**Author details**

Emily S. Weeks1 , Norm Mason2 , Anne-Gaelle E. Ausseil2 and Alexander Herzig2

1 National Land Resource Centre, New Zealand

2 Landcare Research, New Zealand

### **References**

[1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. *Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis report*. Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. 2005.

[15] Maestre FT, Quero JL, Gotelli NJ, Escudero A, Ochoa V, Delgado-Baquerizo M, et al. Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science.

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

21

[16] Dutton A, Edwards-Jones G, Macdonald DW. Estimating the Value of Non-Use Ben‐ efits from Small Changes in the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Conserv Biol.

[17] Tilman D, Polasky S, Lehman C. Diversity, productivity and temporal stability in the economies of humans and nature. J Environ Econ Manag. 2005;49(3):405–26.

[18] Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. Global food demand and the sustainable inten‐

[19] Schwartz MW, Brigham CA, Hoeksema JD, Lyons KG, Mills MH, Van Mantgem PJ. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology.

[20] Chapin FS, Sala OE, Burke IC, Grime JP, Hooper DU, Lauenroth WK, et al. Ecosys‐

[21] Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson DM. Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(3):553–

[22] Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for deci‐

[23] Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A. An ecosystem services framework to sup‐ port both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci.

[24] Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and

[25] Chown SL, van Rensburg BJ, Gaston KJ, Rodrigues AS, van Jaarsveld AS. Energy, species richness, and human population size: conservation implications at a national

[26] Litt AR, Gordon DR. Predictors of species richness in northwest Florida longleaf pine

[27] Van Rensburg BJ, Chown SL, Gaston KJ. Species richness, environmental correlates, and spatial scale: a test using South African birds. Am Nat. 2002;159(5):566–77.

[28] Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, et al. Global map‐ ping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci.

tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7(1):4–11.

tem consequences of changing biodiversity. Bioscience. 1998;48(1):45–52.

sification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(50):20260–4.

2012;335(6065):214–8.

2010;24(6):1479–87.

62.

Oecologia. 2000;122(3):297–305.

2008;105(28):9457–64.

2008;105(28):9495–500.

sion making. Ecol Econ. 2009;68(3):643–53.

scale. Ecol Appl. 2003;13(5):1233–41.

sandhills. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(6):1660–71.


[15] Maestre FT, Quero JL, Gotelli NJ, Escudero A, Ochoa V, Delgado-Baquerizo M, et al. Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science. 2012;335(6065):214–8.

**References**

20 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

[1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. *Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis report*.

[2] Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C. Confronting a biome crisis: global

[3] Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, et al. Ecosys‐ tem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7(1):21–8.

[4] Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GO, Swartz B, Quental TB, et al. Has the Earth/'s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature. 2011;471(7336):51–7.

[5] Stork NE, Coddington JA, Colwell RK, Chazdon RL, Dick CW, Peres CA, et al. Vul‐ nerability and Resilience of Tropical Forest Species to Land-Use Change. Conserv Bi‐

[6] Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BJ, Byrnes JE, Hungate BA, Matulich KL, et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Na‐

[7] Haines-Young R. Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy.

[8] Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiver‐

[9] Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson \AAsa, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, et al. A

[10] Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global con‐

[11] Reidsma P, Tekelenburg T, Van den Berg M, Alkemade R. Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European

[12] Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, et al. Global biodi‐

[13] Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, Ricketts T, Loucks C, Harriss R, Lawrence WT. Global pat‐ terns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature. 2004;429(6994):870–

[14] Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, Knight AT, Cowling RM, van Jaarsveld AS, et al. Inte‐ grating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. Ecol Econ.

sity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486(7401):59–67.

safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 2009;461(7263):472–5.

versity scenarios for the year 2100. science. 2000;287(5459):1770–4.

sequences of land use. science. 2005;309(5734):570–4.

Union. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2006;114(1):86–102.

disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett. 2005;8(1):23–9.

Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. 2005.

ol. 2009;23(6):1438–47.

2009;26:S178–S186.

3.

2007;63(4):714–21.

ture. 2012;486(7401):105–8.


[29] Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW. The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol Lett. 2004;7(11):1109–19.

[43] Dale VH, Polasky S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

23

[44] Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Gross K, Ives AR. Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agro‐

[45] Wilby A, Thomas MB. Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest

[46] Finke DL, Denno RF. Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecol Lett. 2005;8(12):1299–

[47] Schmidt MH, Lauer A, Purtauf T, Thies C, Schaefer M, Tscharntke T. Relative impor‐ tance of predators and parasitoids for cereal aphid control. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol

[48] Snyder WE, Ives AR. Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology. 2003;84(1):91–107.

[49] Bianchi F, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural land‐ scapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control.

[50] Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T. Does conservation on farm‐ land contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(9):474–

[51] Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH. Beyond op‐ portunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol.

[52] Overton JM, Stephens RT, Cook S, Wright E. Unpublished Landcare Research Con‐ tract Research Report. Wellington, New Zealand: Landcare Research; 2010. Report

[53] Awimbo JA, Norton DA, Overmars FB. An evaluation of representativeness for na‐ ture conservation, Hokitika Ecological District, New Zealand. Biol Conserv.

[54] Walker S, Price R, Rutledge D, Stephens RT, Lee WG. Recent loss of indigenous cover

[55] Crossman ND, Bryan BA. Systematic landscape restoration using integer program‐

[56] Wilson KA, Lulow M, Burger J, Fang Y-C, Andersen C, Olson D, et al. Optimal resto‐ ration: accounting for space, time and uncertainty. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48(3):715–25.

in New Zealand. New Zealand J Ecol. 2006;30(2):169–77.

ming. Biol Conserv. 2006;128(3):369–83.

emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecol Lett. 2002;5(3):353–60.

services. Ecol Econ. 2007;64(2):286–96.

ecosystem. Ecol Lett. 2003;6(9):857–65.

Sci. 2003;270(1527):1905–9.

Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273(1595):1715–27.

306.

81.

1993;8(4):124–8.

No.: LC0910/064.

1996;75(2):177–86.


[43] Dale VH, Polasky S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 2007;64(2):286–96.

[29] Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW. The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol

[30] Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, et al. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J

[31] Broussard W, Turner RE. A century of changing land-use and water-quality relation‐

[32] Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspec‐ tives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management.

[33] Turner IM, T Corlett R. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of low‐

[34] Chiarello AG. Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian At‐

[35] Jobin B, Bélanger L, Boutin C, Maisonneuve C. Conservation value of agricultural ri‐ parian strips in the Boyer River watershed, Quebec (Canada). Agric Ecosyst Environ.

[36] Hector A, Bagchi R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature.

[37] Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, et al. Re‐ serves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AMBIO J Hum Environ. 2003;32(6):389–

[38] Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, et al. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ. 2003;1(9):488–94. [39] Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems. Ann

[40] Schroth G, Harvey CA. Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an

[41] Schroth G. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes [Inter‐ net]. Island Press; 2004 [cited 2013 Oct 23]. Available from: http://books.google.com/

books?hl=en&lr=&id=etuh8kXYMDQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=schroth+et+al +2004+biodiversity&ots=9-5MWJFL4G&sig=8bf5xHA-2K8luhM80bsT5Uwpe58 [42] Hoctor TS, Allen WL, Carr MH. Land corridors in the southeast: connectivity to pro‐

tect biodiversity and ecosystem services. J Conserv Plan. 2007;4:90–122.

ships in the continental US. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7(6):302–7.

land tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996;11(8):330–3.

lantic forest. Conserv Biol. 2000;14(6):1649–57.

Lett. 2004;7(11):1109–19.

22 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

Appl Ecol. 2009;46(4):888–96.

Ecol Lett. 2005;8(8):857–74.

2004;103(3):413–23.

96.

2007;448(7150):188–90.

N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1134(1):173–200.

overview. Biodivers Conserv. 2007;16(8):2237–44.


[57] Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Carruthers TJ. The charisma of coastal ecosys‐ tems: addressing the imbalance. Estuaries Coasts. 2008;31(2):233–8.

[69] Bevers M, Hof J, Uresk DW, Schenbeck GL. Spatial optimization of prairie dog colo‐

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

25

[70] Randhir TO, Lee JG, Engel B. Multiple criteria dynamic spatial optimization to man‐

[71] Herzig A. A GIS-based Module for the Multi-Objective Optimization of Areal Re‐ source Allocation. 11th AGILE Int Conf Geogr Inf Sci [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2013 Oct 24]. Available from: http://agile.gis.geo.tu-dresden.de/web/Conference\_Paper/CDs/

[72] Herzig, A., Ausseil, A.G., & Dymond, J.R. (2014). Spatial optimisation of ecosystem services. In J.R. Dymond (Ed.), Ecosystem services in New Zealand - conditions and

[73] Herzig A, Ausseil A-GE, Dymond JR 2013. Sensitivity of land-use pattern optimisa‐ tion to variation in input data and constraints. In: In Piantadosi, J., Anderssen, R.S. and Boland J. (eds) MODSIM2013, 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, De‐

[74] Weeks ES, Walker SF, Dymond JR, Shepherd JD, Clarkson BD. Patterns of past and recent conversion of indigenous grasslands in the South Island, New Zealand. New

[75] Weeks ES, Overton JM, Walker S. Estimating patterns of vulnerability in a changing landscape: a case study of New Zealand's indigenous grasslands. Environ Conserv.

[76] Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 2000;405(6783):

[77] Wilson K, Pressey RL, Newton A, Burgman M, Possingham H, Weston C. Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. Environ Manage.

[78] Wilson KA, Westphal MI, Possingham HP, Elith J. Sensitivity of conservation plan‐ ning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biol Con‐

[79] Pontius RG, Cornell JD, Hall CA. Modeling the spatial pattern of land-use change with GEOMOD2: application and validation for Costa Rica. Agric Ecosyst Environ.

[80] Weeks ES, Walker S, Overton JM, Clarkson B. The Value of Validated Vulnerability Data for Conservation Planning in Rapidly Changing Landscapes. Environ Manage.

age water quality on a watershed scale. Trans ASAE. 2000;43(2):291–300.

nies for black-footed ferret recovery. Oper Res. 1997;45(4):495–507.

AGILE%202008/PDF/105\_DOC.pdf

cember 2013, pp. 1840–1846.

Zeal J Ecol. 2013;37(1): 127–138

2013;1(1):1–12.

2005;35(5):527–43.

serv. 2005;122(1):99–112.

2001;85(1):191–203.

2013;1–12.

243–53.

trends. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press


[69] Bevers M, Hof J, Uresk DW, Schenbeck GL. Spatial optimization of prairie dog colo‐ nies for black-footed ferret recovery. Oper Res. 1997;45(4):495–507.

[57] Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Carruthers TJ. The charisma of coastal ecosys‐

[58] Niemelä J, Baur B. Threatened species in a vanishing habitat: plants and inverte‐ brates in calcareous grasslands in the Swiss Jura mountains. Biodivers Conserv.

[59] Ausseil A-GE, LIindsay Chadderton W, Gerbeaux P, Theo Stephens RT, Leathwick JR. Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland

[60] Mason NW, Ausseil A-GE, Dymond JR, Overton JM, Price R, Carswell FE. Will use of non-biodiversity objectives to select areas for ecological restoration always compro‐

[61] Seppelt R, Voinov A. Optimization methodology for land use patterns using spatially

[62] Groot JC, Rossing WA, Jellema A, Stobbelaar DJ, Renting H, Van Ittersum MK. Ex‐ ploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—a methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives.

[63] Meyer BC, Lescot J-M, Laplana R. Comparison of two spatial optimization techni‐ ques: a framework to solve multiobjective land use distribution problems. Environ

[64] Polasky S, Johnson K, Keeler B, Kovacs K, Nelson E, Pennington D, et al. Are invest‐ ments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned? Oxf Rev

[65] Ausseil A-GE, Herzig A, Dymond J.R. Optimising land use for multiple ecosystem services objectives: A case study in the Waitaki catchment, New Zealand. In Seppelt R, Voinov AA, Lange S, Bankamp D eds, International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Leipzig, Germany, July 2012. Available from: http://

[66] Loehle C. Optimal control of spatially distributed process models. Ecol Model.

[67] Wierzbicki A, Makowski M, Wessels J. Model-based decision support methodology with environmental applications [Internet]. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht; 2000 [cited 2013 Oct 23]. Available from: http://user.iiasa.ac.at/~marek/pubs/

[68] Liu X, Li X, Shi X, Huang K, Liu Y. A multi-type ant colony optimization (MACO) method for optimal land use allocation in large areas. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2012;26(7):

www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2012//proceedings/F5\_0473\_Ausseil\_et\_al.pdf

tems: addressing the imbalance. Estuaries Coasts. 2008;31(2):233–8.

saline wetlands of New Zealand. Freshw Biol. 2011;56(1):142–61.

mise biodiversity gains? Biol Conserv. 2012;155:157–68.

Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;120(1):58–69.

Manage. 2009;43(2):264–81.

Econ Policy. 2012;28(1):139–63.

2000;131(2):79–95.

book\_s.pdf

1325–43.

explicit landscape models. Ecol Model. 2002;151(2):125–42.

1998;7(11):1407–16.

24 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet


[81] Veldkamp A, Lambin EF. Predicting land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001;85(1):1–6.

[96] Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A. Land use change modelling: current

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

27

[97] Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ. Are agricultural land-use models able to pre‐ dict changes in land-use intensity? Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2000;82(1):321–31.

[98] Mottet A, Ladet S, Coqué N, Gibon A. Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: A case study in the Pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ.

[99] Wood EC, Tappan GG, Hadj A. Understanding the drivers of agricultural land use

[100] Veldkamp A, Fresco LO. CLUE: a conceptual model to study the conversion of land

[101] Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araújo MB, Carter TR, Dendoncker N, Ewert F, et al. A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric Ecosyst Envi‐

[102] Pressey RL, Hager TC, Ryan KM, Schwarz J, Wall S, Ferrier S, et al. Using abiotic da‐ ta for conservation assessments over extensive regions: quantitative methods applied

[103] Grantham HS, Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Rebelo TG, Possingham HP. Di‐ minishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning. Con‐

[104] Ferrier S, Drielsma M. Synthesis of pattern and process in biodiversity conservation assessment: a flexible whole-landscape modelling framework. Divers Distrib.

[105] Wilson KA, McBride MF, Bode M, Possingham HP. Prioritizing global conservation

[106] Underwood EC, Shaw MR, Wilson KA, Kareiva P, Klausmeyer KR, McBride MF, et al. Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

[107] Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RS, Klein CJ, Wilson K, Steinback C, et al. Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land-and sea-use zoning. Environ

[108] Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW, Ridges MJ. The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. 2009 [cited 2013 Oct 24]; Available

[109] Kelley C, Garson J, Aggarwal A, Sarkar S. Place prioritization for biodiversity reserve network design: a comparison of the SITES and ResNet software packages for cover‐

practice and research priorities. GeoJournal. 2004;61(4):309–24.

change in south-central Senegal. J Arid Environ. 2004;59(3):565–82.

across New South Wales, Australia. Biol Conserv. 2000;96(1):55–82.

use and its effects. Ecol Model. 1996;85(2):253–70.

2006;114(2):296–310.

ron. 2006;114(1):57–68.

serv Lett. 2008;1(4):190–8.

PLoS One. 2008;3(1):e1515.

Model Softw. 2009;24(12):1513–21.

from: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10708/

age and efficiency. Divers Distrib. 2002;8(5):297–306.

efforts. Nature. 2006;440(7082):337–40.

2010;16(3):386–402.


[96] Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A. Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal. 2004;61(4):309–24.

[81] Veldkamp A, Lambin EF. Predicting land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ.

[82] Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE. Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for con‐

[83] Muller MR, Middleton J. A Markov model of land-use change dynamics in the Niag‐

[84] Brown S, Hall M, Andrasko K, Ruiz F, Marzoli W, Guerrero G, et al. Baselines for land-use change in the tropics: application to avoided deforestation projects. Mitig

[85] Irwin EG, Geoghegan J. Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit econom‐

[86] Barredo JI, Kasanko M, McCormick N, Lavalle C. Modelling dynamic spatial proc‐ esses: simulation of urban future scenarios through cellular automata. Landsc Urban

[87] Pontius Jr RG, Huffaker D, Denman K. Useful techniques of validation for spatially

[88] Echeverria C, Coomes DA, Hall M, Newton AC. Spatially explicit models to analyze forest loss and fragmentation between 1976 and 2020 in southern Chile. Ecol Model.

[89] Liebhold AM, Elkinton JS, Zhou C, Hohn ME, Rossi RE, Boettner GH, et al. Regional correlation of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) defoliation with counts of

[90] Weng Q. Land use change analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China using satellite re‐ mote sensing, GIS and stochastic modelling. J Environ Manage. 2002;64(3):273–84.

[91] Hall CAS, Tian H, Qi Y, Pontius G, Cornell J. Modelling spatial and temporal pat‐

[92] Odum HT. Systems Ecology; an introduction. 1983 [cited 2013 Oct 24]; Available from: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti\_id=5545893

[93] Houghton RA. The worldwide extent of land-use change. BioScience. 1994;44(5):305–

[94] Parks PJ. Explaining" irrational" land use: risk aversion and marginal agricultural

[95] Singh RB. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ.

egg masses, pupae, and male moths. Environ Entomol. 1995;24(2):193–203.

ic models of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001;85(1):7–24.

explicit land-change models. Ecol Model. 2004;179(4):445–61.

terns of tropical land use change. J Biogeogr. 1995;753–7.

land. J Environ Econ Manag. 1995;28(1):34–47.

servation planning. Landsc Ecol. 2000;15(1):35–45.

Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2007;12(6):1001–26.

ara Region, Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol. 1994;9(2):151–7.

2001;85(1):1–6.

26 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

Plan. 2003;64(3):145–60.

2008;212(3):439–49.

13.

2000;82(1):97–103.


[110] Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Conservation plan‐ ning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(11):e379.

[124] Burns BR, Floyd CG, Smale MC, Arnold GC. Effects of forest fragment management on vegetation condition and maintenance of canopy composition in a New Zealand

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

29

[125] Inness J, Overton JM, Gillies C. Predation and other factors currently limiting New

[126] Shipley B, Vile D, Garnier É. From plant traits to plant communities: a statistical

[127] Laughlin DC, Joshi C, Bodegom PM, Bastow ZA, Fulé PZ. A predictive model of community assembly that incorporates intraspecific trait variation. Ecol Lett.

[128] Pollock LJ, Morris WK, Vesk PA. The role of functional traits in species distributions

[129] Lavorel S, Garnier E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol. 2002;16(5):545–56.

[130] Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Diaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional

[131] Cleary DF, Boyle TJ, Setyawati T, Anggraeni CD, Loon EEV, Menken SB. Bird species and traits associated with logged and unlogged forest in Borneo. Ecol Appl.

[132] Diaz S, Lavorel S, McIntyre SUE, Falczuk V, Casanoves F, Milchunas DG, et al. Plant trait responses to grazing–a global synthesis. Glob Change Biol. 2007;13(2):313–41.

[133] Barbaro L, Van Halder I. Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography. 2009;32(2):321–33.

[134] Brunet J, De Frenne P, Holmström E, Mayr ML. Life-history traits explain rapid colo‐ nization of young post-agricultural forests by understory herbs. For Ecol Manag.

[135] Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, et al. Is conserva‐ tion triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(12):649–54.

[136] McDonald-Madden E, Baxter PW, Possingham HP. Making robust decisions for con‐ servation with restricted money and knowledge. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45(6):1630–8.

[137] Rodrigues AS, Brooks TM. Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the ef‐

[138] Rodrigues AS, Gaston KJ. Optimisation in reserve selection procedures—why not?

fectiveness of surrogates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2007;38:713–37.

pastoral landscape. Austral Ecol. 2011;36(2):153–66.

traits worldwide. Aust J Bot. 2003;51(4):335–80.

2012;15(11):1291–9.

2007;17(4):1184–97.

2012;278:55–62.

Biol Conserv. 2002;107(1):123–9.

Zealand forest birds. New Zealand J Ecol. 2010;34(1):86–114.

mechanistic approach to biodiversity. science. 2006;314(5800):812–4.

revealed through a hierarchical model. Ecography. 2012;35(8):716–25.


[124] Burns BR, Floyd CG, Smale MC, Arnold GC. Effects of forest fragment management on vegetation condition and maintenance of canopy composition in a New Zealand pastoral landscape. Austral Ecol. 2011;36(2):153–66.

[110] Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Conservation plan‐

[111] Chan K, Klinkenberg B. Ecosystem services in conservation planning: Less costly as costs and side-benefits. J Ecosyst Manag [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2013 Oct 24];12(1).

[112] Moilanen A, Franco AM, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD. Prioritizing multi‐ ple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning prob‐

[113] Moilanen A, Kujala H, Leathwick J. The Zonation framework and software for con‐

[114] Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Eigenbrod F, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gillings S, et al. Bal‐ ancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol Appl. 2011;21(5):

[115] Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Spatial conservation prioritization: quanti‐ tative methods and computational tools [Internet]. Oxford University Press Oxford; 2009 [cited 2013 Oct 23]. Available from: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1909723

[116] Brock W, Xepapadeas A. Optimal ecosystem management when species compete for

[117] Sodhi NS, Lee TM, Sekercioglu CH, Webb EL, Prawiradilaga DM, Lohman DJ, et al. Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodivers

[118] Wenny DG, Devault TL, Johnson MD, Kelly D, Sekercioglu CH, Tomback DF, et al. The need to quantify ecosystem services provided by birds. The Auk. 2011;128(1):1–

[119] Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105(27):

[120] Tallis H, Goldman R, Uhl M, Brosi B. Integrating conservation and development in the field: implementing ecosystem service projects. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7(1):12–

[121] Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Econ.

[122] Naidoo R, Ricketts TH. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation.

[123] Gutman P. Putting a price tag on conservation: cost benefit analysis of Venezuela's

servation prioritization. Spat Conserv Prioritization. 2009;196–210.

limiting resources. J Environ Econ Manag. 2002;44(2):189–220.

Available from: http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewArticle/80

ning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(11):e379.

lems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;272(1575):1885–91.

1419–26.

28 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

14.

20.

9445–8.

2001;77(1):68–78.

PLoS Biol. 2006;4(11):e360.

national parks. J Lat Am Stud. 2002;34(1):43–70.

Conserv. 2010;19(4):1175–88.


[139] Brooks T, Fonseca DA, Rodrigues AS. Species, data, and conservation planning. Con‐ serv Biol. 2004;18(6):1682–8.

[153] Pearson DL, Carroll SS. Global patterns of species richness: spatial models for conser‐ vation planning using bioindicator and precipitation data. Conserv Biol. 1998;12(4):

Prioritising Land-Use Decisions for the Optimal Delivery of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Protection in…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58255

31

[154] Grenyer R, Orme CDL, Jackson SF, Thomas GH, Davies RG, Davies TJ, et al. Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature.

[155] Erasmus BF, Freitag S, Gaston KJ, Erasmus BH, van Jaarsveld AS. Scale and conser‐ vation planning in the real world. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1999;266(1417):315–9.

[156] Strange N, Thorsen BJ, Bladt J. Optimal reserve selection in a dynamic world. Biol

[157] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma. 2004;123(1):1–

809–21.

22.

2006;444(7115):93–6.

Conserv. 2006;131(1):33–41.


[153] Pearson DL, Carroll SS. Global patterns of species richness: spatial models for conser‐ vation planning using bioindicator and precipitation data. Conserv Biol. 1998;12(4): 809–21.

[139] Brooks T, Fonseca DA, Rodrigues AS. Species, data, and conservation planning. Con‐

[140] Lombard AT, Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Rebelo AG. Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biol

[141] Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW. Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of pro‐

[142] Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM. Using a dynamic landscape model for planning the management of alien plant invasions. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(6):1833–48.

[143] Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA. Conservation planning

[144] Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP. Does conservation planning matter in a dy‐

[145] De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and

[146] Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, et al. Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev

[147] Luck GW, Chan KM, Klien CJ. Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services. F1000Research [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2013 Oct 25];1. Available from: http://

[148] Chan KM, Hoshizaki L, Klinkenberg B. Ecosystem services in conservation planning:

[149] Knight AT, Driver A, Cowling RM, Maze K, Desmet PG, Lombard AT, et al. Design‐ ing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best

[150] Costanza R, d' Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. nature. 1997;387(6630):253–60.

[151] Troy A, Wilson MA. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportu‐

[152] Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Costanza R, Da Fonseca GA, Portela R. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience. 2007;57(10):868–73.

targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs? PloS One. 2011;6(9):e24378.

nities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol Econ. 2006;60(2):435–49.

practice from South Africa. Conserv Biol. 2006;20(3):739–50.

serv Biol. 2004;18(6):1682–8.

30 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

Conserv. 2003;112(1):45–62.

Env Resour. 2006;31:123–59.

f1000research.com/articles/1-17

posed reserves. Ecol Lett. 2004;7(11):1035–46.

in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22(11):583–92.

namic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett. 2004;7(8):615–22.

decision making. Ecol Complex. 2010;7(3):260–72.


**Chapter 2**

**Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: a Conceptual**

In this chapter we present a brief history of studies on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF), describing the main models used to explain this relationship, as well as the biodiversity metrics most commonly used. Furthermore, we use litter decom‐ position as a "process model", presenting a flowchart of mechanisms that may affect the decomposition. The flowchart represents the linking between the diversity of leaves that compose the litter, which is usually called the litter mixture, to its decomposition rates. Finally, we present a simplified flowchart of the edaphic trophic web, relating it to litter decomposition,

**2. A brief history of studies on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning —**

Knowledge about biodiversity has passed through various stages in recent years, resulting from an accelerated scientific production. This scientific output, in turn, is a result of concerns arising from anthropogenic disturbances, which occur on spatial scales ranging from local to

To illustrate the changes observed in the study of biodiversity, Kevin Gaston in 1996 published a book entitled "Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference" [2]. In the first chapter of this book, Gaston emphasizes the relative infancy of the biodiversity issue, stating that a science can be seen by passing through three stages, as it matures [3]. The first stage of biodiversity

> © 2014 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Model of Leaf Litter Decomposition**

Dalana C. Muscardi, José H. Schoereder and

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

and some perspectives for future studies in this area.

Carlos F. Sperber

**1. Introduction**

**BEF**

global [1].

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57396
