Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Maintaining multifunctionality as landscapes provide ecosystem services

Maintaining multifunctionality as landscapes provide ecosystem services Write Back Stoker J, Harding D, and Parrish J. 2008. The need for a National Lidar Dataset. Photogramm Eng Rem S 74: 1066–68. Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Gould WA, et al. 2008. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front Ecol Environ 6: 90–98. doi:10.1890/11.WB.009 In the October issue (Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8[8]: 409–13), Fissore et al. indicated that prairie restoration and afforestation on previous cropland in the Upper Midwest of the US would not reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions significantly without large reductions in the amount of harvested cropland. Fissore et al.’s findings highlight an important aspect of landscape redesign. Multifunctional landscapes should not be designed to maximize one ecosystem good or service but to optimize the production and provisioning of multiple goods and services. Just as current agricultural systems emphasize crop productivity at the expense of many ecosystem services (Robertson and Swinton 2005), focusing exclusively on carbon storage – rather than on a suite of ecosystem goods and services – is likely to have unintended negative side effects. Fissore et al. found that 29% of CO2 emissions from the Upper Midwest could be offset by converting 40% of the harvested cropland in that area to prairie or forest, but less than 5% of the CO2 emissions could be offset if only 10% of the harvested cropland were converted to prairie or forest. We agree with the authors’ conclusions that removing 40% of the cropland area in the Upper Midwest from production is not feasible. Converting 10% of the harvested acres of cropland into prairie or forest, on the other hand, may be achievable, particularly if policies are enacted to encourage removing environmentally sensitive land from production. Although converting just 10% of the current cropland to native vegewww.frontiersinecology.org tation will have only a small impact on offsetting CO2 emissions, a multitude of other ecosystem goods and services could be provided by such land-use changes, including improved water quality and increased biodiversity. Converting 5% of an annual row crop dominated landscape to switchgrass riparian buffers reduced sediment loss into adjacent streams by 78%, total nitrogen loss by 51%, and total phosphorus loss by 55% (Lee et al. 1999). Converting 10% of watersheds from annual row crop production to prairie vegetation reduced sediment losses from the watersheds by 95% and increased native plant species richness by more than 400% (Liebman et al. 2011). Animal diversity, including both insects and vertebrate wildlife, has been found to be positively correlated with increasing grassland plant diversity (Fargione et al. 2009). Native vegetation, such as that associated with prairies and forests, can also produce multiple ecosystem goods, such as biomass for biofuel production or electricity generation (Fargione et al. 2009). If native vegetation is reincorporated into agricultural landscapes strategically, disproportionate benefits in ecosystem services relative to the area of land-use change can be realized as a result of the non-linearity in response of many ecosystem processes to land-use change (Liebman et al. 2011). As awareness about the importance of obtaining both ecosystem goods and services from agricultural landscapes increases, a focus on landscape multifunctionality – rather than single ecosystem service maximization – becomes increasingly necessary. Meghann E Jarchow* and Matt Liebman Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA * (mjarchow@iastate.edu) Fargione JE, Cooper TR, Flaspohler DJ, et al. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. BioScience 59: 767–77. Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC, et al. 1999. Nutrient and sediment removal by switchgrass and cool-season grass filter strips in central Iowa, USA. Agroforest Syst 44: 121–32. Liebman M, Helmers MJ, and Schulte LA. 2011. Integrating conservation with biofuel feedstock production. In: Nowak P and Schnepf M (Eds). Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality II: achieving more effective conservation. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America. Robertson GP and Swinton SM. 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 3: 38–46. doi:10.1890/11.WB.010 A reply to Jarchow and Liebman In their comment on our article (Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8[8]: 409–13), Jarchow and Liebman (hereafter J&L) address the need to manage the land and its resources in a more holistic way, emphasizing the provision of multiple ecosystem goods and services. We welcome their expanded perspective and share their view of the importance of maintaining landscape multifunctionality. As J&L point out, several co-benefits (eg erosion control, increased biodiversity), in addition to carbon (C) sequestration potential, can be achieved by adopting best management practices and therefore should be included and emphasized in environmental plans and policies. However, our decision to focus solely on terrestrial C sequestration potential associated with landuse change originated from concern about the growing number of proposed or adopted plans and policies that rely heavily – and erroneously – on terrestrial ecosystems to offset unrealistically high proportions of current carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. In our case, ignoring the value of co-benefits was necessary to not divert the readers’ attention from this pressing issue. Cinzia Fissore1*, Javier F Espeleta1,2, Edward A Nater1, Sarah E Hobbie3, and Peter B Reich4 1 Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN *(fisso001@umn.edu); © The Ecological Society of America http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Ecological Society of America

Maintaining multifunctionality as landscapes provide ecosystem services

Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ecological-society-of-america/maintaining-multifunctionality-as-landscapes-provide-ecosystem-sGBcqUQl5i

References (4)

Publisher
Ecological Society of America
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by the Ecological Society of America
Subject
Write Back
ISSN
1540-9295
eISSN
1540-9309
DOI
10.1890/11.WB.010
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Write Back Stoker J, Harding D, and Parrish J. 2008. The need for a National Lidar Dataset. Photogramm Eng Rem S 74: 1066–68. Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Gould WA, et al. 2008. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front Ecol Environ 6: 90–98. doi:10.1890/11.WB.009 In the October issue (Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8[8]: 409–13), Fissore et al. indicated that prairie restoration and afforestation on previous cropland in the Upper Midwest of the US would not reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions significantly without large reductions in the amount of harvested cropland. Fissore et al.’s findings highlight an important aspect of landscape redesign. Multifunctional landscapes should not be designed to maximize one ecosystem good or service but to optimize the production and provisioning of multiple goods and services. Just as current agricultural systems emphasize crop productivity at the expense of many ecosystem services (Robertson and Swinton 2005), focusing exclusively on carbon storage – rather than on a suite of ecosystem goods and services – is likely to have unintended negative side effects. Fissore et al. found that 29% of CO2 emissions from the Upper Midwest could be offset by converting 40% of the harvested cropland in that area to prairie or forest, but less than 5% of the CO2 emissions could be offset if only 10% of the harvested cropland were converted to prairie or forest. We agree with the authors’ conclusions that removing 40% of the cropland area in the Upper Midwest from production is not feasible. Converting 10% of the harvested acres of cropland into prairie or forest, on the other hand, may be achievable, particularly if policies are enacted to encourage removing environmentally sensitive land from production. Although converting just 10% of the current cropland to native vegewww.frontiersinecology.org tation will have only a small impact on offsetting CO2 emissions, a multitude of other ecosystem goods and services could be provided by such land-use changes, including improved water quality and increased biodiversity. Converting 5% of an annual row crop dominated landscape to switchgrass riparian buffers reduced sediment loss into adjacent streams by 78%, total nitrogen loss by 51%, and total phosphorus loss by 55% (Lee et al. 1999). Converting 10% of watersheds from annual row crop production to prairie vegetation reduced sediment losses from the watersheds by 95% and increased native plant species richness by more than 400% (Liebman et al. 2011). Animal diversity, including both insects and vertebrate wildlife, has been found to be positively correlated with increasing grassland plant diversity (Fargione et al. 2009). Native vegetation, such as that associated with prairies and forests, can also produce multiple ecosystem goods, such as biomass for biofuel production or electricity generation (Fargione et al. 2009). If native vegetation is reincorporated into agricultural landscapes strategically, disproportionate benefits in ecosystem services relative to the area of land-use change can be realized as a result of the non-linearity in response of many ecosystem processes to land-use change (Liebman et al. 2011). As awareness about the importance of obtaining both ecosystem goods and services from agricultural landscapes increases, a focus on landscape multifunctionality – rather than single ecosystem service maximization – becomes increasingly necessary. Meghann E Jarchow* and Matt Liebman Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA * (mjarchow@iastate.edu) Fargione JE, Cooper TR, Flaspohler DJ, et al. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. BioScience 59: 767–77. Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC, et al. 1999. Nutrient and sediment removal by switchgrass and cool-season grass filter strips in central Iowa, USA. Agroforest Syst 44: 121–32. Liebman M, Helmers MJ, and Schulte LA. 2011. Integrating conservation with biofuel feedstock production. In: Nowak P and Schnepf M (Eds). Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality II: achieving more effective conservation. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America. Robertson GP and Swinton SM. 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 3: 38–46. doi:10.1890/11.WB.010 A reply to Jarchow and Liebman In their comment on our article (Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8[8]: 409–13), Jarchow and Liebman (hereafter J&L) address the need to manage the land and its resources in a more holistic way, emphasizing the provision of multiple ecosystem goods and services. We welcome their expanded perspective and share their view of the importance of maintaining landscape multifunctionality. As J&L point out, several co-benefits (eg erosion control, increased biodiversity), in addition to carbon (C) sequestration potential, can be achieved by adopting best management practices and therefore should be included and emphasized in environmental plans and policies. However, our decision to focus solely on terrestrial C sequestration potential associated with landuse change originated from concern about the growing number of proposed or adopted plans and policies that rely heavily – and erroneously – on terrestrial ecosystems to offset unrealistically high proportions of current carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. In our case, ignoring the value of co-benefits was necessary to not divert the readers’ attention from this pressing issue. Cinzia Fissore1*, Javier F Espeleta1,2, Edward A Nater1, Sarah E Hobbie3, and Peter B Reich4 1 Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN *(fisso001@umn.edu); © The Ecological Society of America

Journal

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment – Ecological Society of America

Published: Jun 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.