SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Ecosystem Services”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2011

Land-use planning for nearshore ecosystem services—the Puget Sound Ecosystem Portfolio Model

The 2,500 miles of shoreline and nearshore areas of Puget Sound, Washington, provide multiple benefits to people—"ecosystem services"—including important fishing, shellfishing, and recreation industries. To help resource managers plan for expected growth in coming decades, the U.S. Geological Survey Western Geographic Science Center has developed the Puget Sound Ecosystem Portfolio Model (PSEPM). Scenarios of urban growth and shoreline modifications serve as model inputs to develop alternative futures of important nearshore features such as water quality and beach habitats. Model results will support regional long-term planning decisions for the Puget Sound region.

Washington↗

USGS2018

A method to quantify and value floodplain sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem services

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to local and downstream communities by retaining floodwaters, sediments, and nutrients. The dynamic nature of floodplains is such that these areas can both accumulate sediment and nutrients through deposition, and export material downstream through erosion. Therefore, estimating floodplain sediment and nutrient retention should consider the net flux of both depositional and erosive processes. An ecosystem services framework was used to quantify and value the sediment and nutrient ecosystem service provided by floodplains in the Difficult Run watershed, a small (151 km 2 ) suburban watershed located in the Piedmont of Virginia (USA). A sediment balance was developed for Difficult Run and two nested watersheds. The balance included upland sediment delivery to streams, stream bank flux, floodplain flux, and stream load. Upland sediment delivery was estimated using geospatial datasets and a modified Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Predictive models were developed to extrapolate field measurements of the flux of sediment, sediment-bound nitrogen (N), and sediment-bound phosphorus (P) from stream banks and floodplains to 3232 delineated stream segments in the study area. A replacement cost approach was used to estimate the economic value of the sediment and nutrient retention ecosystem service based on estimated net stream bank and floodplain flux of sediment-bound N for all streams in the study area. Results indicated the net fluvial fluxes of sediment, sediment-bound N, and sediment-bound P were −10,439 Mg yr −1 (net export), 57,300 kg-N yr −1 (net trapping), and 98 kg-P yr −1 (net trapping), respectively. For sediment, floodplain retention was offset by substantial losses from stream bank erosion, particularly in headwater catchments, resulting in a net export of sediment. Nutrient retention in the floodplain exceeded that lost through stream bank erosion resulting in net retention of nutrients (TN and TP). Using a conservative cost estimate of \$12.69 (USD) per kilogram of nitrogen, derived from wastewater treatment costs, the estimated annual value for sediment and nutrient retention on Difficult Run floodplains was \$727,226 ± 194,220 USD/yr. Values and differences in floodplain nitrogen retention among stream reaches can be used to target areas for floodplain conservation and stream restoration. The methods presented are scalable and transferable to other areas if appropriate datasets are available for validation.

Virginia↗

USGS2011

A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services

As human pressures on ecosystems continue to increase, research involving the effective incorporation of social values information into the context of comprehensive ecosystem services assessments is becoming more important. Including quantified, spatially explicit social value metrics in such assessments will improve the analysis of relative tradeoffs among ecosystem services. This paper describes a GIS application, So cia l V alues for E cosystem S ervices (SolVES), developed to assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ecosystem services by deriving a non-monetary Value Index from responses to a public attitude and preference survey. SolVES calculates and maps the Value Index for social values held by various survey subgroups, as distinguished by their attitudes regarding ecosystem use. Index values can be compared within and among survey subgroups to explore the effect of social contexts on the valuation of ecosystem services. Index values can also be correlated and regressed against landscape metrics SolVES calculates from various environmental data layers. Coefficients derived through these analyses were applied to their corresponding data layers to generate a predicted social value map. This map compared favorably with other SolVES output and led to the addition of a predictive mapping function to SolVES for value transfer to areas where survey data are unavailable. A more robust application is being developed as a public domain tool for decision makers and researchers to map social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders involving relative tradeoffs among different ecosystem services in a variety of physical and social contexts.

Applied Geography↗

USGS2022

A conceptual framework to integrate biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem service models

Global biodiversity and ecosystem service models typically operate independently. Ecosystem service projections thus may be overly optimistic because they do not account for the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecological functions underpinning their provision. We review models used in recent global model intercomparison projects and develop a novel model integration framework to more fully account for the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function, a key gap for linking biodiversity changes to ecosystem services. We propose two model integration pathways. The first uses empirical data on biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships to bridge biodiversity and ecosystem function models and could currently be implemented at the global scale. We also propose a trait-based approach involving greater incorporation of biodiversity into ecosystem function models that can be applied to more systems and taxa than the first pathway. Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem service modeling will enhance development of policies to meet global sustainability goals.

