EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2022 , Vol. 13 >Issue 1: 68 - 79

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.01.008

Ecosystem Services and Eco-compensation

A Review on the Driving Mechanisms of Ecosystem Services Change

  • ZHANG Biao , 1, 2, * ,
  • SHI Yunting 1, 2 ,
  • WANG Shuang 1, 2
Expand
  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China
  • 2. College of Resources and Environment, University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
* ZHANG Biao, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-07-30

  Accepted date: 2021-10-10

  Online published: 2022-01-08

Supported by

The National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFC0503403)

Fold

Abstract

Ecosystem services have rapidly changed at the global and regional scales in recent years. Exploring the driving mechanisms of ecosystem services change and projecting future change are of increasing importance to inform policy and decision-making options for ecosystem conservation and sustainable use. Although some research has analyzed the influences of land use or climate changes on ecosystem services, a systematic review on the mechanisms of ecosystem services change has not been carried out so far. This work elaborated on the mechanisms of ecosystem services change based on a literature review, and reached four main conclusions. (1) Climate change and land use jointly determine the ecosystem services change through complex and interacting pathways. (2) Whereas the present research progresses mainly focus on the identification of a single influencing factor, they fail in the determination of multiple influencing factors. (3) Although multi-scenario simulations based on remote sensing and climate models are the main means used to predict future changes in ecosystem services, clarifying the interactive mechanisms of multiple factors is the precondition for future projection of ecosystem services change; (4) Therefore, future research should strengthen the analysis and simulation of the effects of human activities on ecosystem services, especially the development of technology to detect the dynamic responses of ecosystem services to major ecological projects, which is crucial to the selection of restoration measures and the regional arrangement of ecosystem conservation projects.

Key words： ecosystem services; land use; climatic change; impact factor identification; future projection

Cite this article

ZHANG Biao , SHI Yunting , WANG Shuang . A Review on the Driving Mechanisms of Ecosystem Services Change[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022 , 13(1) : 68 -79 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.01.008

1 Introduction

Ecosystem services are often described as the goods that natural ecosystems provide to humans (Costanza et al., 1998), and classified into four categories: provisioning services (food and timber production), regulating services (climate regulation, gas regulation, noise regulation, hydrological regulation), cultural services (tourism, recreation, heritage, and aesthetic values) and supporting services (raw materials and ecological production) (MEA, 2005). Ecosystem services provide the base for human existence and development, and often are regarded as the supporting pillars of social-ecological systems worldwide (Gomes et al., 2021). Therefore, research on ecosystem services has become a significant need for guiding ecosystem recovery, ecological function identification, the establishment of ecological compensation mechanisms, and the protection of national ecological safety (Shi et al., 2012). However, global biodiversity and ecosystem services have been declining in recent years, with potentially serious consequences for human well-being. It is estimated that more than 60% of global ecosystems have been degraded since the 1950s (MEA, 2005), and the natural capacity of ecosystems to provide ES has been degraded over the last decades (IPBES, 2019). Simultaneously, the loss of global ecosystem service values from 1997 to 2011 reached 4.3-20.2 trillion USD yr-1 (Costanza et al., 2014), and the net loss of global ecosystem service values was 1.21 trillion USD yr-1 (The average exchange rate from yuan to USD in 2018 was about 0.144) during the period of 1995-2015 (Sannigrahi et al., 2018). The total value (stocked) of China’s terrestrial ecosystem services decreased from 6.82 trillion yuan in 1999 to 6.57 trillion yuan in 2008, whereas it increased by 4.31 thousand million yuan in 2000 (Shi et al., 2012). Therefore, studies on the causes and consequences of ecosystem services change are of increasing importance for ecosystem conservation and sustainable use.
It is widely accepted that human activities have a huge influence on land use change, which would affect the ecosystem services in reverse (Khaledian et al., 2017). For example, global cropland changes were responsible for an absolute loss of 166.82 billion USD from 1992 to 2015, equivalent to 1.17% of the global terrestrial ecosystem service value in 1992 (Li et al., 2019). The expansion of construction land in a karst landscape in China was found to cause considerable declines in multiple ecosystem services, whereas the returning of farmland to forest land increased the overall ecosystem services (Peng et al., 2020). Climate change is another important driving factor for ecosystem services change. Changes in climate can exert influences on natural ecosystem structures and processes, and affect the provision of ecosystem services (Han et al., 2018). For example, Asmus et al. (2019) observed that the climate changes in coastal environments are particularly worrisome, because of their effects on the configuration and restriction of the ecosystem services and their benefits to nature and society. In addition, the importance of ecological restoration for countering ecological degradation and ecosystem service loss is widely recognized. Rey Benayas et al. (2009) performed a meta-analysis of 89 restoration assessments undertaken in a wide range of ecosystem types, and concluded that restoration increased the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 44% and 25%, respectively. However, ecosystem services change is often driven by the synergistic roles of natural factors (e.g., climate change, terrain, soil, vegetation) and human activities (urbanization, agriculture and husbandry, ecological construction) (Yu and Hao, 2020), so clarifying the driving mechanisms of ecosystem services change is critical for ecosystem management and the sustainable development of human society.
In recent years, some researchers have analyzed the influences of land use or climate changes on ecosystem services (Han et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Hasan et al., 2020; Gomes et al., 2021; Moss et al., 2021), but so far, no systematic review on the mechanisms of ecosystem services change has been carried out. This work conducts a literature review on the driving mechanisms of ecosystem services change from the three perspectives of land use change, climate change, and simulation techniques for future ecosystem services (Fig. 1). The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The second section discusses the influences of land use change on ecosystem services, including ecological projects. The third section introduces the influences of climate change and interactive factors on ecosystem services change. The fourth section summarizes the simulation methods for future ecosystem services, and the fifth section presents the major controversies and main conclusions.
Fig. 1 Research domains and perspectives on the driving mechanisms of ecosystem services change

