Peer Reviewed Articles Ways to Protect the Wetlands
Nat Geosci. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2018 Aug 2.
Published in last edited form as:
PMCID: PMC6071434
NIHMSID: NIHMS941658
Enhancing protection for vulnerable waters
Irena F. Creed
1Section of Biology, Western Academy, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada.
Charles R. Lane
2US Ecology Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Usa.
Jacqueline Northward. Serran
3Department of Biology, Western Academy, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada.
Laurie C. Alexander
4US EPA Role of Research and Evolution, Washington, DC 20460, The states.
Nandita B. Basu
5Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada.
Aram J. K. Calhoun
sixDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA.
Jay R. Christensen
viiUnited states of america EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Enquiry Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119, United states of america.
Matthew J. Cohen
8School of Wood Resources and Conservation, Academy of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, United states of america.
Christopher Arts and crafts
9School of Public and Ecology Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA.
Ellen D'Amico
tenCSS-Dynamac, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United states.
Edward DeKeyser
11School of Natural Resource Sciences, Due north Dakota Country Academy, Fargo, North Dakota 58102, USA.
Laurie Fowler
12Odum School of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.s..
Heather E. Golden
xiiiUS EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Inquiry Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, U.s..
James W. Jawitz
14Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA.
Peter Kalla
15U.s.a. EPA Region 4 Laboratory, Athens, Georgia 30605, USA.
L. Katherine Kirkman
xviJoseph W. Jones Ecological Inquiry Center, Newton, Georgia 39870, USA.
Megan Lang
17United states of america Fish and Wildlife Service, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, U.s..
Scott 1000. Leibowitz
18The states EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Environmental Division, Corvallis, Oregon 97333, U.s.a..
David B. Lewis
nineteenDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, USA.
John Marton
20CDM Smith, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, USA.
Daniel L. McLaughlin
21Section of Wood Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, United states of america.
Hadas Raanan-Kiperwas
22ORISE Fellow, US EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Mark C. Rains
23School of Geosciences, University of S Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, U.s..
Kai C. Rains
24School of Geosciences, Academy of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, U.s.a..
Lora Smith
25Joseph Due west. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia 39870, USA.
Abstract
Governments worldwide practice not adequately protect their express freshwater systems and therefore place freshwater functions and attendant ecosystem services at risk. The best available scientific show compels enhanced protections for freshwater systems, especially for impermanent streams and wetlands outside of floodplains that are especially vulnerable to alteration or destruction. New approaches to freshwater sustainability — implemented through scientifically informed adaptive management — are required to protect freshwater systems through periods of irresolute societal needs. Ane such approach introduced in the U.s. in 2015 is the Make clean H2o Rule, which clarified the jurisdictional telescopic for federally protected waters. Withal, within hours of its implementation litigants convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stay the rule, and the subsequently elected administration has now placed it under review for potential revision or rescission. Regardless of its upshot at the federal level, policy and management discussions initiated by the propagation of this rare rulemaking issue have potential far-reaching implications at all levels of government across the United states of america and worldwide. At this timely juncture, we provide a scientific rationale and three policy options for all levels of authorities to meaningfully enhance protection of these vulnerable waters. A fourth option, a 'exercise-nothing' arroyo, is wholly inconsistent with the well-established scientific evidence of the importance of these vulnerable waters.
Vulnerable waters are defined as wetlands outside of floodplains and equally ephemeral, intermittent and seasonally flowing streams. These waters are frequently unmapped and poorly protected, and are hence susceptible to deposition or destruction. In the US, the Make clean Water Deed (CWA) has been the main federal tool for protecting vulnerable waters. However, there accept been longstanding cases and controversies about which vulnerable waters are protected nether the CWA, every bit evidenced by the 2001 SWANCC (Solid Waste Bureau of Northern Cook County) and 2006 Rapanos United states of america Supreme Court decisions (for a brief overview of United states of america legislative and judicial history affecting CWA scope, including protection of vulnerable waters, see Supplementary Section one). The 2015 issuance of the Clean H2o Rule (CWR) was intended to address this doubtfulness and clarify which waterbodies were subject field to regulation nether the CWA. However, the CWR was challenged and and so stayed past US federal courts. Subsequently, the new administration issued an executive society on 28 Feb 2017, for the CWR to be reviewed and either rescinded or revised. Thus, for the time being, the question of which vulnerable waters are subject to regulation under the CWA is still not resolved and may go along to be in flux for some fourth dimension. Given this continuing uncertainty in US federal protection, now is a prudent time to consider protection options that other management bodies (for example, state and local regulatory agencies) could implement to protect vulnerable waters and, critically, the myriad functions that they provide.
