Biaa 041
Biaa 041
Biaa 041
Fluvial riparian vegetation (RV) links fluvial and terrestrial ecosystems. It is under significant pressure from anthropogenic activities, and,
therefore, the management and restoration of RV are increasingly important worldwide. RV has been investigated from different perspectives,
so knowledge on its structure and function is widely distributed. An important step forward is to convert existing knowledge into an overview
easily accessible—for example, for use in decision-making and management. We aim to provide an overview of ecosystem services provided by
RV by adopting a structured approach to identify the ecosystem services, describe their characteristics, and rank the importance of each service.
We evaluate each service within four main riparian vegetation types adopting a global perspective to derive a broad concept. Subsequently, we
introduce a guided framework for use in RV management based on our structured approach. We also identify knowledge gaps and evaluate the
opportunities an ecosystem service approach offers to RV management.
Keywords: riparian management, streams, rivers, restoration, riparian ecology, ecosystem functions
BioScience 70: 501–514. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa041 Advance Access publication 6 May 2020
condition that enables the provision of ES by the ecosystem, hydrogeomorphic, active plant introduction, floodplain
such as a lake with good water quality that can support fish conversion, invasive species and grazing control (González
that could be the final ES. This distinction is well illustrated et al. 2015).
in the ES cascade framework of Potschin and Haines-Young Riparian zones and their vegetation have been investigated
(2011) to highlight the position of the CICES classifica- from a range of perspectives covering multiple scientific
tion (figure 1). In the present article, we focus on final ES and applied disciplines such as hydrology, biology, geog-
that most directly affect the well-being of people (figure 1; raphy, remote sensing, management, and restoration (e.g.,
Haines-Young and Potschin 2013). González et al. 2015). Therefore, knowledge on structure
Riparian vegetation has the capacity to deliver a dispro- and function of riparian vegetation is distributed among a
portionately high amount of ES relative to their extent in wide range of fields and disciplines (see Dufour et al. 2019).
the landscape (e.g., Sweeney and Newbold 2014) because Several studies have documented how RV is key for specific
of their ecotone characteristics and the ecological functions ES, but few have attempted to document the full range of
of RV (Capon et al. 2013). However, riparian vegetation is ES it provides. An important step forward is therefore to
under significant pressure from a range of anthropogenic convert the existing knowledge into an overview more easily
activities, such as alteration of disturbance regime, stream- accessible and directly applicable for decision-making and
flow regulation by dams, pollution, land-use change, timber management of riparian vegetation—a task undertaken in
harvesting, water diversion, mining, deforestation, and from this article.
invasive species (figure 1; e.g., Goodwin et al. 1997, Poff The general objective of this article is to present an over-
et al. 2011). In Europe, it has been estimated that 80% of view of ES provided by RV. More specifically, we adopt a
natural riparian habitats has disappeared during the past 200 structured approach to identify the range of ES, to describe
years (Naiman et al. 1993). The loss of riparian vegetation is their characteristics, and to rank the importance of each
generally immense in developed countries; for example, it service. We evaluate each service within four main ripar-
has declined by 85%–95% in California, Arizona, and New ian vegetation types structured by local soil moisture and
Mexico, with most losses attributed to grazing (NRC 2002). woodiness within a global perspective to derive a broad
Conversely, increasing effort is being undertaken to recover concept. The key tasks in this article were, therefore, first,
RV with varying success depending on the restoration (e.g., to compile a comprehensive checklist of ES provided by RV
and, second, to synthesize the knowledge on these ES from We used the CICES framework (CICES version 5.1;
the literature. On the basis of the structured approach, we Haines-Young and Potschin 2018) to identify the ES pro-
introduce a guided framework for use in riparian vegetation vided by RV. We described the characteristic of each ES
management. We also seek to identify key knowledge gaps and included the underlying processes underpinning the ES
and conclude the article by evaluating the opportunities an delivery. We also described the goods and benefits provided
ES approach offers to riparian vegetation management and by each ES. The characterization of each ES was derived
restoration. from relevant scientific literature and complemented with
empirical information. The final selection of the most
Study approach important literature referenced in the article was decided by
In this article, we used the groups of final ES described experts in the author group on each particular ES.
