Abstract
Science and society are increasingly interested in predicting the effects of global change and socio-economic development on natural systems, to ensure maintenance of both ecosystems and human well-being. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has identified the combination of ecological modelling and scenario forecasting as key to improving our understanding of those effects, by evaluating the relationships and feedbacks between direct and indirect drivers of change, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Using as case study the forests of the Mediterranean basin (complex socio-ecological systems of high social and conservation value), we reviewed the literature to assess (1) what are the modelling approaches most commonly used to predict the condition and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services under future scenarios of global change, (2) what are the drivers of change considered in future scenarios and at what scales, and (3) what are the nature and ecosystem service indicators most commonly evaluated. Our review shows that forecasting studies make relatively little use of modelling approaches accounting for actual ecological processes and feedbacks between different socio-ecological sectors; predictions are generally made on the basis of a single (mainly climate) or a few drivers of change. In general, there is a bias in the set of nature and ecosystem service indicators assessed. In particular, cultural services and human well-being are greatly underrepresented in the literature. We argue that these shortfalls hamper our capacity to make the best use of predictive tools to inform decision-making in the context of global change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Anticipating changes in biodiversity and the services that ecosystems provide to society has been a key goal of the environmental research (Clark et al. 2001), especially since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reports in 2005 (MEA 2005). With rapidly accelerating global changes associated to human activities, this task has also become a key challenge for society in general (Vihervaara et al. 2010; Cardinale et al. 2012), motivating the recently published regional assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports). Despite the growing scientific efforts, some of the knowledge gaps identified back in the 2005 MEA reports still exist. For example, we still have little understanding of the interactions and feedbacks between the drivers of ecosystem and biodiversity change and multiple aspects of human well-being, like human health and food security (Pecl et al. 2017; IPBES 2018a). Also, the models used to characterize the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) mostly rely on linear correlations and do not consider non-linear changes, thresholds, and tipping points in ecosystems (Ricketts et al. 2016; Lavorel et al. 2017). To address these challenges, the IPBES identifies the use of future scenarios and modelling approaches as fundamental pillars to advance in the understanding of the relationships and feedbacks between direct and indirect drivers of change, biodiversity, ecosystem services (considered through the lens of nature benefits to people; Díaz et al. 2015), and aspects conditioning good quality of life (IPBES 2016).
A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). Built upon scientific understanding of past and current observed relationships between drivers and environmental trends, scenarios draw upon narratives (storylines) of plausible socio-economic developments or particularly desirable future pathways (visions) under specific policy options and strategies (Alcamo and Ribeiro 2001; Peterson et al. 2003; O’Neill et al. 2015; Bai et al. 2016). One of the main challenges of using scenarios for predicting future impacts of societal development on ecosystems is the translation of scenario narratives into quantitative model input variables (Kok et al. 2015). In this regard, the rapid advances in science and observation of climate change have favored the widespread incorporation of climatic variables as direct drivers in regional-scale scenarios and future projections, especially in impact assessments (Moss et al. 2010). In contrast, substantial research is still needed about the inclusion of other important short-term drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem change such as land use, invasive species, and pollution (FRB 2013; Titeux et al. 2016; Sirami et al. 2017; but see for example Malek et al. 2018). Multiple issues hamper the incorporation of those drivers of change in predictive approaches, including mismatching scales between the available data and the modelled process, the short temporal coverage of data, or the actual lack of quantitative data for some drivers (Hauck et al. 2015). Apart from incorporating multiple drivers of change, ecological models should, to the maximum possible extent, represent the complex interdependencies within human and environmental systems (e.g., consider the interactions and feedbacks between multiple economic sectors, e.g., Harrison et al. 2016); this normally requires the use of multiple interlinked models (model coupling or model integration) to account for the various processes operating at different spatial scales (Harfoot et al. 2014; Talluto et al. 2016).
Systems long exposed to human activities are particularly sensitive to this imbalance in the methods and approaches used to predict nature responses to global changes. In these systems, interactions between past land use changes (i.e., land use legacies) and current pressures as well as the difficulty of untangling multiple causation are likely to require complex, integrated approaches (see Fig. 1). Mediterranean forests are a good example of such systems, because they have been subjected to a long history of use and transformation (Nocentini and Coll 2013). They are biodiversity-rich, complex socio-ecological systems that have been continuously adapting to use and exploitation throughout many centuries while providing important services and goods to society (Myers et al. 2000; Gauquelin et al. 2018). Currently, they cover approximately 25% of the Mediterranean region (Malek and Verburg 2017). Conservation of these systems must deal with multiple cultural, ecological, and economic values, and complex dynamics of social change are likely to be exacerbated by global change (Doblas-Miranda et al. 2015).
