schirmel J, Albrecht M, Bauer P-M, Sutter L, Pfister SC, Entling MH. Landscape complexity promotes hoverflies across different types of semi-natural habitats in farmland. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:1747–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Nicholson CC, Koh I, Richardson LL, Beauchemin A, Ricketts TH. Farm and landscape factors interact to affect the supply of pollination services. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;250:113–22. This paper demonstrates the interactive effects of local farming management practices and landscape patterns on bee biodiversity and associated supply of pollination ES. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Herbertsson L, Jönsson AM, Andersson GKS, Seibel K, Rundlöf M, Ekroos J, et al. The impact of sown flower strips on plant reproductive success in Southern Sweden varies with landscape context. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018;259:127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chateil C, Porcher E. Landscape features are a better correlate of wild plant pollination than agricultural practices in an intensive cropping system. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2015;201:51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saturni FT, Jaffé R, Metzger JP. Landscape structure influences bee community and coffee pollination at different spatial scales. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;235:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Joshi NK, Otieno M, Rajotte EG, Fleischer SJ, Biddinger DJ. Proximity to woodland and landscape structure drives pollinator visitation in apple orchard ecosystem. Front Ecol Evol. 2016;4:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Senapathi D, Goddard MA, Kunin WE, Baldock KCR. Landscape impacts on pollinator communities in temperate systems: evidence and knowledge gaps. Funct Ecol. 2017;31:26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kormann U, Scherber C, Tscharntke T, Klein N, Larbig M, Valente JJ, et al. Corridors restore animal-mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest landscapes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;283:20152347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viana BF, Boscolo D, Mariano Neto E, Lopes LE, Lopes AV, Ferreira PA, et al. How well do we understand landscape effects on pollinators and pollination services? J Pollinat Ecol. 2012;7:31-41.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boscolo D, Tokumoto PM, Ferreira PA, Ribeiro JW, dos Santos JS. Positive responses of flower visiting bees to landscape heterogeneity depend on functional connectivity levels. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 2017;15:18–24.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Papanikolaou AD, Kühn I, Frenzel M, Schweiger O. Semi-natural habitats mitigate the effects of temperature rise on wild bees. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:527–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grover SN, Miller JED, Damschen EI. Indirect effects of landscape spatial structure and plant species richness on pollinator diversity in Ozark glades. Castanea. 2017;82:24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moreira EF, Boscolo D, Viana BF. Spatial heterogeneity regulates plant-pollinator networks across multiple landscape scales. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123628.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Newton AC, Boscolo D, Ferreira PA, Lopes LE, Evans P. Impacts of deforestation on plant-pollinator networks assessed using an agent based model. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0209406.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rader RA, Bartomeus IB, Garibaldi LA, Garratt MPD, Howlett BG, Winfree RG, et al. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:146–51.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Losey JE, Vaughan M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience. 2006;56:311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schmidt MH, Tscharntke T. Landscape context of sheetweb spider (Araneae: Linyphiidae) abundance in cereal fields. J Biogeogr. 2005;32:467–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bianchi FJ, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273:1715–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke ME, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C. A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol Lett. 2011;14:922–32.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    •• Tscharntke T, Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Batáry P, DeClerck F, Gratton C, et al. When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control—five hypotheses. Biol Conserv. 2016;204:449–58. This paper lays out five hypotheses on when and why natural habitats may not enhance biocontrol ES, including (1) no natural enemies for pests in the region; (2) natural habitat better supports pest than enemies; (3) crop provides more resources for natural enemies than natural habitats; (4) insufficient amount, proximity, composition and configuration of natural habitats to support large population of natural enemies for controlling pests; (5) counteractive effects from agricultural practices. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Perez-Alvarez R, Nault BA, Poveda K. Contrasting effects of landscape composition on crop yield mediated by specialist herbivores. Ecol Appl. 2018;28:842–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Puech C, Poggi S, Baudry J, Aviron S. Do farming practices affect natural enemies at the landscape scale? Landsc Ecol. 2015;30:125–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chabert A, Sarthou J-P. Practices of conservation agriculture prevail over cropping systems and landscape heterogeneity in understanding the ecosystem service of aphid biocontrol. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;249:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dominik C, Seppelt R, Horgan FG, Settele J, Václavík T. Landscape composition, configuration, and trophic interactions shape arthropod communities in rice agroecosystems. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:2461–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gardiner MM, Landis DA, Gratton C, DiFonzo CD, O’Neal M, Chacon JM, et al. Landscape diversity enhances biological control of an introduced crop pest in the North-Central USA. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:143–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Martin EA, Seo B, Park C-R, Reineking B, Steffan-Dewenter I. Scale-dependent effects of landscape composition and configuration on natural enemy diversity, crop herbivory, and yields. Ecol Appl. 2016;26:448–62.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Aristizabal N, Metzger JP. Landscape structure regulates pest control provided by ants in sun coffee farms. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Aviron S, Lalechère E, Duflot R, Parisey N, Poggi S. Connectivity of cropped vs. semi-natural habitats mediates biodiversity: a case study of carabid beetles communities. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018;268:34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kebede Y, Bianchi F, Baudron F, Abraham K, de Valença A, Tittonell P. Implications of changes in land cover and landscape structure for the biocontrol potential of stemborers in Ethiopia. Biol Control. 2018;122:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gallé R, Császár P, Makra T, Gallé-Szpisjak N, Ladányi Z, Torma A, et al. Small-scale agricultural landscapes promote spider and ground beetle densities by offering suitable overwintering sites. Landsc Ecol. 2018;33:1435–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gallé R, Happe A-K, Baillod AB, Tscharntke T, Batáry P. Landscape configuration, organic management, and within-field position drive functional diversity of spiders and carabids. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Martins da Silva P, Oliveira J, Ferreira A, Fonseca F, Pereira JA, CAS A, et al. Habitat structure and neighbor linear features influence more carabid functional diversity in olive groves than the farming system. Ecol Indic. 2017;79:128–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Toivonen M, Huusela-Veistola E, Herzon I. Perennial fallow strips support biological pest control in spring cereal in Northern Europe. Biol Control. 2018;121:109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bertrand C, Baudry J, Burel F. Seasonal variation in the effect of landscape structure on ground-dwelling arthropods and biological control potential. Basic Appl Ecol. 2016;17:678–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Marrec R, Caro G, Miguet P, Badenhausser I, Plantegenest M, Vialatte A, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of the agricultural landscape mosaic drives distribution and abundance of dominant carabid beetles. Landsc Ecol. 2017;32:2383–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yang L, Liu B, Zhang Q, Zeng Y, Pan Y, Li M, et al. Landscape structure alters the abundance and species composition of early-season aphid populations in wheat fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2019;269:167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Settele J, Settle WH. Conservation biological control: improving the science base. PNAS. 2018;115:8241–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rusch A, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou J-P, Roger-Estrade J. Multi-scale effects of landscape complexity and crop management on pollen beetle parasitism rate. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26:473–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ziter C. The biodiversity–ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: a quantitative review. Oikos. 2016;125:761–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Brauman KA. Hydrologic ecosystem services: linking ecohydrologic processes to human well-being in water research and watershed management. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. 2015;2:345–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Remortel RDV, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, et al. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landsc Ecol. 2001;16:301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Strayer DL, Beighley RE, Thompson LC, Brooks S, Nilsson C, Pinay G, et al. Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems. 2003;6:407–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    •• Motew M, Chen X, Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Seifert J, Qiu J, et al. Comparing the effects of climate and land use on surface water quality using future watershed scenarios. Sci Total Environ. 2019;693:133484. A comprehensive biophysical modeling study that compared the relative importance of climate vs. land use on surface water quality across different spatial scales. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gergel SE. Spatial and non-spatial factors: when do they affect landscape indicators of watershed loading? Landsc Ecol. 2005;20:177–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lee S-W, Hwang S-J, Lee S-B, Hwang H-S, Sung H-C. Landscape ecological approach to the relationships of land use patterns in watersheds to water quality characteristics. Landsc Urban Plan. 2009;92:80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Weller DE, Baker ME, Jordan TE. Effects of riparian buffers on nitrate concentrations in watershed discharges: new models and management implications. Ecol Appl. 2011;21:1679–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Clement F, Ruiz J, Rodriguez MA, Blais D, Campeau S. Landscape diversity and forest edge density regulate stream water quality in agricultural catchments. Ecol Indic. 