Three major steps toward the conservation of freshwater and riparian biodiversity

Freshwater ecosystems and their bordering wetlands and riparian zones are vital for human society and biological diversity. Yet, they are among the most degraded ecosystems, where sharp declines in biodiversity are driven by human activities, such as hydropower development, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Because freshwater ecosystems are characterized by strongly reciprocal linkages with surrounding landscapes, human activities that encroach on or degrade riparian zones ultimately lead to declines in freshwater-riparian ecosystem functioning. We synthesized results of a symposium on freshwater, riparian, and wetland processes and interactions and analyzed some of the major problems associated with improving freshwater and riparian research and management. Three distinct barriers are the lack of involvement of local people in conservation research and management, absence of adequate measurement of biodiversity in freshwater and riparian ecosystems, and separate legislation and policy on riparian and freshwater management. Based on our findings, we argue that freshwater and riparian research and conservation efforts should be integrated more explicitly. Best practices for overcoming the 3 major barriers to improved conservation include more and sustainable use of traditional and other forms of local ecological knowledge, choosing appropriate metrics for ecological research and monitoring of restoration efforts, and mirroring the close links between riparian and freshwater ecosystems in legislation and policy. Integrating these 3 angles in conservation science and practice will provide substantial benefits in addressing the freshwater biodiversity crisis.

Effects of land use, cover, and protection on stream and riparian ecosystem services and biodiversity

Protected areas are an important part of broader landscapes that are often used to preserve biodiversity or natural features. Some argue that protected areas may also help ensure provision of ecosystem services. However, the effect of protection on ecosystem services and whether protection affects the provision of ecosystem services is known only for a few services in a few types of landscapes. We sought to fill this gap by investigating the effect of watershed protection status and land use and land cover on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. We compared the ecosystem services provided in and around streams in 4 watershed types: International Union for Conservation of Nature category II protected forests, unprotected forests, unprotected forests with recent timber harvesting, and unprotected areas with agriculture. We surveyed 28 streams distributed across these watershed types in Quebec, Canada, to quantify provisioning of clean water, carbon storage, recreation, wild foods, habitat quality, and terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity richness and abundance. The quantity and quality of ecosystem services and biodiversity were generally higher in sites with intact forest-whether protected or not-relative to those embedded in production landscapes with forestry or agriculture. Clean-water provision, carbon storage, habitat quality, and tree diversity were significantly higher in and around streams surrounded by forest. Recreation, wild foods, and aquatic biodiversity did not vary among watershed types. Although some services can be provided by both protected and unprotected areas, protection status may help secure the continued supply of services sensitive to changes in land use or land cover. Our findings provide needed information about the ecosystem service and biodiversity trade-offs and synergies that result from developing a watershed or from protecting it.