• Energy Research

Sustaining ecosystem services (ES), mitigating their tradeoffs and avoiding unfavorable future trajectories are pressing social-environmental challenges that require enhanced understanding of their relationships across scales. Current knowledge of ES relationships is often constrained to one spatial scale or one snapshot in time. In this research, we integrated biophysical modeling with future scenarios to examine changes in relationships among eight ES indicators from 2001–2070 across three spatial scales—grid cell, subwatershed, and watershed. We focused on the Yahara Watershed (Wisconsin) in the Midwestern United States—an exemplar for many urbanizing agricultural landscapes. Relationships among ES indicators changed over time; some relationships exhibited high interannual variations (e.g. drainage vs. food production, nitrate leaching vs. net ecosystem exchange) and even reversed signs over time (e.g. perennial grass production vs. phosphorus yield). Robust patterns were detected for relationships among some regulating services (e.g. soil retention vs. water quality) across three spatial scales, but other relationships lacked simple scaling rules. This was especially true for relationships of food production vs. water quality, and drainage vs. number of days with runoff >10 mm, which differed substantially across spatial scales. Our results also showed that local tradeoffs between food production and water quality do not necessarily scale up, so reducing local tradeoffs may be insufficient to mitigate such tradeoffs at the watershed scale. We further synthesized these cross-scale patterns into a typology of factors that could drive changes in ES relationships across scales: (1) effects of biophysical connections, (2) effects of dominant drivers, (3) combined effects of biophysical linkages and dominant drivers, and (4) artificial scale effects, and concluded with management implications. Our study highlights the importance of taking a dynamic perspective and accounting for spatial scales in monitoring and management to sustain future ES.

Conservation organizations rely on conservation easements for diverse purposes, including protection of species and natural communities, working forests, and open space. This research investigated how perpetual conservation easements incorporated property rights, responsibilities, and options for change over time in land management. We compared 34 conservation easements held by one federal, three state, and four nonprofit organizations in Wisconsin. They incorporated six mechanisms for ongoing land management decision-making: management plans (74 %), modifications to permitted landowner uses with discretionary consent (65 %), amendment clauses (53 %), easement holder rights to conduct land management (50 %), reference to laws or policies as compliance terms (47 %), and conditional use permits (12 %). Easements with purposes to protect species and natural communities had more ecological monitoring rights, organizational control over land management, and mechanisms for change than easements with general open space purposes. Forestry purposes were associated with mechanisms for change but not necessarily with ecological monitoring rights or organizational control over land management. The Natural Resources Conservation Service-Wetland Reserve Program had a particularly consistent approach with high control over land use and some discretion to modify uses through permits. Conservation staff perceived a need to respond to changing social and ecological conditions but were divided on whether climate change was likely to negatively impact their conservation easements. Many conservation easements involved significant constraints on easement holders' options for altering land management to achieve conservation purposes over time. This study suggests the need for greater attention to easement drafting, monitoring, and ongoing decision processes to ensure the public benefits of land conservation in changing landscapes.