Abstract
Context
Uncovering the trade-offs among ecosystem services (ESs) is crucial for enhancing overall ES benefits and human well-being, as well as for improving regional landscape sustainability. However, research on whether relationships among ecosystem service (ES) change across spatial and temporal dimensions has been infrequent, particularly at fine scales.
Objectives
Our study aims to investigate the spatiotemporal heterogeneity in the trade-off strength and their influencing factors in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain.
Methods
In this study, we analyzed the spatiotemporal evolution patterns of four ESs: food provision (FP), soil conservation (SC), carbon sequestration (CS), and water yield (WY) across the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. We utilized root mean square error, automatic linear models and geographically weighted regression to quantify the trade-off strengths among ESs and uncover the primary influences on the spatiotemporal evolution.
Results
The trade-off strengths including FP_SC and CS_SC, were relatively high, particularly in the southwest region, surpassing 0.5. High-value regions for FP_WY and WY_CS were predominantly concentrated in the north, while WY_SC was mainly located in the south. Spatial heterogeneity was apparent in the factors influencing the trade-off strengths of ESs. NDVI positively influenced the degree of FP_WY in the western region but had a negative impact in the central region. Enhancing landscape configuration to reduce ES trade-offs involves diversifying and adding complexity to the landscape shape in the southwestern areas by adjusting landscape richness and shape. Regarding human activities, economic development would gradually encourage the coordination of FP_SC and FP_WY.
Conclusions
Our study suggested that although the trade-offs among ESs may remain constant, the predominant type and intensity of their relationships vary across both space and time. Precipitation and NDVI emerged as the primary factors influencing the strength of ES relationships in this region. This research contributes to balancing the trade-off strengths among ESs and facilitates the pursuit of regional landscape sustainability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Ecosystem services (ESs) encompass a spectrum of natural environmental conditions and services that ecosystems generate and sustain, essential for human well-being (Costanza et al. 1997; Jia et al. 2021; Loomes and O’Neill 1997). Since Costanza et al. introduced the concept of ecosystem service (ES) in 1997, various types and values of ESs have been generally recognized and studied across different scales, serving as a bridge between ecosystems and socio-economic systems (Loomes and O’Neill 1997; Wu 2013). ESs comprise provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services (MA 2005). In recent years, approximately 60% of ESs globally have suffered severe degradation due to intense anthropogenic disturbances and specific demands on ES types (Deng et al. 2022b), posing a serious threat to ecosystem security. In this context, adopting reasonable management measures becomes crucial to regulate and optimize ESs overall, thereby improving ecosystem sustainability. However, various ES types are interconnected through complex and non-linear relationships. Enhancing one ES often involves trade-offs with other ESs, presenting challenges in achieving both service diversification and maximizing overall benefits (Gou et al. 2021). Ecosystem management should aim not only for a single ES benefit but also to balance and harmonize multiple ESs to maximize their combined benefits. Broadly speaking, trade-offs can involve non-uniform, one-directional changes in rates, as well as shifts in the nature of one aspect compared to another (Lu et al. 2014). Their impact is often more significant than synergistic effects (Howe et al. 2014), highlighting the importance of focusing on ES trade-offs to maintain ecological balance and avoid unreasonable trade-offs (Qiang et al. 2017). While ES trade-offs have long been recognized, managing multiple ESs simultaneously in complex social-ecological systems while minimizing adverse effects is one of the most critical challenges in sustainability research (Wu 2013, 2017, 2021).
To enhance regional landscape sustainability, numerous studies have investigated ES trade-offs using various methods, scales, and perspectives (Cord et al. 2017a; Dade et al. 2019; Dou et al. 2020; Huang and Wu 2023). Currently, research on ES trade-offs predominantly relies on qualitative analysis, such as spatial mapping (Bennett et al. 2009; Carreo et al. 2012; Jia et al. 2014; Paul et al. 2005). However, these methods offer discrete insights, limiting a deeper understanding of ES relationships and their impact mechanisms (Liu et al. 2022). In contrast, the root mean squared error (RMSD) method offers a practical approach to quantifying ES trade-offs and enables quantitative assessments (Bojie and Dandan 2016). Regarding the scale of investigation, most existing ES studies have been conducted at the municipal administrative unit level due to data accessibility (Quintas-Soriano et al. 2019; Rla et al. 2019; Spake et al. 2017). Conversely, examining the watershed scale, a naturally defined geographic unit presents distinct advantages in addressing the misalignment between human management and ecological processes scales. Furthermore, the watershed scale allows for revealing spatial and temporal characteristics of ES trade-offs, aiding in making specific spatially targeted decisions for managing ES trade-offs.
Currently, research applied at the watershed scale remains insufficient (Zhao et al. 2018). From a research standpoint, the focus of ES trade-offs primarily centers on a static perspective, analyzing spatial patterns and driving factors at specific times to offer recommendations for ecosystem management (Hd et al. 2020). It is important to note that ES trade-offs may vary over time (Deng et al. 2022b). To foster ecosystem sustainability, we must analyze the trade-offs across multiple periods of ESs while also identifying the shifts in spatial and temporal variations among these relationships. This approach enables the development of strategies conducive to preserving ecosystems (Wu 2013, 2021). Studies examining the spatial and temporal dynamics of ES relationships and their influencing factors are still relatively scarce.
ES trade-offs are typically influenced by multiple factors, such as climate (Dai et al. 2017), socioeconomic factors (Liu et al. 2019), and land use change (Vanniera et al. 2019). However, solely focusing on a single factor makes it difficult to unveil the reasons for heterogeneous changes in ES trade-offs (Qiu et al. 2020) and can introduce uncertainty into ecosystem management decisions. Only an integrated analysis that considers the impacts of both human activities and climate change on ES trade-offs can clarify the influencing mechanisms of ES relationships and promote the sustainability of regional ecosystems (Hong et al., 2020).
The Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (HHHP) represents a typical agricultural region in China but grapples with notable ecological and environmental challenges, characterized by heightened concentrations and intensification of issues. The swift pace of urbanization exacerbates these pressures, resulting in tensions over land use and imbalances in the provisioning of ESs, notably leading to water shortages (Deng et al. 2022a). Such issues arise from the interplay and conflicts among various ESs, driven by diverse factors. Understanding the heterogeneous changes in ES trade-offs and their determinants within the HHHP is crucial for fostering coordinated and sustainable development, vital for both natural ecology and food security. This knowledge holds substantial theoretical and practical implications. Hence, the objectives of this study are threefold: to evaluate four key ESs—food provision (FP), carbon sequestration (CS), soil conservation (SC), and water yield (WY) —in the HHHP during 2000, 2010, and 2020; quantify the strengths of ES trade-offs; and investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of trade-off strengths among ESs, aiming to establish a scientific foundation for optimizing ESs and enhancing regional landscape sustainability.
Data and methods
Study area
The HHHP comprises 246 sub-basins, spanning the cities of Beijing and Tianjin and the five provinces of Shandong, Hebei, Jiangsu, Anhui, and Henan (Fig. 1), covering an area of about 390,000 km2 (112°43’-112°71’E, 32°49’-40°57’N). The region experiences an average annual precipitation of around 700 mm and a temperature of approximately 13.9 °C. Its mid-latitude monsoon climate results in uneven spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation, with about 70% of the annual rainfall concentrated in summer (Wang et al. 2020). The HHHP is characterized by low and flat terrain, with most areas below 50 m in elevation, representing a typical alluvial plain and serving as China’s largest agricultural area (Mw et al. 2021). Over the past two decades, rapid urbanization has significantly transformed the HHHP. Between 2000 and 2020, there was a noticeable increase in land occupied by built-up areas, rising from 13.14 to 18.13%, consequently exerting mounting pressure on the ecological environment. The conflict between promoting regional socio-economic development and ensuring ecological environmental conservation has emerged as a significant constraint on the HHHP’s sustainable development, leading to adverse consequences for the local community welfare (Deng et al. 2022b).
Data sources
The data utilized in this study primarily encompass sub-basin data (from the Global Drainage Basin Database), remote sensing data, topographic surveys, soil property records, meteorological datasets, land use data records (for 2000, 2010, and 2020), and socio-economic information (such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), population figures, and Nighttime Light Data (NLD) pertinent to the HHHP. NLD proves valuable for characterizing urbanization levels due to its strong correlation with human economic activities. For detailed information regarding all data sources and descriptions, refer to (Deng et al. 2022a, b). Through the application of interpolation and resampling techniques in ArcGIS 10.6, the data was standardized into a consistent 250 × 250 m grid. Drawing from established landscape studies (Chen et al. 2021; Jia et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2021b), this study opted for Patch Density (PD), Shannon’s Diversity Index (SHDI), Landscape Shape Index (LSI), and Contagion (CONTAG) to characterize the landscape pattern within the HHHP across four dimensions: density, diversity, shape, and aggregation, respectively. Refer to Table S1 for the calculation methodologies.
Modelling the spatiotemporal dynamics of ESs
In the HHHP, rapidly expanding construction land has encroached on the surrounding ecological space, resulting in the imbalance of regional ecosystem functions. According to the regional characteristics of the HHHP, four key ESs of FP, CS, SC, and WY were selected, which could be calculated with the following methods (Table 1). In this study, we verified the two ESs of CS (above-ground part) and WY based on the measured data collected from the literature (Li Xu et al. 2018) to ensure the accuracy of the simulation results. Since the calculation process of FP has already used statistical data on grain production, no additional verification is needed. Due to the lack of observational data on soil conservation, this study did not verify SC and CS (below-ground part).
Calculation of the ES trade-offs
Within the scope of this study, we employed the RMSD index to evaluate the trade-offs (FP_SC, FP_CS, CS_WY, CS_SC, FP_WY, and WY_SC) in the HHHP during the time periods of 2000, 2010, and 2020. Furthermore, we utilized this index to conduct a quantitative analysis of the spatial characteristics of these ES trade-offs (Fig. 2). The RMSD, being a convenient and effective measure, facilitated a quantitative evaluation of trade-off dynamics within ESs (Bradford et al. 2012). It extended the interpretation of trade-offs beyond a negative correlation (as conventionally perceived) to encompass to the rate of inhomogeneity of variation between ESs in the same direction. This extension allowed for a more precise assessment of the extent of interaction among ESs (Bradford et al. 2012). A larger RMSD value indicated stronger trade-off strength, while a smaller value suggested weaker trade-off strength.
When the RMSD value is 0, there is a synergistic relationship between the two ESs. To eliminate the effect of the magnitude, data normalization is required before calculating RMSD. Bradford et al. 2012 defined ES normalization as:
Where\({ ES}_{std}\) presents the normalized ES, \({ES}_{sim}\) denotes the simulated ES, \({ES}_{min}\) and \({ES}_{max}\) signifiy the minimum and maximum values of ES, respectively. The RMSD value is as follows:
Here, ESi represents the ES standard value corresponding to i, and \(\widehat{ES}\) is the average value.
