Advertisement

Ecosystem Services of Russian Landscapes

  • Elena BukvarevaEmail author
  • Dmitry Zamolodchikov
  • Karsten Grunewald
Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Landscape Research book series (ILR)

Abstract

Russian landscapes provide important ecosystem services (ES) of local, regional and global scale and are crucially important for the economy and people of the country. The Project TEEB-Russia is the first attempt at a nation-wide ES assessment in Russia. The result of the first phase of the project (2013–2015) was the “Prototype National Report on Ecosystem Services of Russia, Volume 1, Terrestrial Ecosystems Services.” A methodology for ES assessment was developed with allowance for the current status of the national public statistics. ES volumes supplied by ecosystems and consumed by humans were assessed. The degree of ES use was assessed by the ratio of supplied ES to consumed ES. These methodological approaches allowed to compare the regions of Russia and define regions, which are ES donors and ES consumers. However, further progress in defining the principles of ES management requires moving from the interregional to landscape scale. In particular, the optimization of the tasks of biodiversity conservation and ES use can be effectively solved at the landscape level.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Supplied Demanded Consumed services National assessment Regional comparison Management of ES Biodiversity conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The TEEB-Russia project was commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and was supported by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation.

References

  1. Allan E, Manning P, Alt F, Binkenstein J, Blaser S, Blüthgen N, Böhm S, Grassein F, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Morris EK, Oelmann Y, Prati D, Renner SC, Rillig MC, Schaefer M, Schloter M, Schmitt B, Schöning I, Schrumpf M, Solly E, Sorkau E, Steckel J, Steffen-Dewenter I, Stempfhuber B, Tschapka M, Weiner CN, Weisser WW, Werner M, Westphal C, Wilcke W, Fischer M (2015) Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol Lett 18(8):834–843.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12469. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ (2009) Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol 46:888–896.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4:117–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardgett RD, van der Putten WH (2014) Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515: 505–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13855. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartalev SA, Belvard AS, Ershov DV, Isaev AS (2003) A new SPOT4- VEGETATION derived land cover map of Northern Eurasia. Int J Remote Sens 24(9):1977–1982.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000066297. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruffo M, Schmid B, Bruelheide H, Chi X, Hector A, Ma K, Michalski S, Tang Z, Niklaus PA (2013) Biodiversity promotes tree growth during succession in subtropical forest. PLoS One 8 (11):e81246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081246. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basanets LP, Drozdov AV (2006) Nature management for tourism, ecological imperative and prospects of Russia. In: Nature management and sustainable development. World Ecosystems and Problems of Russia. KMK—Association of The Scientific Publications, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Baruffo M, Schmid B, Bruelheide H, Chi X, Hector A, Ma K, Michalski S, Tang Z, Niklaus PA (2013) Biodiversity promotes tree growth during succession in subtropical forest. PLoS One 8 (11):e81246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081246. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bukvareva E (2014a) Die globale Bedeutung der russischen Ökosystemfunktionen und das Problem der unterschiedlichen Skalen von Ökosystemdienstleistungen, pp 93–126. In: Grunewald K, Bastian O, Drozdov A (eds) TEEB-Prozesse und Ökosystem-Assessment in Deutschland, Russland und weiteren Staaten des nördlichen Eurasiens. BfN-Skripten 372, Bonn (in German and Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Bukvareva E (2014b) Ein erster Indikatorensatz zur Bestimmung des Status von Regionen als Bereitsteller bzw. Empfänger von ÖSD in verschiedenen räumlichen Maßstäben, pp 50–65. In: Grunewald K, Bastian O, Drozdov A, Grabowsky V (eds) Erfassung und Bewertung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen (ÖSD)—Erfahrungen, insbesondere aus Deutschland und Russland. BfN-Skripten 373, Bonn (in German and Russian)Google Scholar
  11. Bukvareva E (2014c) The summary of the principle of optimal diversity of biosystems. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 52 pGoogle Scholar
  12. Bukvareva E (2018) The optimal biodiversity—a new dimension of landscape assessment. Ecol Indic 94(2):6–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.041. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bukvareva E, Aleshchenko G (2013) The principle of optimum diversity of biosystems. KMK—Association of The Scientific Publications, Moscow, 522 p (In Russian)Google Scholar
  14. Bukvareva E, Zamolodchikov D, Grunewald K (2019) National assessment of ecosystem services in Russia: Methodology and main problems. Sci Total Environ 655(2019):1181–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.286. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bukvareva E, Zamolodchikov D, Kraev G, Grunewald K, Narykov A (2017) Supplied, demanded and consumed ecosystem services: Prospects for national assessment in Russia. Ecol Indic 78:351–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.034. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bukvareva EN, Grunewald K, Bobylev SN, Zamolodchikov DG, Zimenko AV Bastian O (2015) The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: a status report. AMBIO 44(6):491–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0674-4. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bukvareva EN, Zamolodchikov DG (eds) (2018) Ecosystem services of Russia: Prototype National Report, vol. 1. Terrestrial ecosystems services. Adapted English version of the report, originally published in Russian in 2016. BCC Press, Moscow, 148 p. Available at: http://www.biodiversity.ru/programs/ecoservices/first-steps/Ecosystem-Services-Russia_V1_eng_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  18. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Muller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indicators 21:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands—Concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online 34:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.3097/lo.201434. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59–67PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Casalegno S, Inger R, Desilvey C, Gaston KJ (2013) Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services. PLoS One 8(6):e68437.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068437. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cavanaugh KC, Gosnell JS, Davis SL, Ahumada J, Boundja P, Clark DB, Mugerwa B, Jansen PA, O’Brien TG, Rovero F, Sheil D, Vasquez R, Andelman S (2014) Carbon storage in tropical forests correlates with taxonomic diversity and functional dominance on a global scale. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:563–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geb.12143. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Concept of the development of the system of nature protected areas of federal importance until 2020. Approved by the Government of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2011 No. 2322 p. Moscow (In Russian). Available at: http://government.ru/docs/4281/ Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  24. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunford RW, Harrison PA, Bagstad KJ (2017) Computer modelling for ecosystem service assessment. In: Burkhard B, Maes J (eds) Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp 124–135Google Scholar
  26. Egoshina TL (2005) Non-wood plant resources of Russia. NIA-Nature, Moscow, 80 p (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA (2015) Ecosystem services–biodiversity relationships depend on land use type in floodplain agroecosystems. Land Use Policy 46:201–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.003. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forsman A, Wennersten L (2016) Inter-individual variation promotes ecological success of populations and species: evidence from experimental and comparative studies. Ecography 39:630–648.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01357. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forsman A (2014) Effects of genotypic and phenotypic variation on establishment are important for conservation, invasion and infection biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 111:302–307.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317745111. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Hautier Y, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, Pärtel M, Bakker JD, Buckley YM, Crawley MJ, Damschen EI, Davies KF, Fay PA, Firn J, Gruner DS, Hector A, Knops JM, MacDougall AS, Melbourne BA, Morgan JW, Orrock JL, Prober SM, Smith MD (2016) Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529:390–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature16524. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gross K, Cardinale BJ, Fox JW, Gonzalez A, Loreau M, Polley HW, Reich PB, van Ruijven J (2014) Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am Nat 183:1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/673915. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Grunewald K, Bastian O, Drozdov A (eds) (2014a) TEEB-Prozesse und Ökosystem-Assessment in Deutschland, Russland und weiteren Staaten des nördlichen Eurasiens. BfN-Skripten 372, Bonn (in German and Russian)Google Scholar
  33. Grunewald K, Bastian O, Drozdov A, Grabowsky V (eds) (2014b) Erfassung und Bewertung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen (ÖSD) – Erfahrungen, insbesondere aus Deutschland und Russland. BfN-Skripten 373, Bonn (in German and Russian)Google Scholar