Significance, extent and value of vulnerable waters
Vulnerable waters are important elements of salubrious watersheds, providing hydrological, chemic and biological functions integral to sustaining both ecological and human well-being1 – 3. Equally electric current inquiry suggests, these waters control the partitioning, timing, duration, magnitude and frequency of surface and subsurface flows throughout watersheds4 – 6. These waters are often the commencement mural features to interact with terrestrial solute and particle fluxesseven , and support significantly enhanced physical, chemical and biological reactivity8 . Vulnerable waters facilitate longer water residence times within watersheds and their drainage networks9 and thus enable reduction in sediment and nutrient loads and elevate dissolved organic matter loads in exported wateriii . Furthermore, vulnerable waters contribute immensely to landscape biodiversity, principally because they offer unique hydrological regimes required past countless species for significant life stages10 – 13. Articulate and unambiguous protection is required to ensure vulnerable waters proceed to support these important watershed functionsxiv.
Vulnerable waters are all-encompassing in number and area. For example, in the US, sixteen% of freshwater wetland area and up to 60% of stream length may be considered vulnerable watersfifteen , 16. However, inventories of wetland and stream abundance typically underrepresent them. These waters are small or intermittently flooded, and thus often poorly detected using traditional mapping techniques (for instance, visual estimation of aerial photography), or mapping protocols that impose a targeted mapping unit greater than the size of these waters. Regional inventories implemented with more than rigorous mapping methods and advanced source data suggest that vulnerable waters dominate both the total stream length, and the number of wetlands and lakes within watersheds17 , eighteen. Despite technological advancements that have resulted in such improved detection at local and regional scales, these methods have not been applied nationally and about countries lack inventories of vulnerable waters. This illustrates an urgent technical need — for if governments and stakeholders do not map vulnerable waters, they will non be able to effectively manage them.
Vulnerable waters are economically valuable (Box i). An estimate for the conterminous US of ecosystem services provided past headwater streams, including water supply, water purification (for instance, via nitrogen transformation and phosphorus sequestration), and climate regulation (for example, via carbon sequestration), indicates an boilerplate almanac economic value of $fourteen,400 ha–one yr–one (2015 USD, here and throughout)19. This value represents an average of $5.40 meg km–1 yr–1 and a total of $15.vii trillion year–1 in ecosystem services for the estimated two.90 meg km of vulnerable streams in the conterminous US and Hawai'i twenty. Similarly, an guess of ecosystem services from wetlands outside of the floodplain — including h2o supply, water purification, flood control and recreation — is $102,000 ha–1 yr–one (ref. 21), yielding an economic value totalling $673 billion yr–1 for the estimated half-dozen.59 million hectares of wetlands exterior of floodplains in the conterminous US16. Indeed, a global meta-analysis suggests ecosystem services per unit area are highest from the smallest wetlands22 (Supplementary Section 2). Nevertheless, the monetized ecosystem service values from vulnerable waters are rarely, if ever, incorporated into the economic system.
It follows, and then, that in comparison to other water bodies, vulnerable waters and their functions have been disproportionately degraded or destroyed in response to a variety of human activities23 , 24. Those waters that remain are increasingly at gamble from the cumulative effects of changing climate, land utilize (for example, urban expansion, agricultural intensification, mining), invasive species and large-scale water withdrawal25. Warmer temperatures and altered precipitation resulting from global climate modify — together with increasing commodity prices incentivizing farming on agriculturally marginal lands — are likely to accelerate wetland loss26. These global pressures underscore the urgent demand for comprehensive scientific-evidence-based guidance on where, when and how to protect vulnerable waters and their attendant functions.
Enhancing protection of vulnerable waters
Scientific evidence supports protecting vulnerable waters. An exhaustive synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature adamant that all waters in riparian and floodplain areas are physically, chemically and biologically integrated with their river networks14. The synthesis likewise recognized that many non-floodplain waters, even when lacking apparent surface water connections, still provide physical, chemical and biological functions that could markedly affect the integrity of downstream waters. Withal, the continued loss of vulnerable waters suggests a gaping disconnect between oftentimes stated policy goals to protect water resources and resultant policy outcomes. The level of protection beingness afforded to vulnerable waters is non sufficient to sustainably maintain their functions and bellboy ecosystem services. For instance, wetland losses across the earth take connected in recent decades (>30% areal losses since 197027; Fig.i), and while estimates do non be for stream losses, we wait them to be similar given the large-scale human modifications of headwater reaches28 – 30. Protection policies for vulnerable waters should exist grounded in scientific testify and therefore include floodplain and non-floodplain waters, though we recognize that protection may in fact vary from preservation (that is, no modifications permitted) to wisely managed protection (that is, conservation or loss followed by mitigation).
Estimated loss of wetland areas in different continents of the earth
Estimates of losses in wetland surface area after 1900 are shown in orange, with remaining wetland area in blueish. Human developmental pressures, including urban and agricultural expansion, have resulted in substantive wetland losses beyond the globe, and climatic change has exacerbated wetland loss in some continents. These losses have pregnant societal consequences, including increased floods, impaired water supplies and loss of biodiversity.
In the Usa, local, state and tribal governments are required at the least to uphold federal ecology laws and regulations. Recent executive activeness necessitates boosted efforts from these governments to sustainably maintain functions and services provided past vulnerable waters. Nosotros propose three scientific-evidence-based strategies that local, state and tribal decision-makers may wisely select to ensure long-term protections for, and benefits from, vulnerable waters. These strategies for effective vulnerable-water management were borne of the emergent dubiousness in the U.s.a., and are hence more germane to the system of federalism therein. They are, however, applicable for conclusion-makers at all levels of government worldwide. The options range from the most protective of vulnerable waters, which requires the fewest resources for monitoring and adaptively managing, to the least protective of vulnerable water extent that volition require the greatest expenditure of resources to ensure the provisioning of societally determined functions and services.
A protection strategy (Option one)
Option ane protects all vulnerable waters. Scientific show suggests that vulnerable waters provide services at local scales and perform important hydrological, biogeochemical and ecological functions at watershed scales14 , 31. Although devastation of a single wetland or stream achieve is unlikely to be detectable or remarkable at the watershed scale, adopters of Pick i recognize the limits of scientific prove in determining loss thresholds that may lead to significant changes in watershed functions32 , 33. For example, scientists are often unable to parsimoniously and precisely accredit functional contributions of individual vulnerable waters because of the beguiling complexity and varying scales of controlling processes. At that place is clear scientific rationale to support this option — maintaining vulnerable waters on the landscape maximizes the sustainable commitment of functions and services far into the hereafter. Furthermore, scientific uncertainties associated with pick of this pick hinge solely on operational definitions and the inventorying of vulnerable waters. Therefore, societal resources required to enact this option — that is, the the time and coin required — are quite limited, though we recognize the opportunity costs to individual landowners may be substantial. In the U.s., some states have already exercised this choice (Supplementary Section 4).
An effects strategy (Option two)
Scientific evidence suggests that all waters have a noun and quantifiable connection to other surface watersiii . The cumulative furnishings of losing vulnerable waters from a watershed are conclusive and remarkableane , 19 – 22 , 34. However, governments may decide to forego a simple and effective choice in protecting all waters, and instead protect only those vulnerable waters with demonstrable effects to hydrological, chemical and biological integrity of downstream waters. Therefore, Choice ii protects those vulnerable waters with quantifiable furnishings on downstream waters. The state of the scientific discipline on bachelor and effective tools to practice so (and recommendations for enhancing and integrating these tools in resource management) has been recently reviewed past Golden et al.35. In that location is smashing promise for the emergence of practical methods to assess hydrological, chemical and biological effects, including geographic data systems36, remote sensing37, models38 , 39 and tracers40. However, tools to operationalize Option 2 are more often than not not even so fully available. Consequently, resource-intensive, site- or watershed-specific determinations are probably the current norm for entities adopting Selection two.
