Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow‐based ecosystem services

Thomas, Amy ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-7285; Masante, Dario; Jackson, Bethanna; Cosby, Bernard ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5645-3373; Emmett, Bridget ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2713-4389; Jones, Laurence ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4379-9006. 2020 Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow‐based ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 30 (2), e02046. 14, pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2046

Before downloading, please read NORA policies.

Preview

Text N526234JA.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract/Summary

Loss and fragmentation of natural land cover due to expansion of agricultural areas is a global issue. These changes alter the configuration and composition of the landscape, particularly affecting those ecosystem services (benefits people receive from ecosystems) that depend on interactions between landscape components. Hydrological mitigation describes the bundle of ecosystem services provided by landscape features such as woodland that interrupt the flow of runoff to rivers. These services include sediment retention, nutrient retention and mitigation of overland water flow. The position of woodland in the landscape and the landscape topography are both important for hydrological mitigation. Therefore, it is crucial to consider landscape configuration and flow pathways in a spatially explicit manner when examining the impacts of fragmentation. Here we test the effects of landscape configuration using a large number (>7,000) of virtual landscape configurations. We created virtual landscapes of woodland patches within grassland, superimposed onto real topography and stream networks. Woodland patches were generated with user‐defined combinations of patch number and total woodland area, placed randomly in the landscape. The Ecosystem Service model used hydrological routing to map the “mitigated area” upslope of each woodland patch. We found that more fragmented woodland mitigated a greater proportion of the catchment. Larger woodland area also increased mitigation, however, this increase was nonlinear, with a threshold at 50% coverage, above which there was a decline in service provision. This nonlinearity suggests that the benefit of any additional woodland depends on two factors: the level of fragmentation and the existing area of woodland. Edge density (total edge of patches divided by area of catchment) was the best single metric in predicting mitigated area. Distance from woodland to stream was not a significant predictor of mitigation, suggesting that agri‐environment schemes planting riparian woodland should consider additional controls such as the amount of fragmentation in the landscape. These findings highlight the potential benefits of fragmentation to hydrological mitigation services. However, benefits for hydrological services must be balanced against any negative effects of fragmentation or habitat loss on biodiversity and other services.

Item Type:	Publication - Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):	https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2046
UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:	Soils and Land Use (Science Area 2017-) Unaffiliated
ISSN:	1051-0761
Additional Information. Not used in RCUK Gateway to Research.:	Open Access paper - full text available via Official URL link.
Additional Keywords:	ecosystem service, land use change, landscape configuration, nonlinear response
NORA Subject Terms:	Ecology and Environment
Date made live:	18 Feb 2020 14:36 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/526234

Actions (login required)

View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...