In this study, we assess to which extent the integration of drivers described in Fig. 1 is being achieved in predictive exercises of Mediterranean forest systems. These represent a prime case study to evaluate the state of the art and the remaining gaps in the use of models and scenarios to investigate the effects of global change on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We review studies using ecological models to predict global change environmental impacts in forest systems in the Mediterranean basin during the last three decades to answer the following questions: (1) What are the modelling approaches most commonly used? We assess whether correlative approaches—those based on statistical relationships among drivers and a response variable—are superseded by more integrative approaches such as process-based models, those explicitly incorporating knowledge of ecological processes, or integrated models, those combining multiple systems, modelling approaches, and accounting for feedbacks among different parts of the modelled system; (2) How are specific drivers being included in modelled scenarios (e.g., are models considering multiple drivers and scales)?; (3) How holistic is our knowledge about the effects of global change on nature and people? Biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators are used to assess the condition and trends of earth’s systems (through monitoring of species, ecosystem functions, etc.) and represent essential tools for managers and politicians to track the consequences of decisions as well as to measure progress towards sustainable development (e.g., Aichi targets, Sustainable Development Goals; Brooks et al. 2015; Convention on Biological Diversity 2015; Geijzendorffer et al. 2017). Here, we evaluate the types of indicators used to predict future condition of Mediterranean forest ecosystems and whether these cover a wide variety of aspects of forest systems. On the basis of our review, we highlight outstanding knowledge gaps and biases, identify priority areas for research in ecological forecasting (the field of Ecology dedicated to predict how ecosystems will change in the future in response to environmental factors), and discuss a potential way forward.
Materials and methods
In June 2016, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing future changes in forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean basin. We searched the Web of Science database for peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2016 that used modelling or simulation approaches to predict future values/change of nature indicators (e.g., species richness, ecosystem functions, etc.) or ES indicators linked to Mediterranean forests. The list of databases, keywords, and filters used for the literature selection is detailed in Table 1. This search yielded 2424 articles. We reviewed the abstracts to remove duplicates and articles clearly outside the thematic or spatial scope of this study (2029 articles) (Online Resource 1). Exclusion criteria included articles focusing on the Mediterranean biome but outside the Mediterranean basin (e.g., California, Australia); articles that used models to make inference about ecological processes (e.g., how does drought affect forest growth?) but did not explicitly use scenarios to make future predictions of the indicator; experimental studies (e.g., the study sets vegetation plots where a species X is subjected to increases of 1, 2, and 3 °C of temperature or to drought stress, to evaluate the effect of increasing temperatures in species growth, reproduction, etc.); and studies focused on exotic species located in Mediterranean countries (e.g., Eucalyptus spp.) and articles focusing on non-Mediterranean forests within any of the evaluated countries (on the basis of the dominant species and the geographic location of the study area; e.g., beech forests in Normandy). After reading the full texts of the remaining 395 articles, we excluded an additional 232 studies following the same criteria listed above, leading to a final set of 163 articles that were retained for analysis (Online Resources 1 and 2).
For each article, we extracted information about the geographic location of the study area, the modelling approach, the scenarios used and their origin, the drivers of change considered in each scenario, the spatial scales addressed in each study, and the nature and ES indicators evaluated. We generated a unique record for each scenario-indicator combination within each of the articles read. This led to a total of 2075 entries in the database. We calculated summary statistics (frequencies) regarding the abovementioned fields in our database. Table 2 provides a complete list of the information extracted, together with the criteria used for classification.
Results
Geographic coverage
The majority of articles selected in our review (133 articles; 82%) corresponded to national, sub-national, or local studies carried out within the north-western countries of the Mediterranean basin (Portugal, France, Italy, and Spain; Fig. 2). In addition, our review included 12 global or European-wide studies with detailed results for at least one country within the Mediterranean zone, 14 regional studies (focused on two or more countries of the Mediterranean basin), one study with detailed results for the Afro-Mediterranean domain, and three studies based on simulated Mediterranean-type landscapes (Online Resource 3).
Scenarios and drivers
The majority of studies (74.2%) used two or more scenarios when making future predictions of nature and ES indicators, while only 25.8% of studies used a single scenario (93% of these are also based on a single-driver only, mostly a climatic driver). More than half of the scenarios assessed were based on a single-driver only (56%), with climate the most frequently used driver (31.9% of the scenarios were based on climate only; Fig. 3a). The second most used driver was management (e.g., different thinning regimes, levels of biomass extraction, etc.), with 13% of the scenarios, followed by fire (6.2%) and land use/land cover change (LULCC; 4.2%). Less than 1% of the single-driver scenarios used drivers other than the previously mentioned (e.g., invasive species). In total, 62.8% of scenarios used climate as a driver (either as solo-driver or in combination with other drivers), whereas the other main drivers found (fire, LULCC, and management) were considered in less than 30% of the scenarios (Fig. 3b). When multi-driver scenario combinations were used (Fig. 3b), fire was most often combined with either climate and/or LULCC, whereas LULCC was most often combined with climate and/or fire, and management was mostly combined with climate and, to a lesser extent, with fire.
We did not find a particular general pattern regarding the spatial extent of the study area (global/EU wide, regional (Pan-Mediterranean), national, sub-national, or local) and the number of drivers considered in the scenarios. The exception was regional (Pan-Mediterranean) studies, in which scenarios were always based on a single-driver only (mostly climate). This lack of a clear pattern could also be due to the imbalance in representation of scales across the selected articles. However, there were differences in the types of drivers used: whereas global/EU wide studies mostly focused on climate and land use change as main drivers, sub-national and local scale studies mainly incorporated fire and management/disturbance. Moreover, studies carried out at large scales (national, regional, or global) generally made predictions based on available scenarios (e.g., IPCC), whereas user-made scenarios were more common at sub-national or local scales (Online Resource 3).
Modelling approaches
Correlative and process-based/integrated approaches were almost equally represented when modelling either nature or ecosystem service indicators (Fig. 4a); the few studies that evaluate nature and ecosystem indicators (3% of the total) used predominantly process-based or integrated approaches (Fig. 4a, b). Studies based on process-based or integrated approaches accounted for two or more drivers of change with higher frequency than studies based on correlative/empirical approaches (Fig. 4b).
Nature and ecosystem service indicators
We found an unequal use of ES and nature indicators within the set of selected articles: 57% of the studies evaluated ES indicators only, 40% evaluated nature indicators only, whereas the remaining 3% evaluated both types of indicators simultaneously (Figs. 4a and 5). Of all studies assessing ES indicators, 60% focused on regulation and maintenance services, almost evenly split between climate change regulation and the maintenance of physical, chemical, and biological conditions (Fig. 5). Almost all the remaining ES studies (38%) focused on provisioning services, mostly on indicators of plant materials for direct use and processing (e.g., timber, 82.6%; Fig. 5). Cultural services, integrative ES indicators, and other regulating services were only marginally represented (Fig. 5). Fire risk, understood here as a regulating and maintenance service, was evaluated in 25 articles (approx. 15% of the total selected articles). All ES indicators found referred to the supply capacity of forest to provide services and none to the demand side.
Almost 80% of the nature indicators evaluated corresponded to measures of species/population trends, such as changes in species abundance and geographical range (Fig. 5); 10% focused on measures of compositional intactness such as forest cover extent and changes in landscape configuration, whereas only a few studies focused on measures of ecosystem functioning (e.g., forest traits, regeneration capacity) or extinction risk (e.g., allele diversity, viability of populations).
Discussion
Future conservation of biodiversity and of the natural capital will require an integrative, broad evaluation of all the challenges that nature will face under the current context of societal and environmental change. Our review shows that, despite the increasing use of scenarios and models as tools to explore those changes (Online Resource 4), the scientific community is still focusing efforts on a fraction of the overall challenges the future might bring to ecosystems and nature. This is reflected in the relatively low proportion of studies considering multiple drivers operating at different spatio-temporal scales (44%), as well as the very low representation of studies assessing nature and ES indicators simultaneously (3%). Moreover, process-based or integrated modelling approaches are still far from being the norm (53.7%). In this study we wanted to examine what, how, and where the current modelling work in the Mediterranean area is taking place. Further research should be devoted to the implications of the modelling approaches used to inform policy and decision-making and, in particular, to evaluate the trade-offs between model complexity and policy relevance (something we could not gather enough information on).
Geographic coverage
We found a strong geographic bias in the use of scenarios and models in Mediterranean forestry research, with few studies focusing in southern countries (Fig. 2). This may stem in part from economic differences between countries of the two sides of the Mediterranean (Online Resource 5), which reflects in differences in their educational systems (i.e.. Southern Mediterranean countries present a much lower ratio of post-graduate vs. bachelor students in forestry than northern ones), national research budgets (FAO and Plan Bleu 2013), and availability of experts on the study of biodiversity and ecosystem service-related scenarios (IPBES 2018b). Our results might also reflect the importance (in terms of total coverage) of forest systems within each country (Online Resource 5). This unequal distribution of information across the North-South and West-East axes of the Mediterranean makes it difficult for the scientific community to make robust predictions at the level of the whole Mediterranean basin, especially for its southern part.
Scenarios and drivers
The literature reviewed showed a strong bias towards the evaluation of impacts of climate change on Mediterranean forest systems, especially in studies addressing questions at broad (national to global) scales (as recently observed in other studies; IPBES 2016, 2018a; Kok et al. 2017; Rosa et al. 2017). This bias might be explained by the fast development and public availability of global circulation models and climate scenarios (Moss et al. 2010), the widespread use of IPCC climate projections to predict biodiversity patterns (Titeux et al. 2016; Sirami et al. 2017) and by the fact that the Mediterranean basin has been identified as a regional climate change hotspot (EEA 2005; Diffenbaugh and Giorgi 2012). We note that, in the literature selected, climate change impacts were always assessed through the change in long-term average climate conditions, mainly annual mean temperature and total rainfall. However, one of the main climate threats to Mediterranean ecosystems is the increase in the frequency and duration of extreme-weather events (length of droughts, heatwaves, short periods of intensive raingall, etc.; Stocker et al. 2013). Extreme conditions can play an important role altering the structure and function of Mediterranean forests in the short term, compromising the services they provide (Peñuelas et al. 2017). For example, prolonged droughts can induce diebacks and favor a shift in species composition or the establishment of invasive species (Resco De Dios et al. 2007; Martínez-Vilalta and Lloret 2016), while the co-occurrence of heat waves and drought conditions can cause large wildfires with devastating consequences for people and the environment (Founda and Giannakopoulos 2009; Fernandes et al. 2016; Ruffault et al. 2018). Ignoring those extreme-weather threats might lead to misleading predictions about the future condition and trends of species and ecosystems (Morán-Ordóñez et al. 2018) and therefore of their benefits on human well-being.
