Table 3.1 Ecosystem services, classiﬁed according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), and their ecosystem service providers. ‘Functionalunits’ refer to the unit of study for assessing functional contributions (∫ik) of ecosystem service providers; spatial scale indicates the scale(s) of operationof the service. Assessment of the potential to apply this conceptual framework to the service is purposefully conservative and is based on the degree towhich the contributions of individual species or communities can currently be quantiﬁed (Kremen 2005). Potential to apply this conceptual Ecosystem service providers/ framework forService trophic level Functional units Spatial scale ecological studyAesthetic, cultural All biodiversity Populations, Local‐global Low species, communities, ecosystemsEcosystem goods Diverse species Populations, Local‐global Medium species, communities, ecosystemsUV protection Biogeochemical cycles, micro‐ Biogeochemical Global Low organisms, plants cycles, functional groupsPuriﬁcation Micro‐organisms, plants Biogeochemical Regional‐ Medium (plants) of air cycles, global populations, species, functional groupsFlood mitigation Vegetation Communities, Local‐regional Medium habitatsDrought mitigation Vegetation Communities, Local‐regional Medium habitatsClimate stability Vegetation Communities, Local‐global Medium habitatsPollination Insects, birds, mammals Populations, Local High species, functional groupsPest control Invertebrate parasitoids and Populations, Local High predators and vertebrate predators species, functional groupsPuriﬁcation of water Vegetation, soil micro‐organisms, Populations, Local‐regional Medium to high* aquatic micro‐organisms, aquatic species, invertebrates functional groups, communities, habitatsDetoxiﬁcation and Leaf litter and soil invertebrates, soil Populations, Local‐regional Medium decomposition of micro‐organisms, aquatic micro‐ species, wastes organisms functional groups, communities, habitatsSoil generation and Leaf litter and soil invertebrates, soil Populations, Local Medium soil fertility micro‐organisms, nitrogen‐ﬁxing species, plants, plant and animal functional production of waste products groupsSeed dispersal Ants, birds, mammals Populations, Local High species, functional groups* Waste‐water engineers ‘design’ microbial communities; in turn, wastewater treatments provide ideal replicated experimentsfor ecological work (Graham and Smith 2004 in Kremen 2005).
Sodhi and Ehrlich: Conservation Biology for All. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199554249.do98 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FOR ALLTable 5.1 A diagrammatic example of a nested subset pattern of of communities. The loss of a species or a changedistribution of species (A–J) within habitat fragments (1–9). in its abundance, particularly for species that in-Species Fragments teract with many others, can have a marked effect on ecological processes throughout fragmented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 landscapes. A + + + + + + + + Changes to predator-prey relationships, for ex- B + + + + + + + C + + + + + + + ample, have been revealed by studies of the level of D + + + + + + predation on birds’ nests in fragmented landscapes E + + + + + + (Wilcove 1985). An increase in the amount of forest F + + edge, a direct consequence of fragmentation, in- G + + + creases the opportunity for generalist predators H + + I + + + associated with edges or modiﬁed land-uses to J + prey on birds that nest in forest fragments. In Swe- den, elevated levels of nest predation (on artiﬁcial eggs in experimental nests) were recorded in agri- cultural land and at forest edges compared withhas been widely observed: for example, in butter- the interior of forests (Andrén and Angelstamﬂy communities in fragments of lowland rainfor- 1988). Approximately 45% of nests at the forestest in Borneo (Benedick et al. 2006). edge were preyed upon compared with less than At the landscape level, species richness has fre- 10% at distances 200 m into the forest. At thequently been correlated with heterogeneity in the landscape scale, nest predation occurred at a great-landscape. This relationship is particularly rele- er rate in agricultural and fragmented forest land-vant in regions, such as Europe, where human scapes than in largely forested landscapes (Andrénland-use has contributed to cultural habitats that 1992). The relative abundance of different corvidcomplement fragmented natural or semi-natural species, the main nest predators, varied in relationhabitats. In the Madrid region of Spain, the overall to landscape composition. The hooded crowrichness of assemblages of birds, amphibians, rep- (Corvus corone cornix) occurred in greatest abun-tiles and butterﬂies in 100 km2 landscapes is dance in heavily cleared landscapes and was pri-strongly correlated with the number of different marily responsible for the greater predationland-uses in the landscape (Atauri and De Lucio pressure recorded at forest edges.2001). However, where the focus is on the com- Many mutualisms involve interactions be-munity associated with a particular habitat type tween plants and animals, such as occurs in the(e.g. rainforest butterﬂies) rather than the entire pollination of ﬂowering plants by invertebrates,assemblage of that taxon, the strongest inﬂuence birds or mammals. A change in the occurrence oron richness is the total amount of habitat in the abundance of animal vectors, as a consequence oflandscape. For example, the richness of woodland- fragmentation, can disrupt this process. For manydependent birds in fragmented landscapes in plant species, habitat fragmentation has a nega-southern Australia was most strongly inﬂuenced