CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Linking landscape structure and ecosystem service flow

Open access
Assis, Julia C., Hohlenwerger, Camila, Metzger, Jean Paul, Rhodes, Jonathan R., Duarte, Gabriela T., da Silva, Rafaela A., Boesing, Andrea Larissa, Prist, Paula R., Ribeiro, Milton Cezar·2023·Ecosystem Services
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite advances in understanding the effects of landscape structure on ecosystem services (ES), many challenges related to these complex spatial interactions remain. In particular, the integration of landscape effects on different components of the service provision chain (supply, demand, and flow) remains poorly understood and conceptualized. Here we propose a theoretical framework to further explore how the spatial flow of ES can vary according to landscape structure (i.e. composition and configuration) emphasizing the role played by the configuration of supply, demand, and neutral areas, as well as individual characteristics of ES (e.g., service rivalry). For this, we expand the discussion on how landscape changes can affect ES flows and propose a theoretical representation of ES flows variation led by different supply-demand ratios. Additionally, we expand this discussion by integrating the potential effects of neutral areas in the landscape as well as of supply/demand spatial overlap. This novel approach links the spatial arrangement (e.g. fragmentation, network complexity, matrix resistance) usually captured by landscape metrics, and ratios of ES supply and demand areas to potential effects on spatial flows of ES. We discuss the application of this model using widely studied ES, such as pollination, pest control by natural enemies, and microclimate regulation. Finally, we propose a research agenda to connect the presented ideas with other prominent research topics that must be further developed to support landscape management targeting ES provision. The prominence of ES science calls for contributions such as this to give the scientific community the opportunity to reflect on the underlying mechanisms of ES and avoid oversimplified spatial assessments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Balmford, 2015, Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas, PLOS Biol., 13, e1002074, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074 · DOI
  2. Baró, 2016, Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region, Land use policy, 57, 405, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006 · DOI
  3. Baró, 2017, Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management, Ecosyst. Serv., 24, 147, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021 · DOI
  4. Barros, 2019, Divergent flows of avian-mediated ecosystem services across forest-matrix interfaces in human-modified landscapes, Landsc. Ecol., 34, 879, 10.1007/s10980-019-00812-z · DOI
  5. Berbés-Blázquez, 2016, Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 19, 134, 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 · DOI
  6. Bicking, 2020, Quantification and mapping of the nutrient regulation ecosystem service demand on a local scale, Ecosystems and People, 16, 114, 10.1080/26395916.2020.1722753 · DOI
  7. Blanche, 2006, Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination and fruit set in orchards, J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 1182, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01230.x · DOI
  8. Boesing, 2017, Effects of landscape structure on avian-mediated insect pest control services: a review, Landsc. Ecol., 32, 931, 10.1007/s10980-017-0503-1 · DOI
  9. Boesing, 2020, Ecosystem services at risk: integrating spatiotemporal dynamics of supply and demand to promote long-term provision, One Earth, 3, 704, 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.11.003 · DOI
  10. Brander, L.M., Crossman, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem Services Quantification - Economic quantification, in: Burkhard, B., Maes, J. (Eds.), Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp. 113–123.
  11. Brosi, 2008, Optimal design of agricultural landscapes for pollination services, Conserv. Lett., 1, 27, 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00004.x · DOI
  12. Burkhard, B., Maes, J., 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services, Advanced Books. Pensoft Publishers. 10.3897/ab.e12837. · DOI
  13. Burkhard, 2014, Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification, Landsc. Online, 34, 1, 10.3097/LO.201434 · DOI
  14. Chazdon, 2008, Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands, Science, 320, 1458, 10.1126/science.1155365 · DOI
  15. Curtis, 2018, Classifying drivers of global forest loss, Science, 361, 1108, 10.1126/science.aau3445 · DOI · Paper page
  16. de Amorim, 2018, The nexus between water, energy, and food in the context of the global risks: An analysis of the interactions between food, water, and energy security, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 72, 1, 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.002 · DOI
  17. de Fraiture, 2010, Satisfying future water demands for agriculture, Agric. Water Manag., 97, 502, 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.008 · DOI
  18. de Groot, 2010, Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making, Ecol. Complex., 7, 260, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 · DOI
  19. de la Barrera, 2016, The value of vegetation cover for ecosystem services in the suburban context, Urban For. Urban Green., 16, 110, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.003 · DOI
  20. Duarte, 2018, The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services, Landscape Ecology, 33, 1247, 10.1007/s10980-018-0673-5 · DOI
  21. Duarte, 2020, A user-inspired framework and tool for restoring multifunctional landscapes: putting into practice stakeholder and scientific knowledge of landscape services, Landscape Ecology, 35, 2535, 10.1007/s10980-020-01093-7 · DOI
  22. Fahrig, 2003, Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 34, 487, 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Felipe-Lucia, 2015, Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Relationships Matter, PLoS One, 10, e0132232, 10.1371/journal.pone.0132232 · DOI
  24. Felipe-Lucia, 2022, Conceptualizing ecosystem services using social–ecological networks, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 37, 211, 10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.012 · DOI
  25. Ferreira, 2015, Responses of bees to habitat loss in fragmented landscapes of Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest, Landsc. Ecol., 30, 2067, 10.1007/s10980-015-0231-3 · DOI
  26. Fish, 2016, Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement, Ecosyst. Serv., 21, 208, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002 · DOI
  27. Fisher, 2009, Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making, Ecol. Econ., 68, 643, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 · DOI
  28. Geijzendorffer, 2015, Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments, Ecol. Indic., 52, 320, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016 · DOI
  29. Godfray, 2010, The future of the global food system, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 365, 2769, 10.1098/rstb.2010.0180 · DOI
  30. Greenleaf, 2007, Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size, Oecologia, 153, 589, 10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9 · DOI
  31. Grote, 2016, Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential, Front. Ecol. Environ., 14, 543, 10.1002/fee.1426 · DOI
  32. Halpern, 2020, Ecological Synthesis and Its Role in Advancing Knowledge, BioScience, 70, 1005
  33. Hein, 2016, Defining Ecosystem Assets for Natural Capital Accounting, PLoS One, 11, e0164460, 10.1371/journal.pone.0164460 · DOI
  34. Hodder, 2014, Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?, Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 10, 71, 10.1080/21513732.2014.883430 · DOI
  35. Inkoom, 2018, A framework to assess landscape structural capacity to provide regulating ecosystem services in West Africa, J. Environ. Manage., 209, 393, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.027 · DOI
  36. Jalali, S., Wohlin, C., 2012. Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. ESEM '12: Proceedings of the ACM IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ACM (2012): 29-38. 10.1145/2372251.2372257. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Johnson, 2017, Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene, Science, 356, 270, 10.1126/science.aam9317 · DOI
  38. Kastner, 2011, International wood trade and forest change: A global analysis, Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, 947, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.003 · DOI
  39. Koellner, 2019, Guidance for assessing interregional ecosystem service flows, Ecol. Indic., 105, 92, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.046 · DOI
  40. Lamy, 2016, Landscape structure affects the provision of multiple ecosystem services, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 124017, 10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124017 · DOI
  41. Laterra, 2012, Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 154, 56, 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013 · DOI
  42. Liu, 2017, Ecosystem Services and landscape change associated with plantation expansion in a tropical rainforest region of Southwest China, Ecol. Modell., 353, 129, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.009 · DOI
  43. Martínez-Harms, 2012, Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review, Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 8, 17, 10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 · DOI
  44. Medeiros, 2019, Forest cover enhances natural enemy diversity and biological control services in Brazilian sun coffee plantations, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 39, 1, 10.1007/s13593-019-0600-4 · DOI
  45. Metzger, 2021, Considering landscape-level processes in ecosystem service assessments, Science of The Total Environment, 796, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149028 · DOI
  46. Metzger, 2021, Connecting governance interventions to ecosystem services provision: A social-ecological network approach, People Nat., 3, 266, 10.1002/pan3.10172 · DOI
  47. Mitchell, 2013, Linking Landscape Connectivity and Ecosystem Service Provision: Current Knowledge and Research Gaps, Ecosystems, 16, 894, 10.1007/s10021-013-9647-2 · DOI
  48. Mitchell, 2015, Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 094014, 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094014 · DOI
  49. Mitchell, 2015, Reframing landscape fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem services, Trends Ecol. Evol., 30, 190, 10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.011 · DOI
  50. Moreira De Lima, 2009, Ocorrência de Euphractus sexcinctus (Xenarthra: Dasypodidae) na Região do Médio Rio Amazonas, Edentata, 8, 58, 10.1896/020.010.0104 · DOI
  51. Neyret, 2023, Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity, Nature Sustainability, 6, 391, 10.1038/s41893-022-01045-w · DOI
  52. Ortiz, 2018, Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba. Sustainability, 10, 2165, 10.3390/su10072165 · DOI
  53. Palomo, 2013, National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows, Ecosyst. Serv., 4, 104, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001 · DOI
  54. Palomo, 2016, Chapter Six - Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co-Production, 54, 245
  55. Perfecto, 2004, Greater predation in shaded coffee farms: The role of resident neotropical birds, Ecology, 85, 2677, 10.1890/03-3145 · DOI
  56. Peter, 2022, Cultural worldviews consistently explain bundles of ecosystem service prioritisation across rural Germany, People and Nature, 4, 218, 10.1002/pan3.10277 · DOI
  57. Ricketts, 2001, The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes, Am. Nat., 158, 87, 10.1086/320863 · DOI
  58. Saturni, 2016, Landscape structure influences bee community and coffee pollination at different spatial scales, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 235, 1, 10.1016/j.agee.2016.10.008 · DOI
  59. Schirpke, 2018, Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: insights and open issues, Landsc. Ecol., 33, 711, 10.1007/s10980-018-0628-x · DOI
  60. Schirpke, 2019, Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services, Sci. Total Environ., 651, 928, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.235 · DOI
  61. Schirpke, 2019, A transnational perspective of global and regional ecosystem service flows from and to mountain regions, Sci Rep, 9, 6678, 10.1038/s41598-019-43229-z · DOI
  62. Schröter, 2012, How and where to map supply and demand of ecosystem services for policy-relevant outcomes?, Ecol. Indic., 23, 220, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.025 · DOI
  63. Schröter, 2018, Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases, Ecosyst. Serv., 31, 231, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003 · DOI
  64. Schröter, 2023, Exploring the role of boundary work in a social-ecological synthesis initiative, J Environ Stud Sci, 13, 330, 10.1007/s13412-022-00811-8 · DOI
  65. Schulp, 2014, Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union, Ecol. Indic., 36, 131, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014 · DOI
  66. Serna-Chavez, 2014, A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services, Ecol. Indic., 39, 24, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024 · DOI
  67. Tallis, 2012, A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change, Bioscience, 62, 977, 10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7 · DOI
  68. Verhagen, 2016, Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland, Landsc. Ecol., 31, 1457, 10.1007/s10980-016-0345-2 · DOI
  69. Villamagna, 2013, Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery, Ecol. Complex., 15, 114, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 · DOI
  70. von Haaren, C., Lovett, A.A., Albert, C., 2019. Theories and Methods for Ecosystem Services Assessment in Landscape Planning. pp. 19–42. 10.1007/978-94-024-1681-7_3. · DOI
  71. Wang, 2022, Systematic review of ecosystem services flow measurement: main concepts, methods, applications and future directions, Ecosystem Services, 58, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101479 · DOI
  72. Washbourne, 2020, Trade-offs and synergies in the ecosystem service demand of urban brownfield stakeholders, Ecosystem Services, 42, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101074 · DOI
  73. Willemen, 2012, A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics, J. Environ. Manage., 100, 86, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.022 · DOI
  74. Wolff, 2015, Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives, Ecol. Indic., 55, 159, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016 · DOI
  75. Wolff, 2017, Quantifying Spatial Variation in Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach, Ecol. Econ., 136, 14, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.005 · DOI
  76. Wu, J., 2013. Landscape Ecology, in: Ecological Systems. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 179–200. 10.1007/978-1-4614-5755-8_11. · DOI
  77. Yu, 2013, Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use, Glob. Environ. Chang., 23, 1178, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.006 · DOI
  78. Zoderer, 2019, Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles, Ecosystem Services, 37, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100938 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 73

Metadata

Authors
Assis, J. C., Hohlenwerger, C., Metzger, J. P., Rhodes, J. R., Duarte, G. T., da Silva, R. A., Boesing, A. L., Prist, P. R., & Ribeiro, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • International Institute for Sustainability (BR)
Corresponding author
Assis, Julia C.
ORCID
Venue
Ecosystem Services
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
62
Pages
101535
ISSN
2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535
OpenAlex
W4379260275
Cited by
73
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 5
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ecosystem Services (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2013/50421-2, 2017/11666-0, 2021/10639-5, 2017/26093-6, 2021/08534-0, 2013/23457-6, 2022/10760-1, 2021/10195-0, 2020/01779-5)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (366 88882.327885/2019\u201301, 88887.309513/2018\u201300)
  • National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (313016/2021-6, 442147/2020-1, 440145/2022-8, 402765/2021-4)
  • Australian Research Council (FT 200100096)
  • Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education (048/13)
  • Sprint (2017/50015-5)
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
landscape structure, ecosystem service flows, supply-demand ratio, landscape configuration, landscape composition, spatial overlap, landscape fragmentation, network complexity, pollination, microclimate control, landscape management, theoretical framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Linking landscape structure and ecosystem service flow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535
The paper
Assis, J. C., Hohlenwerger, C., Metzger, J. P., Rhodes, J. R., Duarte, G. T., da Silva, R. A., Boesing, A. L., Prist, P. R., & Ribeiro, M. C. (2023). Linking landscape structure and ecosystem service flow. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535