Quantitative assessment of arid biome plant ecosystems with Ecosystem Services Evaluation Model (ESEM)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Arid and Desert Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Desertology, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

2 Associate Professor of the Department of Arid and Desert Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Desertology, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

10.29252/aridbiom.2025.22217.2031

Abstract

Plant ecosystem functions include four categories provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. So far, various methods have been proposed for evaluating or monetary valuation of ecosystem services. However, the void of a technique that can simultaneously assess all ecosystem services was felt, and thus a new ecosystem service evaluation model was presented. This model is a composite index from the group of indices-numerical models. This model evaluated all the services provided by the ecosystem, which affect human well-being, as the main criterion, and the four ecosystem services as secondary criteria. The sub-divisions of each of the sub-criteria are evaluated as indicators of the model (Three provisioning services: food, medicine, wood, or fibers; Six regulating services: carbon sequestration, runoff and flood control, microclimate regulation, pollination, biological control, and soil quality; Two supporting services: biodiversity conservation, and nutrient cycling; Three cultural services: aesthetics, entertainment and tourism, educational, and research aspects). To score the indicators, proxy indicators were designed and used as a Rapid Assessment Checklist (RAC) to score each index. The score of each index was obtained from the arithmetic mean of the related proxy indices, the score of each sub-criterion was obtained from the geometric mean of associated indicators, and the final score of the main criteria was also obtained from the geometric mean of all sub-criteria. The range of the model’s scores was designed from 0 to 4, in four degrees. First, scoring tables of 43 proxy indicators for all 158 studied species were created. Then field visits and scoring of proxy indicators were done. Finally, the data was obtained by statistical analysis; and the score of fourteen ecosystem services was calculated for each of the 158 studied species. By comparing the scores of the Ecosystem Service Evaluation Model (ESEM), the best species are ranked in terms of fourteen ecosystem services.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1]. Ameer Abbas, J. A. (2022). Assessment of land sensitivity to desertification for Al Mussaib project using MEDALUS approach. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 177-196. doi: 10.22124/cjes.2022.5415
[2]. Chen yan, W. (2006). Assessing the services and value of green spaces in urban ecosystem: A case of Guangzhou city. PhD thesis, University of Hongkong.
[3]. Dagmar, S., Viera S., Ladislav, B. (2020). Interactive Experimental garden-a platform for lifelong and research in innovating planting design .Plants in urban areas and landscape, 35–42. doi: 10.15414/PUAL/2020.35-42
 [4]. Ervin, D., Vickerman, S., Ngawhika, S., Beaudoin, F., Hamlin, S., Dietrich, E., Manson, P., & Schoenen, J. (2014). Principles to Guide Assessments of Ecosystem Service Values, first revised edition. Portland, Oregon: Cascadia Ecosystem Services Partnership, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University.
[5]. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2020). FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates. Report US department of homeland security, June 2022, 195 Pages.
[6]. Jahan Nur, I., Motaleb, H., Tania, H., Tasnia, F., Sazedatur, R., Benazir, I., Mdgholam, J., & Mdforhad, H. (2022). Evaluation of ecosystem services of rooftop gardens in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100166. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100166
[7]. Haridasan, K., Ganesh Babu, N. M., Bhatti, R. D., Unnikrishnan, P. M., Harirammoorthy, G.  (2017). Gardening and landscaping options with medicinal plants. ResearchGate publishers, India.
[8]. Kahveci, H., & Acar, C. (2022). Determination of selection criteria of plants in urban coastal landscapes: An example of the eastern black sea coast, Turkey. Forestist, 72(2), 165-174. doi:  10.5152/forestist.2021.21019
[9]. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
[10]. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004). The Ecosystem Approach, (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Journal of Arid Biome
Volume 14, Issue 1
March 2024
Pages 173-186

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics