Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services

Taylor H. Ricketts (), Keri B. Watson, Insu Koh, Alicia M. Ellis, Charles C. Nicholson, Stephen Posner, Leif L. Richardson and Laura J. Sonter
Additional contact information
Taylor H. Ricketts: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Keri B. Watson: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Insu Koh: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Alicia M. Ellis: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Charles C. Nicholson: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Stephen Posner: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Leif L. Richardson: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Laura J. Sonter: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont

Nature Communications, 2016, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-8

Abstract: Abstract Ecosystem services (ES) are an increasingly popular policy framework for connecting biodiversity with human well-being. These efforts typically assume that biodiversity and ES covary, but the relationship between them remains remarkably unclear. Here we analyse >500 recent papers and show that reported relationships differ among ES, methods of measuring biodiversity and ES, and three different approaches to linking them (spatial correlations, management comparisons and functional experiments). For spatial correlations, biodiversity relates more strongly to measures of ES supply than to resulting human benefits. For management comparisons, biodiversity of ‘service providers’ predicts ES more often than biodiversity of functionally unrelated taxa, but the opposite is true for spatial correlations. Functional experiments occur at smaller spatial scales than management and spatial studies, which show contrasting responses to scale. Our results illuminate the varying dynamics relating biodiversity to ES, and show the importance of matching management efforts to the most relevant scientific evidence.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13106 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:7:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1038_ncomms13106

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13106

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().