2017;72:627–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wang X, Zhang F. Multi-scale analysis of the relationship between landscape patterns and a water quality index (WQI) based on a stepwise linear regression (SLR) and geographically weighted regression (GWR) in the Ebinur Lake oasis. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:7033–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Shen Z, Hou X, Li W, Aini G, Chen L, Gong Y. Impact of landscape pattern at multiple spatial scales on water quality: a case study in a typical urbanised watershed in China. Ecol Indic. 2015;48:417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Xiao R, Wang G, Zhang Q, Zhang Z. Multi-scale analysis of relationship between landscape pattern and urban river water quality in different seasons. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25250.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Shi P, Zhang Y, Li Z, Li P, Xu G. Influence of land use and land cover patterns on seasonal water quality at multi-spatial scales. Catena. 2017;151:182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lv H, Xu Y, Han L, Zhou F. Scale-dependence effects of landscape on seasonal water quality in Xitiaoxi catchment of Taihu Basin, China. Water Sci Technol. 2015;71:59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gonzales-Inca CA, Kalliola R, Kirkkala T, Lepistö A. Multiscale landscape pattern affecting on stream water quality in agricultural watershed, SW Finland. Water Resour Manag. 2015;29:1669–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zhang J, Li S, Dong R, Jiang C, Ni M. Influences of land use metrics at multi-spatial scales on seasonal water quality: a case study of river systems in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. J Clean Prod. 2019;206:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC, O’Neill A, et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012:109:18619-18624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lathrop RC. Perspectives on the eutrophication of the Yahara lakes. Lake Reservoir Manag. 2007;23:345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    McConaghie JB, Cadenasso ML. Linking nitrogen export to landscape heterogeneity: the role of infrastructure and storm flows in a Mediterranean urban system. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2016;52:456–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ. 2004;2:249–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH. Mapping ecosystem services: the supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol Indic. 2014;38:198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zhang N, Luo Y-J, Chen X-Y, Li Q, Jing Y-C, Wang X, et al. Understanding the effects of composition and configuration of land covers on surface runoff in a highly urbanized area. Ecol Eng. 2018;125:11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kim HW, Park Y. Urban green infrastructure and local flooding: the impact of landscape patterns on peak runoff in four Texas MSAs. Appl Geogr. 2016;77:72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gao Q, Yu M. Reforestation-induced changes of landscape composition and configuration modulate freshwater supply and flooding risk of tropical watersheds. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181315.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Yao L, Chen L, Wei W. Exploring the linkage between urban flood risk and spatial patterns in small urbanized catchments of Beijing, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:239.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dixon SJ, Sear DA, Odoni NA, Sykes T, Lane SN. The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology. Earth Surf Process Landf. 2016;41:997–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Amiri BJ, Junfeng G, Fohrer N, Mueller F, Adamowski J. Regionalizing flood magnitudes using landscape structural patterns of catchments. Water Resour Manag. 2018;32:2385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rogger M, Agnoletti M, Alaoui A, Bathurst JC, Bodner G, Borga M, et al. Land use change impacts on floods at the catchment scale: challenges and opportunities for future research. Water Resour Res. 2017;53:5209–19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Evenson GR, Golden HE, Lane CR, McLaughlin DL, D’Amico E. Depressional wetlands affect watershed hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological functions. Ecol Appl. 2018;28:953–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Brody SD, Highfield WE, Blessing R, Makino T, Shepard CC. Evaluating the effects of open space configurations in reducing flood damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;167:225–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:8812–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    MEA. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Daniel TC. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan. 2001;54:267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ribe RG. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;73:277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ribe RG. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the US Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. J Environ Manag. 