Search

Control of crop pests by shifting host plant availability and natural enemy activity at landscape scales has great potential to enhance the sustainability of agriculture. However, mainstreaming natural pest control requires improved understanding of how its benefits can be realized across a variety of agroecological contexts. Empirical studies suggest significant but highly variable responses of natural pest control to land-use change. Current ecological models are either too specific to provide insight across agroecosystems or too generic to guide management with actionable predictions. We suggest obtaining the full benefit of available empirical, theoretical, and methodological knowledge by combining trait-mediated understanding from correlative studies with the explicit representation of causal relationships achieved by mechanistic modeling. To link these frameworks, we adapt the concept of archetypes, or context-specific generalizations, from sustainability science. Similar responses of natural pest control to land-use gradients across cases that share key attributes, such as functional traits of focal organisms, indicate general processes that drive system behavior in a context-sensitive manner. Based on such observations of natural pest control, a systematic definition of archetypes can provide the basis for mechanistic models of intermediate generality that cover all major agroecosystems worldwide. Example applications demonstrate the potential for upscaling understanding and improving predictions of natural pest control, based on knowledge transfer and scientific synthesis. A broader application of this mechanistic archetype approach promises to enhance ecology's contribution to natural resource management across diverse regions and social-ecological contexts. ANR; BMBF; FORMAS; FWF; MINECO; NWO; PT-DLR; Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Umweltforschung; iDiv - German Research Foundation [DFG-FZT 118, 202548816]; Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS); SLU Centre for Biological Control; Strategic research area Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate (BECC); US Dept. of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) [2020-67021-32477]; Volkswagen Foundation [A118199] Published version 2013-2014 BiodivERsA/FACCE-JPI joint call for research proposals (project ECODEAL), with the national funders ANR, BMBF, FORMAS, FWF, MINECO, NWO and PT-DLR; Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Umweltforschung; iDiv, funded by the German Research Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: DFG-FZT 118, 202548816; Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS); SLU Centre for Biological Control; Strategic research area Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate (BECC); US Dept. of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Grant/Award Number: 2020-67021-32477; Volkswagen Foundation through a Freigeist Fellowship, Grant/Award Number: A118199

Increasing diversity on farms can enhance many key ecosystem services to and from agriculture, and natural control of arthropod pests is often presumed to be among them. The expectation that increasing the size of monocultural crop plantings exacerbates the impact of pests is common throughout the agroecological literature. However, the theoretical basis for this expectation is uncertain; mechanistic mathematical models suggest instead that increasing field size can have positive, negative, neutral, or even nonlinear effects on arthropod pest densities. Here, we report a broad survey of crop field-size effects: across 14 pest species, 5 crops, and 20,000 field years of observations, we quantify the impact of field size on pest densities, pesticide applications, and crop yield. We find no evidence that larger fields cause consistently worse pest impacts. The most common outcome (9 of 14 species) was for pest severity to be independent of field size; larger fields resulted in less severe pest problems for four species, and only one species exhibited the expected trend of larger fields worsening pest severity. Importantly, pest responses to field size strongly correlated with their responses to the fraction of the surrounding landscape planted to the focal crop, suggesting that shared ecological processes produce parallel responses to crop simplification across spatial scales. We conclude that the idea that larger field sizes consistently disrupt natural pest control services is without foundation in either the theoretical or empirical record.

The future of nature's contributions A recent Global Assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has emphasized the urgent need to determine where and how nature's contribution matters most to people. Chaplin-Kramer et al. have developed a globalscale modeling of ecosystem services, focusing on water quality regulation, coastal protection, and crop pollination (see the Perspective by Balvanera). By 2050, up to 5 billion people may be at risk from diminishing ecosystem services, particularly in Africa and South Asia. Science , this issue p. 255 ; see also p. 184

Global social and economic changes, alongside climate change, are affecting the operating environment for agriculture, leading to efforts to increase production and yields, typically through the use of agrochemicals like pesticides and fertilizers, expanded irrigation, and changes in seed varieties. Intensification, alongside the expansion of agriculture into new areas, has increased harvest, but has also had numerous well-known impacts on the environment, ultimately resulting in a loss of resilience and lack of sustainability in agro-ecosystems. Combined with features of agricultural systems such as the differential movement of ecosystem services, and interactions among ecosystem services driven in part by management choices, such intensification has disrupted key feedbacks in agricultural systems. These changes have tended to perpetuate the management choices that have led to efficient, productive agriculture, often at the expense of nature and the provision of important nonfood ecosystem services. Here, we explore how agriculture functions as a complex adaptive system. We assess how recent changes have interacted with agro-ecosystem features to result in a loss of resilience, and suggest key research directions to help harmonize production and ecosystem function, drawing primarily on Canadian examples. Enhancing the resilience of agricultural landscapes is critical to the long-term sustainability of agriculture in a rapidly changing world.

Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems, and processes that underpin human well-being is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we identify critical natural assets, natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature’s contributions to people (NCP). Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP mapped) comprise 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required for maintaining all NCP (including those that accrue at the global scale, carbon storage and moisture recycling). At least 87% of the world’s population lives in the areas benefiting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% lives on the lands containing these assets. Critical natural assets also overlap substantially with areas important for biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals) and cultural diversity (representing 96% of global Indigenous and non-migrant languages). Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets for NCP could simultaneously advance development, climate, and conservation goals. Crafting policy and investment strategies that protect critical natural assets is essential for sustaining human well-being and securing Earth’s life support systems.

Recent synthesis studies have shown inconsistent responses of crop pests to landscape composition, imposing a fundamental limit to our capacity to design sustainable crop protection strategies to reduce yield losses caused by insect pests. Using a global dataset composed of 5242 observations encompassing 48 agricultural pest species and 26 crop species, we tested the role of pest traits (exotic status, host breadth and habitat breadth) and environmental context (crop type, range in landscape gradient and climate) in modifying the pest response to increasing semi-natural habitats in the surrounding landscape. For natives, increasing semi-natural habitats decreased the abundance of pests that exploit only crop habitats or that are highly polyphagous. On the contrary, populations of exotic pests increased with an increasing cover of semi-natural habitats. These effects might be related to changes in host plants and other resources across the landscapes and/or to modified top-down control by natural enemies. The range of the landscape gradient explored and climate did not affect pests, while crop type modified the response of pests to landscape composition. Although species traits and environmental context helped in explaining some of the variability in pest response to landscape composition, the observed large interspecific differences suggest that a portfolio of strategies must be considered and implemented for the effective control of rapidly changing communities of crop pests in agroecosystems.

Diversifying agricultural landscapes may mitigate biodiversity declines and improve pest management. Yet landscapes are rarely managed to suppress pests, in part because researchers seldom measure key variables related to pest outbreaks and insecticides that drive management decisions. We used a 13‐year government database to analyse landscape effects on European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) outbreaks and insecticides across c. 400 Spanish vineyards. At harvest, we found pest outbreaks increased four‐fold in simplified, vineyard‐dominated landscapes compared to complex landscapes in which vineyards are surrounded by semi‐natural habitats. Similarly, insecticide applications doubled in vineyard‐dominated landscapes but declined in vineyards surrounded by shrubland. Importantly, pest population stochasticity would have masked these large effects if numbers of study sites and years were reduced to typical levels in landscape pest‐control studies. Our results suggest increasing landscape complexity may mitigate pest populations and insecticide applications. Habitat conservation represents an economically and environmentally sound approach for achieving sustainable grape production., Diversifying agricultural landscapes may mitigate biodiversity declines and improve pest management. We used a 13‐year government database to analyse landscape effects on European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) outbreaks and insecticides across c. 400 Spanish vineyards. Our results suggest increasing landscape complexity may mitigate pest outbreaks and insecticide applications.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that plant species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning in terrestrial ecosystems, including diversity effects on insects (herbivores, predators and parasitoids) and plants. However, the effects of increased plant diversity across trophic levels in different ecosystems and biomes have not yet been explored on a global scale. Through a global meta-analysis of 2,914 observations from 351 studies, we found that increased plant species richness reduced herbivore abundance and damage but increased predator and parasitoid abundance, predation, parasitism and overall plant performance. Moreover, increased predator/parasitoid performance was correlated with reduced herbivore abundance and enhanced plant performance. We conclude that increasing plant species diversity promotes beneficial trophic interactions between insects and plants, ultimately contributing to increased ecosystem services.

Despite the scientific consensus on the extinction crisis and its anthropogenic origin, the quantification of historical trends and of future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been limited, due to the lack of inter-model comparisons and harmonized scenarios. Here, we present a multi-model analysis to assess the impacts of land-use and climate change from 1900 to 2050. During the 20th century provisioning services increased, but biodiversity and regulating services decreased. Similar trade-offs are projected for the coming decades, but they may be attenuated in a sustainability scenario. Future biodiversity loss from land-use change is projected to keep up with historical rates or reduce slightly, whereas losses due to climate change are projected to increase greatly. Renewed efforts are needed by governments to meet the 2050 vision of the Convention on Biological Diversity.One Sentence SummaryDevelopment pathways exist that allow for a reduction of the rates of biodiversity loss from land-use change and improvement in regulating services but climate change poses an increasing challenge.

1. Agriculture's influence on humanity is a dichotomy of promise and peril. Research on the food‐environment dilemma has highlighted the environmental consequences of food production, yet the identification of management solutions is an ongoing challenge. 2. We suggest “bright spots” as a promising tool to identify levers of change by finding areas that exceed expectations for goals, such as agricultural landscape multifunctionality and biodiversity. 3. We identified bright, dark and average spots within a complex agricultural landscape and explored the associated socioeconomic patterns. We found that areas exceeding expectations for biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality were neither spatially congruent nor in conflict. It was more common for areas to underperform (dark spots) for both biodiversity and multifunctionality than over perform for both (bright spots). 4. While dark spots for multifunctionality were alike in their ecosystem service composition, bright spots were bright in multiple, diverse ways. The socioeconomic attributes that characterize bright and darks spots included both farm characteristics as well as farming practices, suggesting that both have potential to be levers of change. 5. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that while biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality show similar spatial patterns due to underlying biophysical drivers, managing for biodiversity or landscape multifunctionality alone will not implicitly achieve the other in this system. Bright spots (areas exceeding expectations) in multifunctionality were associated with many different combinations of ecosystem services, but dark spots were uniquely agricultural intensive areas devoted to maximizing crop production at the expense of all other services. From a management perspective, specific farm characteristics and farming practices may impact the potential for multifunctionality: increased mechanization, increased agricultural inputs and larger farm size and capital were associated with dark spots, while smaller farms with potentially greater space for innovation were associated with bright spots.

Because wildlife and livestock compete for grazing resources, biodiversity conservation and livestock ranching typically have been portrayed as conflicting uses of African savannas. Here, we offer an alternative perspective by describing a savanna ecosystem in central Kenya where wildlife and livestock exhibit a suite of potential positive interactions. For example, treating livestock with an acaricide offers the unintended benefit of removing ticks from the landscape, a result that has now been shown to occur at both large and small scales. When humans derive financial benefits both from wildlife (through tourism) and from livestock (through food production), they may achieve greater economic stability than when income is derived solely from one source. The integrated management of wildlife and livestock can simultaneously improve human health and wildlife conservation. Optimization of human and wildlife benefits will require the management of ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs when conflicts occur between stakeholders.

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnica. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Zafra Calvo, Noelia. Future Earth; España. Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Fil: Verburg, Peter H. VU University Amsterdam. Institute for Environmental Studies: Países Bajos. Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; Kenia. Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris-Sud. Ecologie Systématique Evolution; Francia. Fil: Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca. Stanford University. Natural Capital Project; Estados Unidos. Fil: De Meester, Luc. Leibniz Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei; Alemania. Fil: Dulloo, Ehsan. Bioversity International; Mauricio. Fil: Martín- López, Berta. Leuphana University of Lüneburg. Faculty of Sustainability; Alemania. Fil: Shaw, Rebecca. The World Wide Fund for Nature; Estados Unidos. Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Ecosystem Services and Management Program; Austria. Fil: Broadgate, Wendy. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Bruford, Michael W. Cardiff University. School of Biosciences and Sustainable Places Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Burgess, Neil D. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Cavender Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: DeClerck, Fabrice. EAT Foundation; Noruega. Fil: Fernández Palacios, José María. Universidad de La Laguna. Instituto Universitario de Enfermedades Tropicales y Salud Pública de Canarias; España. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Hill, Samantha L. L. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: Khoury, Colin K. International Center for Tropical Agriculture; Colombia. Fil: Krug, Cornelia B. University of Zurich. Department of Geography; Suiza. Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. Fil: Maron, Martine. The University of Queensland; Australia. Fil: McGowan, Philip J. K. Newcastle University. School of Natural and Environmental Sciences; Reino Unido. Fil: Pereira, Henrique M. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Fil: Reyes García, Victoria. Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies; España. Fil: Rocha, Juan. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Sapienza University of Rome. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies. Global Mammal Assessment Program; Italia. Fil: Shannon, Lynne. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Snelgrove, Paul V. R. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Departments of Ocean Sciences and Biology; Canada. Fil: Spehn, Eva M. Swiss Academy of Sciences. Swiss Biodiversity Forum; Suiza. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. Pontifical Catholic University. Department of Geography and the Environment. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre; Brasil. Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M. United Nations University. Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón. Fil: Tewksbury, Joshua J. University of Colorado; Estados Unidos. Fil: Watson, James E. M. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. Fil: Zanne, Amy E. George Washington University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unidos. Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature (1, 2) and climate (3) show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved (4). Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

Informed management of livestock on rangelands underpins both the livelihoods of communities that depend on livestock for sustenance, and the conservation of wildlife that often depend on livestock-dominated landscapes for habitat. Understanding spatial patterns of rangeland productivity is therefore crucial to designing global development strategies that balance social and environmental benefits. Here we introduce a new rangeland production model that dynamically links the Century ecosystem model with a basic ruminant diet selection and physiology model. With lightweight input data requirements that can be met with global sources, the model estimates the viability of broad livestock management decisions, and suggests possible implications of these management decisions for grazing wildlife. Using minimal field data, the new rangeland production model enables the reliable estimation of cattle stocking density; this is an important predictor of the viability of livestock production and forage available for grazing wildlife.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the global and multi-dimensional nature of sustainability and thus require improving our capacity to articulate and trace the impact of ecosystem change to measures of human well-being. Yet, the integrated nature of these goals is challenging to assess without similarly integrated assessment tools. We present a new modeling toolkit, "Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human well-being" (MESH), that integrates commonly used, stand-alone ecosystem services (ES) models from the InVEST suite of models to quantify and illustrate the trade-offs and synergies across five ecosystem services and up to 10 associated SDGs. Development of the software and its functionality were informed by a broad stakeholder consultation with ministries, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups in West Africa to identify common barriers to uptake and application of modeling tools in developing countries. In light of this process, key features included in MESH are (1) integration of multiple ecosystem service (ES) models into a common modeling framework supported by a curated base data set, (2) built-in scenario generation capacity to support policy analysis, (3) visualization of outcomes and trade-offs, and (4) mapping of ecosystem service change to SDG targets and goals. We illustrate the use of MESH in a case study in the Volta basin of West Africa comparing the effectiveness of three alternative conservation prioritization approaches: (1) land cover-based, (2) topographic-based, and (3) an ecosystem service-based approach to minimize the impact of agricultural expansion. We evaluate these approaches by linking changes in service supply to potential impacts on achievement of specific SDG goals and targets.

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies., This work was supported through the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) National Science Foundation Award DBI-1052875 for the project “Evidence and Decision-Support Tools for Controlling Agricultural Pests with Conservation Interventions” organized by D.S.K. and R.C.-K

International corporations in an increasingly globalized economy exert a major influence on the planet's land use and resources through their product design and material sourcing decisions. Many companies use life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate their sustainability, yet commonly-used LCA methodologies lack the spatial resolution and predictive ecological information to reveal key impacts on climate, water and biodiversity. We present advances for LCA that integrate spatially explicit modelling of land change and ecosystem services in a Land-Use Change Improved (LUCI)-LCA. Comparing increased demand for bioplastics derived from two alternative feedstock-location scenarios for maize and sugarcane, we find that the LUCI-LCA approach yields results opposite to those of standard LCA for greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption, and of different magnitudes for soil erosion and biodiversity. This approach highlights the importance of including information about where and how land-use change and related impacts will occur in supply chain and innovation decisions., Life cycle assessments are used by corporations to determine the sustainability of raw source materials. Here, Chaplin-Kramer et al. develop an improved life cycle assessment approach incorporating spatial variation in land-use change, and apply this framework to a bioplastic case study.

Agricultural intensification is a leading cause of global biodiversity loss, which can reduce the provisioning of ecosystem services in managed ecosystems. Organic farming and plant diversification are farm management schemes that may mitigate potential ecological harm by increasing species richness and boosting related ecosystem services to agroecosystems. What remains unclear is the extent to which farm management schemes affect biodiversity components other than species richness, and whether impacts differ across spatial scales and landscape contexts. Using a global metadataset, we quantified the effects of organic farming and plant diversification on abundance, local diversity (communities within fields), and regional diversity (communities across fields) of arthropod pollinators, predators, herbivores, and detritivores. Both organic farming and higher in‐field plant diversity enhanced arthropod abundance, particularly for rare taxa. This resulted in increased richness but decreased evenness. While these responses were stronger at local relative to regional scales, richness and abundance increased at both scales, and richness on farms embedded in complex relative to simple landscapes. Overall, both organic farming and in‐field plant diversification exerted the strongest effects on pollinators and predators, suggesting these management schemes can facilitate ecosystem service providers without augmenting herbivore (pest) populations. Our results suggest that organic farming and plant diversification promote diverse arthropod metacommunities that may provide temporal and spatial stability of ecosystem service provisioning. Conserving diverse plant and arthropod communities in farming systems therefore requires sustainable practices that operate both within fields and across landscapes., EML and DC were supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2014‐51106‐22096. BMF was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development‐CNPq, Brasília, Brazil #305062/2007‐7. SGP and MO were supported by the Felix Trust and STEP Project (EC FP7 244090).

