Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and associated social-ecological drivers in a karst region: A case study of Guizhou Province,China
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2021
Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and associated social-ecological drivers in a karst region: A case study of Guizhou Province,China
Understanding the relationships among multiple ecosystem services could improve the landscape capacity to provide benefits to human society. However, the underlying mechanisms shaping ecosystem services relationships are still unclear although some studies have been conducted to explore how natural and socioeconomic factors influence the relationships among ecosystem services. In this study, the karst landscape in southwestern China, a vulnerable system with intensive human activities, was focused on, aiming to explore relationships between ecosystem services and associated social and ecological factors. The results showed that the distribution of eight individual ecosystem services were spatially heterogeneous and clustered based on the characteristics of the karst landscape. The relationships between provisioning services and regulating services, such as grain production and net primary productivity, as well as water yield and soil retention, were quite different between high karst coverage regions and low karst coverage regions. Among five ecosystem service bundles identified, ecosystem services in the urban development bundle were mainly determined by socioeconomic factors, while in the other four bundles of multifunction, grain production, habitat conservation, and carbon sequestration, ecosystem services were dominated by ecological factors. However, socioeconomic factors (i.e. population density and night-time light intensity) appeared to explain the overall ecosystem service delivery more than karst terrain. This study provided insights for sustainable ecosystem management in a vulnerable karst region through exploring social-ecological factors of the relationships among ecosystem services.
BrandtMYueYMWigneronJP, et al. (2018) Satellite-observed major greening and biomass increase in South China karst during recent decade. Earth’s Future6(7): 1017–1028.
3.
BryanBAGaoLYeYQ, et al. (2018) China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature559(7713): 193–204.
4.
CaiHYYangXHWangKJ, et al. (2014) Is forest restoration in the Southwest China karst promoted mainly by climate change or human-induced factors?Remote Sensing6(10): 9895–9910.
5.
ChenHSLiuJWWangKL, et al. (2011) Spatial distribution of rock fragments on steep hillslopes in karst region of northwest Guangxi, China. Catena84(1–2): 21–28.
6.
ClementsRSodhiNSSchilthuizenM, et al. (2006) Limestone karsts of southeast Asia: Imperiled arks of biodiversity. Bioscience56(9): 733–742.
7.
CordAFBartkowskiBBeckmannM, et al. (2017) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem Services28: 264–272.
8.
CostanzaRd’ArgeRdeGroot, et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387: 253–260.
9.
DailyG (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
10.
DayM. (2010) Challenges to sustainability in the Caribbean karst. Geologia Croatica63(2): 149–154.
11.
DerkzenMLvan TeeffelenAJAVerburgPH, et al. (2015) REVIEW: Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology52(4): 1020–1032.
12.
ElvidgeCDBaughKZhizhinM, et al. (2017) VIIRS night-time lights. International Journal of Remote Sensing38(21): 5860–5879.
13.
ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA
14.
FengTChenHSPolyakovVO, et al. (2016) Soil erosion rates in two karst peak-cluster depression basins of northwest Guangxi, China: Comparison of the RUSLE model with 137Cs measurements. Geomorphology253: 217–224.
15.
FieldCBBehrenfeldMJRandersonJT, et al. (1998) Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and Oceanic Components. Science281(5374): 237–240.
16.
FordDWilliamsP (2013) Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. New York: Wiley.
17.
FuBP (1981) On the calculation of the evaporation from land surface. Scientia Atmospherica Sinica5(1): 23–31. (in Chinese with English abstract)
18.
GunnJ (2013) Denudation and erosion rates in karst. In: ShroderJFrumkinA (eds) Treatise on Geomorphology. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 72–81.
19.
Haines-YoungRPotschinM (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V5.1). Available at: https://cices.eu/resources/.
20.
HallLSKrausmanPRMorrisonML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin25(1): 173–182.
21.
HamannMBiggsRReyersB (2015) Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Global Environmental Change34: 218–226.
22.
HartiganJAWongMA (1979) A K-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics)28(1): 100–108.
23.
HöltingLBeckmannMVolkM, et al. (2019) Multifunctionality assessments – More than assessing multiple ecosystem functions and services? A quantitative literature review. Ecological Indicators103: 226–235.
24.
JiangZCLianYQQinXQ (2014) Rocky desertification in Southwest China: Impacts, causes, and restoration. Earth-Science Reviews132: 1–12.
25.
LangYQSongW (2018) Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in a mountainous karst area, China. Water10(3): 300.
26.
LeeHLautenbachS (2016) A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators66: 340–351.
LehMDKMatlockMDCummingsEC, et al. (2013) Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment165: 6–18.
29.
LiTLüYHFuBJ, et al. (2019) Bundling ecosystem services for detecting their interactions driven by large-scale vegetation restoration: Enhanced services while depressed synergies. Ecological Indicators99: 332–342.
30.
LiaoCJYueYMWangKL, et al. (2018) Ecological restoration enhances ecosystem health in the karst regions of southwest China. Ecological Indicators90: 416–425.
31.
LiuYBXiaoJFJuWM, et al. (2016) Recent trends in vegetation greenness in China significantly altered annual evapotranspiration and water yield. Environmental Research Letters11(9): 094010.
32.
MaTZhouCHPeiT, et al. (2014) Responses of Suomi-NPP VIIRS-derived nighttime lights to socioeconomic activity in China’s cities. Remote Sensing Letters5(2): 165–174.
