IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v68y2024ics2212041624000469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A functional connectivity approach for exploring interactions of multiple ecosystem services in the context of agricultural landscapes in the Canadian prairies

Author

Listed:
  • Pashanejad, Ehsan
  • Kharrazi, Ali
  • Araujo-Gutierrez, Zuelclady M.F.
  • Robinson, Brian E.
  • Fath, Brian D.
  • Parrott, Lael

Abstract

Land-use and land-cover patterns, including their spatial heterogeneity and configuration, are fundamental in shaping landscape-level ecological processes, functions, and services. Despite growing recognition of the importance of these patterns, gaps remain in our understanding of how they influence the functional connectivity of ecosystem services (ES)—a crucial aspect for ecosystem resilience and sustainability. This research aims to bridge this gap by investigating the functional connectivity among multiple ES, such as pollination, carbon storage, soil erosion control, wetland-based ES such as habitat provisioning and water storage capacity from marshes, swamps, and open water wetlands, and agricultural food production within a complex landscape. We define functional connectivity as the extent to which the landscape facilitates or impedes the interactions and interdependencies of ecological processes that combine to create distinct ecosystem services. This definition encompasses the dynamics within a spatially interconnected mosaic of land use and land cover, exemplified by connections such as those from pollination provisioning areas to croplands. The primary goal of this research is to develop an empirical framework that encapsulates ‘network topological’ interactions— essentially, the complex interplay among various components of the ecosystem — specific to agricultural landscapes and then to apply this framework to the Canadian prairies. Our methodology uses the spatial tools including InVEST, ARIES, and GIS to map diverse ES. An ecological network is then constructed for these ES at the landscape scale, designating network nodes based on high-value ES provisioning areas and defining links between pairs of ES according to their functional connections (overlapping and proximal in physical space). These functional connections effectively delineate areas of the landscape where the majority of ES flows occur. Mapping ES connectivity and network building revealed that around 29% of the studied landscape lies within functional connectivity zones for the selected ES, representing hotspots of significant ES interactions. Our findings reveal that although soil erosion-control spans just 1.36% of the total area, a substantial 72.59% of its spatial extent was identified as functionally connected. Land cover analysis in functional connectivity zones revealed that natural habitats such as shrublands, broadleaf forests, wetlands, and grasslands are vital mediators of ES. The variability in ES interconnectivity in the landscape was evident both in the intensity of interactions and observed connections. Our findings, informed by Ecological Network Analysis (ENA), emphasize the need for integrating connectivity and systems thinking in conservation sciences to achieve sustainability and ecosystem resilience. The insights offer a foundation to explore optimal ES provisioning scenarios at the landscape scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Pashanejad, Ehsan & Kharrazi, Ali & Araujo-Gutierrez, Zuelclady M.F. & Robinson, Brian E. & Fath, Brian D. & Parrott, Lael, 2024. "A functional connectivity approach for exploring interactions of multiple ecosystem services in the context of agricultural landscapes in the Canadian prairies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:68:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000469
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000469
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ö. Bodin & S. M. Alexander & J. Baggio & M. L. Barnes & R. Berardo & G. S. Cumming & L. E. Dee & A. P. Fischer & M. Fischer & M. Mancilla Garcia & A. M. Guerrero & J. Hileman & K. Ingold & P. Matous &, 2019. "Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(7), pages 551-559, July.
    2. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    3. Costanza, Robert, 2020. "Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    4. Tord Snäll & María Triviño & Louise Mair & Jan Bengtsson & Jon Moen, 2021. "High rates of short-term dynamics of forest ecosystem services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 951-957, November.
    5. Ali Kharrazi & Shogo Kudo & Doreen Allasiw, 2018. "Addressing Misconceptions to the Concept of Resilience in Environmental Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    7. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Katherine A. Zeller & Rebecca Lewison & Robert J. Fletcher & Mirela G. Tulbure & Megan K. Jennings, 2020. "Understanding the Importance of Dynamic Landscape Connectivity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Megan K. Jennings & Katherine A. Zeller & Rebecca L. Lewison, 2021. "Dynamic Landscape Connectivity Special Issue Editorial," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-2, May.
    10. Obiang Ndong, Gregory & Therond, Olivier & Cousin, Isabelle, 2020. "Analysis of relationships between ecosystem services: A generic classification and review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Tania Pinto & Telmo Machado & Diana Nicolau & Nuno Gaspar Oliveira & Ana Sofia Vaz, 2024. "Accounting for nature contributions to people in corporate sustainability: The case of a waste management company in Portugal," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2619-2628, July.
    4. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    7. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    8. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    11. Schibalski, Anett & Kleyer, Michael & Maier, Martin & Schröder, Boris, 2022. "Spatiotemporally explicit prediction of future ecosystem service provisioning in response to climate change, sea level rise, and adaptation strategies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    12. Romano Fistola, 2023. "Ecosystem Services for the City as a Complex System: A Methodological Proposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, June.
    13. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    14. Xiaolong Gao & Binbin Huang & Ying Hou & Weihua Xu & Hua Zheng & Dongchun Ma & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2020. "Using Ecosystem Service Flows to Inform Ecological Compensation: Theory & Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Wang, Zhuangzhuang & Fu, Bojie & Zhang, Liwei & Wu, Xutong & Li, Yingjie, 2022. "Ecosystem service assessments across cascade levels: typology and an evidence map," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    16. Shakya, Bandana & Uddin, Kabir & Yi, Shaoliang & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt & Lodhi, Mahendra Singh & Htun, Naing Zaw & Yang, Yongping, 2021. "Mapping of the ecosystem services flow from three protected areas in the far-eastern Himalayan Landscape: An impetus to regional cooperation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    17. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    18. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Lena I. Fuldauer & Scott Thacker & Robyn A. Haggis & Francesco Fuso-Nerini & Robert J. Nicholls & Jim W. Hall, 2022. "Targeting climate adaptation to safeguard and advance the Sustainable Development Goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:68:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.