R ationalising Bi odiversity Co nservation in D ynamic E cosystems ( RUBICODE )

1. Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems (RUBICODE) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services For further information contact Gary Luck (email: galuck@csu.edu.au) Funded under the European Commission Sixth Framework Programme Contract Number: 036890

2. Service-providing unit (SPU) “The collection of organisms and their characteristics necessary to deliver a given ecosystem service at the level required by service beneficiaries.”

3. Loss of biodiversity is commonly characterised by species extinction rates. • Substantial change to ecosystems and the status of biodiversity occurs prior to species extinction. • Populations could be considered a fundamental unit of measure. • The relationship between biodiversity and human wellbeing is primarily a function of populations of species.

4. Evolutionary units - populations with independent evolutionary dynamics. Demographic units - populations with independent demographic dynamics (e.g. fluctuate in size asynchronously). Conservation units - depend on the associated conservation goals and may be formalized through concepts like MVPs and ESUs. SPUs - defined by the service it provides to humanity, and the temporal and spatial extent of that service. A taxonomy of populations

5. Service-providing unit (SPU) “The collection of organisms and their characteristics necessary to deliver a given ecosystem service at the level required by service beneficiaries.” • Need to know • The sections of society that need/use the service. • The level at which it is required. • The organisms that provide the service (ecosystem service provider – ESP). • The characteristics of these organisms required to provide the service at the desired level (SPU).

6. Pest control in apple orchards SPU = Density of Parus majorbreeding pairs within the orchard that provide the service at the required level. 1-6 pairs/ha reduce caterpillar damage by up to 50%. Mols & Visser 2002. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 888-899. Mols & Visser 2007.. PLoS One 2(2), e202.

7. Define the ecosystem service: • identify the ecosystem service beneficiaries • identify the spatio-temporal scale of service delivery • identify the ecosystem service providers (ESPs) 1. IDENTIFICATION { • Quantify the ecosystem service demand: • determine the net level of demand/need for the service 2. QUANTIFICATION • Quantify the service-providing unit (SPU): • determine the characteristics of organisms necessary for service provision • quantify the relationships between SPUs and service supply • quantify the components of biodiversity that support the SPU Value the service as provided by the SPU Identify and value potential alternatives for providing the service { 3. APPRAISAL • Evaluate options: • compare valuations and examine trade-offs • determine implications for biodiversity conservation • determine implications for policy and sustainable livelihoods Conceptual framework {

8. Seed dispersal in urban park • Need defined by: • Cultural, recreational and biodiversity ‘value’ of park. • Eurasian Jay primary facilitator of acorn germination. • Estimate replacement cost of seed dispersal service. • SPU = • A minimum of 12 resident pairs of Eurasian Jay present each year for 14 years. ctmsu.sytes.net www.dkimages.com Hougner, C. et al. 2006. Ecol. Econ. 59, 364-74.

9. Service provision by functional groups The ESP approach: A species’ contribution to an aggregate service is defined by its effectiveness at performing the service and organism abundance. Changes in aggregate service result from changes in ESPs. The SPU approach: Argues for the need to understand more explicitly how characteristics manifested at the functional-group level (e.g. group composition) and for each member organism (e.g. population dynamics) impact on service provision.

10. Pollination of watermelon • Up to 30 native bees pollinate watermelon. • Contribution to pollination varies across • years and within and among crops. • Diversity of native bee community • essential as the most functionally • important species can vary across time • and space. • SPU = • The composition of the functional group, the functional traits of each member, the population characteristics of each member, and appropriate spatial and temporal dynamics to deliver the service at the desired level. Kremen, C. et al. 2002. PNAS 99, 16812-16816. Kremen, C. et al. 2004. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1109-1119.

11. Manage service delivery by protecting habitat that supports native bees. About 40% cover within 2.4km should provide entire pollination service. Native vegetation (~ 40%) 2.4km watermelon crop

12. Water regulation by forests grail.cs.washington.edu • Quantified four factors that may influence water regulation: soil type; slope angle; vegetation type; and the area of each vegetation type. • This resulted in 90 categories of vegetation–soil–slope complexes, with water flow regulation differing substantially among complexes. • SPU = • The area of a given vegetation type occurring on a particular soil type at a particular slope angle required to provide the service to the level needed by service beneficiaries. na.unep.net Guo et al. (2000) Ecol. Appl.10, 925-36

13. Seed dispersal Water regulation Single species Multiple species Population Functional group Community Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Density, genetics, temporal and spatial dynamics Composition, traits, population characteristics Type, area, location Summary Ecosystem service

14. Key phrase = “deliver a given ecosystem service at the level required by service beneficiaries” Focuses attention on quantifying the contribution made by organisms to service delivery in relation to the needs of beneficiaries. Avoids undue attention on organisms making insubstantial contributions (i.e. it identifies the key service providers). Implies that if a collection of organisms are not contributing to service provision at the desired level they do not constitute an SPU (i.e. a threshold level of service delivery). SPU – service relationships

15. Native species SPU – service relationships Exotic species Human alternative d Service provider dynamics

16. Species interactions www.berkeley.edu Greenleaf & Kremen 2006. PNAS 103, 13890-13895. www.cfsan.fda.gov Perfecto & Vandermeer 2006. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 117, 218-221. www.wildernessclassroom.com Collen & Gibson 2001. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10, 439-461.

17. When multiple species contribute to the same service, the stability of service provision should be buffered against fluctuations in the populations of the species comprising the effect functional group. Assumes diversity of responses within functional group Assumes quantitatively similar contributions to service provision Implies functional replacement among species Increased biodiversity is expected to secure continuation of ecosystem processes despite environmental variability. A major problem in predicting the impacts of environmental changes on ecosystem services is the individualistic responses of service-providing organisms. Coping with ecosystem dynamics Functional groups and biodiversity:

18. Coping with ecosystem dynamics Populations of key species: • Ensure life-history, population and genetic traits are appropriate to cope with likely changes in the environment. • Analogous to the MVP concept. • Must consider factors such as resilience to environmental variation, probability of persistence under future management scenarios, degrees of uncertainty and acceptable levels of risk for loss of the service.

19. Conceptual model + Positive interaction - Negative interaction

20. Link organisms and their characteristics to service provision via the needs of beneficiaries. Exist at various organisational levels. Could be considered a threshold measure, but understanding incremental changes might still be important. Conclusions SPUs:

21. Species interactions are important for service provision. Must consider ecosystem dynamics when managing for the persistence of SPUs and the continued supply of ecosystem services. Ecological complexity + socio-economic complexity necessitates general approaches and assumptions. Conclusions