33.
MouchetMLamarquePMartín-LópezB, et al. (2014) An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change28: 298–308.
34.
OttoySMeerbeekKVSindayiheburaA, et al. (2017) Assessing top- and subsoil organic carbon stocks of Low-Input High-Diversity systems using soil and vegetation characteristics. Science of the Total Environment589: 153–164.
35.
PagiolaS. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics65(4): 712–724.
36.
PariseMPascaliV. (2003) Surface and subsurface environmental degradation in the karst of Apulia (southern Italy). Environmental Geology44(3): 247–256.
37.
PengJHuXXQiuSJ, et al. (2019a) Multifunctional landscapes identification and associated development zoning in mountainous area. Science of the Total Environment660: 765–775.
38.
PengJHuXXWangXY, et al. (2019b) Simulating the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Yunnan, China. Ecosystem Services39: 100998.
39.
PengJHuYNDongJQ, et al. (2020) Linking spatial differentiation with sustainability management: Academic contributions and research directions of physical geography in China. Progress in Physical Geography44(1): 14–30.
40.
PengJYangYLiuYX, et al. (2018) Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. Science of the Total Environment644: 781–790.
41.
PotterCRandersonJFieldC, et al. (1993) Terrestrial ecosystem production: A process model based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles7(4): 811–841.
42.
Quintas-SorianoCGarcía-LlorenteMNorströmA, et al. (2019) Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes. Landscape Ecology34(7): 1619–1633.
Raudsepp-HearneCPetersonGDBennettEM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America107(11): 5242–5247.
45.
RenardKGFosterGRWeesiesGA (1997) Predicting Soil Erosion By Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook Number703.
46.
RenardDRhemtullaJMBennettEM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112(43): 13411–13416.
47.
SaidiNSprayC (2018) Ecosystem services bundles: Challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environmental Research Letters13(11): 113001.
48.
SharpRTallisHTRickettsT, et al. (2018) InVEST 3.7.0 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
49.
SpakeRLasseurRCrouzatE, et al. (2017) Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change47: 37–50.
50.
SunXCrittendenJCLiF, et al. (2018) Urban expansion simulation and the spatio-temporal changes of ecosystem services: A case study in Atlanta Metropolitan area, USA. Science of the Total Environment622–623: 974–987.
51.
TianYCWangSJBaiXY, et al. (2016) Trade-offs among ecosystem services in a typical Karst watershed, SW China. Science of the Total Environment566–567: 1297–1308.
52.
TongXWBrandtMYueYM, et al. (2018) Increased vegetation growth and carbon stock in China karst via ecological engineering. Nature Sustainability1(1): 44–50.
53.
TongXWBrandtMYueYM, et al. (2020) Forest management in southern China generates short term extensive carbon sequestration. Nature Communications11(1): 129.
54.
TongXWWangKLBrandtM, et al. (2016) Assessing future vegetation trends and restoration prospects in the karst regions of southwest China. Remote Sensing8(5): 357.
55.
TurnerKGOdgaardMVBocherPK, et al. (2014) Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning125: 89–104.
56.
WangJTPengJZhaoMY, et al. (2017) Significant trade-off for the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services in North-western Yunnan, China. Science of the Total Environment574: 57–64.
57.
WangKZhangCChenH, et al. (2019) Karst landscapes of China: Patterns, ecosystem processes and services. Landscape Ecology34(12): 2743–2763.
58.
WangSJLiuQMZhangDF (2004) Karst rocky desertification in southwestern China: Geomorphology, landuse, impact and rehabilitation. Land Degradation & Development15(2): 115–121.
59.
WilliamsJRRenardKGDykePT (1983) EPIC: A new method for assessing erosion's effect on soil productivity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation38(5): 381–383.
60.
YangGFGeYXueH, et al. (2015) Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban–rural complexes. Landscape and Urban Planning136: 110–121.
61.
ZhangCHQiXKWangKL, et al. (2017) The application of geospatial techniques in monitoring karst vegetation recovery in southwest China. Progress in Physical Geography41(4): 450–477.
62.
ZhangLHickelKDawesWR, et al. (2004) A rational function approach for estimating mean annual evapotranspiration. Water Resources Research. 40 (2): W02502.
63.
ZhangMYWangKLLiuHY, et al. (2015) How ecological restoration alters ecosystem services: An analysis of vegetation carbon sequestration in the karst area of northwest Guangxi, China. Environmental Earth Sciences74(6): 5307–5317.
64.
ZhangMYWangKLLiuHY (2018) Effect of ecological engineering projects on ecosystem services in a karst region: A case study of northwest Guangxi, China. Journal of Cleaner Production183: 831–842.
65.
ZhangMYZhangCHWangKL, et al. (2011) Spatiotemporal variation of karst ecosystem service values and its correlation with environmental factors in northwest Guangxi, China. Environmental Management48(5): 933–944.
66.
ZhaoMYPengJLiuYX, et al. (2018) Mapping watershed-level ecosystem service bundles in the Pearl River Delta, China. Ecological Economics152: 106–117.
67.
ZhuWQPanYZHeH, et al. (2006) Simulation of maximum light use efficiency for some typical vegetation types in China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 51(4): 457–463.
68.
ZodererBMTasserECarverS, et al. (2019) Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles. Ecosystem Services37: 100938.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