BioScience↗

USGS2024

7.10 - Beneficiaries, equity, and trade-offs in estuarine and coastal ecosystem services

Estuarine and coastal ecosystems support human populations in myriad ways. Traditionally, researchers have focused on the biophysical processes that underlie these benefits and their economic values. In the decade since the 1st Treatise, the literature on cultural ecosystem services, human health benefits, and the equitable distribution of societal benefits and burdens has grown tremendously. In this chapter we outline three dimensions of equity as they relate to estuarine and coastal ecosystems: procedural, recognitional, and distributional equity. We then apply the dimensions of equity to a suite of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services. Finally, we explore trade-offs and beneficiaries of these ecosystem services using three case studies that consider equity in a variety of estuarine and coastal management decisions.

Book chapter↗

USGS2022

Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): Open-source spatial modeling of cultural services

Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) version 4.0 is a fully open-source, GIS-based tool designed to aid in the creation of quantitative, spatially explicit models of the nonmonetary values attributed to cultural ecosystem services, such as aesthetics and recreation, specifically to facilitate their incorporation into larger ecosystem service assessments. Newly redeveloped for QGIS, SolVES can be applied in a wide variety of biophysical and social contexts including mountain, forest, coastal, riparian, agricultural, and urban settings worldwide. Redeveloping SolVES for an open-source platform was intended to expand its user base by eliminating the cost of proprietary GIS software licenses and to remove the impact of proprietary software changes on SolVES development. Providing additional options would enable users to delineate relevant stakeholder groups to better assess how differing preferences impact the intensity and spatial distribution of perceived social values.

Environmental Modelling & Software↗

USGS2010

Social values for ecosystem services (SolVES): A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services-Documentation and user manual, version 1.0

In response to the need for incorporating quantified and spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem services assessments, the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, in collaboration with Colorado State University, has developed a geographic information system application, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). SolVES can be used to assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ecosystem services. SolVES derives a quantitative social values metric, the Value Index, from a combination of spatial and nonspatial responses to public attitude and preference surveys. SolVES also generates landscape metrics, such as average elevation and distance to water, calculated from spatial data layers describing the underlying physical environment. Using kernel density calculations and zonal statistics, SolVES derives and maps the 10-point Value Index and reports landscape metrics associated with each index value for social value types such as aesthetics, biodiversity, and recreation. This can be repeated for various survey subgroups as distinguished by their attitudes and preferences regarding public uses of the forests such as motorized recreation and logging for fuels reduction. The Value Index provides a basis of comparison within and among survey subgroups to consider the effect of social contexts on the valuation of ecosystem services. SolVES includes regression coefficients linking the predicted value (the Value Index) to landscape metrics. These coefficients are used to generate predicted social value maps using value transfer techniques for areas where primary survey data are not available. SolVES was developed, and will continue to be enhanced through future versions, as a public domain tool to enable decision makers and researchers to map the social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders regarding tradeoffs between different ecosystem services in a variety of physical and social contexts.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Aquatic biodiversity in forests: A weak link in ecosystem services resilience

The diversity of aquatic ecosystems is being quickly reduced on many continents, warranting a closer examination of the consequences for ecological integrity and ecosystem services. Here we describe intermediate and final ecosystem services derived from aquatic biodiversity in forests. We include a summary of the factors framing the assembly of aquatic biodiversity in forests in natural systems and how they change with a variety of natural disturbances and human-derived stressors. We consider forested aquatic ecosystems as a multi-state portfolio, with diverse assemblages and life-history strategies occurring at local scales as a consequence of a mosaic of habitat conditions and past disturbances and stressors. Maintaining this multi-state portfolio of assemblages requires a broad perspective of ecosystem structure, various functions, services, and management implications relative to contemporary stressors. Because aquatic biodiversity provides multiple ecosystem services to forests, activities that compromise aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity could be an issue for maintaining forest ecosystem integrity. We illustrate these concepts with examples of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services in forests of northwestern North America, also known as Northeast Pacific Rim. Encouraging management planning at broad as well as local spatial scales to recognize multi-state ecosystem management goals has promise for maintaining valuable ecosystem services. Ultimately, integration of information from socio-ecological ecosystems will be needed to maintain ecosystem services derived directly and indirectly from forest aquatic biota.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2024

Birdwatching preferences reveal synergies and tradeoffs among recreation, carbon, and fisheries ecosystem services in Pacific Northwest estuaries, USA