Managing ecosystem services in the context of global sustainability policies requires reliable monitoring mechanisms. While satellite Earth observation offers great promise to support this need, significant challenges remain in quantifying connections between ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, and human well-being benefits. Here, we provide a framework showing how Earth observation together with socioeconomic information and model-based analysis can support assessments of ecosystem service supply, demand, and benefit, and illustrate this for three services. We argue that the full potential of Earth observation is not yet realized in ecosystem service studies. To provide guidance for priority setting and to spur research in this area, we propose five priorities to advance the capabilities of Earth observation-based monitoring of ecosystem services.

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the 21st century. Ecosystem services—the benefits that people derive from nature and natural capital—is a concept often used to help explain human reliance on nature and frame the decisions we make in terms of the ongoing value of nature to human wellbeing. Yet ecosystem service science has not always lived up to the promise of its potential. Despite advances in the scientific literature, ecosystem service science has not yet answered some of the most critical questions posed by decision-makers in the realm of sustainability. Here, we explore the history of ecosystem service science, discuss advances in conceptualization and measurement, and point toward further work needed to improve the use of ecosystem service in decisions about sustainable development.

Farms benefit from pest control services provided by nature, but management of these services requires an understanding of how habitat complexity within and around the farm impacts the relationship between agricultural pests and their enemies. Using cage experiments, this study measures the effect of habitat complexity across scales on pest suppression of the cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicae in broccoli. Our results reveal that proportional reduction of pest density increases with complexity both at the landscape scale (measured by natural habitat cover in the 1 km around the farm) and at the local scale (plant diversity). While high local complexity can compensate for low complexity at landscape scales and vice versa, a delay in natural enemy arrival to locally complex sites in simple landscapes may compromise the enemies' ability to provide adequate control. Local complexity in simplified landscapes may only provide adequate top-down pest control in cooler microclimates with relatively low aphid colonization rates. Even so, strong natural enemy function can be overwhelmed by high rates of pest reproduction or colonization from nearby source habitat.

Ecologists and farmers often have contrasting perceptions about the value of natural habitat in agricultural production landscapes, which so far has been little acknowledged in ecology and conservation. Ecologists and conservationists often appreciate the contribution of natural habitat to biodiversity and potential ecosystem services such as biological pest control, whereas many farmers see habitat remnants as a waste of cropland or source of pests. While natural habitat has been shown to increase pest control in many systems, we here identify five hypotheses for when and why natural habitat can fail to support biological pest control, and illustrate each with case studies from the literature: (1) pest populations have no effective natural enemies in the region, (2) natural habitat is a greater source of pests than natural enemies, (3) crops provide more resources for natural enemies than does natural habitat, (4) natural habitat is insufficient in amount, proximity, composition, or configuration to provide large enough enemy populations needed for pest control, and (5) agricultural practices counteract enemy establishment and biocontrol provided by natural habitat. In conclusion, we show that the relative importance of natural habitat for biocontrol can vary dramatically depending on type of crop, pest, predator, land management, and landscape structure. This variation needs to be considered when designing measures aimed at enhancing biocontrol services through restoring or maintaining natural habitat.

The growing base of information about ecosystem services generated by ecologists, economists, and other scientists could improve the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of commodity-sourcing standards being adopted by corporations to mitigate risk in their supply chains and achieve sustainability goals. This review examines various ways that information about ecosystem services could facilitate compliance with and auditing of commodity-sourcing standards. We also identify gaps in the current state of knowledge on the ecological effectiveness of sustainability standards and demonstrate how ecosystem-service information could complement existing monitoring efforts to build credible evidence. This paper is a call to the ecosystem-service scientists to engage in this decision context and tailor the information they are generating to the needs of the standards community, which we argue would offer greater efficiency of standards implementation for producers and enhanced effectiveness for standard scheme owners and corporations, and should thus lead to more sustainable outcomes for people and nature.

