One cannot have it all: trading-off ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles in landscape connectivity restoration
Margot NeyretiD, Daniel Rex RichardsiD, Marie‐Caroline PrimaiD, Thomas R. EtheringtoniD, Sandra LavoreliD
Abstract
Countering the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on ecosystems requires complementing conservation areas with Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures within landscapes to promote biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services (ES). However, critical knowledge gaps persist in where and how natural elements should be restored to improve landscape connectivity to simultaneously support, and reduce trade-offs between biodiversity and ES. In virtual landscape experiments that allow exploring the effects of spatial pattern systematically, we generated alternative landscape restoration scenarios aimed at fostering ecological connectivity. Scenarios varied in the location and size of restored areas complementing existing natural areas. We analysed the impact of these scenarios on four bundles representing distinct priorities of target ES and biodiversity-related values. As expected, all bundles were favoured by increasing restored area in the landscape, but they were promoted by different spatial configurations. Restoration scenarios that fostered high aggregation of natural habitats promoted biodiversity and cultural value-related bundles, while smaller natural elements dispersed throughout the landscape were more beneficial for the sustainable production and climate adaptation bundles. These contrasts were most pronounced at low restoration efforts, where landscape configuration had greatest impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Effective spatial planning of restoration initiatives within landscapes should consider these trade-offs, along with context-specific constraints, when prioritizing areas for restoration or conservation. Our findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how protected and restored areas can be integrated within landscapes to jointly support connectivity for both biodiversity and people. HighlightsO_LIVirtual landscape restoration options effects on four ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles C_LIO_LIHigh aggregation of restored elements promoted biodiversity and cultural value C_LIO_LILow aggregation promoted sustainable production and climate adaptation C_LIO_LIThese contrasts were most important at low restoration targets C_LIO_LIThese results highlight the importance of configuration trade-offs in restoration planning C_LI
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 7
- FWCI
- 1.10
- Field percentile
- top 25%
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Accounting for social feasibility in landscape-scale scenarios for restoring nature beyond protected areas
Alberto González‐García, Margot Neyret, … Sandra Lavorel·bioRxiv·Sep 15, 2026
- Landscape restoration strategies differ in their predicted benefits for species persistence
Robin Bauknecht, Robert J. Fletcher·bioRxiv·Oct 7, 2026
- Where conservation and restoration matter most: sensitivity-based prioritization of connected forest
Bram F. A. Van Moorter, Rannveig M. Jacobsen, … Manuela Panzacchi·bioRxiv·Sep 13, 2026
- Prioritizing landscapes to reconcile biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and human well-being in India
A. Srivathsa, D. Vasudev, … U. Ramakrishnan·bioRxiv·Aug 27, 2022
- Mapping the functional connectivity of ecosystem services supply across a regional landscape
R. D. Field, L. Parrott·bioRxiv·May 20, 2021
- Habitat restoration and the recovery of metacommunities
K. A. Gawecka, J. Bascompte·bioRxiv·Feb 10, 2023