Ecosystem Services in Rangelands: Paradigm Change from Supply to Reconciling Supply & Demand Osvaldo Sala

Ecosystem Services: benefits people obtain from ecosystems http://www.personal-mastership.com/contribution-community/gratitude-for-ecosystem-services

Jornada LTER VI Project Objective 6 a: Broad-scale patterns and trends in drivers in socio-ecological states Specific objective of quantifying trends in socio-economic drivers

Ecosystem Services Supplied by the Chihuahuan Desert Rangelands Spaceport America Cattle Production Recreation Cattle (criollo) of Spanish descent are well-adapted to aridlands. “How do these cattle perceive and use the landscape, and interact with native animals?” Residential/business Agriculture NMSU

Number of scientific publications related to Ecosystem Services over 1963-2012 References to Ecosystem services The concept of ecosystem services has been developed in the scientific literature since the end of the 1970s. Scopus in 2012 (Modified from Rositano et al. 2013.)

Shift in emphasis from supply to reconciling supply and demand Supply of ES Demand for ES Use of ES Ecosystem service research has focused on the supply and the economic value of ES, while substantial knowledge gaps remain concerning the demand. The SUPPLY is related with the biophysical assessments of the capacity of ecosystems to deliver services. It is usually described by Ecological Production Functions, connected with the spatial extent, ecosystem structure, and ecosystem functioning (Daily et al., 2011). The USE of ES by people is the the wood harvested per hectare, the amount of clean water used for irrigation or the amount of crop production increased by the pollination services. However, we don’t know how to estimate the demand The level of supply of an ecosystem service in a region (green) actually demanded by people (orange) determines the use of the service of interest (violet).

Demand for Ecosystem Services in United States Drylands

Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers 2015 13: 44-51 Figure 2 Visitors BLM land (Millions/year) Hunters BLM land 1,4 1,5 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1994 1996 1998 2012 Wildlife viewers Visitors onto National Parks A C 2 4 6 8 12 14 50 60 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 B D Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers 2015 13: 44-51

Figure 4 Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers 2015 13: 44-51

Population in 10 arid US States(Millions) - 5 10 15 20 25 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 TOTAL Metro Non Rural

Demand for Ecosystem Services in Other Areas of the World

The demand for ES in different regions of the world Provisioning Suporting Regulating Cultural Urban area National Parks Urban area Developing regions Agricultural area Resorts Rural area Agricultural area Resorts National Parks Rural area Developed regions Modified from data in Martín-López 2012, PLoS ONE; Castro 2011, J. Arid Env; Zhen 2010, Environ. Res. Lett

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IS A MAJOR PROVISIONING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE FROM RANGELANDS Effects of woody-plant encroachment A comparison of North and South America

Hypotheses LP = B0 + B1 NPP + B2 Tree Cover + Error

Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

Relative importance of ecological drivers on livestock production in woody encroached grasslands of two contrasting countries Estimate p-value Intercept -40.8044 0.8424 -22.75 0.6015 NPP 0.133 <0.0001 0.09796 Tree cover -0.5754 0.0005 1.1360 0.0006 NPP*Tree cover - n.s. -0.003 0.0001 R2 24.01 50.26 Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

Number of cattle and the agricultural population decreased during 1960-2005 in grasslands of the US while it remains constant in Argentinean grasslands Number of cattle Agricultural population Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

Conclusion Land use = ʄ ∑jn [(ESj supply), (∑in(ESj Demand stakeholder i * Political Power stakeholder i ))]

Future Demand for other ecosystem services Demand for ecosystem services in diverse socio-economic setting Use managed relocation heuristic tool to assess brush control practices

Thank you

Ecosystem Services Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem service assessments have increasingly been used to support environmental management policies, mainly based on biophysical and economic indicators. However, few studies have coped with the social-cultural dimension of ecosystem services, despite being considered a research priority. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Synthesis Report, Island Press

Demand for Ecosystem Services How can we quantify the demand for ES? Which kind of ES are more demanded? How does demand change among stakeholders and regions? Which are the main drivers of ES demand?

Approaches to estimate the demand of ES People preferences by collation of responses to questionnaires and interviews Social surveys: Services are identified spontaneously More ‘visible’ services, such as recreation, aesthetic, natural hazards regulation are commonly identified Ranking exercise: A list of services are presented and people has to rank them More ‘invisible’ services such as pollination and soil fertility emerged during these exercises Identification of drivers of ES demand Collection and analysis of statistics

Stakeholders in arid-semiarid regions and the main ES valued Main service valued Farmers Forage supply for livestock production Regulating services to sustain forage production Service providers Cultural services provided by landscape Recreational hunters Supply of game species Recreation and aesthetic enjoyment Conservationists Habitat for endangered and rare wildlife species Regulating services to sustain habitat quality Passive Nature tourists Active Nature tourists Habitat for wildlife species Castro et al. 2010, J Arid Environ 75:1201; Schefer et al. 2000, Ecosystems 5:451

Supply and Demand for different ES Provisioning (Food production) Supporting (Biodiversity ) Regulating (Carbon sequestration) Cultural (Recreation ) Supply of ES Use of ES Demand of ES Ecosystem service classes Modified from data in Carpenter et al. 2012. PNAS 106:1305

Drivers of Ecosystem Services Demand Monthly income Level of formal education Urban vs. rural setting Geographic location Environmental awareness Cultural values Age Gender Available technologies to replace ecosystem services

Supply & Demand through Time Supply of ES Supply & Demand through Time Use of ES Demand of ES ? Pre-settlement: the supply of ES surpassed the demand Present: the demand for ES is not fully satisfied by the supply Future: the demand for ES will surpassed the supply Modified from data in Carpenter et al. 2012. PNAS 106:1305

The per capita demand for crops has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960 Global relationship between per capita GDP and per capita demand for crop calories among seven economic groups (Tilman et al. 2011, PNAS 108:20260)

Arid ecosystems are among the less valued regarding their capacity to provide ES Perception of stakeholders regarding an ecosystem capacity to provide services. Ecosystem classification based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (From Martín-López et al, 2012)

Demand for Ecosystem Services by different stakeholders PS: Provisioning services SS: Supporting services RS: Regulating services CS: Cultural services

for ecosystem services (%) Hypothesized Trends in Demand in Ecosystem Services Provisioning Regulating Supporting Cultural for ecosystem services (%) Relative demand Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers 2015 13: 44-51