Exploring the Capacity of Water Framework Directive Indices to Assess Ecosystem Services in Fluvial and Riparian Systems: Towards a Second Implementation Phase

We explored the capacity of the biological and hydromorphological indices used in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to assess ecosystem services by evaluating the ecological status of Spanish River Basins. This analysis relies on an exhaustive bibliography review which showed scientific evidence of the interlinkages between some ecosystem services and different hydromorphological and biological elements which have been used as indices in the WFD. Our findings indicate that, of a total of 38 ecosystem services analyzed, biological and hydromorphological indices can fully evaluate four ecosystem services. In addition, 18 ecosystem services can be partly evaluated by some of the analyzed indices, while 11 are not related with the indices. While Riparian Forest Quality was the index that was able to assess the largest number of ecosystem services (N = 12), the two indices of macrophytes offered very poor guarantees. Finally, biological indices related to diatoms and aquatic invertebrates and the Fluvial Habitat Index can be related with 7, 6, and 6 ecosystem services, respectively. Because the WFD indices currently used in Spain are not able to assess most of the ecosystem services analyzed, we suggest that there is potential to develop the second phase of the WFD implementation taking this approach into consideration. The incorporation of the ecosystem services approach into the WFD could provide the framework for assess the impacts of human activities on the quality of fluvial ecosystems and could give insights for water and watershed management in order to guarantee the delivery of multiple ecosystem services.

[1]  Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua.  VIII Congreso Ibérico sobre Gestión y Planificación del Agua , 2014 .

[2]  G. Daily,et al.  Erratum: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (Nature (2012) 486 (59-67) DOI:10.1038/nature11148) , 2012 .

[3]  Isabel Pardo.  El hábitat de los ríos mediterráneos. Diseño de un índice de diversidad de hábitat , 2002, Limnetica.

[4]  A. L. T. D. Souza,et al.  Influence of riparian vegetation and forest structure on the water quality of rural low-order streams in SE Brazil , 2013 .

[5]  Narcís Prat i Fornells,et al.  Biomonitoreo de la calidad del agua en los ríos ibéricos: lecciones aprendidas. , 2014 .

[6]  Carolina Solà,et al.  QBR [Calidad del Bosque de Ribera]: un indice rapido para la evaluacion de la calidad de los ecosistemas de ribera , 1998 .

[7]  Andrés Mellado,et al.  Propuesta de un índice de macrófitos (IM) para evaluar la calidad ecológica de los ríos de la cuenca del Segura , 2005, Limnetica.

[8]  B. Moss.  Shallow lakes, the water framework directive and life. What should it all be about? , 2007, Hydrobiologia.

[9]  P. Dillon,et al.  Are diatoms good integrators of temporal variability in stream water quality , 2008 .

[10]  J. Mcneely,et al.  The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity , 2010 .

[11]  Jarrett E. K. Byrnes,et al.  Linking Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Current Uncertainties and the Necessary Next Steps , 2014 .

[12]  G. Daily,et al.  Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity , 2012, Nature.

[13]  G. Daily,et al.  The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services , 2007 .

[14]  Robert A. Holland,et al.  Spatial covariation between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystem services. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[15]  J. Raven,et al.  Carbon acquisition by diatoms , 2007, Photosynthesis Research.

[16]  Margaret A. Palmer,et al.  The Heartbeat of Ecosystems , 2012, Science.

[17]  Brian Kronvang,et al.  Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[18]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services , 2011 .

[19]  Kate A Brauman,et al.  Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  R. Howarth,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations , 2011 .

[21]  A. Meiner,et al.  An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 , 2016 .

[22]  Carlos Montes,et al.  Understanding complex links between fluvial ecosystems and social indicators in Spain: An ecosystem services approach , 2014 .

[23]  J. Prygiel,et al.  Un nouvel Indice Diatomique Pratique pour l'évaluation de la qualité des eaux en réseau de surveillance , 1996 .

[24]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[25]  Carlos Montes,et al.  Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds , 2015 .

[26]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[27]  Other.  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive) , 2000 .

[28]  María Rosario Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez,et al.  Caracterización del estado ecológico de ríos mediterráneos ibéricos mediante el índice IBMWP (antes BMWP , 2002 .

[29]  B. Moss,et al.  The Water Framework Directive: total environment or political compromise? , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[30]  I. White,et al.  The Potential Implications of the European Union Water Framework Directive on Domestic Planning Systems: A UK Case Study , 2002 .

[31]  M. Feio,et al.  Functional indicators of stream health: a river-basin approach , 2010 .

[32]  Cecilia M Holmlund,et al.  Ecosystem services generated by fish populations , 1999 .

[33]  J. Alba-Tercedor.  Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell (1978) , 1988, Limnetica.

[34]  Brendan G. McKie,et al.  Continental-Scale Effects of Nutrient Pollution on Stream Ecosystem Functioning , 2012, Science.

[35]  The relevance of ecological status to ecosystem functions and services in a large boreal lake , 2014 .

[36]  J. Newbold,et al.  Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  A. L. T. D. Souza,et al.  Can the structure of a riparian forest remnant influence stream water quality? A tropical case study , 2014, Hydrobiologia.

[38]  The value of plant functional groups in demonstrating and communicating vegetation responses to environmental flows , 2014 .

[39]  G. Mace,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[40]  D. Pont,et al.  Comparability of fish-based ecological quality assessments for geographically distinct Iberian regions. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[41]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[42]  Benjamin Burkhard,et al.  Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise , 2013 .

[43]  G. Woodward,et al.  Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management , 2009 .

[44]  Á. Borja,et al.  The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[45]  Edel Doherty,et al.  Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment , 2014 .

[46]  Martin Kernan,et al.  Assessing the ecological status in the context of the European Water Framework Directive: where do we go now? , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[47]  Ulrich Heink,et al.  What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning , 2010 .

[48]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012 , 2013 .

[49]  D. Pont,et al.  Ecological assessment of running waters: Do macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, diatoms and fish show similar responses to human pressures? , 2012 .

[50]  Margaret A. Palmer,et al.  The Role of Benthic Invertebrate Species in Freshwater Ecosystems: Zoobenthic species influence energy flows and nutrient cycling , 1999 .

[51]  Does functional redundancy of communities provide insurance against human disturbances? An analysis using regional-scale stream invertebrate data , 2012, Hydrobiologia.

[52]  N Voulvoulis,et al.  The potential of using the Ecosystem Approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[53]  B. Statzner,et al.  Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. , 2006, Annual review of entomology.

[54]  M. Kaika.  The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing Social, Political and Economic European Framework , 2003 .

[55]  N. Prat,et al.  A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index , 2003 .

[56]  E. Papastergiadou,et al.  Comparability of river quality assessment using macrophytes: a multi-step procedure to overcome biogeographical differences. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[57]  S. Díaz,et al.  Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being , 2006, PLoS biology.