Water supply as an ecosystem service for hydropower and irrigation

Mendoza, Guillermo; Ennaanay, Driss; Conte, Marc; Walter, M. T.; Freyberg, David L.; Wolny, Stacie; Hay, Lauren; White, Sue; Nelson, Erik; Solórzano, Luis Rojas

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0004

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For soil fertility, we used the Brazilian agricultural potential map (http://mapas.mma.gov.br). Water balance is related to the annual rainfall that does not transpire or evaporate given the water storage properties of the soil (Mendoza et al ., ). See Appendix S2 for modelling of water balance in InVEST.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Manhães

Mazzochini

Oliveira‐Filho

et al. 2016

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Protected areas are frequently defined on the basis of biological importance. Ecosystem services are expected to be under protection when biodiversity is preserved; however, new approaches are needed to confirm this statement. We evaluated how spatial associations between ecosystem services and plant biodiversity on a large spatial scale influence their representativeness in current protected areas. Location Brazilian seasonally tropical dry forest (Caatinga). Methods We produced woody plant biodiversity maps (species richness, narrow‐range species richness and beta diversity) using species distribution modelling. We estimated regulating services (water purification, carbon storage and erosion control), provisioning services (water supply, fodder and agriculture) and supporting services (water balance, net primary productivity and soil fertility) using primary data and a proxy‐based approach. We performed spatial correlation analyses between biodiversity and ecosystem services using Pearson's correlation test. After estimating the percentage of hotspot areas of biodiversity and ecosystem services presented in two types of protected areas (strict protection and sustainable use), we compared it to expected distribution by null model. Results Mostly weak and intermediary positive correlations arose among biodiversity and ecosystem services (beta diversity with water balance and species richness with water purification and carbon storage). Negative correlations occurred among water balance with both species richness and narrow‐range species richness. Strict protection areas were well represented in terms of carbon storage and underrepresented for fodder and agriculture. Sustainable use protected areas were important for water balance. Plant biodiversity variables were not represented in current protected areas. Main conclusions Positive correlations between biodiversity and ecosystem services do not assure the protection of these targets in protected areas. Surrogates choice based only on spatial correlations might not effectively protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Selection of priority areas must include biodiversity and ecosystem services as distinct conservation targets.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Manhães

Mazzochini

Oliveira‐Filho

et al. 2016

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using this input data, the InVEST Water Purification model estimated the annual average water yield for a specific watershed. The model estimated water yield at the sub-watershed and watershed level and accounts for surface water and not ground water processes (Mendoza et al, 2011). Thus, there is no differentiation between surface, subsurface and base flow water in the InVEST model (Tallis et al, 2011).…”

Section: Water Yield Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Urbanization of forests in the and quality is an important consideration. Water yield is the sum of annual precipitation that does not evaporate from soil and water or transpire from vegetation (Mendoza et al, 2011). Since urban areas increase runoff, as a result of decreased interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration, they can decrease water quality and increase overall water yield (Arnold et al, 1987;Hanson et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urbanization as a land use change driver of forest ecosystem services

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…LAI, together with foliar nitrogen, drives productivity (Reich, 2012), and could be applied to assessments of carbon and provisioning services. Erosion control and hydrological services have been modeled with the cover of vegetation (e.g., Nelson et al, 2009;Schulp et al, 2012) and nonphotosythnetic vegetation (NPV, or plant litter; Guo et al, 2000), as well as by root depth (Band et al, 2012) and surface roughness (e.g., Mendoza et al, 2011). NPV can also indicate soil accumulation (Egoh et al, 2008) and aesthetic value (Lavorel et al, 2011).…”

Section: Remotely Sensed Information Products Relevant To Essmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential contributions of remote sensing to ecosystem service assessments

Andrew

Wulder

Nelson

2014

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ecological and conservation research has provided a strong scientific underpinning to the modeling of ecosystem services (ESs) over space and time, by identifying the ecological processes and components of biodiversity (ecosystem service providers, functional traits) that drive ES supply. Despite this knowledge, efforts to map the distribution of ESs often rely on simple spatial surrogates that provide incomplete and non-mechanistic representations of the biophysical variables they are intended to proxy. However, alternative datasets are available that allow for more direct, spatially nuanced inputs to ES mapping efforts. Many spatially explicit, quantitative estimates of biophysical parameters are currently supported by remote sensing, with great relevance to ES mapping. Additional parameters that are not amenable to direct detection by remote sensing may be indirectly modeled with spatial environmental data layers. We review the capabilities of modern remote sensing for describing biodiversity, plant traits, vegetation condition, ecological processes, soil properties, and hydrological variables and highlight how these products may contribute to ES assessments. Because these products often provide more direct estimates of the ecological properties controlling ESs than the spatial proxies currently in use, they can support greater mechanistic realism in models of ESs. By drawing on the increasing range of remote sensing instruments and measurements, datasets appropriate to the estimation of a given ES can be selected or developed. In so doing, we anticipate rapid progress to the spatial characterization of ecosystem services, in turn supporting ecological conservation, management, and integrated land use planning. Keywords I IntroductionNatural and managed ecosystems provide physical, emotional, and economic wellbeing to human societies via benefits known as ecosystem services (ESs). There are a great many ways by which ecosystems benefit humanity. Conceptually, this diversity of ecosystem services is often grouped into provisioning (natural resources provided by ecological systems such as food, forage, and timber), cultural (spiritual and heritage values derived from natural and managed systems, as well as natural areas tourism and recreation), and regulating and supporting services (life support services such as air or water purification, climate regulation, 2 and ecological processes that maintain functioning ecosystems, contributing to all services) (MEA, 2005).Historically, ESs have been given little formal attention, especially those services that are not traditionally traded in a market (Costanza et al., 1997), leading to unsustainable land use practices with unintended consequences (Bennett et al., 2009;MEA, 2005). There is growing recognition that conservation and land use planning should strive to maintain the multifunctionality of natural and managed systems through balanced portfolios of ESs. Knowledge about the environmental and anthropogenic controls of ESs and the spatial distribution o...

show abstract

Water supply as an ecosystem service for hydropower and irrigation

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Urbanization as a land use change driver of forest ecosystem services

Potential contributions of remote sensing to ecosystem service assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About