DOI: 10.5061/dryad.x69p8czn5
title: Multiple ecosystem service synergies and landscape-mediation of biodiversity within urban agroecosystems

description: Ecosystem services are essential for human well-being, especially in urban
 areas where 60% of the global population will live by 2030. While urban
 habitats have the potential to support biodiversity and ecosystem
 services, few studies have quantified the impact of local and landscape
 management across a diverse suite of services. We leverage five years of
 data (&gt;5,000 observations) across a network of urban gardens to
 determine the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem service trade-offs and
 synergies. We found multiple synergies and few trade-offs, contrasting
 previous assumptions that food production is at odds with biodiversity.
 Furthermore, we show that landscape-level natural habitat cover interacts
 with local management to mediate services provided by mobile animals,
 specifically pest control and pollination. By quantifying the factors that
 support a diverse suite of ecosystem services, we highlight the critical
 role of garden management and urban planning for optimizing biodiversity
 and human benefit.
description: <strong>Study system</strong>
 Between 2013 and 2017, we collected data three to five times from
 May to September within 28 urban community gardens on the central coast of
 California, USA (see Egerer, Arel, et al., 2017; Philpott &
 Bichier, 2017)(Fig S1). During each garden visit, we counted the number
 and species of trees and shrubs within a 20 m x 20 m plot and measured
 herbaceous plant species richness, flower abundance, and ground cover
 composition (percent bare soil, rocks, grass, mulch) within four
 (2013–2015) or eight (2016–2017) randomly placed 1m x 1m quadrats in the
 plot (see Philpott & Bichier, 2017).
 <strong>Landscape composition</strong>
 We quantified landscape composition within 2 km of each garden
 using data from the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD, 30 m
 resolution)(Homer et al., 2015). The 2-km buffer size is inclusive of
 typical foraging distances for our focal animal taxa (arthropods and
 birds) and the time period is closest to the average sampling year (as in
 Cohen et al., 2021; Philpott & Bichier, 2017). We calculated the
 percent of natural landscape cover (comprised of deciduous forest,
 evergreen forest, mixed forest, shrub/scrub, and grassland/herbaceous),
 which ranged between 0–61.2%, with spatial statistics tools (ArcGIS v.
 10.1)(ESRI, Redlands, California, USA).
 <strong>Ecosystem Services</strong>
 In the same gardens, we measured seven ESs: pest control,
 pollination, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, water storage, food
 production, and human well-being (Table S1). We evaluated four pest
 control metrics (ES-Pest-control) – three measuring prey removal (see
 Philpott & Bichier, 2017) and one measuring parasitism (see
 Egerer, Liere, et al., 2018). We evaluated six pollination metrics
 (ES-Pollination) – two measuring open pollination success (see Cohen et
 al., 2021), three measuring fruit set (the proportion of flowers
 developing into fruits), and one measuring conspecific pollen deposition.
 We evaluated one climate mitigation metric (ES-Climate) – variation in
 daytime garden temperatures (see Lin et al., 2018), one carbon
 sequestration metric (ES-Carbon) - soil organic matter (see Egerer,
 Ossola, et al., 2018), and one water conservation metric (ES-Water) - soil
 water holding capacity (see Egerer, Ossola, et al., 2018). We included
 five food production metrics (ES-Food) – four measuring weight or volume
 of focal crops (see Cohen et al., 2021) and one assessing
 gardener-reported food production. We evaluated four human well-being
 metrics (ES-Well-being) that describe gardener perceptions of well-being
 derived from gardener survey data (see Egerer, Philpott, et al., 2018)(see
 Supporting Information and Table S1 for details).
 <strong>Mobile Ecosystem Service
 Providers</strong> We evaluated biodiversity
 levels for putative ecosystem service providers (ESPs), specifically
 mobile animals that a) consume or have non-consumptive negative effects on
 herbivores (ESP-Natural-enemy) or b) visit flowers to collect pollen and
 nectar (ESP-Pollinator). We evaluated 14 metrics for natural enemies
 sampled with a variety of traps (pitfalls, sticky traps), visual surveys,
 and point counts (Table S1). We quantified abundance and species richness
 for ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae),
 spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) (see Egerer, Arel, et al., 2017; Otoshi et
 al., 2015; Philpott et al., 2019), ladybeetles (Coleoptera:
 Coccinellidae)(see Egerer, Bichier, et al., 2017), and insectivore birds
 (Animalia: Aves)(see Mayorga et al., 2020). We quantified abundance and
 family richness for parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Parasitica)(see Burks
 & Philpott, 2017) and all arthropods (see Philpott et al., 2020).
 We evaluated 4 metrics for pollinators sampled with netting, pan-trapping,
 and non-lethal observation (Table S1). We quantified abundance and
 richness of bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) (see Plascencia & Philpott,
 2017; Quistberg et al., 2016) and pollinators (Hymenoptera, Diptera,
 Coleoptera, and Lepidoptera)(see Cohen et al., 2021). For all 18 metrics,
 we extrapolated richness using the Chao1 index (Chao, 1987), which
 accounts for uneven sampling and undersampling, using the vegan package in
 R (Oksanen, 2013).
description: The data can be opened by any software capable of opening
 spreadsheets.