review · ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH
Research into ecosystem services has expanded substantially, yet forest ecosystem services represent only a modest fraction of the broader literature. An assessment of 41 peer-reviewed studies examining forest ecosystem services reveals that scholarly attention concentrates predominantly on timber production, water supply, carbon sequestration, and recreation. Conversely, vital services such as pollination, genetic resources, pest regulation, and aesthetic values remain unaddressed in the reviewed literature. Methodological approaches across the analysed studies vary widely, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent findings. Geographically, most investigations have taken place in Europe and Asia, whilst African representation is notably scarce, with very few studies originating from Ethiopia. This geographical and thematic imbalance highlights an urgent need for more comprehensive, standardised research in regions experiencing ongoing forest degradation.
Forests deliver critical ecological and economic benefits, yet current scientific understanding remains skewed towards select geographical zones and specific commercial goods. Highlighting these gaps ensures that environmental policymakers and resource managers recognise under-researched ecosystem benefits, such as pest regulation and genetic diversity. This awareness is particularly vital for developing regions where forest loss threatens livelihoods before local ecological dynamics are properly documented.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway, as it focuses exclusively on reviewing academic literature trends and methodological gaps in forest ecosystem service research.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Ecosystem service (ES) is a growing field of research characterized by an increase in publication number. The review was conducted to provide an overview of trends of forest ecosystem services (FES) research and methodological approach to studied FES. Currently, the number of publications on ES was more than 18,000, but small publications were linked with FES. Based on the selection criteria, 41 peer-reviewed publications were screened to analyze the type of FES studied and the method used to quantify ES. The result showed that most of the research articles, to date, had focused largely on provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services, which were timber production, water supply, carbon sequestration, and recreation. FES like a pollination, genetic resources, pest regulation, and aesthetic values have not been studied in any literature reviews. The review result showed that different studies used diverse methodological approaches and had inconsistent and scattered conclusions. From the selected studies, the majority of them were conducted in Europe and Asia. Particularly, the publication number from Ethiopia was very low and needs to conduct studies before the forest resources are further degraded.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s40068-019-0150-4
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
