Placing biodiversity in ecosystem models without getting lost in translation

A key challenge to progressing our understanding of biodiversity’s role in the sustenance of ecosystem function is the extrapolation of the results of two decades of dedicated empirical research to regional, global and future landscapes. Ecosystem models provide a platform for this progression, potentially offering a holistic view of ecosystems where, guided by the mechanistic understanding of processes and their connection to the environment and biota, large-scale questions can be investigated. While the benefits of depicting biodiversity in such models are widely recognized, its application is limited by difficulties in the transfer of knowledge from small process oriented ecology into macro-scale modelling. Here, we build on previous work, breaking down key challenges of that knowledge transfer into a tangible framework, highlighting successful strategies that both modelling and ecology communities have developed to better interact with one another. We use a benthic and a pelagic case-study to illustrate how aspects of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem process have been depicted in marine ecosystem models (ERSEM and MIRO), from data, to conceptualisation and model development. We hope that this framework may help future interactions between biodiversity researchers and model developers by highlighting concrete solutions to common problems, and in this way contribute to the advance of the mechanistic understanding of the role of biodiversity in marine (and terrestrial) ecosystems.

Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages?

A mixed-method approach was used to assess and value the ecosystem services derived from the Dogger Bank, an extensive shallow sandbank in the southern North Sea. Three parallel studies were undertaken that 1) identified and quantified, where possible, how indicators for ecosystem service provision may change according to two future scenarios, 2) assessed members of the public's willingness-to-pay for improvements to a small number of ecosystem services as a consequence of a hypothetical management plan, and 3) facilitated a process of deliberation that allowed members of the public to explore the uses of the Dogger Bank and the conflicts and dilemmas involved in its management. Each of these studies was designed to answer different and specific research questions and therefore contributes different insights about the ecosystem services delivered by the Dogger Bank. This paper explores what can be gained by bringing these findings together post hoc and the extent to which the different methods are complementary. Findings suggest that mixed-method research brings more understanding than can be gained from the individual approaches alone. Nevertheless, the choice of methods used and how these methods are implemented strongly affects the results obtained.