in Maes and colleagues (2016): provisioning, regulating A key task of this article was to rank the importance of
and maintenance, and cultural ES. Provisioning services each ES provided by RV on the basis of the spatial and tem-
are the physical products directly obtained from the RV poral extent of each ES—that is, how widespread is the ES
(e.g., timber, seeds, and harvestable genes), regulating and provision and how often is it occurring. In order to acknowl-
maintenance services incorporate those that both directly edge that the importance of each ES may vary substantially
(e.g., pollutant capture, carbon sequestration) and indirectly depending on the type of RV, we ranked the ES importance
(e.g., regulation of decomposition, climate, and hydrology) within each of four broad groupings of RV. The two criteria
sustain environmental quality. Cultural services include used for defining these four RV groups were the woodiness
tangible recreational uses (e.g., walking along a river) or less of the dominant vegetation (whether herbs or grass, woody
tangible benefits such as aesthetic and spiritual benefits and shrubs, or trees) and local soil moisture (wet or dry; figure 2).
educational values. In fact, the most recent version of CICES The importance of woody and nonwoody RV for ES was dis-
(version 5.1; Haines-Young and Potschin 2018) stresses that cussed and summarized by Sweeney and Newbold (2014),
all ES have an inherent cultural value, but cultural services with a differential provision of services (e.g., nutrient and
should be treated as an independent group, as was also sediment dynamics) depending on riparian species woodi-
undertaken in this article. ness. The importance of local soil moisture in structuring
Table 1. Definitions of the categories of relative importance of ecosystem services (ES) based on the spatial scale at which
an ES works (local to global), and the temporal scale of goods and benefits provided by an ES (uncommon to common).
Spatial scale
Temporal scale Global Regional Local Unknown
Common High High Medium Unknown
Less than common High Medium Low Unknown
Uncommon Medium Low Low Unknown
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Note: The definitions are based on expert opinion and use of scientific literature. The definitions are used to populate table 2, and the color
coding is also used in table 3.
Table 2. Provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services (ES) and the main goods and benefits provided by
riparian vegetation.
Main goods and Herbs or Dry Wet Riparian
ES section ES division ES category ES benefits grass forest forest wetlands
Provisioning Biomass Standing crop Standing crop of Biomass for fuel Low Medium Medium Low
woody biomass
Standing crop of Low Low Low Medium
non-woody biomass
Wild plants Harvestable Food Low Low Low Low
and their volume of wild
outputs berries or other
Genetic Genetic Seeds, spores and Extract genes for Unknown High Unknown Unknown
material materials from harvestable genes breeding, new
all biota products resisting
disease
Table 2. Continued.
Main goods and Herbs or Dry Wet Riparian
ES section ES division ES category ES benefits grass forest forest wetlands
Scientific Sites of specific Knowledge about NA NA NA NA
scientific interest the environment and
nature
Educational Sites used for Skills or knowledge NA NA NA NA
conservation about environmental
activities management
Heritage Sites of cultural Tourism, local identity NA NA NA NA
importance
Aesthetic Area of natural Artistic inspiration NA NA NA NA
beauty
Indirect: Sacred or Totemic species Mental well-being. NA NA NA NA
pathogens revealed relatively high levels of resistance in Overall, at the European scale the relative importance of
some of the Sylvestris spp. accessions (Schröder et al. 2015). this ES is reported as unknown (e.g., Vidal-Abarca Gutierrez
Similar application has been developed in the production and Suarez-Alonso 2013).
of Rubus spp. berries. Wild Rubus idaeus germplasm from
riparian areas could potentially be used against raspberry Regulating and maintenance services
cane disease, which is among the most devastating problems In this section we provide an overview of regulating and
for raspberry production (Hall et al. 2009). maintenance services provided by riparian vegetation.
