Naidoo et al., 2008 - global mapping of ecosystems and conservation priorities

Question 1

What ecosystem services were mapped? Why these services?

Answer 1

• carbon sequestration
• carbon storage
• grassland production of livestock
• water provision
• only services spatial proxies could be developed for
• major interdisciplinary efforts to quantify & map other services are needed

Question 2

What proxies were used to map the ecosystem services?

Answer 2

carbon sequestration:
- net carbon exchange (NCE) produced in simulations using the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM)

carbon storage:
- Olson’s classic estimates of above and below ground C updated using the global land cover 2000 (GLC2000) map

grassland production of livestock:

• combining global data on livestock distributions, producer prices, and current and potential vegetation
• doesn’t account for different values of economic value of livestock in different regions of the world
• remote sensing: difficult to tell if grasslands are natural or have been “improved with non-native species”

water provision:

• water used for irrigation, industry, domestic consumption, and livestock production
• used WaterGAP model, attributed water to source point upstream
• ignores spatial variation in water value e.g. scarcity/type of use
• doesn’t show changed in water provision related to land use change

Question 3

How did ecosystem services correlate with each other?

Answer 3

• little correspondence between ecosystem services
• none had a correlation above +0.2
• calculated a mean per-unit-area ecosystem service provision score

Question 4

How well do areas selected for high ecosystem services capture biodiversity?

Answer 4

• average for all taxa (mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian) for levels up to 90% of species representation
• optimising for individual ecosystem services conserved only 22–35% as many species for a given area as did optimising for species
• no more than were conserved by selecting ecoregions at random

Question 5

How well do areas selected for high biodiversity ecosystem services capture?

Answer 5

• maximizing species representation for a given area captured only 17–53% of maximum ecosystem service provision
• depending on service was looked at/what spatial area considered

Question 6

How well do different existing priority areas (high biodiversity wilderness areas, biodiversity hotspots, global 200 ecoregions) conserve ecosystem services?

Answer 6

carbon storage/sequestration:
- highest in HBWAs
- lowest in biodiversity hotspots, which were net C emitters in 1980s
- global 200 ecoregions intermediate
why?
- globally dispersed and do not depend on local beneficiaries

grassland production of livestock/water provision:
- highest in biodiversity hotspots
- lowest in HWBAs
- g200 ecoregions intermediate
why?
- services mostly benefit locals
- highest in densely populated biodiversity hotspots

Question 7

What are win-win areas?

Answer 7

ecoregions important for both types of targets
- PES are more likely than elsewhere to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives in this areas

• tend to be in tropical areas
• least likely to be in tundra/desert
• win-win areas may have trade off areas on a finer scale
• trade off areas may have win-win areas on a finer scale