Enhancing water provision services is a common target in forest restoration projects worldwide due to growing concerns over freshwater scarcity. However, whether or not forest cover expansion or ...restoration can improve water provision services is still unclear and highly disputed.
The goal of this review is to provide a balanced and impartial assessment of the impacts of forest restoration and forest cover expansion on water yields as informed by the scientific literature. Potential sources of bias on the results of papers published are also examined.
English, Spanish and Portuguese peer-review articles in Agricola, CAB Abstracts, ISI Web of Science, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and SciELO. Databases were searched through 2015.
Intervention terms included forest restoration, regeneration/regrowth, forest second-growth, forestation/afforestation, and forestry. Target terms included water yield/quantity, streamflow, discharge, channel runoff, and annual flow.
Articles were pre-selected based on key words in the title, abstract or text. Eligible articles addressed relevant interventions and targets and included quantitative information.
Most studies reported decreases in water yields following the intervention, while other hydrological benefits have been observed. However, relatively few studies focused specifically on forest restoration, especially with native species, and/or on projects done at large spatial or temporal scales. Information is especially limited for the humid tropics and subtropics.
While most studies reported a decrease in water yields, meta-analyses from a sub-set of studies suggest the potential influence of temporal and/or spatial scales on the outcomes of forest cover expansion or restoration projects. Given the many other benefits of forest restoration, improving our understanding of when and why forest restoration can lead to recovery of water yields is crucial to help improve positive outcomes and prevent unintended consequences. Our study identifies the critical types of studies and associated measurements needed.
Ecological restoration has grown rapidly and now encompasses not only classic ecological theory but also utilitarian concerns, such as preparedness for climate change and provisioning of ecosystem ...services. Three dominant perspectives compete to influence the science and practice of river restoration. A strong focus on channel morphology has led to approaches that involve major Earth-moving activities, such as channel reconfiguration with the unmet assumption that ecological recovery will follow. Functional perspectives of river restoration aim to regain the full suite of biogeochemical, ecological, and hydrogeomorphic processes that make up a healthy river, and though there is well-accepted theory to support this, research on methods to implement and assess functional restoration projects is in its infancy. A plethora of new studies worldwide provide data on why and how rivers are being restored as well as the project outcomes. Measurable improvements postrestoration vary by restoration method and measure of outcome.
River restoration is an increasingly common approach utilized to reverse past degradation of freshwater ecosystems and to mitigate the anticipated damage to freshwaters from future development and ...resource-extraction activities. While the practice of river restoration has grown exponentially over the last several decades, there has been little empirical evaluation of whether restoration projects individually or cumulatively achieve the legally mandated goals of improving the structure and function of streams and rivers. New efforts to evaluate river restoration projects that use channel reconfiguration as a methodology for improving stream ecosystem structure and function are finding little evidence for measurable ecological improvement. While designed channels may have less-incised banks and greater sinuousity than the degraded streams they replace, these reach-scale efforts do not appear to be effectively mitigating the physical, hydrological, or chemical alterations that are responsible for the loss of sensitive taxa and the declines in water quality that typically motivate restoration efforts. Here we briefly summarize this new literature, including the collection of papers within this Invited Feature, and provide our perspective on the limitations of current restoration.
Ecological restoration is an activity that ideally results in the return of an ecosystem to an undisturbed state. Ecosystem services are the benefits humans derive from ecosystems. The two have been ...joined to support growing environmental markets with the goal of creating restoration-based credits that can be bought and sold. However, the allure of these markets may be overshadowing shortcomings in the science and practice of ecological restoration. Before making risky investments, we must understand why and when restoration efforts fall short of recovering the full suite of ecosystem services, what can be done to improve restoration success, and why direct measurement of the biophysical processes that support ecosystem services is the only way to guarantee the future success of these markets. Without new science and an oversight framework to protect the ecosystem service assets which people depend, markets could actually accelerate environmental degradation.
Transforming urban environments Palmer, Margaret A
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
08/2022, Letnik:
377, Številka:
6608
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Resilient cities of the past hold lessons for creating adaptable communities of the future
... more science, better science, and then effective communication may be the wrong sequence of events if scientists hope to influence policy. Facts, figures, and future projections on the ...biophysical impacts of climate change or energy production have had far less of an effect on policy than many scientists had hoped they would (Kerr 2011).
Landscape urbanization broadly alters watersheds and stream ecosystems, yet the impact of nonpoint source urban inputs on the quantity, quality, and ultimate fate of dissolved organic matter (DOM) is ...poorly understood. We assessed DOM quality and microbial bioavailability in eight first-order Coastal Plain headwater streams along a gradient of urbanization (i.e., percent watershed impervious cover); none of the streams had point source discharges. DOM quality was measured using fluorescence excitation–emission matrices (EEMs) coupled with parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC). Bioavailability was assessed using biodegradable dissolved organic carbon (BDOC) incubations. Results showed that watershed impervious cover was significantly related to stream DOM composition: increasing impervious cover was associated with decreased amounts of natural humic-like DOM and enriched amounts of anthropogenic fulvic acid-like and protein-like DOM. Microbial bioavailability of DOM was greater in urbanized streams during spring and summer, and was related to decreasing proportions of humic-like DOM and increasing proportions of protein-like DOM. Increased bioavailability was associated with elevated extracellular enzyme activity of the initial microbial community supplied to samples during BDOC incubations. These findings indicate that changes in stream DOM quality due to watershed urbanization may impact stream ecosystem metabolism and ultimately the fate of organic carbon transported through fluvial systems.
1. Stream ecosystems are increasingly impacted by multiple stressors that lead to a loss of sensitive species and an overall reduction in diversity. A dominant paradigm in ecological restoration is ...that increasing habitat heterogeneity (HH) promotes restoration of biodiversity. This paradigm is reflected in stream restoration projects through the common practice of re-configuring channels to add meanders and adding physical structures such as boulders and artificial riffles to restore biodiversity by enhancing structural heterogeneity. 2. To evaluate the validity of this paradigm, we completed an extensive evaluation of published studies that have quantitatively examined the reach-scale response of invertebrate species richness to restoration actions that increased channel complexity/HH. We also evaluated studies that used manipulative or correlative approaches to test for a relationship between physical heterogeneity and invertebrate diversity in streams that were not in need of restoration. 3. We found habitat and macroinvertebrate data for 78 independent stream or river restoration projects described by 18 different author groups in which invertebrate taxa richness data in response to the restoration treatment were available. Most projects were successful in enhancing physical HH; however, only two showed statistically significant increases in biodiversity rendering them more similar to reference reaches or sites. 4. Studies manipulating structural complexity in otherwise healthy streams were generally small in scale and less than half showed a significant positive relationship with invertebrate diversity. Only one-third of the studies that attempted to correlate biodiversity to existing levels of in-stream heterogeneity found a positive relationship. 5. Across all the studies we evaluated, there is no evidence that HH was the primary factor controlling stream invertebrate diversity, particularly in a restoration context. The findings indicate that physical heterogeneity should not be the driving force in selecting restoration approaches for most degraded waterways. Evidence suggests that much more must be done to restore streams impacted by multiple stressors than simply re-configuring channels and enhancing structural complexity with meanders, boulders, wood, or other structures. 6. Thematic implications: as integrators of all activities on the land, streams are sensitive to a host of stressors including impacts from urbanisation, agriculture, deforestation, invasive species, flow regulation, water extractions and mining. The impacts of these individually or in combination typically lead to a decrease in biodiversity because of reduced water quality, biologically unsuitable flow regimes, dispersal barriers, altered inputs of organic matter or sunlight, degraded habitat, etc. Despite the complexity of these stressors, a large number of stream restoration projects focus primarily on physical channel characteristics. We show that this is not a wise investment if ecological recovery is the goal. Managers should critically diagnose the stressors impacting an impaired stream and invest resources first in repairing those problems most likely to limit restoration.
Manage water in a green way Palmer, Margaret A.; Liu, Junguo; Matthews, John H. ...
Science,
08/2015, Letnik:
349, Številka:
6248
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Reliance on “hard,” human-engineered structures—“gray” infrastructure—has been the conventional way to manage water needs for economic development. But building dams, piping water, and constructing ...protective barriers is capital intensive and may address only a few water problems (
1
). Gray infrastructure often damages or eliminates biophysical processes necessary to sustain people, ecosystems and habitats, and livelihoods. Consequently, there is renewed focus on “green” infrastructure, which can be more flexible and cost effective for providing benefits besides water provision. Supplementing or integrating gray infrastructure with biophysical systems is critical to meeting current and future water needs. Gray and green infrastructures combined are synergistic and can have superior results to one or the other.
Coastal and inland waters are continuing to decline in many parts of the world despite major efforts made to restore them. This is due in part to the inadequate role that ecological science has ...played in shaping restoration efforts. A significant amount of fundamental ecological knowledge dealing with issues such as system dynamics, state changes, context-dependency of ecological response, and diversity is both under-used by managers and practitioners and under-developed by ecologists for use in realworld applications. Some of the science that is being ' used' has not been adequately tested. Thus, restoration ecology as a science and ecological restoration as a practice are in need of reform. I identify five ways in which our ecological knowledge should be influencing restoration to a far greater extent than at present including a need to: shift the focus to restoration of process and identification of the limiting factors instead of structures and single species, add ecological insurance to all projects, identify a probabilistic range of possible outcomes instead of a reference condition, expand the spatial scale of efforts, and apply hierarchical approaches to prioritization. Prominent examples of restoration methods or approaches that are commonly used despite little evidence to support their efficacy are highlighted such as the use of only structural enhancements to restore biodiversity. There are also major gaps in scientific knowledge that are of immediate need to policy makers, managers, and restoration practitioners including: predictive frameworks to guide the restoration of ecological processes, identification of social-ecological feedbacks that constrain ecosystem recovery and data to support decisions of where and how to implement restoration projects to achieve the largest gains. I encourage ecologists to respond to the demand for their scientific input so that restoration can shift from an engineering-driven process to a more sustainable enterprise that fully integrates ecological processes and social science methods.
PDF