The genetic pool of wild populations of riparian trees
such as the black popular Populus nigra provides economi- Filtration of pollutants and chemical conditions of
cally relevant outputs for the development of commercial freshwaters. Riparian filtration services refer to the control
native trees and for advanced, molecular breeding of these of sediments, nutrients, and pollutants inputs to adjacent
species. Wild populations of P. nigra are also being stud- water (Lowrance et al. 1984). A large body of scientific lit-
ied to obtain bioenergy from lignocellulosic feedstocks erature demonstrates the important role of riparian zones
that has the potential to develop as a sustainable source in regulating and improving water quality in streams and
of renewable energy (Allwrigth et al. 2016). Finally, seeds rivers (e.g., Jordan et al. 1993, Kuusemets et al. 2001) involv-
provided by riparian species are extremely important as ing both physical and biological mechanisms. Physical
genetic material for ex situ conservation of the native processes include filtering and deposition of sediments and
genetic resources. sediment-bound pollutants, such as pesticides, by roots and
stems (Naiman et al. 2005). As much as 75% of sediments of carbon per ha with the highest values of 318–487 tons
transported from uplands to streams has been reported to of carbon per ha from mature temperate forests in North
be physically retained by RV (Cooper and Gilliam 1987). As and South America, and those values were considered to
was recently discussed in a review by Feld and colleagues be comparable to the highest estimates for any forest biome
(2018), the key to efficient reduction of surface runoff of soil (Dybala et al. 2019). From Europe, Cierjacks and colleagues
particles is to have grass strips acting as mechanical filters. (2010) reported carbon stocks of 474 tons of carbon per ha
Riparian zones are also effective sinks for dissolved for mature riparian woods and 212 tons of carbon per ha for
inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus from surrounding agri- meadows and reeds in Danube floodplains. However, the
cultural or urban areas (Naiman et al. 1997), therefore relative importance of distinct riparian compartments for
providing a high potential in controlling eutrophication of carbon storage and the variations across scales, vegetation
water bodies. One major mechanism for nitrogen removal types, geological and climate settings are still unknown.
is denitrification (Cooper and Gilliam 1987), occurring in
riparian microsites with anaerobic conditions and decom- Erosion control. Erosion control refers to the reduction of the
vegetated upstream riparian areas. Furthermore, the slow both aquatic and terrestrial habitats to complete their life
release of water from riparian areas during dry periods is cycle and maintain viable populations (Semlitsch 1998).
important for the ecological health of streams and down-
stream recipients, as well as for potential crop irrigation in Pest control. Natural control of plant pests in agroecosys-
the surrounding areas (Keesstra et al. 2018). tems is provided by predators and parasitoids, such as
birds, bats, spiders, ground beetles, lady beetles, lacewings,
Pollination and seed dispersal. Plant regeneration is essential flies, and wasps, as well as entomopathogenic organisms
for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in (e.g., fungi, bacteria, nematodes). Habitat requirements for
ecosystems but may be threatened by human disturbance. natural enemies include several ecosystem properties often
Pollination and seed dispersal are the most threatened pro- encompassed by riparian systems: supplementary food
cesses of plant regeneration because any disturbance such as resources (e.g., alternate hosts or prey), complementary
habitat fragmentation or modification by an invasive plant food resources (e.g., pollen, honeydew, nectar), microcli-
species is likely to change the patterns of seed movement and matic conditions, and overwintering or aestivation shelters
microclimate, soils, and vegetative structure, resulting in Cultural services from riparian vegetation
higher fuel moisture content, relative humidity, and lower Cultural services are considered “non-material benefits peo-
wind speeds. Therefore, fires are generally less frequent and ple obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment,
of lower intensity in riparian zones than in upland forests cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic
and grasslands but vary according to region and forest types. experiences” (MEA 2005), which have extended the original
For instance, in prairie grasslands and deciduous riparian cultural and recreation categories of Constanza and col-
woods fire return intervals are periodic and can range from leagues (1997). Despite being increasingly recognized as key
10 to 30 years (e.g., Dwire and Kauffman 2003). However, to ecosystem conservation and unavoidable in the general
in drylands, especially in small order streams or under dry valuation of ES, apart from recreation services, this broad
prefire conditions riparian woods can turn into corridors for category is frequently overlooked because of its intangible
fire movement (Petit and Naiman 2007). and subjective nature and because of a lack of methodologi-
With changing climate follows increasing risk in many cal frameworks to quantify their value in monetary means
regions of catastrophic fires, so managing this risk while (Kumar 2010, Daniel et al. 2012). The CICES framework
Table 3. Ecosystem services provided by riparian vegetation, distributed across four main vegetation types, and ranked
from high to low importance following definitions of high, medium, and low given in table 1.
Conclusions
The severe degradation worldwide of
freshwater ecosystems has posed a
major threat to ES of riparian areas
and their vegetation. This negative
trend has continued to increase in
centuries and most severely since
1950 even though the economic impli-
cations are serious (e.g., due flood
damages), and in many places, this
negative trend might even be intensi-
fied because of climate change (e.g.,
Capon et al. 2013). Therefore, resto-
Acknowledgments Capon S, Pettit NE. 2018. Turquoise is the new green: Restoring and enhanc-
Funding was provided by COST Action (CA16208), ing riparian function in the Anthropocene. Ecological Management and
Restoration 19: 44–53.
CONVERGES: Knowledge Conversion for Enhancing Capon SJ, et al. 2013. Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: Hotspots for
Management of European Riparian Ecosystems and Services. climate change adaptation? Ecosystems 16: 359–381.
We also acknowledge the Forest Research Centre, a research Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S,
unit funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia I. Perrings C. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond
P. Portugal (The Portuguese Foundation for Science and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106: 1305–1312.
Technology; FCT), for support through grant no. UID/ Chen J, Saunders S, Crow T, Naiman RJ, Brosofske K, Mroz G, Brookshire
AGR/00239/2019 and RIVEAL (grant no. PTDC/CTA- B, Franklin JF. 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape
AMB/29790/2017). FCA and MRF were funded by FCT ecology. BioScience 49: 288–297.
under Norma Transitória grants no. DL57/2016 and no. Cierjacks A, Kleinschmit B, Babinsky M, Kleinschroth F, Markert A, Menzel
DL57/2016/CP1382/CT0019, respectively. APP was funded M, Ziechmann U, Schiller T, Graf M, Lang F. 2010. Carbon stocks of soil
and vegetation on Danubian floodplain. Journal of Plant Nutrition and
by FCT under grant no. SFRH/BD/115030/2016. PMR-G Soil Science 173: 644–653.
Grindal SD, Morissette JL, Brigham RM. 1999. Concentration of bat activity Maes J, et al. 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services
in riparian habitats over an elevational gradient. Canadian Journal of in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services
Zoology 77: 972–977. 17: 14–23.
Groffman PM, Gold AJ, Simmons RC. 1992. Nitrate dynamics in ripar- Maisonneuve C, Rioux S. 2001. Importance of riparian habitats for small
ian forests: Microbial studies. Journal of Environmental Quality 21: mammal and herpetofaunal communities in agricultural landscapes
666–671. of southern Québec. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 83:
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2009. Methodologies for Defining and 165–175.
Assessing Ecosystem Services. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Malmqvist B. 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshwater
Project code no. C08-0170-0062. Biology 47: 679–694.
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2013. The Common International Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-
Classification of Ecosystem Services Consultation on Version 4 August– being. Synthesis Island Press.
December 2012 Report to the European Environment Agency Contract Munyuli MBT, Nyeko P, Potts S, Atkinson P, Pomeroy D, Vickery J. 2013.
No EEA/IEA/09/003. Patterns of bee diversity in mosaic agricultural landscapes of central
Haines-Young R, Potschin MB 2018. Common International Classification Uganda: Implication of pollination services conservation for food secu-
of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5 1 and Guidance on the Application of rity. Journal of Insect Conservation 17: 79–93.
the Revised Structure. European Environment Agency. https://cices eu. Naiman RJ, Décamps R, Henri D. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian
Schröder S, Kortekamp A, Heene E, Daumann J, Valea I, Nick P. 2015. Crop by Spanish rivers and riparian areas? Biodiversity Conservation 22:
wild relatives as genetic resources: The case of the European wild grape. 2469–2503.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science 95: 905–912. Walczak N, Walczak Z, Kaluza T. 2018. The Impact of shrubby floodplain
Semlitsch RD. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for vegetation Growth on the discharge capacity of river valleys. Water 10:
pond‐breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12: 1113–1119. 556.
Simon A, Collison AJ. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydrologic Zandersen M, Tol RS. 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in
effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Surface Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 15: 109–130.
Processes and Landforms 27: 527–546. Aguiar TR Jr, Bortolozo FR, Hansel FA, Rasera K, Ferreira MT. 2015.
Stockan JA, Baird J, Langan SJ, Young MR, Iason GR. 2014. Effects Riparian buffer zones as pesticide filters of no-till crops. Environmental
of riparian buffer strips on ground beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae) Science and Pollution Research 22: 10618–10626.
within an agricultural landscape. Insect Conservation and Diversity 7:
172–184. Tenna Riis ([email protected]) and Paraskevi Manolaki are affiliated
Sutfin NA, Wohl EE, Dwir KA. 2016. Banking carbon: A review of organic with the Department of Bioscience at Aarhus University, in Aarhus, Denmark.
carbon storage and physical factors influencing retention in floodplains Mary Kelly-Quinn is affiliated with the School of Biology and Environmental
and riparian ecosystems. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41: Science at University College Dublin, in Dublin, Ireland. Francisca C. Aguiar,
38–60. María Rosário Fernandes, José C., Franco, and Patricia M. Rodríguez-