Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The recently introduced concept of ‘landscape services’—ecosystem services influenced by landscape patterns—may be particularly useful in landscape planning by potentially increasing stakeholder participation and financial funding. However, integrating this concept remains challenging. In order to bypass this barrier, we must gain a greater understanding of how landscape composition and configuration influence the services provided.

Methods

We conducted meta-analyses that considered published studies evaluating the effects of several landscape metrics on the following services: pollination, pest control, water quality, disease control, and aesthetic value. We report the cumulative mean effect size (E++), where the signal of the values is related to positive or negative influences.

Results

Landscape complexity differentially influenced the provision of services. Particularly, the percentage of natural areas had an effect on natural enemies (E++ = 0.35), pollination (E++ = 0.41), and disease control (E++ = 0.20), while the percentage of no-crop areas had an effect on water quality (E++ = 0.42) and pest response (E++ = 0.33). Furthermore, heterogeneity had an effect on aesthetic value (E++ = 0.5) and water quality (E++ = − 0.40). Moreover, landscape aggregation was important to explaining pollination (E++ = 0.29) and water quality (E++ = 0.35).

Conclusions

The meta-analyses reinforce the importance of considering landscape structure in assessing ecosystem services for management purposes and decision-making. The magnitude of landscape effect varies according to the service being studied. Therefore, land managers must account for landscape composition and configuration in order to ensure the maintenance of services and adapt their approach to suit the focal service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barral MP, Benayas JMR, Meli P, Maceira NO (2015) Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 202:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecol 29(9):1463–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosi BJ, Armsworth PR, Daily GC (2008) Optimal design of agricultural landscapes for pollination services. Conserv Lett 1:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(5):1305–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Hoshizaki L, Klinkenberg B (2011) Ecosystem services in conservation planning: targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs? PLoS ONE 6:e24378

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11):e379

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke ME, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C (2011) A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol Lett 14:922–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, Butnar I, Canals LM, Eichelberger BA, Ramler I, Mueller C, McLachlan N (2015) Spatial patterns of agricultural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24):7402–7407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot WT, Van Den Born RJG (2003) Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 63:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeClerck FAJ, Jones SK, Attwood S, Bossio D, Girvetz E, Chaplin-Kramer B, Enfors E, Fremier AK, Gordon LJ, Kizito F, Noriega IL (2016) Agricultural ecosystems and their services: the vanguard of sustainability? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 23:92–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Fry G, Fjellstad WJ, Skar B, Helliksen W, Sollund ML, Tveit MS, Geelmuyden AK, Framstad E (2001) Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4):257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte GT, Ribeiro MC, Paglia AP (2016) Ecosystem services modeling as a tool for defining priority areas for conservation. PLoS ONE 11:e0154573

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott P, Wartenberg D (2004) Spatial epidemiology: current approaches and future challenges. Environ Health Perspect 112:998–1006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G (2003) The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc Urban Plan 62:119–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Witt A, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol Indic 32:222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbach K, Milder JC, DeClerck FAJ, Montenegro M, Driscoll L, Gemmill-Herren B (2016) Examining multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification. Int J Agric Sustain 5903:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kremen C, Morales JM, Bommarco R, Cunningham SA, Carvalheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Dudenhöffer JH, Greenleaf SS, Holzschuh A (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol Lett 14(10):1062–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstner K, Moreno-Mateos D, Gurevitch J, Beckmann M, Kambach S, Jones HP, Seppelt R (2017) Will your paper be used in a meta-analysis? Make the reach of your research broader and longer lasting. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8(6):777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman RL, Tallis H (2009) A critical analysis of ecosystem services as a tool in conservation projects: the possible perils, the promises and the partnerships. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:63–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC (2008) Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:9445–9448

