▪ Abstract Local habitat and biological diversity of streams and rivers are strongly influenced by landform and land use within the surrounding valley at multiple scales. However, empirical associations between land use and stream response only varyingly succeed in implicating pathways of influence. This is the case for a number of reasons, including (a) covariation of anthropogenic and natural gradients in the landscape; (b) the existence of multiple, scale-dependent mechanisms; (c) nonlinear responses; and (d) the difficulties of separating present-day from historical influences. Further research is needed that examines responses to land use under different management strategies and that employs response variables that have greater diagnostic value than many of the aggregated measures in current use. In every respect, the valley rules the stream.      H.B.N. Hynes (1975)

http://deq.idaho.gov/media/525804-Landscapes_Riverscapes_Influence_landuse_stream_ecosystems_Allan_2004.pdf

Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems

Riparian zones possess an unusually diverse array of species and environmental processes. The ecological diversity is related to variable flood regimes, geographically unique channel processes, altitudinal climate shifts, and upland influences on the fluvial corridor. The resulting dynamic environment supports a variety of life-history strategies, biogeochemical cycles and rates, and organisms adapted to disturbance regimes over broad spatial and temporal scales. Innovations in riparian zone management have been effective in ameliorating many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality. Riparian zones play essential roles in water and landscape planning, in restoration of aquatic systems, and in catalyzing institutional and societal cooperation for these efforts.

The Ecology of Interfaces: Riparian Zones

In the 12 years since Dudgeon et al. (2006) reviewed major pressures on freshwater ecosystems, the biodiversity crisis in
the world’s lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams and wetlands has deepened. While lakes, reservoirs and rivers cover only
2.3% of the Earth’s surface, these ecosystems host at least 9.5% of the Earth’s described animal species. Furthermore,
using the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Index, freshwater population declines (83% between 1970 and
2014) continue to outpace contemporaneous declines in marine or terrestrial systems. The Anthropocene has brought
multiple new and varied threats that disproportionately impact freshwater systems. We document 12 emerging threats
to freshwater biodiversity that are either entirely new since 2006 or have since intensified: (i) changing climates; (ii)
e-commerce and invasions; (iii) infectious diseases; (iv) harmful algal blooms; (v) expanding hydropower; (vi) emerging
contaminants; (vii) engineered nanomaterials; (viii) microplastic pollution; (ix) light and noise; (x) freshwater salinisation;
(xi) declining calcium; and (xii) cumulative stressors. Effects are evidenced for amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, microbes,
plants, turtles and waterbirds, with potential for ecosystem-level changes through bottom-up and top-down processes.
In our highly uncertain future, the net effects of these threats raise serious concerns for freshwater ecosystems. However,
we also highlight opportunities for conservation gains as a result of novel management tools (e.g. environmental flows,
environmental DNA) and specific conservation-oriented actions (e.g. dam removal, habitat protection policies,managed
relocation of species) that have been met with varying levels of success.Moving forward, we advocate hybrid approaches
that manage fresh waters as crucial ecosystems for human life support as well as essential hotspots of biodiversity and
ecological function. Efforts to reverse global trends in freshwater degradation now depend on bridging an immense gap
between the aspirations of conservation biologists and the accelerating rate of species endangerment.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/brv.12480

Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5B0373:RNLTTG%5D2.0.CO;2

Reducing Nitrogen Loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: Strategies to Counter a Persistent Ecological Problem

Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture

/ Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, USA, have agreed to reduce nutrient loadings to Chesapeake Bay by 40% by the year 2000. This requires control of nonpoint sources of nutrients, much of which comes from agriculture. Riparian forest buffer systems (RFBS) provide effective control of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution in some types of agricultural watersheds. Control of NPS pollution is dependent on the type of pollutant and the hydrologic connection between pollution sources, the RFBS, and the stream. Water quality improvements are most likely in areas of where most of the excess precipitation moves across, in, or near the root zone of the RFBS. In areas such as the Inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont watersheds with thin soils, RFBS should retain 50%-90% of the total loading of nitrate in shallow groundwater, sediment in surface runoff, and total N in both surface runoff and groundwater. Retention of phosphorus is generally much less. In regions with deeper soils and/or greater regional groundwater recharge (such as parts of the Piedmont and the Valley and Ridge), RFBS water quality improvements are probably much less. The expected levels of pollutant control by RFBS are identified for each of nine physiographic provinces of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Issues related to of establishment, sustainability, and management are also discussed.KEY WORDS: Riparian forest buffers; Chesapeake Bay; Nonpoint source pollution; Nitrogen; Phosphorus; Sediment

/pdf/water-quality-functions-of-riparian-forest-buffers-in-20iu574o2h.pdf

R.R. Schnabel

Papers

Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffers in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds