Benefits of air pollution control for biodiversity and ecosystem services

Transcription

1 Benefits of air pollution control for biodiversity and ecosystem services

2 Biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystem services: Supporting ( underpinning role ) (e.g. biomass production, soil formation, nutrient and water cycling) Provisioning (e.g. food, fresh water, fuel, wood) Regulating (e.g. water purification, water and climate regulation, pollination) Cultural (e.g. education, recreation, aesthetic) LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY Biodiversity enhances the ability of ecosystems to maintain multiple functions (Maestre et al Science) Species-richness has positive impacts on ecosystem services (Gamfeldt et al Nature Comm.) HUMAN WELL-BEING

3 Benefits for biodiversity Decreasing nitrogen deposition enhances plant species diversity Species richness 4 Stevens et al. (21) Env. Pollution 158: Acid grasslands Europe Nitrogen deposition (kg ha-1 yr-1) and relative species richness (%) in Natura2 grasslands Average species richness (E1, E2, E3): 199: 72% 25: 78% GP 21: 81%

4 Lichens liking low nitrogen (%) Occurence of nitrogenloving plant species Nitrogen impacts on species composition Excessive nitrogen stimulates presence of nitrogen-loving plant species but reduces the occurrence of plant species adapted to low nitrogen availability Nitrogen deposition (kg ha -1 yr -1 ) Low nitrogen High nitrogen Nitrogen deposition (kg ha -1 yr -1 ) A. Nordin A. Nordin Nitrogen decreases the resilience of forests to other environmental stresses such as drought, high wind, frost, pests and diseases.

5 Number of water plant species Nitrogen impacts on water plant species Concentration limit of nitrate in drinking water is too high to protect natural ecosystems 15 James et al. (25). Freshwater Biology. 1 5 Maximum nitrate concentration for drinking water Nitrate concentration (mg l -1 )

6 Widespread exceedance of nitrogen critical loads Adverse effects on the structure and function of ecosystems Effects may not occur instantaneously, it may take several decades over which the resilience of soils and plants is weakened 73% 51% 42% Area at risk Additional air pollution abatement measures are required to further reduce the risk of nitrogen critical load exceedance beyond 22.

7 Widespread plant damage due to ozone O 3 conc. (AOT4) O 3 flux (POD 3 - crops) Hayes et al. (27) Mills et al. (211) Global Change Biology 17: Field-based evidence: Surveys (including contribution from ICP Forests) Ad hoc observations ICP Vegetation biomonitoring with clover Air filtration experiments

8 Species richness Species richness Species richness Species richness Species richness Species richness Species richness Species richness Julian day of peak flowers Ozone impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity 4 th July Lotus corniculatus th June Ozone exposure (POD 1, mmol m -2 ) Ozone can promote early flowering, affecting the synchronisation of pollinators and flowers Fen, Marsh, Swamp Heathland 9,98,7 Heathland Fen, Bog 9,98,7 9,98,7 Marsh, Swamp Fen, 9,98,7 Marsh, Swamp 9,98,7 Bog 9,98,7 P Value:.483 P Value:.42 P Value:.483 Heath P Value:.42 P Bog Value:.2 Fen P Value:.483 Bog 9,98,7 Very preliminary results of P Value:.2 P Value:.2 gradient studies UK (9, 98, 7) Dose-response relationships vary by habitat Ozone Ozone exposure Ozone Ozone (24 hr Ozone mean) Ozone Ozone Ozone

9 Relative yield yield Relative Relative yield (a) Ozone and food security Tomato.6.4 Wheat y = * POD6 r 2 =.84 p <.1 BE FI IT SE POD6, mmol m Ozone flux (POD -2 6 ).2. y = * POD 6 r 2 =.49 p <.1 IT SP POD 6, mmol m Ozone flux (POD -2 6 ) Wheat Tomato Ozone damage to leaves of salad crops reduces their market value In 2, ozone pollution reduced wheat yield by 14%, a loss of 3.2 billion in EU27+CH+NO. Mills & Harmens (211) In 2, ozone pollution reduced tomato yield by 9%, a loss of 1. billion in EU27+CH+NO.

10 Ozone, carbon sequestration and climate regulation Harmens & Mills (212) Ozone is also the third most important greenhouse gas Negative impacts on vegetation reduces the sink capacity for carbon dioxide and ozone, enhancing their atmospheric concentrations and affecting the global water cycle (Sitch et al., 27. Nature) In 2, ozone pollution reduced potential carbon sequestration in tree biomass by 14% in Europe. Forest production in Sweden was reduced by 38 million. Indirect global warming effect ozone might be of similar magnitude as the direct effect (Sitch et al., 27. Nature)

11 Nitrogen concentration in runoff (μeq L -1 ) Mercury flux (μg m -2 yr -1 ) Soil quality Critical threshold 6 Input Output 4 2 Critical load exceedance (eq kg -1 ha -1 ) Above the critical threshold nitrogen leaches from soils Holmberg et al. (213) Ecol. Ind. 24: SE 4 SE 14 SE 15 SE 16 Mercury accumulation in soils affects soil functioning Soils store air pollutants temporarily and therefore play an important role in water purification However, stored pollutants will adversely affect soil functioning (e.g. microbes and invertebrates) and create problems when the retention capacity is reached or disturbed Nitrogen leaches from forest soil at a C:N ratio below 23 in the organic layer. Excessive nitrogen input in lakes will enhance algal growth

12 Mercury levels in fish Pike Trout Munthe et al. (27). IVL report B1761. In over half of the lakes in Sweden, the mercury (Hg) level in fish is higher than the recommended values for human consumption (1 mg kg -1 for pike,.5 mg kg -1 for trout)

13 ns Catch per unit effort % of specimens No. of specimens Catch per un Biological recovery from sulphur deposition Lake Saudlandsvatn, Norway (typical lake) 2 1 Modified after Hesthagen et al. (211). 74 Sci. Tot. 8 Environ meq m -2 yr Sulphate in deposition Critical threshold Brown Salmontrout Mayfly Mayfly Zooplankton Year

14 Conclusions No net loss of biodiversity will not be achieved by 22 under the revised Gothenburg Protocol. Further air pollution abatement will reduce the threat to loss of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services such as air, soil and water quality, and food security. It is uncertain whether full recovery of biodiversity from adverse effects of historic air pollution will be possible. Shutterstock Further air pollution abatement policies will improve the resilience of biodiversity and ecosystem services to climate change. Awareness of ecosystem services in both monetary and nonmonetary terms will help to assess the real benefits of air pollution control.

15 Policy recommendations To halt biodiversity loss and adverse impacts of air pollution on human well-being, policy negotiations should take into account the benefits of air pollution control for ecosystem services in addition to the direct benefits for human health. More stringent air pollution abatement measures beyond the revised Gothenburg Protocol are required to achieve no net loss of biodiversity. The full benefits of air pollution abatement for ecosystem services have to be assessed and weighed up against the costs of more stringent air pollution controls (see The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study). Shutterstock The effects-based integrated assessment of policies that address driving forces of environmental issues (in the EU) could be further balanced by including no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in air, waters, soils and vegetation as an explicit endpoint.

16 Objectives: To provide robust understanding of air pollution impacts on European land ecosystems including soils under changing climate conditions To provide reliable and innovative risk assessment methodologies for impacts, including economic implications to support EU policy Focus: Ozone and nitrogen, interactions with VOCs, aerosols and sulphur Scientific workpackages: Emissions and exchange processes (experimental) Emissions and exchange at local, EU to global scale (modelling) Ecological response processes & thresholds (experimental, data mining) Ecological responses at regional & European scale (modelling) Integrated risk assessment & policy tools Convention Bodies: TFRN, CIAM, CCE, ICP Vegetation, ICP Forests, EMEP/MSC-W, NEBEI

17 Acknowledgements The following International Cooperative Programmes (ICPs) have contributed: ICP Forest: Martin Lorenz (DE) ICP Integrated Monitoring: Lars Lundin (SE), Martin Forsius (FI) ICP Modelling and Mapping: Anne Christine Le Gall (FR) Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE): Jean-Paul Hettelingh, Max Posch (NL) ICP Vegetation: Harry Harmens, Gina Mills (UK) ICP Waters: Gunner Skotte, Brit Lisa Skjelkvåle The Joint Expert Group on Dynamic Modelling has also contributed Filip Moldan (SE), Alan Jenkins (UK) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!