There is still little integration of key drivers of change other than climate in Mediterranean systems (Fig. 1), such as fire, LULCC, and management (Keeley et al. 2012), which impact ecosystems locally in the short- and mid-term and might have irreversible consequences in ecosystem health before the worst-case climate change scenario could be realized. For example, although forest fires are a growing environmental and societal issue in Mediterranean systems, integration—in scenarios and models—of fire as a driving force with other mid- and long-term drivers such as climate was only found in a few studies focused on local to sub-national scales or simulated landscapes (Pausas 2006; Pausas and Lloret 2007; Brotons et al. 2013; Pacheco et al. 2015; Gil-Tena et al. 2016; Górriz-Mifsud et al. 2016). Local and sub-national scales are ideal for an integrated analysis of processes operating at multiple scales (e.g., local fires and climate), which in turn is crucial to understand the resilience of ecosystems under global change conditions and thus guide sustainable development policies (Seidl et al. 2011). For this reason, local scales have been proposed as one of the starting points for the generation of a new set of multiscale nature and ES scenarios frameworks to be developed by the IPBES community (Kok et al. 2017). Developing authoritative, integrated future scenarios of forests and associated land use changes, management practices, and fire risks is becoming an urgent need in regions subjected to multiple pressures such as the Mediterranean.
Moreover, since driving forces of environmental problems can take such a wide range of different directions, it is good practice (if possible) to develop and test multiple scenarios that reflect different plausible trends, rather than testing a single scenario only as observed in 25.8% of the selected articles (Alcamo and Ribeiro 2001). Testing several scenarios improves our understanding of how different sources of uncertainty might impact our model/target system (Peterson et al. 2003; Mahmoud et al. 2009). This is particularly relevant for the case of exploratory or prospective approaches (all approaches used in our selected literature) that investigate upcoming changes that might significantly vary from past trends (McCarthy et al. 2011; Rieb et al. 2017). Despite the management of Mediterranean forests can contribute substantially to the achievement of the sustainability goals to which Mediterranean countries have committed (e.g., Aichi targets, Sustainable Development Goals, EU bioeconomy strategy, climate mitigation actions), none of the studies evaluated used target-seeking scenarios (scenarios that first set a vision of the future and then describe different pathways—e.g., management alternatives, policy options—that might lead to achieve the vision of the desired future). This might be because target-seeking scenarios for biodiversity have mainly been developed for the global to continental scales (e.g., Rio+20 scenarios in the Global Biodiverisity Outlook 4; Convention on Biological Diversity 2014).
Modelling approaches
Under the current context of environmental change, models integrating social, economic, and environmental drivers are more likely to be policy-relevant (Seidl et al. 2011; IPBES 2016). Integration of various drivers at multiple spatio-temporal scales (Fig. 1) might generally require process-based/mechanistic or integrated model approaches (Kelly et al. 2013; Harfoot et al. 2014) rather than correlative/empirical ones. Both correlative and process-based/integrated approaches were equally represented in our review, suggesting there is still room for a better integration of drivers across scales in the approaches currently used to evaluate the future of Mediterranean forests.
In a predictive framework, process-based approaches arguably bring advantages over correlative approaches, such as their ability to extrapolate beyond known conditions, which makes them particularly useful for making predictions under global change conditions (Cuddington et al. 2013). Process-based and integrated models also allow better exploration of interactions, feedbacks, and trade-offs between different components of the modelled systems (e.g., trade-offs between conservation of natural values and production of provisioning services; Korzukhin et al. 1996), which are key for making well-informed decision-making. However, the use of advanced integrative modelling approaches that explicitly combine multiple model types with a unique framework over different spatial scales is still rare (but see some examples at EU and global scales: e.g., Böttcher et al. 2012; Kraxner et al. 2013). This is due to the inherent higher complexity of the former: generally, these are parameter- and data-intensive models that require disciplinary expertise and prolonged time series of data for calibration and validation (Seidl et al. 2011; Harfoot et al. 2014; Rieb et al. 2017). Wider use of these complex approaches would require stronger collaborations between actors of different disciplines (from social sciences to climatology, agriculture, and forestry) and knowledge holders (scientists, policy-makers, managers, citizens) and at different scales (e.g., from plant physiologists to macro-ecologists).
Nevertheless, the selection of modelling framework (decisions regarding the choice of model type, the complexity allowed, the spatio-temporal scales included, variables/drivers considered, etc.) should be ultimately determined by the ecological question addressed and the decision-context (with modelling stategies changing across the policy cycle; IPBES 2016). In most cases, this model selection will be limited by knowledge and data availability. As all models have strengths and weaknesses, a minimum requirement is that they are validated and uncertainty is evaluated (e.g., sensitivity analysis, multi-model ensembles) and communicated.
Nature and ecosystem service indicators
Most of the studies reviewed evaluated regulating and provisioning services. In the particular case of forests in the Mediterranean basin, this observed trend might respond to its recognized multifunctional character (Palahi et al. 2008): on the one hand, forests are (and have traditionally been) an important source of products for consumption and trade such as timber, fuelwood, truffles, pine nuts, and cork for Mediterranean societies (FAO and Plan Bleu 2013). This might explain the interest in knowing what the future provision of these products will be in the coming decades. On the other hand, Mediterranean forests fulfill multiple regulation services of great interest for society, because of their direct influence in either the health of the system itself (through the maintenance of physical, chemical, and/or biological conditions) and the well-being and socio-economic development of Mediterranean societies (e.g., soil erosion is one of the main environmental problems in European Mediterranean agro-forestry systems; García-Ruiz 2010). One of the regulating services most commonly evaluated in the selected literature was fire and fire risk, a disturbance of increasing concern in fire-prone ecosystems (e.g., Mediterranean ecosystems) since it interferes with the continuous and sustainable provisioning of other ES (e.g., carbon storage; Seidl et al. 2014) and threats human safety (e.g., the dead toll in 2017 Portugal wildfires was of 66 people). The role of Mediterranean forests in global change mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage is also increasingly evaluated and especially the dependence of this service on forest management practices (Koniak et al. 2011; Pardos et al. 2015; Bottalico et al. 2016).