![figure 2](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10980-024-01827-x/MediaObjects/10980_2024_1827_Fig2_HTML.png)
(modified from (Fu and Yu 2016). Both the blue and red dots in the figure represents coordinate points of paired ESs. The degree of ES trade-offs increases with distance from the 1:1 line, where there are no trade-offs. The magnitude order of the trade-offs is C = D > A > B. Above the 1:1 line is the dominant area for ES-1, while below the 1:1 line is the dominant area for ES-2. For example, point C indicates that ES-1 is the gaining side and point D indicates that ES-2 is the gaining side
Schematic diagram of the trade-off relationship strengths among ESs
Identifying key drivers of ES trade-offs
Automatic linear modelling (ALM)
Considering the natural characteristics and socio-economic conditions of the HHHP, and drawing from prior studies (Deng et al. 2022b), this study identified several potential driving factors (refer to Table 2) and utilized the ALM model (Zhang et al. 2021a) to analyze the primary factors influencing the ES trade-offs. Through the removal of irrelevant variables and the management of multicollinearity among factors, the ALM model produced optimal regression outcomes. The model was expressed as follows:
Where Y represents RMSD, Xi represents the potential driving factor, \({\alpha }_{i}\) signifies the model coefficient; \({\alpha }_{0}\) denotes the intercept, and δ indicates the error term.
Spatial autocorrelation of ES trade-offs at the sub-watershed level
Moran’s I index can provide insights into the spatial characteristics of trade-off relationship strengths among ESs (Diniz-Filho et al. 2003; Ren et al. 2020). A positive Moran’s I index value indicates a spatially correlated distribution pattern of trade-off strengths among ESs. As the value increases, the spatial correlation becomes more pronounced, suggesting a spatial aggregation effect within the study area. Conversely, a decrease in the value implies spatial dispersion characteristics in the study area. A Moran’s I index value of 0 indicates a random spatial distribution, suggesting a random pattern in the distribution of trade-off strengths. The significance level was determined based on the Z value. When |Z| > 1.96 with a P-value < 0.05, the Moran’s I index was considered significant. When |Z| > 2.58 with a P-value < 0.01, it was considered highly significant.
Geographically weighted regression (GWR) analysis
By mitigating the issue of multicollinearity among variables, the ALM model facilitated the selection of essential influencing factors as explanatory variables in the GWR model. Unlike traditional regression models, GWR accommodates the non-smoothness of geographic space. Its primary advantage lay in assigning distinct regression coefficients to each study unit, thereby capturing heterogenous drivers more effectively (Yu et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2020). The GWR analysis was performed using the equations within the ArcGIS 10.6 tool as follows:
Where \({Y}_{i}\) represents the RMSD of sub-basin i; \({X}_{ik}\) denotes the value of the kth explanatory variable on sub-basin i; \(\left({u}_{i},{v}_{i}\right)\) denotes the coordinates of basin i; \({\beta }_{0}\left({u}_{i},{v}_{i}\right)\) signifies the spatial intercept at sub-basin i; \({\beta }_{k}({u}_{i},{v}_{i})\) represents the regression coefficient of the kth explanatory variable on basin i, locally estimated using weighted least squares; and \(\tau\) indicates the residual.
Results
Spatio-temporal patterns of ESs in the Huang-Huai-Hai plain
In this study, we verified the simulated and measured ESs, and the fitting R2 reached more than 0.65, which indicated the simulation results were credible (Fig. S1 and Fig. S2). Between 2000 and 2020, the four ESs in the HHHP demonstrated relative temporal stability with no significant overall changes. However, discernible spatial heterogeneity was evident, indicating diverse patterns across different areas (Fig. 3). The spatial distribution of FP exhibited a gradual decrease from the southern to the northern regions within the HHHP. High-value regions for FP were predominantly clustered in the southwest, akin to WY. The regional mean value surged from 276.95 mm in 2000 to 381.77 mm in 2010, followed by a decline to 350.66 mm in 2020, indicating noticeable temporal fluctuations. The distribution pattern of CS and SC consistently showcased higher values in mountainous areas and lower values in plain areas, reflecting the area’s spatial characteristic. Specifically, the central and eastern mountainous regions within the HHHP exhibited a high-value distribution of SC, often exceeding 200 t ha−1. In contrast, the surrounding plain areas displayed a low-value distribution of SC, generally below 30 t ha−1. The overall spatial distribution characteristics of CS did not exhibit significant changes. Generally, SC demonstrated an increasing trend from 14.18 t ha−1 in 2000 to 23.16 t ha−1 in 2020, while the change trend in CS was less pronounced.
Trade-offs for paired ESs
From 2000 to 2020, the trade-off intensity between FP_SC remained relatively consistent across space (Fig. 4). The concentrated area of strong trade-offs, with RMSD value surpassing 0.4, was primarily situated in the southwestern region. Moreover, a noticeable spatial gradient in the trade-off intensity was observed, gradually increasing from the northeast to the southwest. Overall, the majority of regions were FP-dominated, with fewer regions dominated by SC and a lower degree of trade-offs in these areas. Over this period, a declining trend in the intensity of the FP_SC trade-off within the HHHP was observed, dropping from 0.381 to 0.348. Conversely, for FP_CS, significant changes were noted in the spatial pattern of trade-off strengths from 2000 to 2020. In 2000, the southwest region predominantly exhibited FP dominance, while CS held a dominant position in the northeast. By 2020, the strong trade-off area shifted towards the northern part of the HHHP, and the FP-dominated area in the southwest decreased. In terms of temporal changes, the intensity of the FP_CS trade-off increased (0.112 in 2000, 0.170 in 2010, and 0.187 in 2020). By 2010 and 2020, the scope of the strong trade-off area was further reduced, and most areas exhibited weak trade-offs (RMSD < 0.3). Areas dominated by WY gradually increased and concentrated in the eastern part of the HHHP. The trade-off intensity between CS_SC was notably high (RMSD > 0.4) across most HHHP areas. CS prevailed in most regions, particularly in 2020, where CS-dominated areas encompassed the entire HHHP. The southern portion primarily displayed weak trade-off areas in WY_CS, with WY as the dominant factor. However, by 2020, some strong trade-off areas (RMSD > 0.4) transitioned into moderate trade-off areas (RMSD < 0.4), resulting in a substantial decrease in WY-dominated areas and a decrease in trade-off intensity from 0.257 in 2000 to 0.240 in 2020.
The scatter plot displays distinct variations in trade-off relationships and degrees between paired ESs (Fig. 5). Notably, these trade-offs exhibit greater strength and variability (Fig. 6), with FP showing a larger relative gain. In 2000, the FP_CS trade-off points were mainly dispersed on both sides of the 1:1 line in the scatter plot, indicating a concentrated distribution and lower trade-off degrees. However, in 2010 and 2020, most FP_CS points were positioned above the 1:1 line, highlighting increased relative gains for CS. For FP_WY, the trade-off points were primarily located in the lower section of the scatter plot in 2000, suggesting a higher relative gain for FP. However, in 2010 and 2020, the trade-offs were predominantly aligned along the 1:1 line, lacking a discernible trend. The CS_SC trade-off points notably deviated from the 1:1 line (Fig. 5), indicating a more concentrated range in trade-off intensity, higher overall trade-offs (Fig. 6), and a larger relative gain for CS.
Regarding WY versus SC, in 2000, points were dispersed on both sides of the 1:1 line, suggesting lower trade-off levels. However, in 2010 and 2020, the majority of scatter points fell below the 1:1 line, indicating WY’s dominance in the WY_SC trade-off. Conversely, for WY_CS, trade-off points primarily clustered in the upper section of the scatter plot, signifying a higher relative gain for CS.
Key driving factors of trade-offs among ESs
Using the automatic linear model, this study analyzed the factors influencing the trade-off strengths among ESs. In 2000, the trade-off relationship strength between FP_SC was primarily dominated by the forested area, which accounted for up to 45.7% of the contribution. The proportion of grassland area and NDVI were the additional factors following the forested area (Table 3). Conversely, NDVI became the dominant factor in 2010 and 2020. The relationship between FP_WY was primarily shaped by precipitation, which played a significant role with a contribution of 52.8% in 2000 and 33.7% in 2010. However, in 2020, the influence of PPT became negligible. The trade-off strength between WY_SC was primarily governed by PPT, which played a pivotal role with contributions of 40.7% in 2000, 65.9% in 2010, and 76.6% in 2020, respectively.
Analyzing the spatial heterogeneity of ES trade-off drivers
Spatial autocorrelation of trade-offs among ESs
At the watershed scale, the trade-offs between pairs of ESs exhibited a spatial clustering trend and demonstrated a positive spatial correlation (Table 4). Between 2000 and 2020, the spatial aggregation of the trade-offs between FP_SC increased noticeably. Moran’s I values rose from 0.48 in 2000 to 0.72 in 2020. Similarly, the FP_CS relationship showed an escalating trend in spatial aggregation. In contrast, the trade-off relationships involving WY_SC and WY_CS consistently displayed highly aggregated spatial patterns, with Moran’s I values consistently exceeding 0.7.
Spatial patterns of the key drivers for ES trade-offs
Based on the spatial regression findings, the GWR model was deemed more effective in capturing the variability of factors (Fig. 7). FP_SC was chiefly influenced by NDVI, emerging as the dominant factor shaping this relationship. Between 2000 and 2020, its dominant area proportions were 89.51%, 70.52%, and 76.33%, respectively. Over time, there was a shift in the predominant area, with temperature gradually assuming the most significant role, transitioning from the southwest to the southeast.
In 2000, the FP_CS relationship was predominantly influenced by the positive effect of LSI (54.57%), followed by the positive impact of TEM (17.51%) and the negative effect of arable land area (15.52%). By 2010, a significant portion of the southern part of the HHHP (63.28%) was primarily affected by the arable land area. However, by 2020, the arable land’s role was predominantly negative (7.98%) and limited to a small part of the southwest. In 2010, the primary influencing factor in the northern part accounted for 33.85% and was represented by NDVI. By 2020, the area significantly influenced by NDVI expanded to 51.77%. Notably, the positive influence of NDVI was mainly observed in the eastern region, while the western region experienced a negative impact.
In the year 2000, precipitation significantly influenced the interaction between CS and SC within the central and northern HHHP. It constituted the most substantial proportion, encompassing 48.93% of the total area, followed by NDVI (30.72%) and the percentage of grassland area (14.46%). By 2010, the dominant factors in the trade-off relationship gradually shifted to PD (53.90%) and forest area (45.19%), and by 2020, the entire region was entirely influenced by PD. Concerning the trade-off association between WY_SC, regions predominantly influenced by PPT constituted 92.62% (2000), 83.17% (2010), and 100% (2020) of the total area, respectively. Moreover, in 2000, approximately 7.37% of the region was predominantly characterized by construction land, primarily located in the eastern sector. By 2010, around 10.04% of the area exhibited significant influence from NDVI, primarily concentrated in the eastern region of Shandong Province, as depicted in Fig. 8.
