Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach for managing river biodiversity

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316178904.005

4 - Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach for managing river biodiversity

from Part I - Addressing global challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015

Catherine M. Febria ,

Benjamin J. Koch and

Margaret A. Palmer

Edited by

Julia Martin-Ortega ,

Robert C. Ferrier ,

Iain J. Gordon and

Shahbaz Khan

Show author details

Catherine M. Febria: Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
Benjamin J. Koch: Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Margaret A. Palmer: Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Julia Martin-Ortega: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Robert C. Ferrier: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Iain J. Gordon: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Shahbaz Khan: Affiliation:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France

Book contents

Get access

Summary

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Covering less than 1% of the Earth's surface, freshwater – streams, rivers, ponds, wetlands, and lakes – supports as much as 10% of all animal species, including one-third of all vertebrates (Strayer & Dudgeon 2010; Figure 4.1). While being among the most biologically diverse, freshwater ecosystems are also among the most imperiled on the planet. In developed regions such as Europe and USA, more than 30% of freshwater species are now thought to be threatened or extinct. As with the majority of the world's ecosystems, accelerated rates of human population growth, industrialization, and agricultural intensification are driving these dramatic species losses, with invasive species introductions, over-harvesting, and loss of habitats being the primary causes (Dudgeon 2013).

Reducing freshwater biodiversity loss is at odds with managing many other ecosystem services. Much of the conflict lies in the fact that freshwaters are ‘hot spots’ for both human needs (i.e. drinking, irrigation, transportation) as well as biodiversity (i.e. the number or suite of species native to a given area; Strayer & Dudgeon 2010; Leisher, this book). Moreover, the majority of the world's population is facing, and will continue to face, increasing water scarcity (Vörösmarty et al. 2010). Humans rely heavily on freshwater, and in particular from large rivers for hydropower, transportation, and fisheries. Water abstraction further strains the integrity of a river's biophysical components, including biodiversity. While some aspects of freshwater ecosystem services are renewable (e.g. water supply), biodiversity is not.

This chapter seeks to clarify how ecosystem service-based approaches can be put into practice (‘operationalized’) for the purpose of prioritizing freshwater biodiversity alongside other river services. We propose a framework that is meant to serve as a way to explore trade-offs in ecosystem services delivery. We base this operationalization on three typical perspectives associated with freshwater biodiversity: inherent value as a final service, biodiversity–ecosystem function (an intermediate or provisioning service), and some combination of the two.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Water Ecosystem Services
A Global Perspective
, pp. 26 - 34

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316178904.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aylward, B., Bandyopadhyay, J., & Belausteguigotia, J-C. (2005). Freshwater ecosystem services. In Hassan, R., Scholes, R., and Ash, N. (eds), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Vol. 1. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Baulch, H. M., Stanley, E. H., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2011). Can algal uptake stop NO3- pollution? Nature 477, E3.Google Scholar

Belnap, J., Welter, J. A., Grimm, N. B., Barger, N., & Ludwig, J. A. (2005). Linkages between microbial and hydrologic processes in arid and semiarid watersheds. Ecology 86(2), 298–307.Google Scholar

Ben-David, M., Bowyer, R. T., Duffy, L. K., Roby, D. D., & Schell, D. M. (1998a). Social behavior and ecosystem processes: river otter latrines and nutrient dynamics of terrestrial vegetation. Ecology 79, 2567–2571.Google Scholar

Ben-David, M., Hanley, T. A., & Schell, D. M. (1998b). Fertilization of terrestrial vegetation by spawning Pacific salmon: the role of flooding and predator activity. Oikos 83, 47–55.Google Scholar

Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics of Coastal Disasters 63, 616–626.Google Scholar

Brozovic, N., Sunding, D. L., & Zilberman, D. (2010). On the spatial nature of the groundwater pumping externality. Resource and Energy Economics 32(2), 154–164.Google Scholar

Cardinale, B. J. (2011). Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 472, 86–113.Google Scholar

Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.Google Scholar

Covich, A. P. M., Austen, C., Bärlocher, F., et al. (2004). The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems. BioScience 54, 767–775.Google Scholar

Dodds, W. K., Perkin, J. S., & Gerken, J. E. (2013). Human impact on freshwater ecosystem services: a global perspective. Environmental Science & Technology 47, 9061–9068.Google Scholar

Doledec, S. & Bonada, N. (2013). Implications of loss of biodiversity for ecosystem functioning. In: Sabater, S. and Elosegi, A. (eds), River Challenges and Opportunities. Fundacion BBVA.

Dudgeon, D. (2013). Anthropocene extinctions: global threats to river biodiversity and the tragedy of freshwater commons. Chapter 6 in: River Challenges and Opportunities. Edt. Sabater, S. and Elosegi, A.. Fundacion BBVA, Bilbao.

Eldridge, W. H. & Naish, K. A. (2007). Long-term effects of translocation and release numbers on fine-scale population structure among coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Molecular Ecology 16, 2407–2421.Google Scholar

Gende, S. M., Edwards, R. T., Willson, M. F., & Wipfli, M. S. (2002). Pacific salmon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. BioScience 52, 917–928.Google Scholar

Helfield, J. M. & Naiman, R. J. (2001). Effects of salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest growth and implications for stream productivity. Ecology 82, 2403–2409.Google Scholar

Hilderbrand, G. V., Hanley, T. A., Robbins, C. T., & Schwartz, C. C. (1999). Role of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem. Oecologia 121, 546–550.Google Scholar

Hocking, M. D. & Reynolds, J. D. (2011). Impacts of salmon on riparian plant diversity. Science 331:1609–1612.Google Scholar

Holtgrieve, G. W. & Schindler, D. E. (2011). Marine-derived nutrients, bioturbation, and ecosystem metabolism: reconsidering the role of salmon in streams. Ecology 92, 373–385.Google Scholar

Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G., & Polasky, S. (eds) (2011). Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Keeler, B. L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K. A., et al. (2012). Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(45), 18619–18624.Google Scholar

Kondolf, M., Angermeier, P. L., Cummins, K., et al. (2008). Projecting cumulative benefits of multiple river restoration projects: an example from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River system in California. Environmental Management 42, 933–945.Google Scholar

Levi, P. S., Tank, J. L., Tiegs, S. D., Chaloner, D. T., & Lamberti, G. A. (2013). Biogeochemical transformation of a nutrient subsidy: salmon, streams, and nitrification. Biogeochemistry 113, 643–655.Google Scholar

Nahlik, A. M., Kentula, M. E., Fennessy, M. S., & Landers, D. H. (2012). Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Economics 77, 27–35.Google Scholar

Naiman, R. J., Bilby, R. E., Schindler, D. E., & Helfield, J. M. (2002). Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5, 399–417.Google Scholar

Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., & Regetz, J., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment 7, 4–11.Google Scholar

Neville, H., Isaak, D., Thurow, R., Dunham, J., & Rieman, B. (2007). Microsatellite variation reveals weak genetic structure and retention of genetic variability in threatened Chinook salmon (Oncorynchus tshawytscha) within a Snake River watershed. Conservation Genetics 8, 133–147.Google Scholar

Palmer, M. A. & Filoso, S. (2009). Restoration of ecosystem services. Science 325, 575–576.Google Scholar

Phelphs, S. R., Leclair, L. L., Young, S., & Blankenship, H. L. (1994). Genetic diversity patterns of chum salmon in the Pacific-Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51, 65–83.Google Scholar

Poff, N. L. & Zimmerman, J. K. H. (2010). Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55, 194–205.Google Scholar

Ringold, P. L., Boyd, J., Landers, D., & Weber, M. (2013). What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 98–105.Google Scholar

Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Heinowicz, A. P., & Polascky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, 268–273.Google Scholar

Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48, 630–636.Google Scholar

Sims, A., Zhang, Y., Gajarai, S., Brown, P. B., Hu, Z. (2013). Toward the development of microbial indicators for wetland assessment. Water Research 47, 1711–1725.Google Scholar

Strayer, D. L. & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29, 344–358.Google Scholar

Urban, M. C., Skelly, D. K., Burchsted, D., Price, W., & Lowry, S. (2006). Stream communities across a rural–urban landscape gradient. Diversity and Distributions 12, 337–350.Google Scholar

Vigerstol, K. L. & Aukema, J. E. (2011). A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 2403–2409.Google Scholar

Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., et al. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561.Google Scholar

Willson, M. F. & Halupka, K. C. (1995). Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology 9, 489–497.Google Scholar

Willson, M. F., Gende, S. M., & Marston, B. H. (1998). Fishes and the forest. BioScience 48, 455–462.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.