» Articles » PMID: 27145031

Ecosystem Services Modeling As a Tool for Defining Priority Areas for Conservation

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2016 May 5
PMID 27145031
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Conservationists often have difficulty obtaining financial and social support for protected areas that do not demonstrate their benefits for society. Therefore, ecosystem services have gained importance in conservation science in the last decade, as these services provide further justification for appropriate management and conservation of natural systems. We used InVEST software and a set of GIS procedures to quantify, spatialize and evaluated the overlap between ecosystem services-carbon stock and sediment retention-and a biodiversity proxy-habitat quality. In addition, we proposed a method that serves as an initial approach of a priority areas selection process. The method considers the synergism between ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Our study region is the Iron Quadrangle, an important Brazilian mining province and a conservation priority area located in the interface of two biodiversity hotspots, the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes. The resultant priority area for the maintenance of the highest values of ecosystem services and habitat quality was about 13% of the study area. Among those priority areas, 30% are already within established strictly protected areas, and 12% are in sustainable use protected areas. Following the transparent and highly replicable method we proposed in this study, conservation planners can better determine which areas fulfill multiple goals and can locate the trade-offs in the landscape. We also gave a step towards the improvement of the habitat quality model with a topography parameter. In areas of very rugged topography, we have to consider geomorfometric barriers for anthropogenic impacts and for species movement and we must think beyond the linear distances. Moreover, we used a model that considers the tree mortality caused by edge effects in the estimation of carbon stock. We found low spatial congruence among the modeled services, mostly because of the pattern of sediment retention distribution.

Citing Articles

Modeling future sediment retention service in the Bagh-e-Shadi Forest protected area using InVEST and the ACCESS-ESM1-5 climate model.

Joorabian Shooshtari S, Ardakani T, Beik Khormizi H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):3435.

PMID: 39870774 PMC: 11772660. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88169-z.


Identification of Priority Conservation Areas for Natural Heritage Sites Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in the Bogda, China.

Wang T, Chen X, Zheng X, Lu Y, Han F, Yang Z Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(4).

PMID: 35206233 PMC: 8872140. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042044.


Mapping of biodiversity hubs and key ecosystem services as a tool for shaping optimal areas for conservation.

Gatwaza O, Wang X PLoS One. 2021; 16(8):e0253151.

PMID: 34403432 PMC: 8370615. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253151.


Assessment of the linkages between ecosystem service provision and land use/land cover change in Fincha watershed, North-Western Ethiopia.

Tolessa T, Kidane M, Bezie A Heliyon. 2021; 7(7):e07673.

PMID: 34386631 PMC: 8346641. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07673.


Change in landscape and ecosystems services as the basis of monitoring natural protected areas: a case study in the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain).

De Pablo C, Penalver-Alcazar M, Martin de Agar P Environ Monit Assess. 2020; 192(4):220.

PMID: 32146535 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-020-8132-6.

References
1.
Goldman R, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily G . Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(27):9445-8. PMC: 2453743. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0800208105. View

2.
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green R, Lehner B . Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(28):9495-500. PMC: 2474481. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707823105. View

3.
Goldstein J, Caldarone G, Duarte T, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G . Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(19):7565-70. PMC: 3358905. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201040109. View

4.
Jacobi C, do Carmo F . The contribution of ironstone outcrops to plant diversity in the Iron Quadrangle, a threatened Brazilian landscape. Ambio. 2008; 37(4):324-6. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[324:tcoiot]2.0.co;2. View

5.
Chan K, Shaw M, Cameron D, Underwood E, Daily G . Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4(11):e379. PMC: 1629036. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379. View