Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustaining ecosystem services (ES), mitigating their tradeoffs and avoiding unfavorable future trajectories are pressing social-environmental challenges that require enhanced understanding of their relationships across scales. Current knowledge of ES relationships is often constrained to one spatial scale or one snapshot in time. In this research, we integrated biophysical modeling with future scenarios to examine changes in relationships among eight ES indicators from 2001–2070 across three spatial scales—grid cell, subwatershed, and watershed. We focused on the Yahara Watershed (Wisconsin) in the Midwestern United States—an exemplar for many urbanizing agricultural landscapes. Relationships among ES indicators changed over time; some relationships exhibited high interannual variations (e.g. drainage vs. food production, nitrate leaching vs. net ecosystem exchange) and even reversed signs over time (e.g. perennial grass production vs. phosphorus yield). Robust patterns were detected for relationships among some regulating services (e.g. soil retention vs. water quality) across three spatial scales, but other relationships lacked simple scaling rules. This was especially true for relationships of food production vs. water quality, and drainage vs. number of days with runoff >10 mm, which differed substantially across spatial scales. Our results also showed that local tradeoffs between food production and water quality do not necessarily scale up, so reducing local tradeoffs may be insufficient to mitigate such tradeoffs at the watershed scale. We further synthesized these cross-scale patterns into a typology of factors that could drive changes in ES relationships across scales: (1) effects of biophysical connections, (2) effects of dominant drivers, (3) combined effects of biophysical linkages and dominant drivers, and (4) artificial scale effects, and concluded with management implications. Our study highlights the importance of taking a dynamic perspective and accounting for spatial scales in monitoring and management to sustain future ES.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".