Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient. (February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Birkhofer, Klaus; Andersson, Georg K.S.; Bengtsson, Janne; Bommarco, Riccardo; Dänhardt, Juliana; Ekbom, Barbara; Ekroos, Johan; Hahn, Thomas; Hedlund, Katarina; Jönsson, Annelie M.; Lindborg, Regina; Olsson, Ola; Rader, Romina; Rusch, Adrien; Stjernman, Martin; Williams, Alwyn; Smith, Henrik G.
• Is Part Of: Biological conservation. Volume 218(2018)
• Page Start: 247
• Page End: 253
• Publication Date: 2018-02
• Subjects: Biodiversity loss -- Landscape complexity -- Multidiversity -- Multifunctionality -- Synergies -- Trade-offs; Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals; Nature conservation -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environmental Pollution -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.027
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0006-3207

Abstract

Abstract: The assessment of effects of anthropogenic disturbance on biodiversity (BD) and ecosystem services (ES) and their relationships are key priorities of the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Agricultural landscapes and their associated BD provide multiple ES and it is crucial to understand how relationships between ES and BD components change along gradients of landscape complexity. In this study, we related eight ES potentials to the species richness of five invertebrate, vertebrate and plant taxonomic groups in cereal farming systems. The landscape complexity gradient ranged from areas dominated by annually tilled arable land to areas with high proportions of unfertilized, non-rotational pastures and uncultivated field borders. We show that after accounting for landscape complexity relationships between yield and bird richness or biological control became more positive, but relationships between bird richness and biological control became less positive. The relationship between bird and plant richness turned from positive to negative. Multidiversity (overall biodiversity), was positively related to landscape complexity, whereas multifunctionality (overall ES provision), was not significantly related to either one of these. Our results suggest that multidiversity can be promoted by increasing landscape complexity; however; we found no support for a simultaneous increase of several individual ES, BD components or multifunctionality. These results challenge the assumption that biodiversity-friendly landscape management will always simultaneously promote multiple ES in agricultural landscapes. Future studies need to verify this pattern by using multi-year data, larger sets of ES and BD components and a study design that is appropriate to address larger spatial scales and relationships in several regions. Highlights: Landscape complexity does not alter the majority of diversity-service relationships. Landscape complexity is positively related to multidiversity, but not multifunctionality. Biodiversity-friendly landscapes may not simultaneously enhance multifunctionality. These results are context dependent (selected diversity & services, study duration & spatial scale).