Advertisement

Societal Dependence on Soil’s Ecosystem Services

Chapter
First Online:
  • 2.5k Downloads

Abstract

Through its natural capital, soil generates numerous ecosystem services for ecological functions and human wellbeing. These include provisional (feed, food, fiber, fuel, raw material), life support (cleansing, recycling) and cultural (aesthetical, intellectual, spiritual) services. Ecosystem services such as carbon (C) sequestration are generated through a close interaction of the pedosphere with atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and lithosphere. Land misuse and soil mismanagement can degrade soil quality, and either reduces quantity and quality of ecosystem services or leads to disservices and creates large ecological footprints. By increasing the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, soil biological, chemical and physical quality can be improved which in turn improves ecosystem services. There exist relationships among multiple ecosystem services, increase in one can decrease the other through trade-offs. Payments for ecosystem services, based on rational and objective criteria can minimize risks of overshoot of incentives for enhancing ecosystem services and promote sustainable use of finite and often fragile natural resources. Transdisciplinary collaborations including collaborations between scientists and extra-scientific actors and means of interdisciplinary collaboration are required to tackle the complexity of social-ecological issues associated with soil’s ecosystem services.

Keywords

Climate change Food security Soil security Water security Soil processes Soil degradation Desertification Drought Payments for ecosystem services 

Abbreviations

EFs

Ecosystem functions

ESs

Ecosystem services

GHGs

Greenhouse gases

SOC

Soil organic carbon

SOM

Soil organic matter

RMPs

Recommended management practices

WUE

Water use efficiency

NUE

Nutrient use efficiency

ERD

Effective rooting depth

SQI

Soil quality index

PES

Payments for ecosystem services

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

References

  1. Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro E, Sims KRE (2010) The environmental effectiveness of payments for environmental services in Mexico: results from pilot analysis. Working paper, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arriagada R, Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK, Sills E, Cordero S (2012) Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Econ 88(2):382–399Google Scholar
  3. Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L, Schaepman ME (2008) Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manage 24:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes F (2008) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystems services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, Diaz S et al (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:1305–1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  10. Daily GC, Matson PA, Vitousek PM (1997) Ecosystem services supplied by soils. In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 113–132Google Scholar
  11. Dale VH, Beyeler SC (2001) Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecol Indic 1:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale VH, Polasky S (2007) Measure of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64:286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP (2000) The interplay between climate change, forests, and disturbances. Sci Total Environ 262:201–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale VH, Mulholland P, Olsen LM, Feminella J, Maloney K, White DC, Peacock A, Foster T (2004) Selecting a suite of ecological indicators for resource management. In: Kapustka LA, Gilbraith H, Luxon M, Biddinger GR (eds) Landscape ecology and wildlife habitat evaluation: critical information for ecological risk assessment, land-use management activities and biodiversity enhancement practices, ASTM STP 11813. ASTM International, West ConshohokenGoogle Scholar
  15. de Groot RS (1987) Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. Environmentalist 7:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management, and decision making. Walters-Noorhoff, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  17. EDI (2008) The man: articles: the three careers of W. Edwards Deming. http://deming.org/?content=652. Accessed 15 Oct 2008
  18. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraro PJ (2011) The future of payments for environmental services. Conserv Biol 25(6):1134–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franzluebbers AJ (2010) Will we allow soil carbon to feed our needs? Carbon Manage 1:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core writing team Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds), IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jansson C, Wullscheger SD, Kalluri UC, Tuskan GD (2010) Phytosequestration: carbon biosequestration by plants and the prospects of genetic engineering. Bioscience 60:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kremen C, Ostfeld RS (2005) A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 3:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lal R (2008) Promise and limitations of soils to minimize climate change. J Soil Water Conserv 63:113A–118ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lal R (2009) Soils and food sufficiency. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lal R (2010) Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions and advancing global food security. Bioscience 60:708–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence RJ, Després C (2004) Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:398Google Scholar
  30. Lovelock JE (1979) Gaia: a new look at life on Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York Greater Clarendon St., Oxford, 148 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. MEA (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  32. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  33. Nkonya E, Gerber N, Baumgartner P, von Braun J, De Pinto A, Graw V, Kato E, Kloos J, Walter T (2011) Toward an integrated global assessment, Development economics and policy, No. 66. Peter Lang Publ., Frankfurt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 280 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York: Peter Lang Gmbh, Frankfurt am Main, 262 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pan Y, Birdsey R, Fang J et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scholz RW (2001) The mutual learning sessions. In: Thompson-Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R et al (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schulze E-D, Ciais P, Luyssaert S, Schrumpf M, Janssens IA, Thiruchittampalam B, Theloke J, Saurat M, Bringezu S, Lelieveld J, Lohila A, Rebmann C, Jung M, Bastviken D, Abril G, Grassi G, Leip A, Freibauer A, Kutsch W, Don A, Nieschulze J, Börner A, Gash JH, Dolman AJ (2010) The European carbon balance. Part 4: integration of carbon and other trace-gas fluxes. Glob Change Biol 16:1451–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simpson ED, Sedjo RA (1996) Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environ Dev Econ 1:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stallman HR (2011) Ecosystem services in agriculture: determining suitability for provision by collective management. Ecol Econ 71:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suter G (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  41. Tallis H, Kareiva P (2005) Ecosystem services. Curr Biol 15:R746–R748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, d’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner RK (1988) Economics, growth and sustainable environments. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner RK (1991) Economics of wetland management. Ambio 20:59–63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CFAES/OARDC, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Carbon Management and Sequestration CenterOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Global Soil ForumIASS Institute for Advanced Sustainability StudiesPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZHelmholtz-Zentrum PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  4. 4.Zentrum für EntwicklungsforschungUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options