We only found one study making future predictions of cultural services (Koniak et al. 2011). The small representation of studies evaluating the future of cultural services is a general pattern observed in other ES impact evaluations, with independence of the ecosystem/thematic scope (Martinez-Harms et al. 2015; Boerema et al. 2016; IPBES 2018a). This might be because the change of social values over time is very hard to quantify, model, and predict (cultural services are most commonly evaluated through proxies Egoh et al. 2012; IPBES 2016), and it is generally easier to make predictions of indicators that depend on already observed environmental relationships (i.e., mathematical equations) such as forest growth and timber production. Given the difficulty of predicting social values and individual choices, future evaluations of cultural services might need to be indirectly inferred from changes in nature-based indicators. For example, the leisure use of Mediterranean pine forests (for walking, mountain biking, hunting, etc.) will probably be negatively affected by the increasing incidence of pest outbreaks of the processionary pine moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) favored by warmer winters (Battisti et al. 2005), as this species is responsible of strong allergic reactions in humans (Battisti et al. 2017). Although it is difficult to predict when, where, and how these allergic symptoms will occur and how this will impact the leisure value of forest, it is possible to predict the vulnerability of forest to pest outbreaks given some knowledge about the ecology of the moth species and its relationship with environmental conditions and indirectly infer where there could be potential conflicts with humans (e.g., peri-urban parks, national parks, and other popular recreational areas). Therefore, the future prediction of cultural services will require the integration of nature/biodiversity and ecosystem services models and indicators, currently poorly linked (IPBES 2016).
None of the studies selected modelled the demand side of the ecosystem service indicators. This might be explained by the fact that estimating and modelling services demands and flows is harder than estimating services production, since in today’s globalized word, the supply and demand of services often occur across different spatial and temporal scales (Burkhard et al. 2012). Despite some modelling tools already allow to quantify ecosystem services flows (e.g., the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services modelling tool-ARIES; Bagstad et al. 2013), the challenge remains to predict what the future demands will be using integrated socio-ecological approaches.
Regarding nature indicators, the strong bias observed towards the evaluation of species/population distribution patterns might respond to the fast development of species distribution and population modelling techniques in the last two decades (Brotons 2014). Our results show that there is still considerable scope for research on other types of indicators that might be more informative about ecosystem function and dynamics (e.g., genetic composition, traits diversity; Pereira et al. 2013) and therefore of the vulnerability of ecosystems to global change and their capacity to adapt and continue providing multiple ES and contributing to human well-being. Despite the increasing debate around the link between nature (biodiversity) indicators and the capacity of ecosystems to provide services (Cardinale et al. 2012; Ricketts et al. 2016), the presence of studies evaluating such relationship in the selected literature was negligible (as also found at the IPBES assessment on models and scenarios; IPBES 2016). This hampers our capacity to identify relationships between ecosystem thresholds and tipping points and their consequences for human well-being. Moreover, we show that the proportion of studies evaluating multiple indicators simultaneously is very low, making it difficult to assess trade-offs between biodiversity and ES indicators or among ES types (see also Boerema et al. 2016).
Further work regarding predictions of biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators should focus on assessing indicator trends as a function of the scenario assessed (drivers included, spatio-temporal scales considered, etc.), as recently presented in the IPBES regional assessments (IPBES 2018a, b). Generally, this remains a challenge due to the lack of consensus on the use of indicators, the way the data is reported in studies (e.g., absolute value vs. percent increments), and the difficulty of comparing indicators modelled under different global change assumptions (e.g., at different spatio-temporal scales).
Conclusions
Our literature review highlights several gaps in the way we conduct assessments of future changes in nature and ES provision in Mediterranean forests. There are various potential avenues to achieve higher levels of integration and realism when making future predictions of the state and dynamics of Mediterranean ecosystems under global change scenarios. In particular, future nature and ES research should focus future work on (i) integrating multiple processes and driving forces operating at different spatio-temporal scales; (ii) considering the uncertainty around how these drivers will change in the future (by comparison of multiple scenarios), as well as any potential feedbacks between them; (iii) advancing on integrative approaches that consider the interdependencies between the different components of the socio-ecological systems; and (iv) developing models to assess a wider set of nature and ES indicators, so that trade-offs could be evaluated. There is no doubt of the important role that ecological models and scenarios play in achieving these goals. However, the art of predicting future condition of ecosystems is of little use if this information cannot be adequately incorporated into the decision-making policy cycle to contribute to sustainability goals. Therefore, and in parallel to the improvements in ecological models proposed above, future efforts should focus on strengthening the science-policy interface (one of the main goals of the IPBES) to allow the end-users of the tools and indicators (decision makers) into the framing of the questions tested by scientists/experts. Although we focused our review on Mediterranean forest systems, our results may be of wider implication for other similar regions and systems, keeping in mind that biases and constraints might be larger in many regions (e.g., regarding data and knowledge availability) and not easily solved by downscaling global change assessments to the region of interest.
