Provisioning

Cultural Regulating

SPATIAL PATTERNS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ACROSS LANDSCAPE GRADIENTS: APPLICATION TO FLORIDA

Shelly A. Johnson1*, Jessica Steele2, Rajeev Pillay3, Patrick O’Donoughue4 1School of Forest Resources & Conservation, 2 Department of Geography, 3 Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation, 4 Department of Environmental Engineering

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida USA *shelly.johnson@ufl.edu

References: a Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260 b Florida Department of State (http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/) accessed 11Apr2011. c Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 107:5242-5247 d Reid WV (ed) (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being - Synthesis Report . World Resources Institute, Island Press, Washington DC e Florida County Boundaries data layer source: US Census Bureau (1990) f Florida Land Cover data layer source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (2000)

Background:

Tradeoffs between provisioning and other (regulating/cultural) ecosystem services c

Different social and ecological gradients across the landscape produced different ecosystem services c

1,000 = Population growth in Florida each dayb

= increase in demand for the services the ecosystem provides to sustain the population

Objectives

To increase our understanding of the spatial patterns,

correlations, and clusters of “ecosystem services” in Florida

Objective 1: Map the distribution of selected ecosystem services for each county in Florida

Objective 2: Determine the degree of association or interaction among ecosystem services

Objective 3: Determine the spatial pattern of clusters of ecosystem services and associations of all services across the state

Ecosystem Service Data

• Selected 7 proxy “ecosystem services”

• Quantified per unit area for each county in Florida & standardized each data set to relative value

• Evaluated spatial relationships with different analysis methods:

1. Visually evaluated distribution:

- ArcGIS

2. Compared spatial patterns of service clustering across Florida:

- Moran’s I (with polygon contiguity)

3. Spatial correlation between pairs of services:

- Pearson Correlation Test

4. Estimated predictability service groups by the presence of others:

- Linear Regression

5. Identified patterns and sources of variation of services across Florida:

- Principle Components Analysis

- K-Means Cluster Analysis

What are Ecosystem Services?

Fun

ctio

ns

Services

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 d

“Ecosystem services” are the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems. a

Ecosystem functions are biological and system processes

Ecosystem services are derived from ecosystem functions

“Ecosystem Service” Definition and Units Data Sources

PROVISIONING

Citrus Production Percent of land in each county in production of citrus trees USDA National Agricultural

Statistics Service (2007)

Timberland

Percent of land in each county in production in timberland

(land capable of producing 20 cu ft of industrial wood per

acre/yr and maintained >10% stocking level)

United States Forest Service:

Forest Inventory & Analysis

(2007)

Cattle Inventory

Density of cattle (head/ha) per county (inventory of total

cattle: beef, dairy, male, female, and calves)

USDA National Agriculture

Statistics Service (2007)

REGULATING

Carbon

Sequestration

Mg/ha above-ground and soil carbon accumulation per year

(based on land cover type within county)

USFS Forest Inventory & Analysis

Data, F. Escobedo unpublished

data (2010)ef

Groundwater

Nitrate Quality

Groundwater nitrate concentration (mg/L) (derived from

nitrate concentrations at well sites in each county; high

water quality = low nitrates)

Wetland Solutions, Inc. (2010)e

CULTURAL

Biodiversity

Hotspots

Percent of land in each county identified as important

habitat, based on rarity and richness of plants and animals

(248 spp)

Florida Natural Areas Inventory/

UF Geoplan Center (2008)e

Outdoor

Recreation

Percent of land in each county designated for parks and

conservation management

Florida DEP: Florida State Parks

(2010), FNAI: Florida Managed

Areas (2011)e

Previous work by Raudsepp-Hearne et al (2010)c:

Methods

Results

Discussion

Citrus & Cattle + Biodiversity & Timber -

Biodiversity & Carbon + Carbon & Timber -

Cattle & Timber -

60 % of variance

Citrus

Cattle

Recreation Water Quality

Biodiversity

Timber

Carbon

• Timberland • Cattle Production • Biodiversity Hotspots • Citrus Production • Carbon Sequestration • Groundwater Quality

• Outdoor Recreation

p < 0.1

Spatial patterns of service clustering:

Moran’s I (with polygon contiguity)

Spatial correlation between pairs of services: Pearson Correlation Test

Moderate

Strong

Timber & Citrus -

Weak

Cattle & Biodiversity +

Citrus & Biodiversity +

Water Quality & Biodiversity +

(p < 0.1)

Correlations

Predictability of a group of services by the other groups of services:

Linear Regression

R2 = 0.15

R2 = 0.008

R2 = 0.03

No significant predictors

Patterns of variation of services across Florida:

K-Means Cluster Analysis

Clusters

Developed/Urban

Conservation Forestland

Grassland & Wetlands

Agriculture

Production Timberland

Sources of variation of services across Florida: Principle Components Analysis

Agr

icu

ltu

re

No

n-A

gric

ult

ure

Southern FL Northern FL

Acknowledgements: This project was initiated during a graduate course on “Pattern and Process in Landscape Ecology” (Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida) with guidance from Dr. Robert Fletcher. We also thank Chris Catteau for his assistance with programming in R and Peng Jia for assistance with ArcGIS.

Clu

ster

ed

Dis

per

sed

We found distinct spatial patterns for almost all of services; in particular, services were geographically clustered on the landscape related to the underlying

biophysical characteristics and human activities occurring at the county level, with observed change in services along both latitudinal and agricultural gradients.

A visual assessment of the service values by county, as well as the PCA and cluster analysis, support the explanation of distribution of services on a latitudinal

gradient. The PCA identified a north-south gradient as cause for 40% of the variation in the services. South central Florida had a concentration of the agricultural

services (i.e. citrus and cattle production), whereas, northern Florida displayed high values for timberland. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity had less distinct

patterns, but were clumped in areas containing grass- and marshlands, including Everglades National Park and Big Cypress in southern Florida.

This latitudinal gradient of services was likely influenced by environmental conditions which favor particular land uses. As a result, the second most influential

environmental gradient, described by the PCA (explaining 17% of the variation) and supported by the cluster analysis, was a human-designated agriculture to non-

agriculture gradient. Due to the strong influence of these gradients on the distribution of services, some services were highly correlated and may be viewed either as

ecosystem bundles (e.g., citrus and cattle) or tradeoffs (e.g., timber and citrus). For example, timber was clumped with higher water quality and biodiversity, and these

areas overlap more with National and other public forestland managed for mixed use.

The implications for effective ecosystem management, conservation planning, and future management decisions from this analysis are limited; given that distinct

land use is unlikely to change at the scale analyzed regardless of demand for specific ecosystem services, it is our recommendation that this analysis more appropriately

be conducted at a finer grain with opportunity for land use change given demand. This study does, however, illustrate an empirical assessment of spatial patterns,

correlations, and bundles of multiple ecosystem services; adding to the general literature on ecosystem service tradeoffs.

Service Values by FL County