A functions strategy (Option 3)
Scientific evidence has established that vulnerable waters provide an emerging suite or portfolio of functions affecting downstream watersiii . As functional properties of vulnerable waters are increasingly measured, mapped and modelled across regions, the contributions of individual vulnerable waters to cumulative functions will become increasingly quantifiable at the watershed-scale. Therefore, Pick three protects a portfolio of hydrological, chemical and biological functions that vulnerable waters provide to downstream waters.
The enacted Selection three enhances long-term protection of most (but non all) vulnerable waters. It identifies and prioritizes sets of vulnerable waters for protection above and across federally mandated minimum protections for an testify-based goal of maintaining a complete portfolio of functions at the watershed scale. This arroyo may permit loss of some vulnerable waters that are protected under Selection 1 or two, only however this option protects a fix of waters to secure a targeted portfolio of functions. Inherent in the selection of Choice three is the demand to devote noun resource to quantify relevant functions of individual vulnerable waters inside watersheds41, and thence to quantify watershed-calibration provisioning of relevant functions by these vulnerable waters. This watershedscale 'portfolio-of-functions' arroyo must be resilient to changing direction priorities and decisions. Also, as societies tend to focus on short-term returns at the expense of longer-term benefits, this approach critically requires safeguard measures to ensure thresholds are not crossed that event in undesired arrangement states.
Selection three hinges on the reality that whereas the loss of a unmarried vulnerable water may well be undetectable, thresholds exist above which cumulative loss or degradation of these waters will accept impacts that are probably irreversible. Similarly, certain vulnerable waters may serve as keystones, the being of which ensures the delivery of myriad functions and ecosystem services. Primal to successful implementation of Option 3 is stiff adherence to maintaining the complete portfolio of functions provided by vulnerable waters, as well as the implementation and continued development of tools to measure and monitor these functions over fourth dimension. Therefore, this option requires significant investments for scientists and policymakers to work together to develop these tools. There are jurisdictions that are already moving to adopt this watershed-scale portfolio-of-functions approach in vulnerable water policies42 , 43.
Option 3 can use an integrated arroyo that considers not only protection but restoration of vulnerable waters. Restoration represents an important management action to regain lost functionality of vulnerable waters, especially wetlands. For instance, Fig. 2 presents a map of wetland loss within the US over the by 200 years. Restoration of upland embedded, riparian and floodplain wetlands on agricultural lands — where some of the nearly easily restorable wetlands that have been ditched, tuckered or otherwise altered exist — would restore important ecosystem functions and services to the landscape (Fig. 3). Once restored, these once 'marginal lands' for agriculture tin can provide valuable ecosystem services at some level of part44. Restoration does not create vulnerable waters that capture the breadth and diversity of functions at levels equivalent to natural vulnerable waters45. All the same, targeted restoration returns valuable functions and related ecosystem services to the landscape46. For this integrated portfolio approach, one needs to be able to predict the functions of both existing and restorable wetlands, and these types of tools are already being developed47 , 48.
Percentage loss of wetland area in the continental US from the 1780s to the 1980s (ref. 51)
Wetland restoration provides opportunities to regain wetland functions
a, Restorable wetland expanse52. b-d, Land cover (top, ref. 53) and restorable wetlands (bottom, refs 52 , 53) (scale same for all locations). Left to right: Willamette River Valley s of Corvallis, Oregon (b); Due west Lake Okoboji, Iowa (c); and St. Lucie, Florida (d). In 2016, a 150 ha wetland-prairie circuitous restoration (c, red boundaries) was finished to intercept tile drainage and reduce sediment and nutrient loads entering West Lake Okoboji.