References
Alcamo J, Ribeiro T (2001) Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments. Experts’ corner report Prospects and Scenario No. 5. European Environmental Agency. In: Eur. Environ. Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_24
Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012
Bai X, van der Leeuw S, O’Brien K, Berkhout F, Biermann F, Brondizio ES, Cudennec C, Dearing J, Duraiappah A, Glaser M, Revkin A, Steffen W, Syvitski J (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob Environ Chang 39:351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017
Battisti A, Netherer S, Robinet C, Roques A (2005) Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecol Appl 15:2084–2096. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1903
Battisti A, Larsson S, Roques A (2017) Processionary moths and associated urtication risk: global change-driven effects. Annu Rev Entomol 62:323–342. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-034918
Boerema A, Rebelo AJ, Bodi MB, Esler KJ, Meire P (2016) Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? J Appl Ecol 54:358–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12696
Bottalico F, Pesola L, Vizzarri M, Antonello L, Barbati A, Chirici G, Corona P, Cullotta S, Garfì V, Giannico V, Lafortezza R, Lombardi F, Marchetti M, Nocentini S, Riccioli F, Travaglini D, Sallustio L (2016) Modeling the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on wood production and carbon storage: a case study in the Mediterranean region. Environ Res 144:72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.10.025
Böttcher H, Verkerk PJ, Gusti M, Havlík P, Grassi G (2012) Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy 4:773–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01152.x
Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, Cox NA, Heath M, Craig H-T, Hoffmann M, Kingston N, Rodríguez JP, Stuart SN, Smart J (2015) Harnessing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to track the Aichi Targets and Sustainable Development Goals. Biodiversity 16:157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2015.1075903
Brotons L (2014) Species distribution models and impact factor growth in environmental journals: methodological fashion or the attraction of global change science. PLoS One 9:e111996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111996
Brotons L, Aquilué N, De Cáceres M, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2013) How fire history, fire suppression practices and climate change affect wildfire regimes in Mediterranean landscapes. PLoS One 8:e62392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062392
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings S, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig A, Daily GD, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Shahid N (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 489:326–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Clark JS, Carpenter SR, Barber M, Collins S, Dobson A, Foley JA, Lodge DM, Pascual M, Pielke R Jr, Pizer W, Pringle C, Reid WV, Rose KA, Sala O, Schlesiger WH, Wall DH, Wear D (2001) Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293:657–660. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5530.657
Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-hr.pdf
Convention on Biological Diversity (2015) Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on indicators for the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/ind/id-ahteg-2015-01/official/id-ahteg-2015-01-03-en.pdf
Cuddington K, Fortin M-J, Gerber LR, Hastings A, Liebhold A, O’Connor M, Ray C (2013) Process-based models are required to manage ecological systems in a changing world. Ecosphere 4:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00178.1
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpu G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Diffenbaugh NS, Giorgi F (2012) Climate change hotspots in the CMIP5 global climate model ensemble. Clim Chang 114:813–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0570-x
Doblas-Miranda E, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F, Álvarez A, Ávila A, Bonet FJ, Brotons L, Castro J, Curiel Yuste J, Díaz M, Ferrandis P, García-Hurtado E, Iriondo JM, Keenan TF, Latron J, Llusià J, Loepfe L, Mayol M, Moré G, Moya D, Peñuelas J, Pons X, Poyatos R, Sardand J, Sus O, Vallejo VR, Vayreda J, Retana J (2015) Reassessing global change research priorities in mediterranean terrestrial ecosystems: how far have we come and where do we go from here? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12224
EEA (2005) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. Technical Report No. 7. In: Eur. Environ. Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1207_144937
Egoh B, Drakou EG, Maes J, Willemen L (2012) Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. In: JRC Sci. Policy Reports. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/indicators-mapping-ecosystem-services-review
FAO, Plan Bleu (2013) State of Mediterranean forests 2013. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3226e/i3226e.pdf
Fernandes PM, Barros AMG, Pinto A, Santos JA (2016) Characteristics and controls of extremely large wildfires in the western Mediterranean Basin. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 121:2141–2157. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003389
Founda D, Giannakopoulos C (2009) The exceptionally hot summer of 2007 in Athens, Greece—a typical summer in the future climate? Glob Planet Chang 67:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.03.013
FRB (2013) Scénarios de la biodiversité: un état des lieux des publications scientifiques françaises. http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/images/documents/Rapports_Etudes/ScenariosEtatLieux.pdf
García-Ruiz JM (2010) The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: a review. Catena 81:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.001
Gauquelin T, Michon G, Joffre R, Duponnois R, Génin D, Fady B, Dagher-Kharrat MB, Derrigj A, Slimani S, Badri W, Alidriqui M, Auclair L, Simenel R, Aderghal M, Baudoin E, Galiana A, Prin Y, Sanguin H, Fernandez C, Baldy V (2018) Mediterranean forests, land use and climate change: a social-ecological perspective. Reg Environ Chang 18:623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0994-3
Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF, Cramer W, Guerra C, Martín-López B (2017) Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environ Sci Pol 74:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017