2009;91:245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    • Cottet M, Vaudor L, Tronchere H, Roux-Michollet D, Augendre M, Brault V. Using gaze behavior to gain insights into the impacts of naturalness on city dwellers’ perceptions and valuation of a landscape. J Environ Psychol. 2018;60:9–20. This paper uses a novel approach and integrates technology to track eyeball movement for quantifying landscape perception as a cultural ES. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Chen Z, Xu B, Devereux B. Assessing public aesthetic preferences towards some urban landscape patterns: the case study of two different geographic groups. Environ Monit Assess. 2015;188:4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Klein LR, Hendrix WG, Lohr VI, Kaytes JB, Sayler RD, Swanson ME, et al. Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, USA. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;134:195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sahraoui Y, Clauzel C, Foltête J-C. Spatial modelling of landscape aesthetic potential in urban-rural fringes. J Environ Manag. 2016;181:623–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Walz U, Stein C. Indicator for a monitoring of Germany’s landscape attractiveness. Ecol Indic. 2018;94:64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett. 2007;3:390–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hahn T, Heinrup M, Lindborg R. Landscape heterogeneity correlates with recreational values: a case study from Swedish agricultural landscapes and implications for policy. Landsc Res. 2018;43:696–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    • van der Plas F, Allan E, Fischer M, Alt F, Arndt H, Binkenstein J, et al. Towards the development of general rules describing landscape heterogeneity-multifunctionality relationships. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:168–79. Combining evidence from model simulations and empirical data in Germany grasslands, this paper shows general principal that the heterogeneity in land-use intensity (LUI) could promote landscape multifunctionality. Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Paul S, Nagendra H. Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature: surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land. 2017;6:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Plieninger T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol Indic. 2018;94:74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Game ET, Tallis H, Olander L, Alexander SM, Busch J, Cartwright N, et al. Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy. Nat Sustain. 2018;1:452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    •• Qiu J, Game ET, Tallis H, Olander LP, Glew L, Kagan JS, et al. Evidence-based causal chains for linking health, development, and conservation actions. BioScience. 2018;68:182–93. This study presents the foundational concepts and guidance of causal chains for linking different disciplines and sectors that can be adopted to elucidate the effects of actions (e.g., altering landscape patterns) on ecosystems and society through effects on ecosystem services. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv. 2013;4:117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500052.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Trombulak SC, Frissell CA. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol. 2000;14:18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A. Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:094014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Heffernan JB, Soranno PA, Angilletta MJ, Buckley LB, Gruner DS, Keitt TH, et al. Macrosystems ecology: understanding ecological patterns and processes at continental scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Qiu J, Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Motew M, Zipper SC, Kucharik CJ, et al. Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13:054020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Bettez ND, Duncan JM, Groffman PM, Band LE, O’Neil-Dunne J, Kaushal SS, et al. Climate variation overwhelms efforts to reduce nitrogen delivery to coastal waters. Ecosystems. 2015;18:1319–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Qiu J, Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Motew M, Zipper SC, Kucharik CJ, et al. Scenarios reveal pathways to sustain future ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Appl. 2018;28:119–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Qiu J, Zipper SC, Motew M, Booth EG, Kucharik CJ, Loheide SP. Nonlinear groundwater influence on biophysical indicators of ecosystem services. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    •• Dee LE, Allesina S, Bonn A, Eklöf A, Gaines SD, Hines J, et al. Operationalizing network theory for ecosystem service assessments. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017;32:118–30. This paper provides an operationalize framework to use network theory and methods to understand the interlinkages among social-ecological drivers and ecosystem services. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Laterra P, Orúe ME, Booman GC. Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012;154:56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Qiu J, Turner MG. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:12149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C. Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. 2018;29:428–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Díaz S, Lavorel S, de Bello F, Quétier F, Grigulis K, Robson TM. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:20684–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace M-P, Garden D, Girel J, et al. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J Ecol. 2011;99:135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaDavieUSA

Personalised recommendations