1. Putting ecosystem services on the map Taylor Ricketts Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund – U.S.

2. 25 people 10 PhDs 11 Masters Plus Interns Students Post-docs Dual Roles 1.Research 2.Advisors to WWF Programs Conservation Science Program, WWF

3. Natural processes through which ecosystems sustain and fulfill human life. Ecosystem Services Links nature to human welfare New motivation, funding for conservation Poorly understood

4. Growing attention

5. Three projects Number of services Spatial scale Millennium Assessment 1 2 3 Pollination case study Pollination meta-analysis Natural Capital Project

6. 2/3 of crops require it Honeybee declines Can wild bees to do the job? Value of their habitats? coffee tomato apple Crop pollination

7. What is value of native habitats as sources of pollinators to surrounding crops? 1. Does pollinator activity decline with distance from native habitats? 2. Does this decline influence yields? Questions

8. 012 km S N Near Med. Far Distance# sites Near (<100m)4 Mid (0.8 km)4 Far (1.6 km) 4 Design

9. Timed observations Diversity, visitation rate Pollinator activity

10. Visitation rate ANOVA: p < 0.001 a b b Apis mellifera

11. ANOVA: p < 0.001 Pollen deposition a b b

12. Yield experiments Two treatments 1. Open (ambient pollination) 2. Hand-pollinated (ensure sufficient pollination)

13. Question: are ambient pollination levels sufficient? Possible results: Experimental logic Hand = Open Sufficient Hand > Open Not sufficient

14. Results: seed mass ANOVA Distance: ns Treatment: ns D x T: p=0.004 **

15. Questions: 1. Does pollinator activity decline with distance from forest? YES Ricketts, Cons Bio 2004 2. Does this decline influence coffee yields? YES ~20% decrease beyond 1km Ricketts et al., PNAS 2004

16. Value of pollination services n s Numbers we need Forest effects1 km Yield beyond 1km17.8 fa*/ha Yield within 1km21.5 fa/ha Net income$35/fa * fanega = 200 liters 1.0 km (far)

17. Marginal change in forest 1.0 km Loss of area near forest:480 ha Loss of income:$62,000 1.0 km

18. Are forests undervalued? Environmental Service Payments –Carbon sequestration –Hydrological services –Scenic beauty –Biodiversity $42/ha/year Pollination service value –$62,000 / 157 ha= $395/ha/year Underestimate: other services, other farms

19. Three projects 19 Number of services Spatial scale Millennium Assessment 1 2 Pollination case study Pollination meta-analysis

20. How general is coffee result? 23 studies 18 published, in press 5 in review, preparation Any general lessons? 16 crops Almond Atemoya Canola (2) Tomato Watermelon (3) Coffee (3) Eggplant Field Bean Grapefruit Kiwifruit Longan Macadamia (2) Muskmelon Oil palm Passion fruit Sunflower (2) 10 countries

21. Exponential decay model Distance Native visitation P = α * e (β*D) α : intercept β : decay rate

22. All studies (visitation)

23. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling “ Mean β “ Probability Estimates probability distribution of “mean β,“ given all studies α estimated separately for each study Better fits = more influence Stochastic sampling approach (WinBUGS) Flat priors

24. Native visitation rates Number of visits / flower / minute Both means and certainties vary Decay rate (β) Overall mean β Probability P = 0.004 Ricketts et al. 2008. Ecol. Letters.

25. Overall effect of distance Point of 50% decline: 668m (395-1727m) Distance (m) Native visitation

26. Pollinator richness (19 studies) Point of 50% decline: 1507m (921-3332m) shallower decline species present, but lower abundances Distance (m) Richness Overall mean β Probability P = 0.002

27. Fruit or seed set (12 studies) Point of 50% decline: 26,826m (5038-NA) No overall decline detected sufficient pollination at low abundances crops self-compatible experiments difficult Distance (m) Fruit/seed set Overall mean β Probability P = 0.162

28. How does this help? Ecology Search for general patterns in nature Landscape effects on pollination Conservation Map ecosystem services Inform landscape planning Predict effects of land use change

29. Three projects Number of services Spatial scale Millennium Assessment 1 2 3 Pollination case study Pollination meta-analysis Natural Capital Project “Landscape level quantification of economic values of entire bundles of ecosystem services under alternative management regimes” -Carpenter et al. Science. 2006. Most policy relevance

30. The Natural Capital Project –Develop tools to map, value ecosystem services –Test & apply tools in critical ecoregions –Support policies to maintain / pay for services –Change the way ecosystems are viewed InVEST

31. 31 Questions for InVEST –What places provide the most ecosystem services? –How would a proposed logging project affect different ecosystem services and biodiversity? –What landscape pattern would optimize ecosystem services now and under likely scenarios? –Who should pay whom under a proposed ‘PES’ program, and how much?

32.  Biodiversity  Pollination  Carbon Storage, Sequest.  Timber & NTFP Production  Water quality  Water quantity and timing  Agricultural production  Recreation / Tourism  Cultural and Non-use InVEST Built so far

33. 33 Tiered Approach Tier 1Tier 2 Doable anywhere (?) Relative scores SimpleComplex Models Data (typical) More detail Absolute estimates

34. Pollination model Pollinator source abundance Fly to pollinate crops Effect on crop yield Distribute value to source A A A Y P Kremen, et al. 2007. Ecology Letters Lonsdorf, et al. 2009. Annals of Botany

35. Testing in Costa Rica Source abundanceContribution to coffee yieldSource value

36. Validating model results Predicted on-farm abundance Observed on-farm abundance Good fits Simple model Simple data (experts) Lonsdorf, et al. 2009. Annals of Botany

37. Upper Yangtze Eastern Arc Mtns Sierra Nevada Four Demonstration Sites Hawai’i test, refine InVEST with field partners and experts support conservation goals

38. “Valuing the Arc”

39. Early results Water yield ~f(rain, ET, topo, soils) Carbon storage ~f(storage/ha, harvest, decay) Charcoal harvest ~f(stock/ha, access, protection)

40. InVEST interface http://invest.ecoinformatics.org Kareiva, et al. (in prep). Theory and Practice of Ecosystem Services. Oxford.

41. Engaging people

42. How does this help? Locate win-win areas for conservation Target payments for services Engage those deciding things Demonstrate economic importance of nature Connect conservation to people www.naturalcapitalproject.org www.valuingthearc.org

43. Putting ES on the map Number of services Spatial scale Millennium Assessment 1 2 3 Pollination case study Pollination meta-analysis Natural Capital Project

44. 44 Thanks… NatCap / Valuing the Arc Andrew Balmford Neil Burgess Gretchen Daily Brendan Fisher Peter Kareiva Eric Lonsdorf Guillermo Mendoza Shadrack Mwakalila Robin Naidoo Erik Nelson Nasser Olwero Steve Polasky Jim Regetz Mathieu Rouget Ruth Swetnam Heather Tallis Buzz Thompson Kerry Turner Sue White Michael Wright … Support NSF-NCEAS NASA Leverhulme Trust Packard Foundation MacArthur Foundation Moore Foundation Summit Foundation Roger and Vicki Sant Peter and Helen Bing … Pollination Paul Ehrlich Jaime Florez Geoff Heal David Inouye Ailene Kane Claire Kremen Maya Hayden Charles Michener Brad Reed David Roubik Neal Williams OTS Finca Santa Fe The Fallas family …

46. Three possibilities 1. Apis arrival time – Stigmas receptive only a few hours – Arrive later in far sites? 2. Apis behavior –Move less among plants? –Able to fill corbiculae with fewer visits? 3. Hand-pollination treatments –Damage or “clog” stigmas? –Yields lower than potential?

47. a b b b c open manipulated Pollen manipulations

48. Decisions Ecosystems Services Value Production functions Daily et al. in press. Frontiers in Ecology & Evolution Valuation Incentives & Restrictions Information Scenarios & actions Institutions Big picture Policy / Finance How use information? PES, gov programs WRI collaborations? InVEST