Discussion
Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of trade-off intensity among ESs
In the context of escalating natural resource scarcity, the enhancement of one ES supply often comes at the expense of other services, leading to trade-offs between ESs (Cord et al. 2017b; Li et al. 2021; Zeng et al. 2020). Clarifying ES trade-offs is a fundamental prerequisite for effective ES management. However, current assessments of ES trade-offs lack spatiotemporal heterogeneity analysis (Kragt and Robertson 2014; Sun et al. 2019). These assessments concentrate on assessing ES interactions by treating the entire region as a uniform entity, thus failing to account for spatial heterogeneity (Groot et al. 2007). Conversely, some analyses utilize multi-period data and examine the spatial heterogeneity of trade-off relationships but overlook the dynamics of these relationships over time (Huang and Wu 2023; Jopke et al. 2015; Li and Luo 2023). Thus, this study employs the RMSD approach to quantify the spatiotemporal dynamics of trade-offs among ESs.
In the temporal aspect, among the six pairs of ES trade-offs, the strength of the trade-off relationship between CS_SC exhibited the most notable change (Figs. 4 and 6), displaying the highest temporal variability. The average value of the RMSD ranged from under 0.4 in 2000 to over 0.5 in 2020. This change was primarily due to a significant upward trend in soil retention from 2000 to 2020 (Fig. 3). This trend suggests an enhancement in crop growth and the soil and water conservation capacity in the HHHP region. However, studies by Wen et al. (2022) and Huang et al. (2019) have demonstrated that agricultural areas are primarily associated with carbon emissions, where improved crop growth tends to result in higher carbon emission, leading to a decline in soil carbon. To achieve a mutually beneficial scenario between SC_CS and to bolster regional landscape sustainability, actions need to be taken to amplify carbon sequestration while minimizing agricultural carbon emissions. For instance, employing practices such as conservation tillage and straw-returning can improve the carbon sequestration potential of agricultural land (Maraseni and Cockfield 2011).
The spatial distribution patterns of trade-offs among the three pairs of ESs, CS_SC, WY_SC, and WY_CS, exhibited distinct characteristics (Fig. 4). CS_SC presented a trend of lower trade-offs in the central mountainous region and higher trade-offs in the surrounding area. The weaker CS_SC trade-offs in the central mountainous region with more pronounced topography could be attributed to the association between higher levels of CS and enhanced vegetation growth, subsequently leading to increased soil retention capacity (Qiao et al. 2019). The degree of WY_SC trade-offs gradually decreased from the south to the north (Fig. 4). This decline might be attributed to higher precipitation in the southern region, surpassing the vegetation’s soil retention capacity, resulting in a higher WY_SC trade-off. As precipitation reduced further northward, the probability of soil erosion decreased, resulting in a lower WY_SC trade-off pattern. Conversely, WY_CS exhibited an opposite trend, showcasing a gradual increase from south to north. In the dry and water-scarce HHHP, increased precipitation in the south correlated with improved crop growth conditions and higher carbon emissions. Consequently, this led to decreased soil carbon sequestration, represented by a lower WY_CS trade-off. In contrast, the relatively dry northern region experienced limited crop growth due to drought, resulting in lower agricultural carbon emissions, thus presenting a higher WY_CS trade-off.
Effects of influencing factors on dynamic change of trade-off intensity among ESs
Examining the mechanism influencing trade-off relationships and determining the significance of each influencing factor could enhance our comprehension of methods and strategies to regulate this relationship. This understanding is crucial for formulating “win-win” policies that uphold ecological conservation and food security (Gou et al. 2021). With this goal, the current study employed quantitative analysis to investigate how natural factors and human activities impacted the spatial and temporal dynamics of trade-offs among ESs. The objective was to uncover the underlying mechanism driving these variations. The findings from our research suggest that precipitation negatively impacted the trade-offs associated with FP_WY, WY_CS, and CS_SC while exerting a positive influence on WY_SC. According to our study, precipitation negatively impacted the trade-off relationships among WY_CS, FP_WY, and CS_SC but had a positive effect on the trade-off relationship involving WY_SC. This finding is based on the definition of WY, which represents the difference between rainfall and evapotranspiration. Therefore, increased precipitation would have a positive impact on WY. The HHHP region features a mid-latitude monsoon climate, making it vulnerable to drought risks. Wang et al. (2017) identified precipitation as the primary factor limiting crop yields in this area. Hence, an increase in precipitation would contribute to the promotion of FP.
In 2000, most northern areas of HHHP experienced precipitation levels below 600 mm, where increased precipitation benefited vegetation growth and enhanced soil retention capacity. However, further increments in precipitation alongside intensified human activities might escalate soil erosion, thus diminishing soil retention. Between 2010 and 2020, NDVI predominantly exhibited adverse effects on the trade-off relationship of FP_WY and FP_CS, excluding FP_CS in 2010. Several factors contribute to this observation. On the one hand, precipitation significantly influences vegetation growth in HHHP, where higher NDVI implies increased precipitation, elevating FP and WY while reducing the trade-off magnitude. Conversely, regions with higher NDVI values tend to boast robust vegetation growth and superior vegetation carbon sequestration, thereby reducing the intensity of the FP_CS trade-off. The HHHP region consists predominantly of arable land. Acknowledging water’s significant impact on trade-offs among ESs, there is a necessity for substantial development in local agricultural irrigation technology. It is essential to optimize agricultural irrigation strategies to mitigate trade-offs among ESs and maximize the synergy.
Among the landscape configuration factors, SHDI predominantly exerted a negative influence on the spatial interrelation of ESs, aligning with the findings of Yushanjiang et al. (2018). In the central and southeastern areas of HHHP, LSI primarily benefited from the trade-off dynamics among ESs, while it predominantly had adverse effects in the southwestern region. This suggests that the intricate landscape structure in the central and southeastern areas did not support the cohesive development of ESs. Conversely, the complex landscape shape in the southwestern region facilitated the synergistic evolution of ESs. Considering the impact of spatial heterogeneity introduced by LSI, landscape pattern optimization should account for this influence. To effectively mitigate trade-offs among ESs, management measures should be tailored for each sub-region.
Additionally, our research uncovered that PD negatively affected ES trade-offs. This could be attributed to fragmented landscapes impeding inter-regional energy flow, altering material and nutrient cycling processes, and significantly compromising ESs (Holt et al. 2015). For example, landscape fragmentation hindered the effective large-scale management of arable land and the rational allocation of agricultural resources, notably impacting FP efficiency (Ying-Chieh et al. 2018). Expanding the cropland area was associated with an increased trade-off level between FP and SC. This relationship stemmed from the rise in FP due to expanded cropland, where the soil conservation capacity of cultivated land was weaker compared to forestland and grassland, resulting in decreased SC as the cultivated land area increased.
The expansion of urban land resulted in decreased surface runoff infiltration (Suriya and Mudgal 2012), potentially accounting for the positive influence of urban areas on the trade-off relationship between WY and SC. Conversely, the expansion of construction land encroached upon substantial forest, grassland, and cropland areas, causing a decrease in SC. Regarding socio-economic factors, the increase in GDP spurred greater agricultural inputs and advanced agricultural technology. The adoption of drip irrigation on more arable land not only increased FP but also conserved water and enhanced WY capacity (Wu et al. 2013). Additionally, implementing agricultural practices like conservation tillage played a pivotal role in enhancing SC. Consequently, the rise in GDP corresponded to decreased trade-off levels between FP and SC as well as between FP and WY.
Implications for landscape sustainability
Building on our understanding of trade-offs among ESs, integrating inter-ESs relationships into landscape management is pivotal for enhancing regional landscape sustainability (Christensen and Walters 2004; Feng et al. 2021; Kanter et al. 2018). However, it is crucial to minimize trade-offs between the targeted ESs and other services when applying the trade-off relationships for regional landscape optimization. This alignment with regional characteristics and ecological function positioning aims to maximize the targeted ESs. For example, in the HHHP region, FP stands as the most crucial targeted ES, making it the primary focus for future planning.
Measures such as conservation tillage and water-saving irrigation should be extensively implemented to ensure the maximization of overall benefits among ESs. Badgley et al. conducted an analysis of organic agriculture and global food supply, demonstrating that applying measures such as conservation tillage, crop diversification and intensification, and biological control in farming systems could guarantee food production while preserving ESs (Badgley et al. 2007). This indicates the potential for transforming trade-offs between FP and other services into synergistic relationships through sustainable management practices. Conversely, Inner Mongolia serves as a crucial ecological security barrier (Hao and Yu 2018). Since the 1960s, wind and water erosion have extensively affected many parts of Inner Mongolia, aggravating the issue of sand and dust storms (Wu et al. 2015). When integrating trade-offs into landscape optimization, decision-makers should prioritize enhancing soil retention capacity.
Conclusions
In this study, we selected the major grain-producing area of HHHP as a representative region to quantify the spatial variability characteristics of four key ESs: FP, SC, CS, and WY. The RMSD method was utilized to assess and quantify the trade-offs among these ESs at the watershed level, aiming to comprehend the spatial and temporal variations in trade-off strengths and the influencing factors. The results revealed that although the types of interactions between ESs remained unchanged, there were alterations in the dominant ESs involved in the trade-offs. Trade-offs and their influencing factors exhibited significant spatial and temporal heterogeneity.
Specifically, there existed a high degree of trade-off between SC and other ESs, with none emerging as relative gainers, competing at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, CS competitively gained an advantage against most ESs, acting as a relative gainer, with CS dominance based on the reduction of SC. From 2000 to 2020, there was a notable trade-off relationship between WY and SC, where WY predominantly dominated in most regions, signifying a strong limiting effect of WY on SC in the HHHP. The distribution pattern of the trade-off relationship between FP and WY demonstrated a balanced distribution on both sides of the 1:1 line, indicating no absolute superiority or inferiority in the competition between FP_WY.
In the HHHP region, climate factors, vegetation characteristics, landscape patterns, and socio-economic factors collectively influence the relationships between ESs and their dominant types, displaying varying effects, both positive and negative, across time and space. Precipitation and NDVI were identified as pivotal factors. When optimizing the regional landscape pattern, incorporating the relationship between ES trade-offs and these influencing factors into governmental decision-making processes can lead to the comprehensive optimization of regional ESs. It is important to note the existence of spatial scale differentiation in ES trade-offs and their driving mechanisms. Therefore, future research efforts should undertake cross-scale studies to provide better insights for decision-making in landscape management.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E et al (2007) Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew Agric Food Syst 22(02):86–108
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404
Bojie FU, Dandan YU (2016) Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resour Sci 38(1):1–9
Bradford JB, ‘Amato D (2012) AW Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front Ecol Environ 10(4):210–216
Carreo LV, Frank FC, Viglizzo EF (2012) Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154(5):68–77
Chen WX, Zeng J, Chu YM, Liang JL (2021) Impacts of Landscape patterns on Ecosystem Services Value: a Multiscale buffer gradient analysis Approach. Remote Sens 13(13):2551
Christensen V, Walters CJ (2004) Trade-offs in ecosystem-scale optimization of fisheries Management policies. Bull Mar Sci 74(3):549–562
Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M et al (2017a) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv 28:264–272
Costanza R, D’Arge R, Groot RD et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ 25(1):3–15
Dade MC, Mitchell MG, McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR (2019) Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: the need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 48:1116–1128
Dai EF, Wang XL, Zhu JJ, Xi WM (2017) Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs for plantation forest management to benefit provisioning and regulating services. Ecol Evol 7(2):7807–7821
Deng L, Han Z, Pu W et al (2022a) Impacts of Human Activities and Climate Change on Water Storage changes in Shandong Province, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(23):35365–35381
Deng L, Li Y, Cao Z et al (2022b) Revealing impacts of human activities and natural factors on dynamic changes of relationships among ecosystem services: a case study in the Huang-Huai-Hai plain, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(16):10230
Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM, Hawkins BA (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12(1):53–64
Dou H, Li X, Li S et al (2020) Mapping ecosystem services bundles for analyzing spatial trade-offs in inner Mongolia, China. J Clean Prod 256:120444
Feng YH, Zhu JX, Zhao X, Tang ZY, Fang JY (2019) Changes in the trends of vegetation net primary productivity in China between 1982 and 2015. Environ Res Lett 14(12):124009
Feng Z, Jin X, Chen T, Wu J (2021) Understanding trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services to support the decision-making in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region. Land Use Policy 106:105446
Fu B, Yu D (2016) Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resour Sci 38(1):1–9
Gou M, Li L, Ouyang S et al (2021) Identifying and analyzing ecosystem service bundles and their socioecological drivers in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. J Clean Prod 307:127208
Groot JCJ, Rossing WAH, Jellema A, Stobbelaar DJ, Renting H, Van Ittersum MK (2007) Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—A methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120(1):58–69
Hao R, Yu D (2018) Optimization schemes for grassland ecosystem services under climate change. Ecol Ind 85:1158–1169
Hd A, Xla B, Sl A et al (2020) Mapping ecosystem services bundles for analyzing spatial trade-offs in inner Mongolia, China - ScienceDirect. J Clean Prod 256:120444
Holt AR, Mears M, Maltby L, Warren P (2015) Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 16:33–46
Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Change 28:263–275
Huang Y, Wu J (2023) Spatial and temporal driving mechanisms of ecosystem service trade-off/synergy in national key urban agglomerations: a case study of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration in China. Ecol Ind 154:110800
Huang X, Xu X, Wang Q, Zhang L, Gao X, Chen L (2019) Assessment of agricultural carbon emissions and their spatiotemporal changes in China, 1997–2016. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(17):3105
Jia X, Fu B, Feng X, Hou G, Liu Y, Wang X (2014) The tradeoff and synergy between ecosystem services in the Grain-for-Green areas in Northern Shaanxi, China. Ecol Ind 43:103–113
Jia B, Bi J, Hao RF, Li J, Qiao JM (2021) Identifying ecosystem states with patterns of ecosystem service bundles. Ecol Ind 131:108195
Jian P, Lu T, Liu Y, Zhao M, Hu Y, Wu J (2017) Ecosystem services response to urbanization in metropolitan areas: Thresholds identification. Sci Total Environ 607:706–714
Jopke C, Kreyling J, Maes J, Koellner T (2015) Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol Ind 49:46–52
Kanter DR, Musumba M, Wood SLR et al (2018) Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric Syst 163:73–88
Karimi JD, Corstanje R, Harris JA (2021) Bundling ecosystem services at a high resolution in the UK: trade-offs and synergies in urban landscapes. Landsc Ecol 36(6):1817–1835
Kragt ME, Robertson MJ (2014) Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices. Ecol Econ 102:147–157
Li Y, Luo H (2023) Trade-off/synergistic changes in ecosystem services and geographical detection of its driving factors in typical karst areas in southern China. Ecol Ind 154:110811
Li B, Chen N, Wang Y, Wang W (2018) Spatio-temporal quantification of the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services based on grid-cells: a case study of Guanzhong Basin, NW China. Ecol Ind 94(NOV):246–253
Li SK, Li XB, Dou HS, Dang DL, Gong JR (2021) Integrating constraint effects among ecosystem services and drivers on seasonal scales into management practices. Ecol Ind 125:107425
Li XuN, He G, Yu, (2018) A dataset of carbon density in Chinese terrestrial ecosystems (2010s). China Science Data 4:90–96
Liu YX, Lü YH, Fu BJ, Harris P, Wu LH (2019) Quantifying the spatio-temporal drivers of planned vegetation restoration on ecosystem services at a regional scale. Sci Total Environ 650:1029–1040
Liu W, Zhan J, Zhao F et al (2022) Spatio-temporal variations of ecosystem services and their drivers in the Pearl River Delta, China. J Clean Prod 337:130466