  34. Grunewald K, Zimenko A, Bastian O, Bukvareva E, Grigorian A, Wende W (2014c) Konzeption des Projektes, pp 146–161. In: Grunewald K, Bastian O, Drozdov A (eds) TEEB-Prozesse und Ökosystem-Assessment in Deutschland, Russland und weiteren Staaten des nördlichen Eurasiens. BfN-Skripten 372, Bonn (in German and Russian)Google Scholar
  35. Gryaznov SE, Kuzminyh YV, Bogachev YK (2011) Assessment and measurement of illegal logging in the forest sector of the Russian Federation. News of Higher education institutions. Forest Journal 5:124–130 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  36. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No. EEA/IEA/09/003Google Scholar
  37. Handa IT, Aerts R, Berendse F, Berg MP, Bruder A, Butenschoen O, Chauvet E, Gessner MO, Jabiol J, Makkonen M, McKie BG, Malmqvist B, Peeters ET, Scheu S, Schmid B, van Ruijven J, Vos VC, Hättenschwiler S (2014) Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across biomes. Nature 509:218–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13247. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harrison PA, Berry PM, Simpson G, Haslett JR, Blicharska M, Bucur M, Dunford R, Egoh B, Garcia-Llorente M, Geamănă N, Geertsema W, Lommelen E, Meiresonne L, Turkelboom F (2014) Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosyst Serv 9:191–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hedden-Dunkhorst B, Braat L, Wittmer H (2015) TEEB emerging at the country level: Challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst Serv 14:37–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.007. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ, Byrnes JEK, Hungate BA, Matulich KL, Gonzalez A, Duffy JE, Gamfeldt L, O’Connor MI (2012) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–108. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11118Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ, Underwood N, Vellend M (2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 11:609–623.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. King E, Cavender-Bares J, Balvanera P, Mwampamba TH, Polasky S (2015) Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: Evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecol Soc 20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07822-200325 Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  43. Kotlobay A, Lopina O, Kharchenkov Yu, Bryukhanov A, Schegolev A, Smirnov D (2006) Evaluation of timber of doubtful origin and analysis of the practice of introducing systems for tracing the origin of wood in a number of multi-forest regions of the North-West, Siberia and the Far East of Russia. WWF, Moscow, 56 p (In Russian)Google Scholar
  44. Lewandowska AM, Biermann A, Borer ET, Cebrián-Piqueras MA, Declerck SA, De Meester L, Van Donk E, Gamfeldt L, Gruner DS, Hagenah N, Harpole WS, Kirkman KP, Klausmeier CA, Kleyer M, Knops JM, Lemmens P, Lind EM, Litchman E, Mantilla-Contreras J, Martens K, Meier S, Minden V, Moore JL, Venterink HO, Seabloom EW, Sommer U, Striebel M, Trenkamp A, Trinogga J, Urabe J, Vyverman W, Van de Waal DB, Widdicombe CE, Hillebrand H (2016) The influence of balanced and imbalanced resource supply on biodiversity functioning relationship across ecosystems. Philos Trans R Soc B 371:20150283.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0283. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lomanova NV et al (eds) (2011) The state of game resources in the Russian Federation in 2008–2010: Information-analytical materials. Game animals of Russia (biology, protection, resource management, rational use). Issue 9. Phys. Culture, Moscow, 219 p (in Russian)Google Scholar
  46. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian GA (2011) European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services. Towards an atlas of ecosystem services, Publ Office EU, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  47. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Dunbar MB, Alkemade R (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maestre FT, Quero JL, Gotelli NJ, Escudero A, Ochoa V, Delgado-Baquerizo M, García-Gómez M, Bowker MA, Soliveres S, Escolar C, García-Palacios P, Berdugo M, Valencia E, Gozalo B, Gallardo A, Aguilera L, Arredondo T, Eldridge DJ, Espinosa CI, Florentino A, Gaitán J, Gatica MG, Ghiloufi W, Gómez-González S, Gutiérrez JR, Hernández RM, Huang X, Huber-Sannwald E, Jankju M, Miriti M, Monerris J, Mau RL, Morici E, Naseri K, Ospina A, Polo V, Prina A, Pucheta E, Ramírez-Collantes DA, Romao R, Tighe M, Torres-Díaz C, Val J, Veiga JP, Wang D, Zaady E (2012) Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335:214–218.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215442. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martínez-Harms M-J Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosys Serv Manage 8:1–2, 17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis (2005) Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Nadrowski K, Wirth C, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2010) Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:75–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.003. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Atlas of Russia. Volumes 1–4. (2004–2008). Federal Agency for Geodesy and Cartography of Russia, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  53. National Report (2013) National Report of the Russian Federation on the Cadastre of Anthropogenic Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks of Greenhouse Gases Not Controlled by the Montreal Protocol for 1990–2011 (2013) Moscow, 421 p (in Russian)Google Scholar
