posted on 2025-08-22, 16:46authored byShalene Jha, Monika H. Egerer, Peter Bichier, Hamutahl Cohen, Heidi Liere, Brenda B. Lin, Azucena Lucatero, Stacy PhilpottStacy Philpott
<p dir="ltr">Ecosystem services (ESs) are essential for human well-being, especially in urban areas where 60% of the global population will live by 2030. While urban habitats have the potential to support biodiversity and ES, few studies have quantified the impact of local and landscape management across a diverse suite of services. We leverage 5 years of data (>5000 observations) across a network of urban community gardens to determine the drivers of biodiversity and ES trade-offs and synergies. We found multiple synergies and few trade-offs, contrasting previous assumptions that food production is at odds with biodiversity. Furthermore, we show that natural landscape cover interacts with local management to mediate services provided by mobile animals, specifically pest control and pollination. By quantifying the factors that support a diverse suite of ES, we highlight the critical role of garden management and urban planning for optimizing biodiversity and human benefit.</p>
Funding
Biodiversity, Sustainability, And Ecosystem Services In Urban Agricultural Landscapes
We used 15 data sets collected over 5 years from a network of urban agroecosystems to investigate synergies and trade-offs across seven categories (22 metrics) of ecosystem services (ES) and two categories (18 metrics) of mobile animal ecosystem service providers (ESPs). We investigate multiple ESs (pest control, pollination, climate regulation, carbon storage, water conservation, food production and gardener well-being), as well as two ESPs (natural enemies and pollinators), to test the following hypotheses: (H1): Direct trade-offs are more frequent than synergies among and between ESs and ESPs in urban agroecosystems, (H2): Local and landscape management serve as critical mechanisms underlying synergies and trade-offs among ESs and ESPs and (H3): Landscape complexity mediates the effect of local agroecosystem management on ESs and ESPs, especially ESs provided by mobile animals.
Temporal Extent Start Date
2013-05-01
Temporal Extent End Date
2017-11-15
Theme
Not specified
Geographic location - description
Santa Clara County, California, USA
Santa Cruz County, California, USA
Monterey County, California, USA
ISO Topic Category
biota
environment
society
National Agricultural Library Thesaurus terms
ecosystem services; biodiversity; agroecosystems; social welfare; urban areas; habitats; landscape management; urban population; community gardens; gardening; water conservation; food production; landscapes; animals; pest control; pollination; urban planning; humans; climate; carbon sequestration; natural enemies; California
OMB Bureau Code
005:20 - National Institute of Food and Agriculture