LAB 4: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Landscape Ecology, NR 220, Spring 2014
Taylor Ricketts, U. Vermont
Based on software and exercises developed by: Lisa Schulte Moore, Carrie Chennault,
Ryan Frahm, Laura Roy, John Tyndall, and John VanDyk, Iowa State University
Tool and general tips






Tool: www.nrem.iastate.edu/landscape/pewi
Read the PE/WI “Quick starter guide” to get acquainted with the tool.
Browsers: Safari is not supported. Use Firefox or Chrome or Explorer.
Screen captures:
o Mac: shift+command+4 for macs (let’s you draw a rectangle; saves image
to desktop)
o PC: alt+printscreen (saves active window only; it will copy to clipboard)
IMPORTANT: For all exercises, the following land covers are not allowed:
Conservation Corn, Conservation Soybeans, Conservation Forest.
Site will reset to defaults if you close the browser or refresh the page. So capture
all your work before closing.
Exercise 1: Ecological Functions
Activity: For Year 1, design a scenario with a simple mix of only conventional corn and
conventional soybeans. Review the scores, maps, and results. For Year 2, turn all corn
into conventional forest, and all soybeans to prairie. For Year 3, turn the entire landscape
into permanent pasture. Carefully examine differences among years in scores, maps, and
results. (Here we’re using the 3 years simply as different scenarios.)
Questions:

Which scenario has the highest potential to produce the following goods: corn,
timber, cattle? (Hint, on scores tool, click on the name of each output to highlight
those scores with a color; click again to remove highlighting color.)

Which scenario has the highest potential to produce the following ecosystem
services: biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and water quality (specify which
indicators you choose to measure water quality)?

What % of the landscape in Year 1 was covered in corn? Soybeans? What were
the yield scores for these two crops in Year 1 (use scores, not value)? How many
cattle are supported in each of the 3 years? How many strategic wetlands are
maintained in each year? Where do you go to find all this out?

How would you describe the main overall trade-off between years (scenarios) 1
and 2?

Take a screen shot of the Year 1 landscape and paste it here (shrunk to a
reasonable size).
Exercise 2: Targeting and trade-offs
Activities:

Leave Year 1 as it is, and make Years 2 and 3 identical to it (i.e., same pattern of corn
and soybeans).

In Year 2, add wetlands and prairie habitats in strategic places. Your goal is to
dramatically improve two water-related ecosystem services (nitrate pollution control and
sediment control) while minimizing costs in terms of lost corn and soybean yields. Your
restoration “budget” is 20% of the landscape – don’t exceed this for wetland and prairie
combined. (Hint: the little maps under “Physical features” and “maps” can help you be
strategic.)

In Year 3, add wetlands and forests and prairie habitats in strategic places. This time,
your goal is to dramatically improve two biodiversity-related scores (game wildlife and
biodiversity) while minimizing the costs in terms of lost corn and soybean yields. Your
restoration “budget” is again limited to 20% of the landscape – for all 3 natural habitats
combined.
Questions:

How much of an improvement in water quality could you attain? What was the trade-off
in terms of corn yield? Soybean yield? (Hint, use “scores” window for easy
visualization, but use “results” window for precise numbers.)

For water quality, what turned out to be the most strategic places to restore these habitats
(balancing water improvements and yield losses)? Why? (Refer to “physical features”
and “maps” features of the tool.)

Are the most strategic locations for restoration different if your goal is water quality
versus biodiversity? Why or why not? Which goal forced you to lose more crop yield?

Take a screen shot of your final Year 2 and Year 3 maps and paste here (shrunk down to
reasonable size).

GRAD STUDENTS: Examine PE/WI’s flowmap. Which factors vary based on location
in the watershed? In other words, what specifically needs to be considered when spatially
targeting management practices to meet outcomes over watershed scales?

GRAD STUDENTS: Examine the factors considered in the Biodiversity Index and Game
Wildlife Index. Do you find any of the factors considered surprising; why or why not?
Exercise 3: Dream big Activity:

Again leave Year 1 as your original mix of corn and soybeans.

For Year 2, design the landscape to provide the mix of ecosystem goods (e.g., crops,
timber, cattle) and services (e.g., biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and water quality)
that your group thinks is appropriate and ideal.

We won’t use Year 3 in this exercise, but you can use it as a “testing ground” to see what
happens with certain changes. Like scratch paper for the modeling.
Prepare a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation to share in class, answering the following
questions:

Present your final map for Year 2, and report the levels of services you attained (use
screen shots or copy numbers into PowerPoint).

What specifically spatial decisions did you make (e.g., we put the fruit&veggie plots here
because…).

What were the values underneath the decisions you made in designing this landscape?
How might different values lead to a different landscape?

What government programs might encourage landowners to manage lands similarly to
your vision?

What were the most difficult trade-offs to manage in getting to your ideal landscape?
There will be a prize for the team with the most creative solution and well-argued values.