Gil-Tena A, Aquilué N, Duane A, De Cáceres M, Brotons L (2016) Mediterranean fire regime effects on pine-oak forest landscape mosaics under global change in NE Spain. Eur J For Res 135:403–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0943-1
Górriz-Mifsud E, Varela E, Piqué M, Prokofieva I (2016) Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: computing payment boundaries. Ecosyst Serv 17:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.006
Harfoot M, Tittensor DP, Newbold T, McInerny G, Smith MJ, Schalemann JPW (2014) Integrated assessment models for ecologists: the present and the future. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:124–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12100
Harrison PA, Dunford RW, Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA (2016) Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nat Clim Chang 6:885–890. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3039
Hauck J, Winkler KJ, Priess JA (2015) Reviewing drivers of ecosystem change as input for environmental and ecosystem services modelling. Sustain Water Qual Ecol 5:9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2015.01.003
IPBES (2016) Scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/scenarios
IPBES (2018a) Regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/eca
IPBES (2018b) Regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa. IPBES/6/INF/3/Rev.1. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/africa
Keeley JE, Bond WJ, Bradstock RA, Pausas JG, Rundel PW (2012) Fire in Mediterranean ecosystems: ecology, evolution and management. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kelly RA, Jakeman AJ, Barreteau O, Brosuk ME, Sondoss E, Hamilton SH, Henriksen HJ, kuikka S, Maier HR, Rizzoli AE, van Delden H, Voinov AA (2013) Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ Model Softw 47:159–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005
Kok K, Bärlund I, Flörke M, Holman I, Gramberger M, Sendzimir J, Stuch B, Zellmer K (2015) European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and models. Clim Chang 128:187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1143-y
Kok MTJ, Kok K, Peterson GD, Hill R, Agard J, Carpenter SR (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain Sci 12:177–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0354-8
Koniak G, Noy-Meir I, Perevolotsky A (2011) Modelling dynamics of ecosystem services basket in Mediterranean landscapes: a tool for rational management. Landsc Ecol 26:109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9540-8
Korzukhin MD, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Wagner RG (1996) Process versus empirical models: which approach for forest management? Can J For Res 26:879–887. https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-096
Kraxner F, Nordström EM, Havlík P, Gusti M, Mosnier A, Frank S, Valin H, Fritz S, Fuss S, Kindermann G, McCallum I, Khabarov N, Böttcher H, See L, Aoki K, Schmid E, Máthé L, Oberstiner M (2013) Global bioenergy scenarios—future forest development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass Bioenergy 57:86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.003
Lavorel S, Bayer A, Bondeau A, Lautenbach S, Ruiz-Frau A, Schulp N, Seppelt R, Verburg P, van Teeffelen A, Vannier C, Arneth A, Cramer W, Marba N (2017) Pathways to bridge the biophysical realism gap in ecosystem services mapping approaches. Ecol Indic 74:241–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.015
Mahmoud M, Liu Y, Hartmann H, Stewart S, Wagener T, Semmens D, Stewart R, Gupta H, Dominguez D, Dominguez F, Hulse D, Letcher R, Rashleigh B, Smith C, Street R, Ticehurst J, Twery M, van Delden H, Waldick R, White D, Winter L (2009) A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environ Model Softw 24:798–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.010
Malek Ž, Verburg P (2017) Mediterranean land systems: representing diversity and intensity of complex land systems in a dynamic region. Landsc Urban Plan 165:102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.012
Malek Ž, Verburg PH, Geijzendor IR, Bondeau A, Cramer W (2018) Global change effects on land management in the Mediterranean region. Glob Environ Chang 50:238–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.007
Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 184:229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024
Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F (2016) Drought-induced vegetation shifts in terrestrial ecosystems: the key role of regeneration dynamics. Glob Planet Chang 144:94–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.07.009
McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary N, Dokken DJ, White KS (2011) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
Morán-Ordóñez A, Briscoe NJ, Wintle BA (2018) Modelling species responses to extreme weather provides new insights into constraints on range and likely climate change impacts for Australian mammals. Ecography (Cop) 41:308–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02850
Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl G, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wibanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Grubler A, Riahi K, Roehrl RA, Rogner H-H, Victor N (2000) Special report on emission scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
Nocentini S, Coll L (2013) Mediterranean forests: human use and complex adaptive systems. In: Messier C, Puettmann KJ, Coates KD (eds) Managing forests as complex adaptive systems. Building resilience to the challenge of global change, The Earthscan Forest Library (series). Routledge, New York
O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, van Ruijven BJ, van Vuuren DP, Birkmann J, Kok K, Levy M, Solecki W (2015) The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang 42:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004
Pacheco FAL, Santos RMB, Sanches Fernandes LF, Pereira MG, Cortes RM (2015) Controls and forecasts of nitrate yields in forested watersheds: a view over mainland Portugal. Sci Total Environ 537:421–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.127
Palahi M, Mavsar R, Gracia C, Birot Y (2008) Mediterranean forests under focus. Int For Rev 10:676–688. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.4.676
Pardos M, Calama R, Maroschek M, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2015) A model-based analysis of climate change vulnerability of Pinus pinea stands under multiobjective management in the Northern Plateau of Spain. Ann For Sci 72:1009–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-015-0520-7
