Increasing demand for benefits provided by riverine ecosystems threatens their sustainable provision. The ecosystem service concept is a promising avenue to inform riverine ecosystem management, but several challenges have prevented the application of this concept. We quantitatively assess the field of riverine ecosystem services’ progress in meeting these challenges. We highlight conceptual and methodological gaps, which have impeded integration of the ecosystem service concept into management. Across 89 relevant studies, 33 unique riverine ecosystem services were evaluated, for a total of 404 ecosystem service quantifications. Studies quantified between 1 and 23 ecosystem services, although the majority (55%) evaluated three or less. Among studies that quantified more than one service, 58% assessed interactions between services. Most studies (71%) did not include stakeholders in their quantification protocols, and 34% developed future scenarios of ecosystem service provision. Almost half (45%) conducted monetary valuation, using 16 methods. Only 9% did not quantify or discuss uncertainties associated with service quantification. The indicators and methods used to quantify the same type of ecosystem service varied. Only 3% of services used indicators of capacity, flow and demand in concert. Our results suggest indicators, data sources and methods for quantifying riverine ecosystem services should be more clearly defined and accurately represent the service they intend to quantify. Furthermore, more assessments of multiple services across diverse spatial extents and of riverine service interactions are needed, with better inclusion of stakeholders. Addressing these challenges will help riverine ecosystem service science inform river management. Synthesis and applications. The ecosystem service concept has great potential to inform riverine ecosystem management and decision‐making processes. However, this review of riverine ecosystem service quantification uncovers several remaining research gaps, impeding effective use of this tool to manage riverine ecosystems. We highlight these gaps and point to studies showcasing methods that can be used to address them.

SUMMARY Anthropogenic noise can mask animal signals that are crucial for communicating information about food, predators and mating opportunities. In response to noise masking, signallers can potentially improve acoustic signal transmission by adjusting the timing, frequency or amplitude of their signals. These changes can be a short-term modification in response to transient noise or a long-term modification in response to chronic noise. An animal's ability to adapt to anthropogenic noise can be crucial to its success. In this study, we evaluated the effects of anthropogenic noise on the structure of red-winged blackbird song. First, we manipulated the presence of anthropogenic noise by experimentally broadcasting either silence or low-frequency white noise to subjects inhabiting quiet marshes located away from roadsides. Subjects exhibited increased signal tonality when temporarily exposed to low-frequency white noise, suggesting that red-winged blackbirds can alter their signals rapidly in response to sudden noise. Second, we compared songs produced in quiet marshes located away from roadsides with songs produced during quiet periods at roadside marshes that are normally noisy. This allowed us to test whether birds that are exposed to chronic anthropogenic noise exhibit altered song structure during temporarily quiet periods. Subjects residing in roadside marshes that are normally polluted with anthropogenic noise sang songs with increased tonality during quiet periods. Overall, our results show that anthropogenic noise influences the structure of birdsong. These effects should be considered in conservation and wildlife management.

Effectively conserving ecosystem services in order to maintain human wellbeing is a global need that requires an understanding of where ecosystem services are produced by ecosystems and where people benefit from these services. However, approaches to effectively identify key locations that have the capacity to supply ecosystem services and actually contribute to meeting human demand for those services are lacking at broad spatial scales. We developed new methods that integrate measures of the capacity of ecosystems to provide services with indicators of human demand and ability to access these services. We then identified important areas for three ecosystem services currently central to protected area management in Canada—carbon storage, freshwater, and nature-based recreation—and evaluated how these hotspots align with Canada’s current protected areas and resource development tenures. We find that locations of ecosystem service capacity overlap only weakly (27–36%) with actual service providing areas (incorporating human access and demand). Overlapping hotspots of provision for multiple ecosystem services are also extremely limited across Canada; only 1.2% (∼56 000 km2) of the total ecosystem service hotspot area in Canada consists of overlap between all three ecosystem services. Canada’s current protected area network also targets service capacity to a greater degree than provision. Finally, one-half to two-thirds of current ecosystem service hotspots (54–66%) overlap with current and planned resource extraction activities. Our analysis demonstrates how to identify areas where conservation and ecosystem service management actions should be focused to more effectively target ecosystem services to ensure that critical areas for ecosystem services that directly benefit people are conserved. Further development of these methods at national scales to assess ecosystem service capacity and demand and integrate this with conventional biodiversity and conservation planning information will help ensure that both biodiversity and ecosystem services are effectively safeguarded.

Little is known about the current state of freshwater biodiversity in Canada, one of the countries with the greatest amount of surface waters in the world. To address this knowledge gap, we compiled a list of all available assessments of conservation status for freshwater species (over 3,000 taxa) and further evaluated the overall status of six distinct taxonomic groups, focusing on organisms reliant on freshwaters [i.e., aquatic plants, invertebrates (with a focus on freshwater mussels), fishes, herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians), birds, and mammals]. Overall, 11.7% of all freshwater species of plants and animals assessed were found to be ‘at risk’ (i.e., listed as ‘Threatened’, ‘Endangered’, or ‘Extirpated’) and 17.9% identified as ‘Special Concern’. We found that 37.9% of species lacked sufficient data to enable their status to be assessed. Data gaps in Canada’s assessment of its freshwater species were most prevalent in invertebrates (excluding freshwater mussels). Given the alarming state of freshwater biodiversity in Canada, we conclude by providing recommendations that focus on evaluating temporal trends and informing conservation actions.