Loomes R, O’Neill K (1997) Nature’s services: Societal Dependence on Natural ecosystems. Pac Conserv Biology 6(2):220–221
Lu N, Fu B, Jin T, Chang R (2014) Trade-off analyses of multiple ecosystem services by plantations along a precipitation gradient across Loess Plateau landscapes. Landscape Ecol 29(10):1697–1708
MA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Maraseni T, Cockfield G (2011) Does the adoption of zero tillage reduce greenhouse gas emissions? An assessment for the grains industry in Australia. Agric Syst 104(6):451–458
Mw A, Ow A, Sla B, Ka A (2021) Temporal variability in the impacts of Particulate Matter on Crop yields on the North China Plain. Sci Total Environ 776:145135
Paul RJ, Douglas BT, Bennett EM et al (2005) Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):709–723
Peng J, Hu X, Wang X, Meersmans J, Liu Y, Qiu S (2019) Simulating the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Yunnan, China. Ecosyst Serv 39:100998
Potter CS, Randerson JT, Field CB et al (1993) Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 7(4):811–841
Qiang F, Zhao W, Fu B, Ding J, Shuai W (2017) Ecosystem service trade-offs and their influencing factors: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci Total Environ 607:1250–1263
Qiao J, Yu D, Cao Q, Hao R (2019) Identifying the relationships and drivers of agro-ecosystem services using a constraint line approach in the agro-pastoral transitional zone of China. Ecol Ind 106:105439
Qiu S, Peng J, Dong J, Wang X, Meersmans J (2020) Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and associated social-ecological drivers in a karst region: a case study of Guizhou Province, China. Prog Phys Geogr 45(1):030913332093352
Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Norstrm A, Meacham M, Castro AJ (2019) Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes. Landsc Ecol 34:1619–1633
Ren H, Shang Y, Zhang S (2020) Measuring the spatiotemporal variations of vegetation net primary productivity in Inner Mongolia using spatial autocorrelation. Ecol Ind 112:106108
Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, Porter JP (1991) RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation. J Soil & Water Conservation 46(1):1–9
Rla B, Kcc C, Jza B, Jf B, Xj B, Jl B (2019) Spatial correlations among ecosystem services and their socio-ecological driving factors: a case study in the city belt along the Yellow River in Ningxia, China. Appl Geogr 108:64–73
Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Eigenbrod F (2017) Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 47:37–50
Sun W, Li D, Wang X, Li R, Li K, Xie Y (2019) Exploring the scale effects, trade-offs and driving forces of the mismatch of ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 103(AUG):617–629
Suriya S, Mudgal BV (2012) Impact of urbanization on flooding: the Thirusoolam sub watershed – a case study. J Hydrol 412–413:210–219
Vanniera C, Cordonnierc T, Lasseura R et al (2019) Mapping ecosystem services bundles in a heterogeneous mountain region. Ecosyst People 15:74–88
Wang Q, Wu J, Li X et al (2017) A comprehensively quantitative method of evaluating the impact of drought on crop yield using daily multi-scale SPEI and crop growth process model. Int J Biometeorol 61(4):685–699
Wang XT, Zhang S, Feng LL, Zhang JH, Deng F (2020) Mapping Maize Cultivated Area combining MODIS EVI Time Series and the spatial variations of phenology over Huanghuaihai Plain. Appl Sci 10(8):2667
Wen S, Hu Y, Liu H (2022) Measurement and spatial–temporal characteristics of agricultural carbon emission in China: an internal structural perspective. Agriculture 12(11):1749
Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):999–1023
Wu J (2017) Thirty years of Landscape Ecology (1987–2017): retrospects and prospects. Landscape Ecol 32(12):2225–2239
Wu J (2021) Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landscape Ecol 36(8):2453–2485
Wu X, Cai X, Li Q et al (2013) Effects of nitrogen application rate on summer maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water–nitrogen use efficiency under micro–sprinkling irrigation in the Huang–Huai–Hai Plain of China. Ecosystems 16:894–908
Wu J, Zhang Q, Li A, Liang C (2015) Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 30(9):1579–1598
Ying-Chieh L, Shu-Li H (2018) Spatial emergy analysis of agricultural landscape change: does fragmentation matter? Ecological Indicators 93:975–985
Yu H, Gong H, Chen B, Liu K, Gao M (2020) Analysis of the influence of groundwater on land subsidence in Beijing based on the geographical weighted regression (GWR) model. Sci Total Environ 738:139405
Yushanjiang A, Zhang F, Yu H, Kung HT (2018) Quantifying the spatial correlations between landscape pattern and ecosystem service value: a case study in Ebinur Lake Basin, Xinjiang, China. Ecol Eng 113:94–104
Zeng L, Li J, Zhou Z, Yu Y (2020) Optimizing land use patterns for the grain for Green Project based on the efficiency of ecosystem services under different objectives. Ecological Indicators 114:106347
Zhang X, Zhang G, Long X et al (2021a) Identifying the drivers of water yield ecosystem service: a case study in the Yangtze River Basin, China. Ecol Ind 132:108304
Zhao M, Peng J, Liu Y, Li T, Wang Y (2018) Mapping Watershed-Level Ecosystem Service bundles in the Pearl River Delta, China. Ecol Econ 152(oct):106–117
Zhu C, Zhang X, Zhou M et al (2020) Impacts of urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat quality using OLS and GWR models in Hangzhou, China. Ecol Ind 117:106654
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the “Youth Innovation Team Program” of Colleges and Universities in Shandong Province (2022KJ248), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42101299), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M642691) and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2020QD011).
Funding
This research was funded by the “Youth Innovation Team Program” of Colleges and Universities in Shandong Province (2022KJ248), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42101299), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M642691) and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2020QD011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and design of this work. Jianmin Qiao: methodology, data collection, and original draft writing. Longyun Deng: methodology, data analysis, and visualization. Haimeng Liu and Zheye Wang: review and editing. Jianmin Qiao: resources, supervision, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
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.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Qiao, J., Deng, L., Liu, H. et al. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity in ecosystem service trade-offs and their drivers in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. Landsc Ecol 39, 42 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01827-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01827-x