Pausas JG (2006) Simulating Mediterranean landscape pattern and vegetation dynamics under different fire regimes. Plant Ecol 187:249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-006-9138-z
Pausas JG, Lloret F (2007) Spatial and temporal patterns of plant functional types under simulated fire regimes. Int J Wildland Fire 16:484–492. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06109
Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake RC, Chen i-C, Clark TC, Colwell RK, Danielsen F, Evengård B, Falconi L, Ferrier S, Frusher S, Garcia RA, Griffis RB, Hobday AJ, Janion-Scheepers C, Jarzyna MA, Jennings S, Lenoir J, Linnetved HI, Martin VY, McCormack PC, McDonald J, Mitchell NJ, Mustonen T, Pandolfi JM, Pettorelli N, Popova E, Robinson SA, Scheffers BR, Shaw JD, Sorte CJ, Strugnell JM, Sunday JM, Tuanmu M-N, verges A, Villanueva C, Wernberg T, Wapstra E, Willians SE (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355:eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214
Peñuelas J, Sardans J, Filella I, Estiarte M, Llusià J, Ogaya R, Carnicer J, Bartrons M, Rivas-Ubach A, Grau O, Pequero G, Margalef O, Pla-Rabés S, Stefanescu C, Asensio D, Preece C, Lui L, Verger A, Barbeta A, Achotegui-Castells A, Gargallo-Garriga A, Sperlich D, Farré-Armengol G, Fernández-Martínex M, Liu D, Zhang C, Urbina I, Camino-Serrano M, Vives-Ingla M, Stocker BD, Balzarolo M, Guerrierei R, Paucelle M, Marañón-Jiménez S, Bórnez-Mejías K, Zhaobin M, Descals A, Castellanos A, Terradas J (2017) Impacts of global change on Mediterranean forests and their services. Forests 8:1–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120463
Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M, Geller GN, Jongman RHG, Scholes RJ, Bruford MW, Brummitt N, Butchart SHM, Cardoso AC, Coops NC, Dullo E, Faith DP, Freyhof J, Gregory RD, Heop C, Höft R, Hurtt G, Jetz W, Karp DS, Ma MG, Obura D, Onoda Y, Pettorelli N, Reyers B, Sayre R, Scharlemann JPW, Stuart SN, Turak E, Warpole M, Wegmann M (2013) Essential biodiversity variables. Science (80-) 339:277–278. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229931
Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
Resco De Dios V, Fischer C, Colinas C (2007) Climate change effects on mediterranean forests and preventive measures. New For 33:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-006-9011-x
Ricketts TH, Watson KB, Koh I, Ellis AM, Nicholson CC, Posner S, Richardson LL, Sonter LJ (2016) Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat Commun 7:13106. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13106
Rieb JT, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Armsworth PR, Böhning-Gaese K, Bonn A, Cumming GS, Eigenbrod F, Grimm V, Jackson BM, Marques A, Pattanayak SK, Pereira HM, Peterson GD, Ricketts TH, Robinson BE, Schröter M, Schulte LA, Seppelt R, Turner MG, Bennett EM (2017) When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. Bioscience 67:820–833. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix075
Rosa IM, Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Alkemade R, La A, Akcakaya HR, den Belder E, Fazel AM, Fujimori S, Harfoot M, Harhash KA, Harrison PA, Hauck J, Hendriks RJJ, Hernández G, Jetz W, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen SI, Kim H, King N, Kok MTJ, Kolomytsev GO, Lazarova T, Leadley O, Lundquist CJ, García Márquez J, Meyer C, Navarro LM, Nesshöver C, Ngo HT, Ninan KN, Palomo MG, Pereira LM, Peterson GD, Pichs R, Popp A, Purvis A, Ravera F, Rondinini C, Sathyapalan J, Schipper AM, Seppelt R, Settele J, Sitas N, van Vuuren D (2017) Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1416–1419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9
Ruffault J, Curt T, StPaul NM, Moron V, Trigo RM (2018) Extreme wildfire events are linked to global-change-type droughts in the northern Mediterranean. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:847–856. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-847-2018
Seidl R, Fernandes PM, Fonseca TF, Guillet F, Jönsson AM, Marganicova K, Netherer S, Arpaci A, Bontemps JD, Bugmann H, González-Olabarría JR, Lasch P, Meredieu C, Moreira F, Schelhaas M-J, Mohren F (2011) Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review. Ecol Model 222:903–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.040
Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4:806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2318
Sirami C, Caplat P, Popy S, Clamens A, Arlettaz R, Jiguet F, Brotons L, Martin J-L (2017) Impacts of global change on species distributions: obstacles and solutions to integrate climate and land use. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26:385–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12555
Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor MMB, Allen SK, Bochung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (2013) Climate change 2013—the physical science basis. In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf
Talluto MV, Boulangeat I, Ameztegui A, Aubin I, Berteaux D, Butler A, Doyon F, Drever CR, Fortin M-J, Franceschini T, Liénard J, McKenney D, Solarik KA, Strigul N, Thuiller W, Gravel D (2016) Cross-scale integration of knowledge for predicting species ranges: a metamodelling framework. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12395
Titeux N, Henle K, Mihoub J-B, Ir G, Cramer W, Verburg PH, Brotons L (2016) Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land use change. Glob Chang Biol:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13272
van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39:314–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Government through the INMODES project (grant number CGL2017-89999-C2-2-R), the ERA-NET FORESTERRA project INFORMED (grant number 29183), and the project Boscos Sans per a una Societat Saludable funded by Obra Social la Caixa (https://obrasociallacaixa.org/). AMO and AA were supported by Spanish Government through the “Juan de la Cierva” fellowship program (IJCI-2016-30349 and IJCI-2016-30049, respectively). JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and the FP7-Marie Curie-COFUND program of the European Commission (Grant “Clarín” ACA17-02).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Editor: Wolfgang Cramer.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 156 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morán-Ordóñez, A., Roces-Díaz, J.V., Otsu, K. et al. The use of scenarios and models to evaluate the future of nature values and ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests. Reg Environ Change 19, 415–428 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1408-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1408-5