2
Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for US decision making.
Ecol Lett. 2011 Aug; 14(8):804-15
All selected articles haveThis article has been added to your saved articles
You can follow/unfollow articles via MyF1000 or via the article or browse pages.
17 Jun 2011
Review / Commentary
DOI: 10.3410/f.11272956.12268054
This is one of the first papers that explicitly links changes in a biogeochemical cycle with effects on the provision of multiple ecosystem services. The authors synthesize past research concerning how human alteration of the nitrogen (N) cycle impacts ecosystem structure and function, which they relate...Continue reading
This is one of the first papers that explicitly links changes in a biogeochemical cycle with effects on the provision of multiple ecosystem services. The authors synthesize past research concerning how human alteration of the nitrogen (N) cycle impacts ecosystem structure and function, which they relate to various ecosystem services in order to emphasize the potential tradeoffs arising from anthropogenic N loading.
Compton and colleagues provide a thoughtful discussion of the potential impacts of N loading on key ecosystem services, such as provision of clean air, drinking water, climate regulation, and production of food and fibre, and the ensuing benefits or costs for people. The authors present a basic framework for connecting reactive N flows with ecosystem services, highlighting how an ecosystem-services approach for N management could help to make existing environmental policy and decision-making mechanisms, such as the US Clean Water Act, more holistic.
The authors' review of the potential costs of N enrichment as well as the abatement costs associated with reducing N loading from different sources yields some interesting results. One example is that the costs associated with loss of some ecosystem services appear to be larger than those associated with reducing N loading at the source. Likewise, their review suggests that the price of one kilogram of N fertilizer is typically far lower than the costs of reducing one kilogram of N loading for most sources.
Perhaps one of the most critical points made in this review is that there is a lack of quantitative linkages between different components of the N cycle and most ecosystem services. Clearly there are still challenges in applying this sort of approach in a truly integrative fashion for management and decision making, but the authors stress that simple models that better couple N fluxes with specific ecosystem services will help bridge these knowledge gaps.
Compton and colleagues provide a thoughtful discussion of the potential impacts of N loading on key ecosystem services, such as provision of clean air, drinking water, climate regulation, and production of food and fibre, and the ensuing benefits or costs for people. The authors present a basic framework for connecting reactive N flows with ecosystem services, highlighting how an ecosystem-services approach for N management could help to make existing environmental policy and decision-making mechanisms, such as the US Clean Water Act, more holistic.
The authors' review of the potential costs of N enrichment as well as the abatement costs associated with reducing N loading from different sources yields some interesting results. One example is that the costs associated with loss of some ecosystem services appear to be larger than those associated with reducing N loading at the source. Likewise, their review suggests that the price of one kilogram of N fertilizer is typically far lower than the costs of reducing one kilogram of N loading for most sources.
Perhaps one of the most critical points made in this review is that there is a lack of quantitative linkages between different components of the N cycle and most ecosystem services. Clearly there are still challenges in applying this sort of approach in a truly integrative fashion for management and decision making, but the authors stress that simple models that better couple N fluxes with specific ecosystem services will help bridge these knowledge gaps.
Disclosures
None declared
Add Comment
Bennett E and MacDonald G: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Compton JE et al., Ecol Lett 2011, 14(8):804-15]. In F1000Prime, 17 Jun 2011; DOI: 10.3410/f.11272956.12268054. F1000Prime.com/11272956#eval12268054
19 Mar 2012
New Finding, Review / Commentary, Technical Advance
DOI: 10.3410/f.11272956.15500078
This synthetic analysis makes fundamental advances in two topics of great current interest: nitrogen and ecosystem services. The article provides one of the best examples of ecosystem analysis to date on a topic of great basic and applied science interest.
Nitrogen pollution in the environment is one...Continue reading
Nitrogen pollution in the environment is one...Continue reading
This synthetic analysis makes fundamental advances in two topics of great current interest: nitrogen and ecosystem services. The article provides one of the best examples of ecosystem analysis to date on a topic of great basic and applied science interest.
Nitrogen pollution in the environment is one of the most widespread and vexing problems facing scientists, managers and decision makers worldwide. In this paper, the authors apply the developing approach of ecosystem services analysis to nitrogen questions. The work improves our ability to understand and manage nitrogen and gives an excellent example of application of ecosystem services that should be useful as this approach is applied to other problems.
Nitrogen pollution in the environment is one of the most widespread and vexing problems facing scientists, managers and decision makers worldwide. In this paper, the authors apply the developing approach of ecosystem services analysis to nitrogen questions. The work improves our ability to understand and manage nitrogen and gives an excellent example of application of ecosystem services that should be useful as this approach is applied to other problems.
Disclosures
None declared
Groffman P: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Compton JE et al., Ecol Lett 2011, 14(8):804-15]. In F1000Prime, 19 Mar 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.11272956.15500078. F1000Prime.com/11272956#eval15500078
F1000Prime Recommendations, Dissents and Comments for [Compton JE et al., Ecol Lett 2011, 14(8):804-15]. In F1000Prime, 20 May 2013; F1000Prime.com/11272956
Only registered/signed-in users can make comments.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
No comments yet.
Human alteration of the nitrogen (N) cycle has produced benefits for health and well-being, but excess N has altered many ecosystems and degraded air and water quality. US regulations mandate protection of the environment in terms that directly connect to ecosystem services. Here, we review the science quantifying effects of N on key ecosystem services, and compare the costs of N-related impacts or mitigation using the metric of cost per unit of N. Damage costs to the provision of clean air, reflected by impaired human respiratory health, are well characterized and fairly high (e.g. costs of ozone and particulate damages of $28 per kg NO(x)-N). Damage to services associated with productivity, biodiversity, recreation and clean water are less certain and although generally lower, these costs are quite variable (<$2.2-56 per kg N). In the current Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, for example, the collection of available damage costs clearly exceeds the projected abatement costs to reduce N loads to the Bay ($8-15 per kg N). Explicit consideration and accounting of effects on multiple ecosystem services provides decision-makers an integrated view of N sources, damages and abatement costs to address the significant challenges associated with reducing N pollution.
Published 2011. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01631.x
PMID: 21624028