Coastal ecosystems provide multiple ecosystem services that are valued in diverse ways. The Nisqually River Delta (the Delta), an estuary in Puget Sound, Washington, U.S.A., is co-managed by the Nisqually Indian Tribe and the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. In an ecosystem services assessment, we used different service-appropriate methods including citizen science, statistical and geospatial models, and scenario analysis to evaluate three ecosystem services – recreational birdwatching, soil carbon accumulation and fishery production – indicated as priorities for the Refuge, Nisqually Indian Tribe, and surrounding communities. We developed a generalized additive mixed model set based on eBird mobile application birdwatching observations to understand the biological and landscape features that influence birdwatching and to project birdwatching visitation based on scenarios of Delta habitat change. We evaluated ecosystem service synergies and tradeoffs associated with habitat change for three coastal habitat types using scenario outputs from the birdwatching model and published results on Delta soil carbon accumulation and fishery production. The highest-ranked birdwatching models explained 88 % of the deviance and showed that visitation was greatest in winter months when distance to major cities was approximately 20 km. Recreational birdwatching increased with increasing area of forested wetland, emergent wetland, aquatic vegetation bed, open access, and total estuary. With increasing forested and emergent wetland area, recreational birdwatching, out-migrating juvenile Chinook salmon weight and soil carbon accumulation all increased. With increasing aquatic vegetation bed (resulting from sea level rise), recreational birdwatching increased, but salmon weight and soil carbon accumulation decreased. We identified practical ways in which ecosystem services may be incorporated into adaptive management frameworks that support climate adaptation decision making. This study illustrated how use of ecosystem services can help managers make decisions that have greater benefit for wildlife and people, communicate the societal value of decisions and increase local support and participation.

Washington↗

USGS2013

A comparative assessment of tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation

To enter widespread use, ecosystem service assessments need to be quantifiable, replicable, credible, flexible, and affordable. With recent growth in the field of ecosystem services, a variety of decision-support tools has emerged to support more systematic ecosystem services assessment. Despite the growing complexity of the tool landscape, thorough reviews of tools for identifying, assessing, modeling and in some cases monetarily valuing ecosystem services have generally been lacking. In this study, we describe 17 ecosystem services tools and rate their performance against eight evaluative criteria that gauge their readiness for widespread application in public- and private-sector decision making. We describe each of the tools′ intended uses, services modeled, analytical approaches, data requirements, and outputs, as well time requirements to run seven tools in a first comparative concurrent application of multiple tools to a common location – the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. Based on this work, we offer conclusions about these tools′ current ‘readiness’ for widespread application within both public- and private-sector decision making processes. Finally, we describe potential pathways forward to reduce the resource requirements for running ecosystem services models, which are essential to facilitate their more widespread use in environmental decision making.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2017

Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes

A comprehensive inventory of ecosystem services across the entire Great Lakes basin is currently lacking and is needed to make informed management decisions. A greater appreciation and understanding of ecosystem services, including both use and non-use services, may have avoided misguided resource management decisions in the past that resulted in negative legacies inherited by future generations. Given the interest in ecosystem services and lack of a coherent approach to addressing this topic in the Great Lakes, a summit was convened involving 28 experts working on various aspects of ecosystem services in the Great Lakes. The invited attendees spanned a variety of social and natural sciences. Given the unique status of the Great Lakes as the world's largest collective repository of surface freshwater, and the numerous stressors threatening this valuable resource, timing was propitious to examine ecosystem services. Several themes and recommendations emerged from the summit. There was general consensus that: 1) a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem services throughout the Great Lakes is a desirable goal but would require considerable resources; 2) more spatially and temporally intensive data are needed to overcome our data gaps, but the arrangement of data networks and observatories must be well-coordinated; 3) trade-offs must be considered as part of ecosystem services analyses; and 4) formation of a Great Lakes Institute for Ecosystem Services, to provide a hub for research, meetings, and training is desirable. Several challenges also emerged during the summit, which are discussed.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2023

Societal benefits of floodplains in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds: Sediment, nutrient, and flood regulation ecosystem services

Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to people by regulating floodwaters and retaining sediments and nutrients. Geospatial analyses, field data collection, and modeling were integrated to quantify a portfolio of services that floodplains provide to downstream communities within the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. The portfolio of services included floodplain sediment and nutrient retention and flood regulation. Sediment and nutrient retention were quantified and valued for all non-tidal wadable streams in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. Predicted nitrogen fluxes from measurements of streambanks and floodplain geomorphic changes were summarized at various scales (river basin, state, and county) and valued using a benefits transfer approach. Floodplain flood regulation services were assessed through a pilot study focused on the Schuylkill River watershed in the Delaware River watershed. Geospatial analysis and published flood frequency estimates were used to assess baseline and counterfactual (i.e., floodplain storage removed) scenarios. Flood regulation was valued using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus model to compare differences in structural damage to private residences under baseline and counterfactual scenarios. The estimated value of floodplain sediment and nutrient retention was \$223 million United States dollars (USD) per year in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and \$38 million USD per year in the Delaware River watershed. Sediment and nutrient retention benefits were offset by a streambank erosion cost of \$123 million and \$14 million USD annually in the Chesapeake and Delaware watersheds, respectively. In the Schuylkill River watershed floodplain flood regulation was valued at \$860,000 USD per year, with an additional \$7.2 million USD annually provided through floodplain sediment and nutrient retention. Together this portfolio of floodplain ecosystem services indicates that floodplains provide substantial benefits to people by trapping nutrients and storing floodwaters.

Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds↗

USGS2011

Developing an institutional framework to incorporate ecosystem services into decision making-Proceedings of a workshop

The routine and effective incorporation of ecosystem services information into resource management decisions requires a careful consideration of the value of goods and services provided by natural systems. A multidisciplinary workshop was held in October 2008 on "Developing an Institutional Framework to Incorporate Ecosystem Services into Decision Making." This report summarizes that workshop, which focused on examining the relationship between an institutional framework and consideration of ecosystem services in resource management decision making. This workshop was the third in a series of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can more effectively be incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, "Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In this workshop, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services more routinely and effectively used in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and identified some key challenges to developing the analytical framework (Hogan and others, 2009). Preconference workshop 2, "Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held July 28, 2008, in Naples, FL, and focused on the analytical process and identification of research priorities for ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies (Hogan and others, 2010). The summary presented here synthesizes the discussion at workshop 3 and considers how institutional structures and policy instruments can be used to achieve the vision developed in workshop 1, while recognizing the analytical capabilities and limitations identified in workshop 2. Our purpose was to identify how to use ecosystem service information more effectively and broadly in resource management and development decisions. We recognized the need to facilitate an integrated understanding of (1) the natural capital that produces ecosystem services; (2) the geospatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem service production, values, and use; (3) the value of ecosystem services (monetary and nonmonetary); and (4) institutional instruments, processes, and structures (property rights, laws, governance structures, and courts, for example). Interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding is beneficial and needs to engage stakeholders. The appropriate use of institutional structures, including markets, to integrate ecosystem services into decision making depends on the players and characteristics of the specific situation (such as stakeholders, the ecosystem, resources, and the political environment). Incorporating ecosystem service values into decisions requires consideration of place-based social, cultural, economic, and landscape characteristics and institutions. Thus, a single, prescribed solution will not work-various institutional strategies must be used in different situations. Market-based approaches require appropriate regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, depending on the situation and place. Further, market approaches will need to be coupled with nonmarket approaches into an integrated institutional framework.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Modelling ecosystem service flows under uncertainty with stochiastic SPAN

Ecosystem service models are increasingly in demand for decision making. However, the data required to run these models are often patchy, missing, outdated, or untrustworthy. Further, communication of data and model uncertainty to decision makers is often either absent or unintuitive. In this work, we introduce a systematic approach to addressing both the data gap and the difﬁculty in communicating uncertainty through a stochastic adaptation of the Service Path Attribution Networks (SPAN) framework. The SPAN formalism assesses ecosystem services through a set of up to 16 maps, which characterize the services in a study area in terms of ﬂow pathways between ecosystems and human beneﬁciaries. Although the SPAN algorithms were originally deﬁned deterministically, we present them here in a stochastic framework which combines probabilistic input data with a stochastic transport model in order to generate probabilistic spatial outputs. This enables a novel feature among ecosystem service models: the ability to spatially visualize uncertainty in the model results. The stochastic SPAN model can analyze areas where data limitations are prohibitive for deterministic models. Greater uncertainty in the model inputs (including missing data) should lead to greater uncertainty expressed in the model’s output distributions. By using Bayesian belief networks to ﬁll data gaps and expert-provided trust assignments to augment untrustworthy or outdated information, we can account for uncertainty in input data, producing a model that is still able to run and provide information where strictly deterministic models could not. Taken together, these attributes enable more robust and intuitive modelling of ecosystem services under uncertainty.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2019

Reimagining the potential of Earth observations for ecosystem service assessments

The benefits nature provides to people, called ecosystem services, are increasingly recognized and accounted for in assessments of infrastructure development, agricultural management , conservation prioritization, and sustainable sourcing. These assessments are often limited by data, however, a gap with tremendous potential to be filled through Earth observations (EO), which produce a variety of data across spatial and temporal extents and resolutions. Despite widespread recognition of this potential, in practice few ecosystem service studies use EO. Here, we identify challenges and opportunities to using EO in ecosystem service modeling and assessment. Some challenges are technical, related to data awareness, processing, and access. These challenges require systematic investment in model platforms and data management. Other challenges are more conceptual but still systemic; they are byproducts of the structure of existing ecosystem service models and addressing them requires scientific investment in solutions and tools applicable to a wide range of models and approaches. We also highlight new ways in which EO can be leveraged for ecosystem service assessments, identifying promising new areas of research. More widespread use of EO for ecosystem service assessment will only be achieved if all of these types of challenges are addressed. This will require non-traditional funding and partnering opportunities from private and public agencies to promote data exploration, sharing, and archiving. Investing in this integration will be reflected in better and more accurate ecosystem service assessments worldwide.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2015

Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: a case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains

Through extensive research, ecosystem services have been mapped using both survey-based and biophysical approaches, but comparative mapping of public values and those quantified using models has been lacking. In this paper, we mapped hot and cold spots for perceived and modeled ecosystem services by synthesizing results from a social-values mapping study of residents living near the Pike–San Isabel National Forest (PSI), located in the Southern Rocky Mountains, with corresponding biophysically modeled ecosystem services. Social-value maps for the PSI were developed using the Social Values for Ecosystem Services tool, providing statistically modeled continuous value surfaces for 12 value types, including aesthetic, biodiversity, and life-sustaining values. Biophysically modeled maps of carbon sequestration and storage, scenic viewsheds, sediment regulation, and water yield were generated using the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services tool. Hotspots for both perceived and modeled services were disproportionately located within the PSI’s wilderness areas. Additionally, we used regression analysis to evaluate spatial relationships between perceived biodiversity and cultural ecosystem services and corresponding biophysical model outputs. Our goal was to determine whether publicly valued locations for aesthetic, biodiversity, and life-sustaining values relate meaningfully to results from corresponding biophysical ecosystem service models. We found weak relationships between perceived and biophysically modeled services, indicating that public perception of ecosystem service provisioning regions is limited. We believe that biophysical and social approaches to ecosystem service mapping can serve as methodological complements that can advance ecosystem services-based resource management, benefitting resource managers by showing potential locations of synergy or conflict between areas supplying ecosystem services and those valued by the public.

Regional Environmental Change↗

USGS2013

Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona

Although the number of ecosystem service modeling tools has grown in recent years, quantitative comparative studies of these tools have been lacking. In this study, we applied two leading open-source, spatially explicit ecosystem services modeling tools – Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) – to the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. We modeled locally important services that both modeling systems could address – carbon, water, and scenic viewsheds. We then applied managerially relevant scenarios for urban growth and mesquite management to quantify ecosystem service changes. InVEST and ARIES use different modeling approaches and ecosystem services metrics; for carbon, metrics were more similar and results were more easily comparable than for viewsheds or water. However, findings demonstrate similar gains and losses of ecosystem services and conclusions when comparing effects across our scenarios. Results were more closely aligned for landscape-scale urban-growth scenarios and more divergent for a site-scale mesquite-management scenario. Follow-up studies, including testing in different geographic contexts, can improve our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these and other ecosystem services modeling tools as they move closer to readiness for supporting day-to-day resource management.

Arizona;Sonora↗

USGS2015

Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: Process and prospects for sustained assessment

The third United States National Climate Assessment emphasized an evaluation of not just the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems, but also the impacts of climate change on the benefits that people derive from nature, known as ecosystem services. The ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services component of the assessment largely drew upon the findings of a transdisciplinary workshop aimed at developing technical input for the assessment, involving participants from diverse sectors. A small author team distilled and synthesized this and hundreds of other technical input to develop the key findings of the assessment. The process of developing and ranking key findings hinged on identifying impacts that had particular, demonstrable effects on the U.S. public via changes in national ecosystem services. Findings showed that ecosystem services are threatened by the impacts of climate change on water supplies, species distributions and phenology, as well as multiple assaults on ecosystem integrity that, when compounded by climate change, reduce the capacity of ecosystems to buffer against extreme events. As ecosystems change, such benefits as water sustainability and protection from storms that are afforded by intact ecosystems are projected to decline across the continent due to climate change. An ongoing, sustained assessment that focuses on the co-production of actionable climate science will allow scientists from a range of disciplines to ascertain the capability of their forecasting models to project environmental and ecological change and link it to ecosystem services; additionally, an iterative process of evaluation, development of management strategies, monitoring, and reevaluation will increase the applicability and usability of the science by the U.S. public.

Climatic Change↗