IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v72y2025ics2212041625000117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global assessment of ecosystem services and disservices associated with owls

Author

Listed:
  • Formoso, Anahí E.
  • Plaza, Pablo
  • Lambertucci, Sergio A.

Abstract

Understanding the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity can be useful for its protection and for maintaining ecosystem health and human wellbeing. Although several studies have focused on services provided by some birds, little is known about the role of nocturnal top predators, such as owls (order Strigiformes), as ecosystem services providers. Given that few articles specifically evaluated owl ecosystem services, we reviewed published scientific information on the ecology and natural history of owls to assess their role as providers of ecosystem services and disservices worldwide. Our literature review revealed that owls provide a wide range of ecosystem services and, to a lesser extent, disservices. Regulating ecosystem services were the most frequently reported category (81.8 %), followed by cultural and provisioning ecosystem services, together accounting for 18.2 % of the analyzed articles. Half the studies were conducted in Europe (50 %), followed by South America (19.8 %) and North America (12.5 %); the remaining regions accounted for 17.7 %. The most studied genera were Tyto spp. (63.9 %) and Asio spp. (11.5 %), with regulating ecosystem services being the primary category reported for both genera. Owl ecosystem disservices were few in comparison with the number of ecosystem services. Negative perceptions promote the persecution and killing of owls, affecting their conservation and the services they provide. Owls play a vital role in maintaining ecosystem balance by controlling rodent populations, aiding in disease control, and enriching cultural and scientific knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Formoso, Anahí E. & Plaza, Pablo & Lambertucci, Sergio A., 2025. "Global assessment of ecosystem services and disservices associated with owls," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:72:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625000117
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101707?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old‐Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, April.
    2. Carucci, Tomaso & Whitehouse-Tedd, Katherine & Yarnell, Richard W. & Collins, Alan & Fitzpatrick, Fran & Botha, Andre & Santangeli, Andrea, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices associated with vultures: A systematic review and evidence assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    3. Muyesaier Tudi & Huada Daniel Ruan & Li Wang & Jia Lyu & Ross Sadler & Des Connell & Cordia Chu & Dung Tri Phung, 2021. "Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Singleton, Grant R. & Petch, David A., 1994. "A Review of the Biology and Management of Rodent Pests in Southeast Asia," Technical Reports 113901, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    5. Iddo Kan & Yoav Motro & Nir Horvitz & Ayal Kimhi & Yossi Leshem & Yoram Yom-Tov & Ran Nathan, 2014. "Agricultural Rodent Control Using Barn Owls: Is It Profitable?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 733-752.
    6. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    2. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    3. Min Chen & Jie Zhang & Hongtao Wang & Lingyun Li & Meizhen Yin & Jie Shen & Shuo Yan & Baoyou Liu, 2024. "Preparation of Nanoscale Indoxacarb by Using Star Polymer for Efficiency Pest Management," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Tianheng Jiang & Maomao Wang & Wei Zhang & Cheng Zhu & Feijuan Wang, 2024. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in China: Current Status, Risk Assessment and Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Jinping Li & Da Cheng & Juanjuan Huang & Jian Kang & Baohong Jin & Vojislav Novakovic & Yasong Sun, 2025. "Influence of Additives on Solar-Controlled Anaerobic and Aerobic Processes of Cow Manure and Tomato Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    7. Giuseppe Gattuso & Luca Falzone & Chiara Costa & Federica Giambò & Michele Teodoro & Silvia Vivarelli & Massimo Libra & Concettina Fenga, 2022. "Chronic Pesticide Exposure in Farm Workers Is Associated with the Epigenetic Modulation of hsa-miR-199a-5p," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-10, June.
    8. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    9. N. Wear, David & Murray, Brian C., 2004. "Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 307-330, March.
    10. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Amaka Nnaji, 2023. "Cooperative membership and adoption of green pest control practices: Insights from rice farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(3), pages 459-479, July.
    11. Carlos Nuévalos-Tello & Daniel Hernández-Torres & Santiago Sardinero-Roscales & Miriam Pajares-Guerra & Anna Chilton & Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta, 2024. "Ecological Restoration Process of El Hito Saline Lagoon: Potential Biodiversity Gain in an Agro-Natural Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Qi Zhou, 2022. "Spatial-Temporal Change Characteristic Analysis and Environmental Risk Evaluation of Pesticide Application in Anhui Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    14. Rombeallo, Intan Parumbuan & Jamil, Muhammad Hatta & Rukmana, Didi, 2024. "Factors affecting farmers’ decision to join coffee producer cooperatives to improve their welfare," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 10(4), December.
    15. Xiuju Feng & Yunchen Zheng & Woraphon Yamaka & Jianxu Liu, 2024. "How Does Agricultural Green Transformation Improve Residents’ Health? Empirical Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Singleton, Grant R. & Hinds, Lyn A. & Leirs, Herwig & Zhang, Zhi-Bin (ed.), 1999. "Ecologically-Based Management of Rodent Pests," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 114821.
    17. Mergoni, Anna & Dipierro, Anna Rita & Colamartino, Chiara, 2024. "European agricultural sector: The tortuous path across efficiency, sustainability and environmental risk," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    19. Boesing, Andrea Larissa & Klaus, Valentin H. & Neyret, Margot & Le Provost, Gaëtane & Peter, Sophie & Fischer, Markus & Manning, Peter, 2024. "Identifying the optimal landscape configuration for landscape multifunctionality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    20. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:72:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.