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Graham AJ, Danson FM, Craig PS (2005) Ecological epidemiology: the role of landscape structure in the transmission risk of the fox tapeworm Echinococcus multicularis (Leukart 1863) (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea: Taeniidae). Prog Phys Geogr 29:77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G (2018) Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555:175–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst H, Förster M, Kleinschmit B (2009) Contribution of landscape metrics to the assessment of scenic quality—the example of the landscape structure plan Havelland/Germany. Landsc Online 10:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder KH, Newton AC, Cantarello E, Perrella L (2014) Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services? Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10:71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC, O’Neill A, Kovacs K, Dalzell B (2012) Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(45):18619–18624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Killilea ME, Swei A, Lane RS, Briggs CJ, Ostfeld RS (2008) Spatial dynamics of Lyme disease: a review. EcoHealth 5:167–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed 27 April 2018

  • Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A (2013) Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16:894–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell MG, Suarez-Castro AF, Martinez-Harms M, Maron M, McAlpine C, Gaston KJ, Johansen K, Rhodes JR (2015) Reframing landscape fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 30(4):190–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ode A, Miller D (2011) Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environ Plan B Plan Des 38:24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld RS, Glass GE, Keesing F (2005) Spatial epidemiology: an emerging (or re-emerging) discipline. Trends Ecol Evol 20:328–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prist PR, de Muylaert R, Prado A, Umetsu F, Riberio MC, Pardini R, Metzger JP (2017) Using different proxies to predict hantavirus disease risk in São Paulo state, Brazil. Oecologia Aust 21:42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11(5):499–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) Metawin Statistical Software for Meta-analysis. Version 2.0. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR (2001) Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu Rev Psychol 52:59–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sang N, Miller D, Ode A (2008) Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environ Plan B Plan Des 35:504–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford G, Steward PR, Benton TG, Kunin WE, Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Sait SM (2013) Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops. Biol Rev 88(4):1002–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Surová D, Pinto-correia T, Marusak R (2014) Visual complexity and the montado do matter: landscape pattern preferences of user groups in Alentejo, Portugal. Ann For Sci 71:15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Batáry P, DeClerck F, Gratton C, Hunt L, Ives A, Jonsson M, Larsen A, Martin EA (2016) When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control–Five hypotheses. Biol Conserv 204:449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uuemaa E, Mander Ü, Marja R (2013) Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecol Indic 28:100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all LEC-UFMG and LEEC-UNESP members for their various forms of contribution, especially Rafaela Silva, Julia Assis and Arleu Viana for their support during this work. We thank Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the G.T. Duarte and P.M. Santos scholarships. M.C. Ribeiro is funded by CNPq (Grant Nos. 312,045/2013-1 and 312292/2016-3), PROCAD/CAPES (Project # 88881.068425/2014-01) and The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP - Grant 2013/50421-2). T. Cornelissen is funded by CNPq (Grant 307210-2016-2). A. Paglia is funded by CAPES, CNPq and FAPEMIG. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação (LEC), Departamento de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 31270-901, Brazil

    Gabriela Teixeira Duarte, Paloma Marques Santos & Adriano Pereira Paglia

  2. Laboratório de Ecologia Espacial e Conservação (LEEC), Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista - UNESP, Av. 24A, 1515, Rio Claro, São Paulo, 13506-900, Brazil

    Gabriela Teixeira Duarte, Paloma Marques Santos & Milton Cezar Ribeiro

  3. Laboratório de Ecologia Vegetal e Interações (LEVIN), Departamento de Ciências Naturais, Universidade Federal de São João Del-Rei, Praça Dom Helvécio, 74 Fábricas, São João Del-Rei, Minas Gerais, 36301-160, Brazil

    Tatiana Garabini Cornelissen

Authors
  1. Gabriela Teixeira Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paloma Marques Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatiana Garabini Cornelissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Milton Cezar Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adriano Pereira Paglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Teixeira Duarte.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

Table showing the primary studies used in the meta-analyses by ecosystem service, with information about the authors, year of publication, the title of the article, journal source, country and region (when stated in the article) where the study was developed. Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

Online Resource 2

Funnel plots of effect sizes against sample sizes for each ecosystem service evaluated in the present study. Supplementary material 2 (PDF 306 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duarte, G.T., Santos, P.M., Cornelissen, T.G. et al. The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landscape Ecol 33, 1247–1257 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0673-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0673-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation