Ecosystem services in working lands of the southeastern USA

Authors: Coffin, Alisa; SCLATER, VIVIENNE - ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION; SWAIN, HILARY - ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION; PONCE-CAMPOS, GUILLERMO - UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; SEYMOUR, LYNNE - UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

Submitted to: Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 1/7/2021
Publication Date: 3/2/2021
Citation: Coffin, A.W., Sclater, V., Swain, H., Ponce-Campos, G., Seymour, L. 2021. Ecosystem services in working lands of the southeastern USA. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.541590.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.541590

Interpretive Summary: Agriculture and natural systems interweave in the southeastern US, where environmental gradients help form nuanced landscapes. Most of the region consist largely of working lands under private control forming a mosaic of timberlands, grazinglands and croplands. According to the “ecosystem services” framework, these landscapes are multifunctional. Generally, working lands are highly valued for their provisioning services, and, to some degree cultural services, while regulating and supporting services are harder to quantify and less appreciated. Tradeoffs and synergies exist among these services. Regional ecological assessments tend to broadly paint working lands as low value for regulating and supporting services. But this generalization fails to consider the complexity and tight spatial coupling of land uses and land covers evident in such regions. While there are significant acreages of natural systems embedded in southeastern working lands, their spatial characteristics influence the balance of tradeoffs between ecosystem services at differing scales. To better understand this, we examined the configuration of working lands in the southeastern US by comparing indicators of land cover and ecosystem services at multiple scales. We used hydrological and ecological frameworks to assess ecosystem service indicators in a nested hierarchy of study areas. For each spatial extent and scale, we analyzed comparative differences in the configuration of indicators. We found that subregions of the southeastern US differed markedly in their contributions to overall ecosystem services. Provisioning services, characterized by production indicators, were very high in northern subregions of Georgia, while supporting services, characterized by habitat and biodiversity indicators were notably higher in smaller subregions of Florida. For supporting services the inclusion of embedded natural systems and low intensity working lands made a critical difference in the regional evaluation of those services. This analysis showed how our understanding of ecosystem services tradeoffs could change substantially depending on the scale of the analysis and the characteristics of the region under evaluation.

Technical Abstract: Agriculture and natural systems interweave in the southeastern US, where topographic, edaphic, hydrologic and climatic gradients help form nuanced landscapes. These are largely working lands under private control constituting the majority area in the region, comprising a mosaic of timberlands, grazinglands and croplands. According to the “ecosystem services” framework, these landscapes are multifunctional. Generally, working lands are highly valued for their provisioning services, and, to some degree cultural services, while regulating and supporting services are harder to quantify and less appreciated. Tradeoffs and synergies exist among these services. Regional ecological assessments tend to broadly paint working lands as low value for regulating and supporting services. But this generalization fails to consider the complexity and tight spatial coupling of land uses and land covers evident in such regions. Such assessments also fail to use a scaling framework that could help to better highlight ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies, which could well be dependent on the grain and scale of analysis. The challenge of evaluating multifunctionality and ecosystem services is that they are not spatially concordant. While there are significant acreages of natural systems embedded in southeastern working lands, their spatial characteristics influence the balance of tradeoffs between ecosystem services at differing scales. To better understand this, we examined the configuration of working lands in the southeastern US by comparing indicators of land cover and ecosystem services at multiple scales. We utilized a hydrographic and ecoregional framework to partition the study region into a hierarchical lattice. To capture a more nuanced view of working lands, we rejected a binary production vs. conservation land use classification, and produced datasets indicating increasing levels of land use intensity. We identified key indicators of provisioning, regulating and cultural services and harmonized the grain of analysis of all land use and ecosystem service indicator variables. We used a spatial framework to compare the variability and distribution of these indicators at differing scales, ranging from broad ecoregions to local landscapes. For each spatial extent and scale, we summarized and analyzed the comparative differences in the configuration of indicators. Subregions of the southeastern US differ markedly in their contributions to overall ecosystem services. Provisioning services, characterized by production indicators were very high in northern subregions of Georgia, while supporting services, characterized by habitat and biodiversity indicators were notably higher in smaller subregions of Florida. For supporting services the inclusion of embedded natural systems and low intensity working lands made a critical difference in the regional evaluation of supporting services. This analysis showed how markedly our understanding of ecosystem services tradeoffs could change depending on the scale of the analysis and the characteristics of the region under evaluation.