Lessons for the US and the world
In the US, the federal authorities establishes regulations and local, state and tribal entities must at least meet these regulations. Enhanced protection of vulnerable waters — over and to a higher place what may be required by federal police force — is needed to create a protection flooring; that is, the minimum threshold of protection needed to maintain the baseline functions of vulnerable waters. Without such a protection floor, maintaining vulnerable waters volition continue to be problematic (for example, Fig. two). But where should the protection floor be established? Scientific evidence suggests that all vulnerable waters perform of import functions and services that accrue at both local and landscape scales and therefore all of the remaining vulnerable waters should be protected under Option ane. However, some local, state and tribal entities, especially those with high levels of remaining vulnerable waters, may understandably choose other options. In that location are trade-offs that must be addressed beyond all options listed. Option one protects all existing vulnerable waters and thus maintains the breadth of important functions provided by these waters for generations to come up. However, opportunity costs accrue if these waters are taken out of consideration for draining, filling or other modifications. Options 2 and 3 allow for restricted loss of vulnerable waters, and and so fewer opportunity costs occur. Countering the reduction in opportunity costs, order bears the additional costs nether Options 2 and 3 of noun scientific and technical resource required to identify which vulnerable waters can be developed (that is, quantifying lost ecosystem functions and services from their destruction).
Our focus has been on the Us situation, only there are lessons for vulnerable waters that are relevant to other regions of the earth (Fig. 1, Supplementary Department 4). In regions with loftier historic losses of vulnerable waters, Pick 1 (protect all remaining vulnerable waters) seems appropriate for protecting the express vulnerable waters on the landscape. In regions with no or minimal protection of vulnerable waters, Option 3 (protect a functional portfolio of vulnerable waters) may exist appropriate every bit it acknowledges the dual (and sometimes duelling) principles of environmental regulation: balancing protection of the surroundings on 1 hand with order'south ability to innovate and create economic opportunities on the other. We see the suite of options transitioning from 1 to 2 to 3 as a set of trade-offs between optimizing protection of the vulnerable waters and an increasing level of required scientific and technical resources35. Ultimately, the optimal option is contextually dependent, though nosotros hasten to add the scientific evidence strongly suggests establishing a minimum protection flooring. Vulnerable h2o protection is critical to maintaining streams and rivers as fishable, swimmable, and beverage h2o resources for generations to come. A do-cypher approach, an unheralded 'Option 4', would probably result in meaning ecosystem degradation. Irrespective of which option governments adopt, scientists around the world need to go on to develop the tools necessary to support policy and management decisions that enhance the protection and restoration of vulnerable waters.
The time for action is now
Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Twenty-four hour period, said: "The ultimate examination of man'south conscience may be his willingness to cede something today for time to come generations whose words of thank you will not be heard." Water resource policy modifications such as the CWR are very rare, and accept long-term implications. Crucially, federal regulations in the Usa define minimum regulatory protections; state, tribal and local managers tin supplement and enhance federal protections of vulnerable waters where justified for long-term sustainability. Whereas variation among lower jurisdictions will ultimately create de facto adaptive management experiments from which new insights on policy outcomes and trade-offs will sally, all jurisdictions are charged with decision-making affecting the long-term management of our water commons. The current lack of clarity on the telescopic of regulations under the CWA provides a timely opportunity for authorities in the The states (for case, country, tribal and local) and all levels of governments elsewhere to consider the implementation of policies inspired by a long-term sustainable view of vulnerable waters and the watersheds that they help maintain. The best available scientific prove provides proof of headwater stream and wetland effects on downstream waters, their part in supporting other of import mural functions, the enormous costs of restoring valuable functions once lost, and prudent precaution in protecting their functions given rapid changes in climate and man evolution pressure. It is this scientific prove that compels enhanced protections of vulnerable waters.
Supplementary Cloth
Southward. Info
Acknowledgments
This Perspective arose from a 'Geographically Isolated Wetlands Research Workshop' co-hosted by the The states Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Research and Development, and the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Inquiry Middle in Newton, Georgia, 18–21 November, 2013. This Perspective too benefited from discussions held at the 'Connectivity of Geographically Isolated Wetlands to Downstream Waters' Working Group supported by the John Wesley Powell Heart for Analysis and Synthesis, funded past the The states Geological Survey and the The states EPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Enquiry Laboratory. We acknowledge Rose Kwok of the United states EPA Role of Water, for her contributions to the history of the The states CWA (Supplementary Section 1) and Brian Colina of the US EPA Office of Research and Development, for his contributions to the data used in the calculation of ecosystem services (Supplementary Department 2). The findings, conclusions and views expressed in this commodity are those of the authors and practice not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.s. EPA or the Us Fish and Wild fauna Service.
