Mapping ecosystem services bundles in a heterogeneous mountain region

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Grenoble employment catchment area: location, physical geography and administrative boundaries.

Table 1. First column: Panel of selected ES; second column: indicator used to quantify the related ES; third column: model type according to Lavorel et al. (2017); fourth column: environment for ES bundle analysis (P: periurban bundle; F: forest bundle; R: and mountain rural bundle).

Ecosystem Services		Indicator	Model Type	Landscape types
				P	R	F
Biodiversity	Fauna	Vertebrate species richness, expressed in number of species/km^2.	Macro-ecological	x	x	x
	Flora	Plant species richness, expressed in number of species/km^2.	Macro-ecological	x	x	x
Provisioning	Crop production	Crop energy yield (average over 5 years, expressed as Giga Joules/Ha).	Proxy-based	x	x	.
	Forage production	Forage energy yield (average over 5 years, expressed as Giga Joules/Ha).	Proxy-based	x	x	.
	Wood production	Estimated wood production in m3/ha/year (volume of wood cut at 7cm).	Proxy-based	x	x	x
Cultural	Recreation	Outdoor recreation practice opportunities, expressed by a recreational opportunity index	Phenomenological	x	x	x
Regulation	Carbon stock	Amount of carbon stocked in above-ground and below-ground biomass as well as in dead organic matter and soils (expressed in tC/km^2).	Proxy-based	.	.	x
	Erosion	Contribution of the ecosystem to erosion risk mitigation, estimated by a non-dimensional discrete index [0;4].	Phenomenological	x	x	x
	Infiltration	Ecosystem ability to regulate water flows, expressed by a total annual infiltration indicator expressed in relative values.	Process-based	x	x	x
	Rockfall protection	Ability of forest to reduce rock fall risk on target areas, expressed by presence/absence of rockfall protection forest.	Process-based	.	.	x
	Water quality	Nitrogen retention capacity by agricultural fields, expressed in t N/ha/yr).	Process-based	x	x	.
	Pollination	Combination of demand and potential supply of pollination for agriculture, qualitative index.	Phenomenological	x	x	.

Figure 2. Map produced by the 12 ES models. Model specifications are provided in Table 1 and Suppl. Mat. S3.

Figure 3. ES bundle analysis for the whole region (top), the periurban (middle) and mountain rural (bottom) landscape types: bundle maps and contribution of individual ES to the statistic definition of classes shown as mean deviation histograms (where Fauna = Fauna, Flora = Flora, Crop = Crop production, Forage = Forage Production, Wood = Wood production, Recre = Recreation, Eros = Erosion, Infilt = Infiltration, WQual = Water Quality, Pollin = Pollination).

Lavorel S, Bayer A, Bondeau A, Lautenbach S, Ruiz-Frau A, Schulp N, Seppelt R, Verburg P, van Teeffelen A, Vannier C, et al. 2017. Pathways to bridge the biophysical realism gap in ecosystem services mapping approaches. Ecol Indic. 74(mars):241–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.015.

 Google Scholar