2 Influences of land use change on ecosystem services

2.1 Land use change and ecological projects

Land use is a major anthropogenic change that has reshaped the earth’s surface, thereby affecting all of the earth’s ecological functions (Hasan et al., 2020). A comprehensive record of global land change dynamics indicated that the total area of tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 from 1982 to 2016, the bare ground area decreased by 1.16 million km2, and the area of short vegetation cover decreased by 0.88 million km2 (Song et al., 2018). The land use change across China between the 20th and 21st centuries indicated that although the total area of cropland remained almost unchanged, the built-up lands expanded rapidly, and grassland continued to decrease (Liu et al., 2014). Human activities, such as population increase, urbanization, urban sprawl, the creation of sub-divisions and settlements, agricultural mechanization, and even ecological conservation projects, can result in changes in the landscape patterns and ecological processes (Dadashpoor et al., 2019), so natural scientists define land use in terms of syndromes of human activities such as agriculture, forestry and building construction that alter various land surface processes, including biogeochemistry, hydrology and biodiversity (Ellis, 2010). This study focuses on the influences of urbanization and ecological projects on ecosystem services.
Land use change and urbanization have transformed the landscape patterns of metropolitan areas (Salvati et al., 2018). Urbanization is defined as the agglomeration of people in a relatively large number at a particular spot of the earth’s surface (Oyeleye, 2013), and it involves the replacement of vegetated soil with impermeable surfaces (Zhang et al., 2015). Landscape patterns in rapidly urbanizing areas have presented a remarkable, highly fragmented feature, i.e., the singular, continuous natural patches have become complex, heterogeneous and discontinuous mosaics (Li et al., 2017). In the meantime, the importance of ecological restoration for countering environmental degradation and biodiversity loss is widely recognized (Birch et al., 2010; Bullock et al., 2011). Several international and national ecosystem service frameworks, such as the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), European Biodiversity Strategy, the Habitats Directive, the Water and the Soil Framework Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, have emerged in the past few decades (Anaya et al., 2016). To relieve ecological degradation and restore ecosystems, China has responded to the national land- system sustainability emergency via an integrated portfolio of large-scale programmes (Bryan et al., 2018), including the Grain for Green Program, Three North Shelterbelt Program, Natural Forest Conservation Program, and Beijing- Tianjin Sandstorm Source Control Project. These ecological restoration strategies or projects also resulted in rapid changes in land use and ecosystem services (Lai et al., 2013; Shao et al., 2017; Bryan et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020).

2.2 Responses of ecosystem services to land use change

Land use change has been identified as one of the main drivers responsible for the dynamic changes of ecosystem services (Bai and Xue, 2020; Pereira, 2020). For example, the changes of global ecosystem service values from 1995 to 2015 indicated that the depletion of forest cover and wetland/water surface resulted in a net loss of ecosystem service value at a rate of 1.21 trillion USD yr-1 (Sannigrahi et al., 2018). A decrease of total ecosystem service value from 130.5 million USD in 1973 to 111.1 million USD in 2012 occurred in response to the land use change dynamics in the Munessa-Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands (Kindu et al., 2016). In the Lower Meghna River Estuary of Bangladesh, the agricultural and mangrove forest lands experienced the greatest decreases, while rural and urban settlement land had the greatest increases, and they caused a net total ecosystem service value decrease of 105.34 million USD during 1988-2018 (Hoque et al., 2020). The decrease of terrestrial ecosystem services in China during the period of 1999-2008 has mainly been attributed to the reduction of cultivated land, the degradation of forest grassland and a series of other ecological problems (Shi et al., 2012). However, while many current studies are devoted to the quantitative analysis of the responses of ecosystem service values to land use change (Li et al., 2018), very few attempts have been made to systematically explore the response mechanisms and thresholds of ecosystem services to land use change.
Owing to the substantial costs of ecological restoration, there is increasing interest in its effects on ecosystem services (Peh et al., 2014). A comparative analysis on the cost-effectiveness of dryland restoration in Latin American revealed that there was a net gain in ecosystem service provision, with four of the ecosystem services (i.e., carbon sequestration, non-timber forest products harvest, timber production, and tourism) increasing in net value as a result of forest restoration (Birch et al., 2010). The potential impact of landscape-scale habitat restoration across the catchment of the River Frome in Dorset, England, showed that restoration scenarios increased the provision of multiple ecosystem services, and also provided benefits to species richness and habitat connectivity (Newton et al., 2012). A restoration effort to convert drained, intensively farmed arable land to a wetland habitat mosaic in Cambridgeshire, UK, has led to the estimated gains of 671 USD ha-1 yr-1 in nature-based recreation, 120 USD ha-1 yr-1 from grazing, 48 USD ha-1 yr-1 from flood protection, and a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worth an estimated 72 USD ha-1 yr-1 (Peh et al., 2014). An analysis of the changes in ecosystem service values in response to ecological construction in the Three- River Headwaters Nature Reserve (TRHNR) of China indicated that the ecosystem service value increased by 18.80 billion yuan from 2000 to 2008, and this increase was mainly related to the ecological project in the study area (Lai et al., 2013). The Beijing-Tianjin Sandstorm Source Control Project was implemented against the strong sandstorms and sand-blowing weather that occurred in North China in spring of 2000, and it involved forest protection, forest enclosure, afforestation, conversion of cropland to forest, grassland management, and a series of activity shifts (e.g., ecological migration) (Liu et al., 2019). Wang et al. (2020) investigated the response levels of the sand-fixing capacity to vegetation coverage change during the period of 2000-2015, and found that the vegetation coverage in the project area increased with fluctuations at an average rate of 0.34% yr-1, and the sand-fixing service was correspondingly enhanced at an average rate of 0.71% yr-1, so the response levels of the sand-fixing service to vegetation coverage change increased from 70% to 91% (Fig. 2). However, a meta-analysis of 621 restored wetlands also showed that poor recovery of both biological structures (e.g., plant assemblages) and functions (e.g., carbon storage), caused them to remain 26% and 23% lower, respectively, than in the reference sites (Moreno-Mateos et al., 2012). Therefore, sufficient information on ecosystem service responses to land use or ecological projects is crucial for the selection of ecological restoration measures and decision-making regarding land management.
Fig. 2 Annual response levels of the sand-fixing service to vegetation coverage from 2000 to 2015 (Adopted from Wang et al., 2020)

2.3 Identification of driving factors from land use change

Land use change directly affects the composition and configuration of ecosystems, and ultimately impacts the capacity of an ecosystem to supply ecosystem services (Dadashpoor et al., 2019), so substantial research has been done to explore the effects of land change associated with ecosystem services change. A quantitative and qualitative assessment of priority ecosystem services in the Phewa watershed, Nepal, revealed that the ecosystem services such as recreation and ecotourism, habitat provision, carbon stocks, sediment retention and raw material (timber) supply increased the most over a 40-years period, while water yield decreased, and these trends had been attributed to the conversion of agricultural/grasslands and degraded forests to dense forests (Paudyal et al., 2019). A comprehensive assessment of water-related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA, showed that land change had a greater impact on soil retention, nitrogen export, and phosphorus export than climate change, and the conversion of forest land to pasture, built-up and agricultural land reduced the provision of water-related ecosystem services (Bai et al., 2019). The landscape pattern changes in the Beressa watershed of the Bule Nile Basin in Ethiopia strongly influenced two specific hydrological ecosystem services of water yield and sediment export, and metrics such as the percentage of landscape (PLAND), mean patch size (MPS), and large patch index (LPI) of farmland and plantation were found to be the key factors affecting hydrological ecosystem services degradation in that watershed (Yohannes et al., 2021). An identification of ecosystem service bundles in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Metropolitan Area of China indicated that five distinct ecosystem bundles were consistent with land use, and the proportions of forestland and cropland were the major factors determining ecosystem services patterns (Yang et al., 2019). In the recent two decades, rapid urbanization has resulted in an increase in summer flood risk in urban environments, and has been a major concern in many regions of the world. An investigation of the effects of urban green space on rainwater runoff reduction in Beijing, China, showed that the area of green space in Beijing decreased by 199 km2 from 2000 to 2010 and its landscape patches became increasingly isolated and fragmented. Simultaneously, the runoff reduction role of urban green space decreased continuously, from 23% in 2000 to 17% in 2010, which is primarily attributed to the changes in the patterns and areas of the urban green space (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Changes in the area and landscape metrics of urban green space in Beijing (Adopted from Zhang et al., 2015)
Ecological restoration projects can result in distinct changes in land use and land cover change, and have been recognized by the international community as an important means to enhance and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services (Peh et al., 2014). In particular, forest landscape restoration in some parts of the world has significantly increased the capacity of landscapes to supply ecosystem services (Brancalion and Chazdon, 2017; Chazdon et al., 2017). An estimate of the impacts of land use change driven by ecological restoration programs in Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2009 demonstrated that the increase of regional net primary productivity (NPP) and carbon sequestration in Xinjiang mainly resulted from the implementation of a series of ecological restoration programs (Yang et al., 2014). An investigation on the sand-fixation effects of Three-North Shelter Forest Project in the period of 1970-2015 concluded that the ecological programs promoted vegetation restoration in local areas and contributed to an 11%-15% decrease of soil wind erosion (Huang et al., 2018). An impact assessment of ecosystem services in the arid desert region of Alxa, China, showed that the increases of ecosystem service values in these regions generally benefited from the implementation of ecological projects in recent years (Lu et al., 2019). In addition, Gao and Xiong (2015) and Zhang et al. (2019) observed that the improvement of the ecosystem service provision in Guizhou Province was delivered by the Karst Rocky Desertification Comprehensive Control and Restoration Project. However, ecosystem service changes are often triggered by the synergistic influences of human activities and climate change. Due to the lack of sufficient information on the interaction mechanisms among land use, climate change and ecosystem service supply, almost all governmental decision-making processes ignore the impacts of global climate change on long-term conservation and preservation. So, understanding the influences of climatic factors on ecosystem services change is also essential for management decisions and the verification of progress towards sustainability policies.

3 Influences of climate change on ecosystem services

3.1 Climate change and ecosystem service responses

Global climate change is an indisputable fact that has aroused world attention. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of IPCC clearly pointed out that the global annual average temperature rose by 0.85 ℃ from 1980 to 2012, and will continue to rise in the 21st century (IPCC, 2013). According to the China Climate Change Bulletin, the surface temperature in China rose by 0.24 ℃ every 10 years from 1951 to 2019, which is higher than the global average temperature rise, and the annual average precipitation slightly increased between 1961 and 2017 (Center of Climate Change, 2020). Changes in land use can increase the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by disturbing terrestrial soils and vegetation, or altering the reflection of sunlight from the land surface (albedo), thereby affecting global climate change (Ellis, 2010). So, climate change is defined as a long-term shift or alteration in the climate of a specific location, region or the entire planet (Rehan and Nehdi, 2005), and includes increases in air temperature, variations in precipitation, variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, etc. Of these, this paper mainly reviews the influences of the air temperature rise and extreme weather on ecosystem services.
Climate change not only exerts influences on species and ecosystems, but also impacts the benefits that people derive from nature, also known as ecosystem services (Grimm et al., 2016). In recent years, many researchers have observed the responses of multiple ecosystem services to climate change. For example, Lobell et al. (2011) developed a database of yield response models to evaluate the impact of global climate change on major crop yields at the country scale for the period 1980-2008. The results indicated that maize and wheat exhibited negative impacts for several major producers and a global net loss of 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, whereas the net impacts on rice and soybean production were insignificant. A study in the Mexican Caribbean coast indicated that there was a general decrease in the biomass of fish and macroinvertebrate functional groups as a result of global climate change and overfishing, which can result in potential losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services in coral reefs (Alva-Basurto et al., 2014). In addition, extreme weather may impact valuable ecosystem regulating services. For example, the extremely warm spring of 2010 in an oak savanna in northeastern USA altered the linkages between migratory birds and their invertebrate prey, and affected habitat use and the delivery of ecosystem regulating services (Wood and Pidgeon, 2015). Han et al. (2018) summarized such issues and concluded that climate change not only has direct impacts on water supply, carbon sink, crop production, NPP, NDVI and biological distribution, but also indirect influences on soil formation, pest control, and nutrient cycling services.

3.2 Identification of driving factors from climate change

Climate change is another important driver affecting the distribution of ecosystems and their capacity to provide ecosystem services (Bai et al., 2019). However, the differences in the impact mechanisms of global climate change on ecosystem services are significant, and they are related to the combined effects of climatic factors, natural environment and human activities. For example, Lobell et al. (2011) analyzed the data of global temperature, precipitation, and crop yields from 1980 to 2008 by using the regression analysis method, and found that global warming aggravated the scarcity of precipitation in subtropical and semi-arid regions, which resulted in the decline of crop production in the region. Daniela et al. (2019) proposed an additive model to disentangle the effects of climatological and non-climatological drivers on ecosystem service trends, and they identified the equal contributions of temperature, precipitation and relative sunshine duration on carbon dioxide regulation and soil erosion prevention in Switzerland, while air quality regulation was more strongly influenced by temperature. In the meantime, many investigations in China also identified the effects of climate change on ecosystem services. For example, precipitation in summer was the most important driving factor of vegetation growth in Xinjiang (Du et al., 2015), which is the typical arid region of north- western China. The interannual changes of ecosystem services in the Loess Plateau were mainly due to the fluctuations of climatic factors such as temperature and precipitation (Ning and Shao, 2020). In order to identify the key factors influencing regional water conservation in Xilin Gol League, the largest prefecture-level city in the arid and semiarid regions of China, Wang et al. (2021) conducted a correlation analysis to assess the influences of various natural environmental factors (i.e., precipitation, temperature, slope, elevation, vegetation coverage, and landscape metrics) on regional water conservation. Their results showed that the water conservation capacities of Xilin Gol League mainly depend on annual rainfall, temperature and vegetation coverage, and the average temperature exerted obvious negative effects on the regional water conservation service (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Correlations between water conservation capacity and influencing factors in Xilin Gol League (Wang et al., 2021)

3.3 Separation from multiple factors related to land use and climate change

Human activities and climate change can exert influences on the provision of ecosystem services, but the dynamic responses of ecosystem services to various driving factors are extremely complicated, so regression model and correlation analysis are often used to separate the combined effects of natural environment characteristics and human activities on ecosystem services (Wang et al., 2016). For example, Ajza Ahmed et al. (2017) analyzed the relationships between ecosystem services and climate, land use and other driving factors through the method of geographical weighted regression. Huang et al. (2019) applied the methods of spatial statistics, hot spot analysis and geographical detector to examine the ecological service value in the Dabie Mountain area from 1970 to 2015, and concluded that the spatial differentiation of ecosystem services supply was attributed to the synergistic effects of the natural environment, human disturbance and landscape pattern factors. The contribution rates of ecological projects and climate change to the ecosystem services change in the Three-River Headwater Region of China have been measured through the variable control method. The results indicated that the ecological projects and climate change contributed 24% and 76% of the positive effects on the increase of water conservation services, respectively (Liu et al., 2018). In addition, the spatio-temporal characteristics of ecosystem services in the Loess Plateau in China showed that the interannual change of ecosystem services is mainly due to fluctuations in the climatic factors, whereas the changes at scales of ten years or longer were attributed to the dual effects of global climate change and land use change (Ning et al., 2020). However, these existing analyses only focused on the driving factors related to land use or climate change, but few systematic reviews have investigated the response mechanisms of ecosystem services or the interaction modes between land use and climate change, which has restricted the precise simulation of future ecosystem services. Helping decision-makers to better understand the effects of possible landscape transformations and climate change on ecosystems is vital to the development of ecological protection policies, so it is especially necessary to explore the interactions of land use and climate change in ecosystem services and achieve the separation of the impacts of multiple influencing factors.

4 Simulation of future ecosystem services change

4.1 Future projections based on land use change

Understanding the future LUCC is an effective way to anticipate the impacts on ecosystem service supply (Gomes et al., 2021). The projection of future land use typically uses complex spatial models to optimise land use patterns and improve sustainable land use management. For example, Romano et al. (2015) used the integration of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to evaluate the potential of a rural coastal area located in northern Puglia (Southern Italy). Boavida-Portugal et al. (2016) developed a Cellular Automata model (CA) to explore the impacts of tourism development on LUCC for the year 2020 in a Portuguese coastal region. Zhang et al. (2020) predicted land use/cover in the Yangtze River Delta region for 2030 using the future land use simulation (FLUS) model. Based on the development of simulation techniques for future land use in recent years, some researchers have applied different spatial modelling methods to assess the potential impacts of future land use change on ecosystem service supply. For example, Sharma et al. (2018) applied the Land Change Modeler (LCM) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Scenario Generator tool to develop three spatially explicit land use future scenarios from 2015 to 2030, and analyzed their effects on biodiversity in the Pulang Pisau district of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Hoque et al. (2020) designed four land use change scenarios through a Cellular Automata-Markov model, and predicted that future impacts may cause serious damage to the biomass, water availability, and the genetic material from all biota in Bangladesh. A human well-being modeling framework has been applied by Yee et al. (2021) in a Florida watershed, to demonstrate the potential impacts of alternative land use scenarios on multifaceted components of human well-being through changes in ecosystem services. The results of the analysis illustrated that increasing rates of developed lands were almost universally associated with declines in ecosystem services and human well-being, but increases in ecosystem service indicators did not necessarily translate into increases in associated well-being. A review of future land use change and its impacts concluded that the most common and extensively used models to project future LUCC are cellular automata, CLUE-S model and Land Change Modeler, and the most widely used methods to assess future impacts on ES are the InVEST model and equations used in previous works (Gomes et al., 2021).

4.2 Future projections based on climate change

Although climate change is a universal phenomenon, the direction and magnitude of climate change will vary among and within regions across the world. For example, the average projected temperature increases in Europe range from 2.1 ℃ to 4.4 ℃ (across scenarios) and from 2.7 ℃ to 3.4 ℃ for the A2 scenario (across GCMs) (Schröter et al., 2005), whereas temperature increases of 1.5 ℃-3 ℃ are projected for winter and spring seasons across the US under the A2 scenario, and 3 ℃-5 ℃ is projected for the summer (Rocca et al., 2014). In addition, global climate change will alter the supplies of ecosystem services that are vital for human well-being. Rocca et al. (2014) conducted an analysis by using the Hadley Center Climate Model (HadCM3) and concluded that climate change in the arid regions of the western United States contributes to the protection of forest biodiversity, and the improvement of air quality and carbon sequestration capacity. Using climate-living marine resources simulation models, Lam et al. (2016) considered that global fishery revenues could drop by 35% more than the projected decrease in catches by the 2050s under high CO2 emission scenarios. An assessment of the impacts of different climate futures on crop yields for individual countries and years indicated that the global yield impacts by century’s are -2%, -19%, -14%, and -1% for maize, rice, soybean, and wheat, respectively (Waldhoff et al., 2020). A coupled analysis using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) with a downscaling method (Delta) and global circulation models (GCMs) projected that the streamflow in the Mun River Basin in Thailand would increase by 10.5%, 20.1%, and 23.3% during 2020-2093 under three climate scenarios (Li and Fang, 2021). A projection of the forest ecosystem services in China based on the NPP data from the CEVSA model showed that the total forest ecosystem service value will have an increasing trend for the baseline period and in the future under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, accompanied by decreasing values in relatively small areas (Xu et al., 2018). However, the periodicity, volatility and spatial heterogeneity of climate change largely increase the complexity of climate change predictions, and further result in the difficulty of simulations of ecosystem services change.

4.3 Future projections based on multiple factors

Considering that ecosystem services change is triggered by the synergistic influences of the natural environment (e.g., climate change, terrain, soil, vegetation) and human activities (urbanization, agriculture and husbandry, ecological construction), more and more studies have been devoted to comprehensively simulating the future ecosystem services by the integration of multiple factors. For example, Schröter et al. (2005) analyzed multiple scenarios for major global change drivers (socioeconomic factors, atmospheric green- house gas concentrations, climate factors, and land use), and investigated the changing supply of ecosystem services in a spatially explicit vulnerability assessment of Europe. They observed positive increases in forest area and productivity and passive effects on agricultural extensification and bioenergy production, which resulted in a decreasing supply of ecosystem services (for example, declining soil fertility, declining water availability, and increasing risk of forest fires). To explore the potential impacts of climate change and land use change on rangeland ecosystem services, Byrd et al. (2015) developed six climate/land use change scenarios for the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills, and projected the changes in wildlife habitat, soil organic carbon, and water supply. Liu et al. (2017) simulated the future land use in 2050 of Guangzhong-Tianshui economic region in China under 16 future scenarios by using Land Change Modeler of IDRISI software. The carbon sequestration, soil conservation and water yields were also quantified based on those land use maps and different ecosystem models to analyze the impacts of climate change and policy implementation on ecosystem services change. The projections of future changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe under four socio-environmental scenarios based on two integrated assessment models (IMAGE- GLOBIO and CLIMSAVE IAP) indicated that climate and land use change will continue to pose significant threats to biodiversity and some ecosystem services, even in the most optimistic scenario (Veerkamp et al., 2020). However, improving the reliability of the outcomes is a critical issue, because the results of most present comprehensive simulations have not been validated which makes the results unreliable (Gomes et al., 2021).

5 Discussion

5.1 Major challenges

The impacts of driving factors on the dynamics of ecosystem services are complex and diverse. Although many models have been used to better understand land use, climate changes and their effects on ecosystem services, the interpretation of the results is limited by large uncertainties, including model parameter uncertainties. For example, the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs) is widely applied for separating the impacts of climate change and human factors on ecosystem services change, but a sensitivity analysis of the InVEST sediment retention model indicated that the model parameters had the greatest influence on model outputs, and therefore require special attention during calibration (Sánchez-Canales et al., 2015). An ecosystem service value model, which was revised by the extent of vegetation lushness and the effective time of vegetation, has been used to distinguish the contributions of human activities and climate change to ecosystem services in the Qinghai Lake Watershed (Jiang, 2016). However, while these statistical methods that rely on long-term changes in ecosystem services can separate the impacts of land use and climate change, they often ignore the interactions between different factors and the trade-offs and synergy between ecosystem services (Hong et al., 2020).
In addition, the synergistic effects of various driving factors further increase the difficulties in identifying the influencing mechanisms and future projections of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services change is triggered by different drivers of change (e.g., economic, social, political, environmental-climate change), and these factors can interact and generate mutual impacts. For example, land use can strongly affect climate through the effects of the land surface on soil moisture, heat transfer, fluxes of trace gases, and albedo (Bonan, 2008), and global climate change has a strong influence on future land use in some regions (Liu et al., 2017). Therefore, the changes of ecosystem services often result from the instability of climate change, the spatial differentiation of natural elements, and the mosaic characteristics of the landscape. A simple analysis of individual factors or short-term changes in ecosystem services often fail to interpret the interaction mechanisms of different driving factors.
Many uncertainties and limitations also exist in the simulation models. The application of land change models is critically dependent on the quality of their output. Mas et al. (2014) compared four frequently used land change models for a similar landscape and found that they generated strongly different outcomes. A review of current calibration and validation practices in land change modeling indicated that 31% of the applications did not report any model evaluation, only 17% reported an uncertainty analysis and 12% performed a sensitivity analysis (van Vliet et al., 2016), and limited progress has been made in addressing these uncertainties (Verburg et al., 2019). Therefore, the uncertainty throughout the modelling process is hampering the application of currently available models for policy and planning.
In addition, the susceptibility of ecosystem services to climate change and human activities is widely recognized (Fu et al., 2017), and the need to clarify the response mechanisms of ecosystem services to different driving factors is vital for ecosystem management policy making and implementation. Although some researchers have focused on the dynamic impacts of land use and climatic factors on the changes of ecosystem services, the coupling mechanisms of climate change and human activities on ecosystem services and the decomposition of driving forces remain very weak (Han et al., 2018). Many previous studies often simply attributed the changes in regional ecosystem services to the effects of land use change or ecological projects, and ignored the impact of climate change and the zonality of the natural environment (Zhao et al., 2019). Even if the climatic factors before and after the implementation of an ecological project remain unchanged, the input of some factors (i.e., vegetation coverage) in the ecosystem service assessment model still imply the indirect impact of climate change. Therefore, distinguishing the temporal and spatial response mechanisms of ecosystem services to the implementation of ecological projects is a difficult problem, but one which needs to be broken through.

5.2 Future directions

The earth’s surface system is undergoing profound changes which are driven by both global climate and human activities. The research on ecosystem services should adopt a dynamic evolutionary paradigm to reveal the dynamic changes of ecosystem service supply and its driving forces, and support decision making in sustainable environmental management (Li et al., 2018). The study of the impacts and interaction mechanisms of land-use change on ecosystems also supports a comprehensive and scientific understanding of the responses of ecosystems to human activities and global climate change. However, there are still few studies which identify the impacts of human activities under climate change scenarios, such as ecological projects (i.e. returning farmland to forests and grasslands, natural forest protection plans, desertification control, etc.), agricultural activities (such as irrigation, fertilization, etc.), and economic activities (such as industrialization, tourism, etc.) (Han et al., 2018). In addition, climate change at different temporal and spatial scales not only determines ecosystem service supply, but also affects the balance of supply and demand, and even trade-offs and synergy of ecosystem services. Research on the interactions between ecosystem services and human well-being and sustainable development has become a new trend (Yin et al., 2021). The key ecosystem services that constitute human well-being have been adopted by the United Nations as an important part of the 17 sustainable development goals that will be achieved in 2030. Ecological projects are an important way that human beings resolve ecological environment degradation and regulate the balance between the supply and demand of ecosystem services (Yu and Hao, 2020). However, the costs of ecological projects can be substantial, and typical restoration costs range from 100 to 1000 of USD per ha (TEEB, 2009). Such high costs raise the question of whether ecological restoration actions are likely to be cost-effective (Bullock et al., 2011). Therefore, research on the relationships between ecological projects and ecosystem services change under the combined effects of climate change and land use will be given special attention.
Considering that previous studies paid more attention to the impacts of climatic elements or land use changes on ecosystem services, and the effects of ecological projects are often hidden contributors of climate or land use changes, a variable parameter control method and the comparison method between the inside and outside of an engineering area have been proposed for determining the contribution rate of ecological projects (Shao et al., 2017). This is especially relevant since the development of modern information technology allows the integration of mathematical methods and geographic information technology to decompose the response information of ecosystem services under the interaction of multiple factors. For example, the multifractal filtering technology (CA and SA), which was proposed from the generalized self-similarity theory, can decompose the distribution pattern of the target space and separate the complex background and superimposed anomalies (Cheng et al., 2009). In addition, Geodetector can analyze the relationship between the variance and total variance of each factor layer, so it can detect the relationships between individual elements and the dependent variable through spatial hierarchical heterogeneity, and identify the interactions of driving factors (Wang and Xu, 2017). Therefore, research on the decomposition technology of ecosystem service responses and detectors of regional ecosystem services to major ecological projects will become the hot spot.
In this survey, we also noticed that there is a need to identify where restoration projects will incur net benefits for conservation and human well-being, so that many efforts can be effectively targeted. Although models which can anticipate potential future impacts on ecosystem services and support the decision-making processes are very important, several methods which have been applied in solving complex trade-off issues also need to be improved, because improving validation results of future projections is a critical issue to be addressed by new scientific research once it improves the reliability of the outcomes (Gomes et al., 2021). The inherent uncertainty and complexity of land change processes imply that land change models cannot be expected to generate results that are perfectly accurate, so more work is needed to integrate formal process validation in the development of land change models (Van Vliet et al., 2016).

6 Conclusions

This work conducts a comprehensive review on the driving mechanisms of ecosystem services change from the three perspectives of land use change, climate change, and simulation techniques of future ecosystem services. We found that land use and climate change together drive the changes of ecosystem services, however the synergistic effects of various driving factors have not been resolved. Many studies have focused on the identification on individual elements of ecosystem services change, but the interactions of multiple influencing factors need to be clearly decomposed. Although multi-scenario simulation methods have been applied to predict future changes in ecosystem services, the reliability of the outcomes is a critical issue. Therefore, future research should focus more attention on the analysis of the systematic impacts of ecological projects on ecosystem services, especially on the dynamic responses and detection technology of regional ecosystem services to major ecological projects, which is crucial to the selection of restoration measures and regional arrangement of ecosystem conservation projects.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Ajza Ahmed M A, Abd-Elrahman A, Escobedo F J, et al. 2017. Spatially-explicit modeling of multi-scale drivers of aboveground forest biomass and water yield in watersheds of the Southeastern United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 199: 158-171.

DOI

[2]
Alva-Basurto J C, Arias-González J E. 2014. Modelling the effects of climate change on a Caribbean coral reef food web. Ecological Modelling, 289: 1-14.

DOI

[3]
Asmus M L, Nicolodi J, Anello L S, et al. 2019. The risk to lose ecosystem services due to climate change: A South American case. Ecological Engineering, 130: 233-241.

DOI

[4]
Bai Y, Ochuodho T O, Yang J. 2019. Impact of land use and climate change on water-related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA. Ecological Indicators, 102: 51-64.

DOI

[5]
Birch J C, Newton A C, Aquino C A, et al. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(50): 21925-21930.

[6]
Boavida-Portugal I, Rocha J, Ferreira C C. 2016. Exploring the impacts of future tourism development on land use/cover changes. Applied Geography, 77: 82-91.

DOI

[7]
Bonan G B. 2008. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks and the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320(5882): 1444-1449.

DOI

[8]
Bongaarts J. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Population and Development Review, 45(3): 680-681.

[9]
Brancalion P H S, Chazdon R L. 2017. Beyond hectares: Four principles to guide reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape restoration. Restoration Ecology, 25(4): 491-496.

DOI

[10]
Bryan B A, Gao L, Ye Y Q, et al. 2018. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature, 559(7713): 193-204.

DOI

[11]
Bullock J M, Aronson J, Newton A C, et al. 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(10): 541-549.

DOI PMID

[12]
Byrd K B, Flint L E, Alvarez P, et al. 2015. Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: Wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply. Landscape Ecology, 30(4): 729-750.

DOI

[13]
Center of Climate Change, China Meteorological Administration. 2020. Blue book on climate change in China 2020. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese)

[14]
Chazdon R L, Brancalion P H S, Lamb D, et al. 2017. A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conservation Letters, 10(1): 125-132.

DOI

[15]
Cheng Q M, Zhang S Y, Zuo R G, et al. 2009. Progress of multifractal filtering techniques and their applications in geochemical information extraction. Earth Science Frontiers, 16(2): 185-198. (in Chinese)

[16]
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, et al. 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25(1): 3-15.

DOI

[17]
Costanza R de Groot R, Sutton P, et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26: 152-158.

DOI

[18]
Dadashpoor H, Azizi P, Moghadasi M. 2019. Land use change, urbanization, and change in landscape pattern in a metropolitan area. Science of the Total Environment, 655: 707-719.

DOI

[19]
Du J Q, Jiaerheng A, Zhao C, et al. 2015. Dynamic changes in vegetation NDVI from 1982 to 2012 and its responses to climate change and human activities in Xinjiang, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 26(12): 3567-3578. (in Chinese)

PMID

[20]
Ellis E. 2010. Land-use and land-cover change. In: Pontius R (ed.). Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington DC, USA: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment.

[21]
Fu B J, Tian H Q, Tao F L, et al. 2017. The impact of global change on ecosystem services. China Basic Science, 19(6): 14-18. (in Chinese)

[22]
Gao J F, Xiong K N. 2015. Ecosystem service value responses to ecological control in Karst region-A case study of Huajiang Gorge demonstration area of rocky desertification control in Guizhou. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 23(6): 775-784. (in Chinese)

[23]
Gomes E, Inácio M, Bogdzevič K, et al. 2021. Future land-use changes and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystem services: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 781: 146716. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146716.

DOI

[24]
Grimm N B, Groffman P, Staudinger M, et al. 2016. Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: Process and prospects for sustained assessment. Climate Change, 135(1): 97-109.

DOI

[25]
Han H Q, Zhang J Y, Ma G, et al. 2018. Advances on impact of climate change on ecosystem services. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences), 42(2): 184-190. (in Chinese)

[26]
Hasan S S, Zhen L, Miah M G, et al. 2020. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, 34: 100527. DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527.

DOI

[27]
Hong Y Y, Ding Q, Zhou T, et al. 2020. Ecosystem service bundle index construction, spatiotemporal dynamic display, and driving force analysis. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 6(1): 1843972. DOI: 10.1080/20964129.2020.1843972.

DOI

[28]
Hoque M Z, Cui S H, Islam I, et al. 2020. Future impact of land use/land cover changes on ecosystem services in the lower Meghna River estuary, Bangladesh. Sustainability, 12(5): 2112. DOI: 10.3390/su12052112.

DOI

[29]
Huang L, Zhu P, Xiao T, et al. 2018. The sand fixation effects of three-north shelter forest program in recent 35 years. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 38(4): 600-609. (in Chinese)

DOI

[30]
Huang M Y, Yue W Z, Fang B, et al. 2019. Scale response characteristics and geographic exploration mechanism of spatial differentiation of ecosystem service values in Dabie Mountain area, central China from 1970 to 2015. Acta Geographica Sinica, 74(9): 1904-1920. (in Chinese)

[31]
Jiang C H. 2016. Spatial-temporal pattern variation and impact factors of ecosystem service values in the Qinghai Lake Watershed. Resources Science, 38(8): 99-106. (in Chinese)

[32]
Khaledian Y, Kiani F, Ebrahimi S, et al. 2017. Assessment and monitoring of soil degradation during land use change using multivariate analysis. Land Degradation & Development, 28(1): 128-141.

DOI

[33]
Kindu M, Schneider T, Teketay D, et al. 2016. Changes of ecosystem service values in response to land use/land cover dynamics in Munessa- Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. Science of the Total Environment, 547: 137-147.

DOI

[34]
Lai M, Wu S H, Dai E F, et al. 2013. Dynamic valuation on ecosystem services to ecological construction in the Three-River Headwaters Natural Reserve, China. Journal of Mountain Science, 31(1): 8-17. (in Chinese)

[35]
Lam V W Y, Cheung W W L, Reygondeau G, et al. 2016. Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Scientific Reports, 6: 32607. DOI: 10.1038/srep32607.

DOI

[36]
Li C Y, Fang H Y. 2021. Assessment of climate change impacts on the streamflow for the Mun River in the Mekong Basin, Southeast Asia: Using SWAT model. Catena, 201: 105199. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2021.105199.

DOI

[37]
Li H L, Peng J, Liu Y X, et al. 2017. Urbanization impact on landscape patterns in Beijing City, China: A spatial heterogeneity perspective. Ecological Indicators, 82: 50-60.

DOI

[38]
Li S C, Xia A L, Liu C Y, et al. 2018. Research progress and prospect for land ecosystem services. China Land Science, 32(12): 82-89. (in Chinese)

[39]
Li Y Y, Tan M H, Hao H G. 2019. The impact of global cropland changes on terrestrial ecosystem services value, 1992-2015. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(3): 323-333.

DOI

[40]
Liu B J, Zhang L, Lu F, et al. 2019. Greenhouse gas emissions and net carbon sequestration of the Beijing-Tianjin Sand Source Control Project in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225: 163-172.

DOI

[41]
Liu J Y, Kuang W H, Zhang Z X, et al. 2014. Spatiotemporal characteristics, patterns, and causes of land-use changes in China since the late 1980s. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 24(2): 195-210.

DOI

[42]
Liu J Y, Li J, Qin K Y, et al. 2017. Changes in land-uses and ecosystem services under multi-scenarios simulation. Science of the Total Environment, 586: 522-526.

[43]
Liu L L, Shao Q Q, Cao W, et al. 2018. Cost-benefit analysis of the ecological protects in the Three-River Headwater Region based on ecosystem services values. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 26(1): 30-39. (in Chinese)

[44]
Lu Z Y F, Xu D Y, Zhang X J, et al. 2019. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services in arid desert region of Alxa. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 26(6): 296-302. (in Chinese)

[45]
Lobell D B, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. 2011. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science, 333(6042): 616-620.

DOI PMID

[46]
IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat.

[47]
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Climate change 2013:The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group Ⅰ to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

[48]
Mas J F, Kolb M, Paegelow M, et al. 2014. Inductive pattern-based land use/cover change models: A comparison of four software packages. Environmental Modelling & Software, 51: 94-111.

[49]
MEA The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:Findings of the scenarios working group. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

[50]
Moreno-Mateos D, Power M E, Comín F A, et al. 2012. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. Plos Biology, 10(1): e1001247. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247.

DOI

[51]
Moss E D, Evans D M, Atkins J P. 2021. Investigating the impacts of climate change on ecosystem services in UK agro-ecosystems: An application of the DPSIR framework. Land Use Policy, 105: 105394. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105394.

DOI

[52]
Newton A C, Hodder K, Cantarello E, et al. 2012. Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(3): 571-580.

DOI

[53]
Ning J, Shao Q Q. 2020. Temporal and spatial characteristics of land use and ecosystem services in the Loess Plateau. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 39(4): 774-785. (in Chinese)

[54]
Oyeleye O I. 2013. Challenges of urbanization and urban growth in Nigeria. American Journal of Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(2): 79-95.

[55]
Paudyal K, Baral H, Bhandari S P, et al. 2019. Spatial assessment of the impact of land use and land cover change on supply of ecosystem services in Phewa watershed, Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 36: 100895. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100895.

DOI

[56]
Peh K S H, Balmford A, Field R H, et al. 2014. Benefits and costs of ecological restoration: Rapid assessment of changing ecosystem service values at a U.K. wetland. Ecology and Evolution, 4(20): 3875-3886.

DOI

[57]
Peng J, Tian L, Zhang Z M, et al. 2020. Distinguishing the impacts of land use and climate change on ecosystem services in a Karst landscape in China. Ecosystem Services, 46: 101199. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101199.

DOI

[58]
Pereira P. 2020. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Science of the Total Environment, 702: 135008. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2019. 135008.

DOI

[59]
Rehan R, Nehdi M. 2005. Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change: Policy implications for the cement industry. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(2): 105-114.

[60]
Rey Benayas J M, Newton A C, Diaz A, et al. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science, 325(5944): 1121-1124.

DOI PMID

[61]
Rocca M E, Miniat C F, Mitchell R J. 2014. Introduction to the regional assessments: Climate change, wildfire, and forest ecosystem services in the USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 327: 265-268.

DOI

[62]
Romano G, Dal Sasso P, Trisorio Liuzzi G, et al. 2015. Multi-criteria decision analysis for land suitability mapping in a rural area of Southern Italy. Land Use Policy, 48: 131-143.

DOI

[63]
Salvati L, Zambon I, Chelli F M, et al. 2018. Do spatial patterns of urbanization and land consumption reflect different socioeconomic contexts in Europe? Sciences of the Total Environment, 625: 722-730.

[64]
Sánchez-Canales M, López-Benito A, Acuña V, et al. 2015. Sensitivity analysis of a sediment dynamics model applied in a Mediterranean River Basin: Global change and management implications. Science of the Total Environment, 502: 602-610.

DOI

[65]
Sannigrahi S, Bhatt S, Rahmat S, et al. 2018. Estimating global ecosystem service values and its response to land surface dynamics during 1995-2015. Journal of Environmental Management, 223: 115-131.

DOI PMID

[66]
Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752): 1333-1337.

PMID

[67]
Sharma R, Nehren U, Rahman S, et al. 2018. Modeling land use and land cover changes and their effects on biodiversity in central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land, 7(2): 57. DOI: 10.3390/land7020057.

DOI

[68]
Shao Q Q, Fan J W, Liu J Y, et al. 2017. Approaches for monitoring and assessment of ecological benefits of national key ecological projects. Advances in Earth Science, 32(11): 174-182. (in Chinese)

[69]
Shi Y, Wang R S, Huang J L, et al. 2012. An analysis of the spatial and temporal changes in Chinese terrestrial ecosystem service functions. Chinese Science Bulletin, 57(17): 2120-2131.

DOI

[70]
Song X P, Hansen M C, Stehman S V, et al. 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560(7720): 639-643.

DOI

[71]
TEEB. 2009. TEEB climate issues update. Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP.

[72]
Van Vliet J, Bregt A K, Brown D G, et al. 2016. A review of current calibration and validation practices in land-change modeling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 82: 174-182.

[73]
Veerkamp C J, Dunford R W, Harrison P A, et al. 2020. Future projections of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe with two integrated assessment models. Regional Environmental Change, 20(3): 1-14.

DOI

[74]
Verburg P H, Alexander P, Evans T, et al. 2019. Beyond land cover change: Towards a new generation of land use models. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38: 77-85.

DOI

[75]
Waldhoff S T, Wing I S, Edmonds J, et al. 2020. Future climate impacts on global agricultural yields over the 21st century. Environmental Research Letters, 15(11): 114010. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/abadcb.

DOI

[76]
Wang J F, Xu C D. 2017. Geodetector: Principle and prospective. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(1): 116-134. (in Chinese)

[77]
Wang X L, Dai E F, Zhu J J. 2016. Spatial patterns of forest ecosystem services and influencing factors in the Ganjiang River Basin. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 7(6): 439-452.

DOI

[78]
Wang S, Zhang B, Xie G D, et al. 2020. Vegetation cover changes and sand-fixing service responses in the Beijing-Tianjin sandstorm source control project area. Environmental Development, 34: 100455. DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2019.08.002.

DOI

[79]
Wang S, Zhang B, Wang S, et al. 2021. Dynamic changes in water conservation in the Beijing-Tianjin sandstorm source control project area: A case study of Xilin Gol League in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293: 126054. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126054.

DOI

[80]
Wood E M, Pidgeon A M. 2015. Extreme variations in spring temperature affect ecosystem regulating services provided by birds during migration. Ecosphere, 6(11): 1-16.

[81]
Xu Y Q, Zhou B T, Yu L, et al. 2018. Temporal-spatial dynamic pattern of forest ecosystem service value affected by climate change in the future in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(6): 1952-1963. (in Chinese)

[82]
Yang H F, Mu S J, Li J L. 2014. Effects of ecological restoration projects on land use and land cover change and its influences on territorial NPP in Xinjiang, China. Catena, 115: 85-95.

DOI

[83]
Yang Y Y, Zheng H, Kong L Q, et al. 2019. Mapping ecosystem services bundles to detect high- and low-value ecosystem services areas for land use management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225: 11-17.

DOI

[84]
Yee S H, Paulukonis E, Simmons C, et al. 2021. Projecting effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 440: 109358. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109358.

DOI

[85]
Yin N, Wang S, Liu Y X. 2021. Ecosystem service value assessment: Research progress and prospects. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 40(1): 233-244. (in Chinese)

[86]
Yohannes H, Soromessa T, Argaw M, et al. 2021. Impact of landscape pattern changes on hydrological ecosystem services in the Beressa watershed of the Blue Nile Basin in Ethiopia. Science of the Total Environment, 793: 148559. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148559.

DOI

[87]
Yu D Y, Hao R F. 2020. Research progress and prospect of ecosystem services. Advances in Earth Science, 35(8): 804-815. (in Chinese)

[88]
Zhang B, Xie G D, Li N, et al. 2015. Effect of urban green space changes on the role of rainwater runoff reduction in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 140: 8-16.

DOI

[89]
Zhang D, Wang X R, Qu L P, et al. 2020. Land use/cover predictions incorporating ecological security for the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Ecological Indicators, 119: 106841. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106841.

DOI

[90]
Zhang W X, Wu X Q, Yu Y, et al. 2019. The change of ecosystem services supply-demand and response to rocky desertification in Xiaojiang Basin during 2005-2015. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 33(5): 139-150. (in Chinese)

[91]
Zhao D S, Guo C Y, Guo Y Q, et al. 2019. Effects of climate change on major ecological projects of Mountains-Rivers-Forests-Farmlands- Lakes-Grasslands. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(23): 8780-8788. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