By the same authors

From the same journal

Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. / Anderson, Barbara J.; Armsworth, Paul R.; Eigenbrod, Felix; Thomas, Chris D.; Gillings, Simon; Heinemeyer, Andreas; Roy, David B.; Gaston, Kevin J.

In: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 46, No. 4, 08.2009, p. 888-896.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Anderson, BJ, Armsworth, PR, Eigenbrod, F, Thomas, CD, Gillings, S, Heinemeyer, A, Roy, DB & Gaston, KJ 2009, 'Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities', Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 888-896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x

APA

Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R., Eigenbrod, F., Thomas, C. D., Gillings, S., Heinemeyer, A., ... Gaston, K. J. (2009). Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(4), 888-896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x

Vancouver

Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A et al. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009 Aug;46(4):888-896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x

Author

Anderson, Barbara J. ; Armsworth, Paul R. ; Eigenbrod, Felix ; Thomas, Chris D. ; Gillings, Simon ; Heinemeyer, Andreas ; Roy, David B. ; Gaston, Kevin J. / Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. In: Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009 ; Vol. 46, No. 4. pp. 888-896.

Bibtex - Download

@article{0d15b2f42e3643729604929d5042fa09,
title = "Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities",
abstract = "P> Ecosystems support biodiversity and also provide goods and services that are beneficial to humans. The extent to which the locations that are most valuable for ecosystem services coincide with those that support the most biodiversity is of critical importance when designing conservation and land management strategies. There are, however, few studies on which to base any kind of conclusion about possible spatial patterns of association between ecosystem services and biodiversity. Moreover, little is known about the sensitivity of the conclusions to the quality of the data available, or to the choice and size of the region used for analysis.Here, we first present national-scale estimates of the spatial covariance in areas important for ecosystem services and biodiversity (richness of species of conservation concern), using Britain as a case study. We then explore how these associations are sensitive to the spatial resolution of the available data, the spatial extent of our study region and to regional variation across the study area.Our analyses reveal a mixture of negative and positive associations. In particular, the regionalization analysis shows that one can arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions about relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity by studying the same question within different areas, even within a moderately small island.Synthesis and applications. In a policy context, the location-specific nature of relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity underscores the importance of multi-scale environmental decision-making, so as to reflect both local conditions and broader-scale priorities. The results also suggest that efforts to establish general patterns of congruence in ecosystem services and biodiversity may offer a less constructive way forward than do more regional approaches.",
keywords = "agriculture value, BAP species, Britain, carbon storage, conservation, ecosystem services, planning, recreation, species richness, trade-offs, SPECIES RICHNESS, GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION, WILD NATURE, CONSERVATION, SCALE, REPRESENTATION, PATTERNS, ECOLOGY",
author = "Anderson, {Barbara J.} and Armsworth, {Paul R.} and Felix Eigenbrod and Thomas, {Chris D.} and Simon Gillings and Andreas Heinemeyer and Roy, {David B.} and Gaston, {Kevin J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "888--896",
journal = "Journal of Applied Ecology",
issn = "0021-8901",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities

AU - Anderson, Barbara J.

AU - Armsworth, Paul R.

AU - Eigenbrod, Felix

AU - Thomas, Chris D.

AU - Gillings, Simon

AU - Heinemeyer, Andreas

AU - Roy, David B.

AU - Gaston, Kevin J.

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - P> Ecosystems support biodiversity and also provide goods and services that are beneficial to humans. The extent to which the locations that are most valuable for ecosystem services coincide with those that support the most biodiversity is of critical importance when designing conservation and land management strategies. There are, however, few studies on which to base any kind of conclusion about possible spatial patterns of association between ecosystem services and biodiversity. Moreover, little is known about the sensitivity of the conclusions to the quality of the data available, or to the choice and size of the region used for analysis.Here, we first present national-scale estimates of the spatial covariance in areas important for ecosystem services and biodiversity (richness of species of conservation concern), using Britain as a case study. We then explore how these associations are sensitive to the spatial resolution of the available data, the spatial extent of our study region and to regional variation across the study area.Our analyses reveal a mixture of negative and positive associations. In particular, the regionalization analysis shows that one can arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions about relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity by studying the same question within different areas, even within a moderately small island.Synthesis and applications. In a policy context, the location-specific nature of relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity underscores the importance of multi-scale environmental decision-making, so as to reflect both local conditions and broader-scale priorities. The results also suggest that efforts to establish general patterns of congruence in ecosystem services and biodiversity may offer a less constructive way forward than do more regional approaches.

AB - P> Ecosystems support biodiversity and also provide goods and services that are beneficial to humans. The extent to which the locations that are most valuable for ecosystem services coincide with those that support the most biodiversity is of critical importance when designing conservation and land management strategies. There are, however, few studies on which to base any kind of conclusion about possible spatial patterns of association between ecosystem services and biodiversity. Moreover, little is known about the sensitivity of the conclusions to the quality of the data available, or to the choice and size of the region used for analysis.Here, we first present national-scale estimates of the spatial covariance in areas important for ecosystem services and biodiversity (richness of species of conservation concern), using Britain as a case study. We then explore how these associations are sensitive to the spatial resolution of the available data, the spatial extent of our study region and to regional variation across the study area.Our analyses reveal a mixture of negative and positive associations. In particular, the regionalization analysis shows that one can arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions about relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity by studying the same question within different areas, even within a moderately small island.Synthesis and applications. In a policy context, the location-specific nature of relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity underscores the importance of multi-scale environmental decision-making, so as to reflect both local conditions and broader-scale priorities. The results also suggest that efforts to establish general patterns of congruence in ecosystem services and biodiversity may offer a less constructive way forward than do more regional approaches.

KW - agriculture value

KW - BAP species

KW - Britain

KW - carbon storage

KW - conservation

KW - ecosystem services

KW - planning

KW - recreation

KW - species richness

KW - trade-offs

KW - SPECIES RICHNESS

KW - GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION

KW - WILD NATURE

KW - CONSERVATION

KW - SCALE

KW - REPRESENTATION

KW - PATTERNS

KW - ECOLOGY

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649985889&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 888

EP - 896

JO - Journal of Applied Ecology

T2 - Journal of Applied Ecology

JF - Journal of Applied Ecology

SN - 0021-8901

IS - 4

ER -