  54. National Strategy of Biodiversity Conservation in Russia (2001) RAS, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, GEF Project “Conservation of Biodiversity”, Moscow, 75 p (in Russian)Google Scholar
  55. Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services – Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.022. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Paquette A, Messier C (2011) The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:170–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00592.x. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ptichnikov A, Kuritsyn A (2011) Systems for tracing wood in Russia: the experience of timber companies and forest management bodies. Analytical report. WWF of Russia, Moscow, 116 p (In Russian)Google Scholar
  58. Qiu J, Turner MG (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. PNAS 110(29):12149–12154.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310539110. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11):5242–5247.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosstat (2013) Regions of Russia. Socioeconomic indicators. Statistical Bull. Moscow (in Russian). Available at: www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  61. Schulp CJE, Burkhard B, Maes J, Van Vliet J, Verburg PH (2014) Uncertainties in ecosystem service maps: a comparison on the European scale. PLoS One 9(10):e109643.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109643. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Science for Environment Policy (2015) Ecosystem Services and the Environment. In-depth Report 11 produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol.  https://doi.org/10.2779/57695. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  63. Stolbovoi V, McCallum I (2002). Land Resources of Russia (CD-ROM). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Russian Academy of Science, Laxenburg, Austria: Available at: http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/russia_cd/guide.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  64. Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH (2014) Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol Indic 38:198–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indicators 21:80–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tilman D, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:10394–10397.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208240109. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM (2014) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Ann Rev of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45(1):471–493.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091917. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Baró F, Termansen M, Barton DN, Berry P, Stange E, Thoonen M, Kalóczkai Á, Vadineanu A, Castro AJ, Czúcz B, Röckmann C, Wurbs D, Odee D, Preda E, Gómez-Baggethun E, Rusch GM, MartínezPastur G, Palomo I, Dick J, Casaer J, Dijk J, Priess JA, Langemeyer J, Mustajoki J, Kopperoinen L, Baptist MJ, Peri PL, Mukhopadhyay R, Aszalós R, Roy SB, Luque S, Rusch V (2018) When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst Serv 29:566–578.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011. Accessed 15 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vihervaara P, Mononen L, Santos F, Adamescu M, Cazacu C, Luque S, Geneletti D, Maes J (2017) Biophysical quantification. In: Burkhard B, Maes J (eds) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp 95–101Google Scholar
  70. Vilà M, Carrillo-Gavilán A, Vayreda J, Bugmann H, Fridman J, Grodzki W, Haase J, Kunstler G, Schelhaas MJ, Trasobares A (2013) Disentangling biodiversity and climatic determinants of wood production. PLoS ONE 8(2):e3530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053530. Accessed 15 Jan 2019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang W, Lei X, Ma Z, Kneeshaw DD, Peng C (2011) Positive relationship between aboveground carbon stocks and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forest stands in New Brunswick. Canada. Forest Sci 57(6):506–515Google Scholar
  72. Zulian G, Polce C, Maes J (2014) ESTIMAP: A GIS-based model to map ecosystem services in the European Union. Ann Bot (Roma) 4:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.4462/annbotrm-11807. Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Bukvareva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dmitry Zamolodchikov
    • 2
    • 3
  • Karsten Grunewald
    • 4
  1. 1.Biodiversity Conservation CenterMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Biological FacultyLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and Productivity of Forests of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional DevelopmentDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations