Summary Ecosystems have a critical role in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality, but management to change an ecosystem process in support of one regulating ecosystem service can either provide co‐benefits to other services or can result in trade‐offs. We examine the role of ecosystems in delivering these regulating ecosystem services, using the UK as our case study region. We identify some of the main co‐benefits and trade‐offs of ecosystem management within, and across, the regulating services of climate regulation, and soil, water and air quality regulation, and where relevant, we also describe interactions with other ecosystem services. Our analysis clearly identifies the many important linkages between these different ecosystem services. However, soil, water and air quality regulation are often governed by different legislation or are under the jurisdiction of different regulators, which can make optimal management difficult to identify and to implement. Policies and legislation addressing air, water and soil are sometimes disconnected, with no integrated overview of how these policies interact. This can lead to conflicting messages regarding the use and management of soil, water and air. Similarly, climate change legislation is separate from that aiming to protect and enhance soil, water and air quality, leading to further potential for policy conflict. All regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services. At a policy level, this may well be the biggest conflict. The fact that even individual regulating services comprise multiple and contrasting indicators (e.g. the various components of water quality such as nutrient levels, acidity, pathogens and sediments), adds to the complexity of the challenge. Synthesis and applications . We conclude that although there are some good examples of integrated ecosystem management, some aspects of ecosystem management could be better coordinated to deliver multiple ecosystem services, and that an ecosystem services framework to assess co‐benefits and trade‐offs would help regulators, policy‐makers and ecosystem managers to deliver more coherent ecosystem management strategies. In this way, an ecosystem services framework may improve the regulation of climate, and soil, water and air quality, even in the absence of economic valuation of the individual services.
One of the main options for carbon mitigation identified by the IPCC is the sequestration of carbon in soils. In this paper we use statistical relationships derived from European long‐term experiments to explore the potential for carbon sequestration in soils in the European Union. We examine five scenarios, namely (a) the amendment of arable soils with animal manure, (b) the amendment of arable soils with sewage sludge, (c) the incorporation of cereal straw into the soils in which it was grown, (d) the afforestation of surplus arable land through natural woodland regeneration, and (e) extensification of agriculture through ley‐arable farming. Our calculations suggest only limited potential to increase soil carbon stocks over the next century by addition of animal manure, sewage sludge or straw ( 15 Tg C y –1 ), but greater potential through extensification of agriculture (≈ 40 Tg C y –1 ) or through the afforestation of surplus arable land (≈ 50 Tg C y –1 ). We estimate that extensification could increase the total soil carbon stock of the European Union by 17%. Afforestation of 30% of present arable land would increase soil carbon stocks by about 8% over a century and would substitute up to 30 Tg C y –1 of fossil fuel carbon if the wood were used as biofuel. However, even the afforestation scenario, with the greatest potential for carbon mitigation, can sequester only 0.8% of annual global anthropogenic CO 2 ‐carbon. Our figures suggest that, although efforts in temperate agriculture can contribute to global carbon mitigation, the potential is small compared to that available through reducing anthropogenic CO 2 emissions by halting tropical and sub‐tropical deforestation or by reducing fossil fuel burning.
The alien invasive mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis, forms biogenic habitats in the embayment of Knysna Estuary. Invertebrate macrofauna inhabiting mussel beds were sampled from six sites in the embayment. In addition, mussel cover, mussel bed depth, density and size of mussels were recorded. With the exception of two sites (The Heads and Featherbed) where some Perna perna was present, we confirmed that the mussel beds were composed of the invasive species M. galloprovincialis. At The Heads, mussel beds were single-layered and in patches, whereas at other sites they were multi-layered with 100% cover. Bed depth, mussel density and shell size varied among sites. A total of 65 taxa (mainly Crustacea and Mollusca) were identified across all sites with species richness and diversity being significantly different among sites. Forty-three percent of taxa were new records for the estuary. Macrofaunal richness and diversity were highest at the two sites (The Heads and Featherbed) closest to the mouth of the embayment. There were negative relationships between species diversity and mussel density, and diversity and macroinvertebrate abundance. At most sites macrofaunal abundance was dominated by one or two species. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant difference in species composition among sites. Where wave action was present (The Heads, Featherbed and Leisure Isle) only a few deposit feeders were present in the mussel beds. At sites where wave action was minimal (Thesen Wharf, Marina and Railway Bridge) fine silt was present in the mussel matrix and there was an increase in the number of deposit feeding species.