References Cited
1. Freeman MC, Pringle CM, Jackson CR. Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. J. Am. Wat. Resour. Assoc. 2007;43:5–14. [Google Scholar]
2. Leigh C, et al. Ecological research and direction of intermittent rivers: an historical review and hereafter directions. Freshwater Biol. 2016;61:1181–1199. [Google Scholar]
3. Cohen MJ, et al. Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. Usa. 2016;113:1978–1986. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Shook KR, Pomeroy JW. Retentivity furnishings of depressional storage in Northern Prairie hydrology. Hydrol. Procedure. 2011;25:3890–3898. [Google Scholar]
v. Kelleher C, Wagener T, McGlynn B. Model-based analyses of the influence of catchment properties on hydrologic partitioning across 5 mount headwater subcatchments. Wat. Resour. Res. 2015;51:4109–4136. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Tetzlaff D, et al. A preliminary cess of water partitioning and ecohydrological coupling in northern headwaters using stable isotopes and conceptual runoff models. Hydrol. Procedure. 2015;29:5153–5173. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Alexander RB, et al. The role of headwater streams in downstream water quality. J. Am. H2o Resour. Assoc. 2007;43:41–59. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
viii. Marton JM, et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical reactors on the landscape. Bioscience. 2015;65:408–418. [Google Scholar]
nine. Rains MC, et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are role of the hydrological mural. Hydrol. Procedure. 2016;xxx:153–160. [Google Scholar]
10. Kirkman LK, Drew MB, Due west LT, Blood ER. Ecotone label betwixt upland longleaf pine/wiregrass stands and seasonally-ponded isolated wetlands. Wetlands. 1998;18:346–364. [Google Scholar]
eleven. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conserv. Biol. 1998;12:1129–1133. [Google Scholar]
12. Snodgrass JW, Komoroski MJ, Bryan AL, Burger J. Relationships amongst isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for wetland regulations. Conserv. Biol. 2000;14:414–419. [Google Scholar]
xiii. Finn DS, Bonada N, Múrria C, Hughes JM. Small just mighty: headwaters are vital to stream network biodiversity at two levels of organization. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2011;thirty:963–980. [Google Scholar]
xiv. Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence Technical Report, EPA/600/R-14/475F. United states Environmental Protection Agency; 2015. [Google Scholar]
15. Olsen AR, Peck DV. Survey design and extent estimates for the Wadeable Streams Assessment. J. North Am. Benthological Soc. 2008;27:822–836. [Google Scholar]
16. Lane CR, D'Amico E. Identification of putative geographically isolated wetlands of the conterminous United states. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2016;52:705–722. [Google Scholar]
17. Creed IF, Sanford SE, Beall FD, Molot LA, Dillon PJ. Ambiguous wetlands: integrating hidden wetlands in regression models of the export of dissolved organic carbon from forested landscapes. Hydrol. Process. 2003;17:3629–3648. [Google Scholar]
18. Bishop K, et al. Aqua Incognita: the unknown headwaters. Hydrol. Process. 2008;22:1239–1242. [Google Scholar]
19. Colina BH, Kolka RK, McCormick FH, Starry MA. A synoptic survey of ecosystem services from headwater catchments in the Usa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014;7:106–115. [Google Scholar]
20. Nadeau TL, Rains MC. Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science tin can inform policy. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007;43:118–133. [Google Scholar]
21. Adusumulli North. Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation in the U.s.a.. Land. 2015;4:182–196. [Google Scholar]
22. Ghermandi A, Van Den Bergh JC, Brander LM, de Groot HL, Nunes PA. Values of natural and human-fabricated wetlands: a meta-analysis. H2o Resour. Res. 2010;46:W12516. [Google Scholar]
23. Beaulieu JJ, et al. Urban stream burial increases watershed-scale nitrate export. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132256. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Fritz KM, et al. Comparison the extent and permanence of headwater streams from two field surveys to values from hydrographic databases and maps. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013;49:867–882. [Google Scholar]
25. Calhoun AJK, et al. Temporary wetlands: challenges and solutions to conserving a 'disappearing' ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 2017;211:3–11. [Google Scholar]
26. Millett B, Johnson WC, Guntenspergen One thousand. Climate trends of the North American prairie pothole region 1906–2000. Clim. Change. 2009;93:243–267. [Google Scholar]