The agricultural expansion and intensification required to meet growing food and agri-based product demand present important challenges to future levels and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Influential actors such as corporations, governments, and multilateral organizations have made commitments to meeting future agricultural demand sustainably and preserving critical ecosystems. Current approaches to predicting the impacts of agricultural expansion involve calculation of total land conversion and assessment of the impacts on biodiversity or ecosystem services on a per-area basis, generally assuming a linear relationship between impact and land area. However, the impacts of continuing land development are often not linear and can vary considerably with spatial configuration. We demonstrate what could be gained by spatially explicit analysis of agricultural expansion at a large scale compared with the simple measure of total area converted, with a focus on the impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Using simple modeling approaches for two regions of Brazil, we find that for the same amount of land conversion, the declines in biodiversity and carbon storage can vary two- to fourfold depending on the spatial pattern of conversion. Impacts increase most rapidly in the earliest stages of agricultural expansion and are more pronounced in scenarios where conversion occurs in forest interiors compared with expansion into forests from their edges. This study reveals the importance of spatially explicit information in the assessment of land-use change impacts and for future land management and conservation.

Climate change and land-use change are major factors influencing sediment dynamics. Models can be used to better understand sediment production and retention by the landscape, although their interpretation is limited by large uncertainties, including model parameter uncertainties. The uncertainties related to parameter selection may be significant and need to be quantified to improve model interpretation for watershed management. In this study, we performed a sensitivity analysis of the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs) sediment retention model in order to determine which model parameters had the greatest influence on model outputs, and therefore require special attention during calibration. The estimation of the sediment loads in this model is based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The sensitivity analysis was performed in the Llobregat basin (NE Iberian Peninsula) for exported and retained sediment, which support two different ecosystem service benefits (avoided reservoir sedimentation and improved water quality). Our analysis identified the model parameters related to the natural environment as the most influential for sediment export and retention. Accordingly, small changes in variables such as the magnitude and frequency of extreme rainfall events could cause major changes in sediment dynamics, demonstrating the sensitivity of these dynamics to climate change in Mediterranean basins. Parameters directly related to human activities and decisions (such as cover management factor, C) were also influential, especially for sediment exported. The importance of these human-related parameters in the sediment export process suggests that mitigation measures have the potential to at least partially ameliorate climate-change driven changes in sediment exportation.

The San Francisco Bay Area in California, USA is a highly heterogeneous region in climate, topography, and habitats, as well as in its political and economic interests. Successful conservation strategies must consider various current and future competing demands for the land, and should pay special attention to livestock grazing, the dominant non-urban land-use. The main objective of this study was to predict changes in rangeland forage production in response to changes in temperature and precipitation projected by downscaled output from global climate models. Daily temperature and precipitation data generated by four climate models were used as input variables for an existing rangeland forage production model (linear regression) for California’s annual rangelands and projected on 244 12 km x 12 km grid cells for eight Bay Area counties. Climate model projections suggest that forage production in Bay Area rangelands may be enhanced by future conditions in most years, at least in terms of peak standing crop. However, the timing of production is as important as its peak, and altered precipitation patterns could mean delayed germination, resulting in shorter growing seasons and longer periods of inadequate forage quality. An increase in the frequency of extremely dry years also increases the uncertainty of forage availability. These shifts in forage production will affect the economic viability and conservation strategies for rangelands in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Many studies in recent years have investigated the relationship between landscape complexity and pests, natural enemies and/or pest control. However, no quantitative synthesis of this literature beyond simple vote-count methods yet exists. We conducted a meta-analysis of 46 landscape-level studies, and found that natural enemies have a strong positive response to landscape complexity. Generalist enemies show consistent positive responses to landscape complexity across all scales measured, while specialist enemies respond more strongly to landscape complexity at smaller scales. Generalist enemy response to natural habitat also tends to occur at larger spatial scales than for specialist enemies, suggesting that land management strategies to enhance natural pest control should differ depending on whether the dominant enemies are generalists or specialists. The positive response of natural enemies does not necessarily translate into pest control, since pest abundances show no significant response to landscape complexity. Very few landscape-scale studies have estimated enemy impact on pest populations, however, limiting our understanding of the effects of landscape on pest control. We suggest focusing future research efforts on measuring population dynamics rather than static counts to better characterise the relationship between landscape complexity and pest control services from natural enemies.