Trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in the yellow river basin: spatial dynamics and driving factors

Understanding the interactions among ecosystem services and their relationships with dominant drivers are crucial for effective ecosystem management. Previous studies have mainly focused on trade-offs and synergies between ESs, overlooking no-effect interactions. The effect of bidirectional land cover transitions on ESs remained insufficiently quantified. Additionally, driving force analyses typically focused on the overall impacts, neglecting spatial heterogeneity. In the Yellow River Basin, we used the InVEST model and spatial allocation methods to assess the spatiotemporal distributions of carbon storage (CS), soil retention (SR), water yield (WY), food production (FP), habitat quality (HQ), and landscape aesthetics (LA) from 2003 to 2023. ES changes due to land cover transitions were evaluated using a Cross-Tabulation Matrix. An improved pairwise method analyzed the spatial diversity of interactions among ES pairs, while key drivers were identified using the optimized parameter-based geographical detector (OPGD) model. Additionally, bivariate local spatial autocorrelation was used to analyze the spatial relationships between ESs and their key drivers. The results indicated that FP and WY were higher in the south and east, SR and CS were more concentrated in the center and south, while HQ and LA were predominantly distributed in the west. Seven ES pairs exhibited predominant synergies, including HQ-SR, HQ-CS, HQ-LA, SR-FP, SR-WY, CS-LA, and FP-WY, whereas five involving HQ-FP, HQ-WY, WY-LA, FP-LA, and SR-LA showed trade-offs. For CS-FP, CS-WY, and SR-CS pairs, synergy, trade-off, and no-effect relationships occupied comparable spatial area proportions. CS and HQ are primarily shaped by landscape configuration, SR by slope, vegetation, and precipitation, WY by climate and topography, and FP by socioeconomic intensity and elevation. Spatially, HH areas linking CS, SR, WY, HQ, and LA to their main drivers cluster in the upstream Loess Plateau gully region, the Sichuan Tibet alpine canyon region, and the southern Tibetan Plateau, whereas the northwestern desert region and the middle and lower reaches are dominated by LL, HL, LH, or not significant patterns. In contrast, HH hotspots for FP and its main drivers are concentrated in the middle and lower reaches, especially in the agropastoral transition zone and irrigated plains. These findings suggest that regulating key drivers, balancing vegetation restoration with regional water capacity, and protecting wetlands and other sensitive areas can help manage tradeoffs, enhance synergies, and support sustainable regional development.