27. Dixon MJR, et al. Tracking global change in ecosystem area: the Wetland Extent Trends index. Biol. Conserv. 2016;193:27–35. [Google Scholar]
28. Acuña V, et al. Why should nosotros intendance about temporary waterways? Science. 2014;343:1080–1081. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Datry T, Larned ST, Tockner K. Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. BioScience. 2014;64:229–235. [Google Scholar]
30. Acuña V, Hunter M, Ruhl A. Managing temporary streams and rivers as unique rather than second-class ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 2017;211:12–xix. [Google Scholar]
31. Bedford BL. Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the U.s.a. and southern Canada. Wetlands. 1999;19:775–788. [Google Scholar]
32. Carpenter SR, et al. Early on warnings of regime shifts: a whole-ecosystem experiment. Science. 2011;332:1079–1082. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Capon SJ, et al. Regime shifts, thresholds and multiple stable states in freshwater ecosystems; a critical appraisement of the evidence. Sci. Total Environ. 2015;534:122–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Van Meter KJ, Basu NB. Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecol. Appl. 2015;25:451–465. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Gold HE, et al. Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017 doi: 10.1002/fee.1504. [CrossRef]
36. Uden DR, Hellman ML, Angeler DG, Allen CR. The role of reserves and anthropogenic habitats for functional connectivity and resilience of ephemeral wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 2014;24:1569–1582. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Vanderhoof MK, Alexander LC, Todd JM. Temporal and spatial patterns of wetland extent influence variability of surface h2o connectivity in the Prairie Pothole Region, Usa. Landscape Ecol. 2016;31:805–824. [Google Scholar]
38. Evenson GR, Golden HE, Lane CR, D'Amico E. An improved representation of geographically isolated wetlands in a watershed-calibration hydrologic model. Hydrol. Process. 2016;30:4168–4184. [Google Scholar]
39. Ameli AA, Creed IF. Quantifying hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to surface water systems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017;21:1791–1808. [Google Scholar]
40. McDonnell JJ, Beven Yard. Debates—the future of hydrological sciences: a (common) path forward? A call to action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities and residence time distributions of the headwater hydrograph. Wat. Resour. Res. 2014;50:5342–5350. [Google Scholar]
41. Smith RD, Ammann A, Bartoldus C, Brinson MM. An Arroyo for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. US Ground forces Corps of Engineers; 1995. [Google Scholar]
42. Alberta Wetland Policy (Edmonton, Alberta) Government of Alberta; 2013. [Google Scholar]
43. Creed IF, Aldred DA, Serran JN, Accatino F. In: Wetland and Stream Rapid Assessments: Development, Validation, and Application. Dorney J, Barbarous R, Tiner R, Adamus P, editors. Elsevier; in the press. [Google Scholar]
44. Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 2012 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
45. Ehrenfeld JG. Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecol. 2000;eight:2–9. [Google Scholar]
46. Groot RS, et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol. 2013;27:1286–1293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Wang X, et al. Faux wetland conservation-restoration effects on water quantity and quality at watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 2010;91:1511–1525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Darwiche-Criado N, et al. Furnishings of wetland restoration on nitrate removal in an irrigated agricultural expanse: the role of in-stream and off-stream wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2017;103:426–435. [Google Scholar]
49. Junk WJ, et al. Current country of knowledge regarding the world'southward wetlands and their future nether global climate change: a synthesis. Aquat. Sci. 2013;75:151–167. [Google Scholar]
50. Davidson NC. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland surface area. Mar. Freshwater Res. 2014;65:934–941. [Google Scholar]
51. Dahl TE. Wetland losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. Usa Section of the Interior, Fish and Wild fauna Service; 1990. [Google Scholar]
53. Homer C, et al. Completion of the 2011 national state cover database for the conterminous United States — representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2015;81:345–354. [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071434/
0 Response to "Peer Reviewed Articles Ways to Protect the Wetlands"
Publicar un comentario