Ecosystem services assessments to improve management of marine habitats, amphibians and reptiles, forest biodiversity and silviculture, and medicinal plants

In this Issue, a great diversity of article types can be found, ranging from short research papers to research letters and reviews, in addition to several regular research papers. Topic-wise the papers are equally diverse. More ‘traditional’ topics of the journal are dealt with by Vidyarthi et al. (2013) and Lawal and Adekunle (2013), respectively, presenting novel findings from India and Nigeria on the influence of land use and ecosystem management on biodiversity. Papers by Ezebilo (2013) and Krause and Zambonino (2013) follow up on papers that have been recently published in this journal, in which the role of local knowledge and support for biodiversity conservation was highlighted (see Van Oudenhoven & De Groot (2012, 2013) for more information). The papers provide the latest insights from conservation programs in Nigeria and the Ecuadorian Amazon. Finally, three relatively underexplored topics are discussed. Kaltenborn et al. (2013) discuss the perception of hunters on their role in ecosystem management. Carollo et al. (2013) report on an expert workshop in which an attempt was made to link marine habitat type classifications with ecosystem services. Valencia-Aguilar et al. (2013) present the first comprehensive overview of ecosystem services that can be directly or indirectly contributed to amphibians and reptiles.

This journal has a trusted reputation and long history when it comes to publishing studies on medicinal plants’ importance, use and harvesting practices (e.g. Negi et al. 2010; Nagaraja et al. 2011; Rahman et al. 2011). Although recent studies have not necessarily presented groundbreaking new methodologies, their findings on medicinal plants from unique, often remote, locations continue to offer new insights and important guidance for local biodiversity management. For this purpose, short research papers (<5000 words) or short communications (<2000 words) are especially suitable, to present new findings of exceptional interest in a short, but complete form. In this Issue, a short research paper by Vidyarthi et al. (2013) documents indigenous uses of some important medicinal plants in a district of the Indian Himalaya, analyses their distribution pattern, nativity and endemism, and finally suggests conservation strategies. Of the 75 recorded medicinal plant species, 29 medicinal plants were native, 1 endemic, 11 near-endemic and 46 non-native. Because of the large pressure on some commercially viable but rare native species, the authors suggest further research into the multiplication of these species through conventional and in vitro methods, among others. The scale on which this could occur, however, could be questionable, since the impact of larger-scale farming techniques could have serious ecological consequences for an already threatened and highly vulnerable area.

The contribution of silvicultural management to maintaining forest biodiversity has been mostly studied in a European context (e.g. Fabbio et al. 2003) and to a certain extent in Africa (e.g. Geldenhuys 2010). Lawal and Adekunle (2013) present a study in this Issue on the contributions of a silvicultural practice, the authors call enrichment planting, to ecosystem restoration, management and biodiversity conservation in a Nigerian forest reserve. The authors compared three forest types: a degraded forest, nature reserve and the earlier mentioned enrichment planting forest. The enrichment planting forest was found to have the highest number of species, genera and families as well as the highest biodiversity indices, as compared to the other forest types. Although for soil properties no significant differences could be found (apart from nitrogen contents at certain depths), it was concluded that the enrichment planting silvicultural practice has the potential to improve soil fertility, and contribute to restoration of degraded forests.

We remain in Nigeria, but now focus on local people's preference for incentives that could help increase local support for nature conservation (Ezebilo 2013). Community members living around a national park in southeast Nigeria were subjected to personal interviews. Similar to findings by Ansong and Røskaft (2011, in Ghana) and Islam et al. (2012, Bangladesh), Ezebilo found that community forestry and skills development were among the most preferred incentives. The most important factors that influence people's preferences included education, NTFP extraction and the value thereof, and farmland size. Ezebilo concludes that the effectivity of incentive-based nature conservation would be greatly increased if local people were more strongly involved in negotiations regarding the available incentives. See the editorial by Van Oudenhoven and De Groot (2011) in which we present more papers on ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management and nature conservation.

The perception of local people on biodiversity and its protection is becoming an increasingly studied topic (c.f. Blicharska & Angelstam 2010; Jalilova & Vacik 2012; Van Oudenhoven & de Groot 2012), especially in the light of stakeholder participation for biodiversity and environmental management (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Reed 2008; Rodela & Udovč 2008). It has been acknowledged that the knowledge held by indigenous people needs to be combined with scientific knowledge (c.f. Agrawal 1995), with some authors going as far as stating that excluding them from participation and knowledge generation is neither socially equitable nor ecologically desirable (Reed 2008). These critical issues have, naturally, also been mentioned in relation to REDD+ programmes (Agrawal & Gibson 1999). However, an issue that has not often been brought up in literature is that monitoring of conservation programs mainly focuses on vegetation cover, biomass carbon and rarely on animal species diversity or other aspects of biodiversity (Harris et al. 2012). In this Issue, Krause and Zambonino (2013) describe how an Ecuadorian conservation incentive program addresses animal species conservation and engages with local communities. The authors argue that this program too does not include animal species diversity and abundance as important components for successful long-term forest conservation. In addition to analysing the conservation program, Krause and Zambonino (2013) also provide several examples of how animal species’ conservation and participatory monitoring can be combined. One suggestion would be to let community forest guards not only control for illegal logging or area encroachment but also conduct animal species surveys. This could help monitor changes to species composition and abundance resulting from, for example, poaching, habitat loss or overharvesting.

In a modern, western society, a hunter would most likely be perceived by the general public as a person who kills animals, either for fun or profession, but rarely as an ecosystem steward. Whether hunting is perceived as ethical is a question of whether an ethic develops that is shared by a sufficiently large part of the general public, which could then lead to cultural, political and economic support for wildlife management (Peterson 2004). A central theme in wildlife management is the maintenance of healthy and balanced carnivore populations. In this respect, the hunter plays an important role in simulating natural predation and structuring of ecosystems. Kaltenborn et al. (2013) examined how hunters in Norway perceive their role in the ecosystem and to what extent environmental attitudes affect their perceptions of key functions of hunting, and report this in this Issue. The authors found that the hunters share a positive perception of themselves as responsible and law-abiding actors and important ecosystem stewards. They consider themselves of great importance to wildlife management, a perception that was proven to be affected mainly by the factor of environmental education. In the light of these results it is perhaps worth mentioning that earlier work by Åkerberg (2005) in Sweden clearly brought forward the frustration of hunters regarding the difficulties and complexities of moose management. These hunters indicated that moose populations will not let themselves be managed as well as the hunters would like to see. Eriksson et al. (2006), finally, highlight the importance of ecological knowledge, combined with other scientific and societal disciplines with regards to developing hunting guidelines and shared visions. This integration could help to identify consequences of different ecological management strategies.

Of all ecosystems and biomes studied, perhaps the least is known about ecosystem services provided by or related to marine systems (Guerry et al. 2012; Rees et al. 2012). Research on marine and coastal ecosystem services generally focuses quite strongly on coastal ecosystems, as also underlined by a recent review by Liquete et al. (2013). This review highlighted the need for an improved ecosystem service classification for marine and coastal systems, which builds on earlier used classifications. Consistent classifications could provide a basis for future assessments, thus providing policy and decision-makers with more structured information needed for marine planning and conservation policies (Borja et al. 2012; Rees et al. 2012; Liquete et al. 2013). In the United States, the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) was recently endorsed as the first standard for classifying coastal and marine ecosystems. In an important research letter published in this Issue, Carollo et al. (2013) describe the results of the first Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Workshop (held in 2010), during which the CMECS was first linked with ecosystem service classifications. Although this process was solely based on using expert opinion, the results signify an important step towards incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning (Rees et al. 2012). Apart from linking ecosystem services with habitat types, priority services were also selected by the experts. Food was naturally seen as one of the most important services provided by many different habitats. Interestingly enough, however, the participants pleaded quite strongly for the inclusion of the recently abolished supporting services category in the case of marine ecosystem services. Biological interactions and other supporting services were highly ranked, as were many regulating services. It is perhaps not surprising that experts indicate that such large water bodies, in which crucial ecological and biological processes take place, should be primarily acknowledged for the supporting role they play for sustaining life on earth, rather than for just the goods they provide to humans.

Many organisms and the ecosystems in which they reside add value to human life. All organisms, as components of ecosystems, contribute directly or indirectly to ecosystem functions and provide numerous services to humanity (Collins & Crump 2009). Amphibians and reptiles represent a large proportion of the globe's species diversity. In their review paper, published in this Issue, Valencia-Aguilar et al. (2013) provide what can be seen as the first comprehensive literature overview of the ecosystem services that can be directly or indirectly attributed to amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. It is not surprising that the authors of this review paper all work in Latin American countries, as 83% of all reviewed studies were conducted in South America (71% focused on reptiles, 12% on amphibians), followed by Central America with 13% (9% for reptiles, 4% for amphibians) and the Caribbean with 4% (1% reptiles, 3% amphibians). A large proportion of the studied literature was also written in Spanish, which perhaps accounts for the reason why many scientists have not yet picked up on these findings. Valencia-Aguilar et al. (2013) compiled an impressive amount of information from both scientific and grey literature – a combination of information sources that is generally required for research on such an understudied topic. Most studies reported on direct services being provided from reptiles, whereas indirect services tended to be generated by amphibians.

The provided examples of reptiles that provide direct ecosystem services are especially worrying, because of the prevalence of overexploitation. Examples include the green turtle, used for its meat, skin, shell, etc. (Bräutigam & Eckert 2006), caimans and alligators for their hides (Da Silveira & Thorbjarnarson 1999) and declining populations of wild crocodile, iguana and many other reptiles as well as some amphibians. Practically no examples of sustainable low impact use of reptile and amphibian origin could be found (Valencia-Aguilar et al. 2013). Apart from the numerous examples of over-exploitation, the authors also point out that many studies in fact focused on reptiles as seed dispersers. In addition, biological pest control and bioturbation were among the most widely studied ecosystem services provided by amphibians (Beard et al. 2002). However, there is still a lot of work to be done on determining the exact contribution of amphibians and reptiles in ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Well-known studies by Whiles et al. (2006, 2012) urgently need follow-ups in other ecosystems, if we are to further unearth the importance of amphibians and reptiles.

Finally, we would like to take the opportunity in this Editorial to welcome our fourth Associate Editor, Dr. Patricia Balvanera. Dr. Balvanera is affiliated to the Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and has a long-standing reputation in the field of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services. We are very pleased that she has accepted our invitation to join the team of Associate Editors, as she brings invaluable knowledge on both the social and ecological processes that drive management decisions and the provision of ecosystem services.

Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven &

Rudolf S. de Groot

Environmental Systems Analysis Group,

Wageningen University,

Wageningen, The Netherlands