The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.

/pdf/planetary-boundaries-guiding-human-development-on-a-changing-5gmf909etg.pdf

Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action - 'Water for Life' - 2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the World's water and approximately 0.8% of the Earth's surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water supports at least 100000 species out of approximately 1.8 million - almost 6% of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms. Their conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the 'Water for Life' decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under five headings: overexploitation; water pollution; flow modification; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting influences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide. Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as 'receivers' of land-use effluents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is influenced by the upstream drainage network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and - in the case of migrating aquatic fauna - downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management - one that has been appropriately termed 'reconciliation ecology'.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/96AA265E3D88C95FB802E7A73CCB4332/S1464793105006950a.pdf/div-class-title-freshwater-biodiversity-importance-threats-status-and-conservation-challenges-div.pdf

Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges

H umans have long been fascinated by the dynamism of free-flowing waters. Yet we have expended great effort to tame rivers for transportation, water supply, flood control, agriculture, and power generation. It is now recognized that harnessing of streams and rivers comes at great cost: Many rivers no longer support socially valued native species or sustain healthy ecosystems that provide important goods and services (Naiman et al. 1995, NRC 1992).

/pdf/the-natural-flow-regime-3j2upj9j41.pdf

The Natural Flow Regime

The flow regime is regarded by many aquatic ecologists to be the key driver of river and floodplain wet- land ecosystems. We have focused this literature review around four key principles to highlight the important mech- anisms that link hydrology and aquatic biodiversity and to illustrate the consequent impacts of altered flow regimes: Firstly, flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic com- position; Secondly, aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes; Thirdly, maintenance of natural patterns of longitu- dinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species; Finally, the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes. The impacts of flow change are manifest across broad taxonomic groups including riverine plants, invertebrates, and fish. Despite growing recognition of these relationships, ecologists still struggle to predict and quantify biotic responses to altered flow regimes. One obvious difficulty is the ability to distin- guish the direct effects of modified flow regimes from im- pacts associated with land-use change that often accom- panies water resource development. Currently, evidence about how rivers function in relation to flow regime and the flows that aquatic organisms need exists largely as a series of untested hypotheses. To overcome these problems, aquatic science needs to move quickly into a manipulative or experimental phase, preferably with the aims of restora- tion and measuring ecosystem response.

/pdf/basic-principles-and-ecological-consequences-of-altered-flow-4u5bupofua.pdf

Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity.

▪ Abstract Estimates of global wetland area range from 5.3 to 12.8 million km2. About half the global wetland area has been lost, but an international treaty (the 1971 Ramsar Convention) has helped 144 nations protect the most significant remaining wetlands. Because most nations lack wetland inventories, changes in the quantity and quality of the world's wetlands cannot be tracked adequately. Despite the likelihood that remaining wetlands occupy less than 9% of the earth's land area, they contribute more to annually renewable ecosystem services than their small area implies. Biodiversity support, water quality improvement, flood abatement, and carbon sequestration are key functions that are impaired when wetlands are lost or degraded. Restoration techniques are improving, although the recovery of lost biodiversity is challenged by invasive species, which thrive under disturbance and displace natives. Not all damages to wetlands are reversible, but it is not always clear how much can be retained through re...

/pdf/wetland-resources-status-trends-ecosystem-services-and-3v0zp5otlr.pdf

Wetland resources : Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability

> * SUMMARY 1. This paper introduces a new approach for setting streamflow-based river ecosystem management targets and this method is called the 'Range of Variability Approach' (RVA). The proposed approach derives from aquatic ecology theory concerning the critical role of hydrological variability, and associated characteristics of timing, frequency, duration, and rates of change, in sustaining aquatic ecosystems. The method is intended for application on rivers wherein the conservation of native aquatic biodiversity and protection of natural ecosystem functions are primary river management objectives. 2. The RVA uses as its starting point either measured or synthesized daily streamflow values from a period during which human perturbations to the hydrological regime were negligible. This streamflow record is then characterized using thirty-two different hydrological parameters, using methods defined in Richter et al. (1996). Using the RVA, a range of variation in each of the thirty-two parameters, e.g. the values at t 1 standard deviation from the mean or the twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile range, are selected as initial flow management targets. 3. The RVA targets are intended to guide the design of river management strategies (e.g. reservoir operations rules, catchment restoration) that will lead to attainment of these targets on an annual basis. The RVA will enable river managers to define and adopt readily interim management targets before conclusive, long-term ecosystem research results are available. The RVA targets and management strategies should be adaptively refined as suggested by research results and as needed to sustain native aquatic ecosystem biodiversity and integrity.

How much water does a river need

Human demands on the world's available freshwater supplies continue to grow as the global population increases. In the endeavor to manage water to meet human needs, the needs of freshwater species and ecosystems have largely been neglected, and the ecological consequences have been tragic. Healthy freshwater ecosystems provide a wealth of goods and services for society, but our appropriation of freshwater flows must be better managed if we hope to sustain these benefits and freshwater biodiversity. We offer a framework for developing an ecologically sustainable water management program, in which human needs for water are met by storing and diverting water in a manner that can sustain or restore the ecological integrity of affected river ecosystems. Our six-step process includes: (1) developing initial numerical estimates of key aspects of river flow necessary to sustain native species and natural ecosystem functions; (2) accounting for human uses of water, both current and future, through development of a computerized hydrologic simulation model that facilitates examination of human-induced alterations to river flow regimes; (3) assessing incompatibilities between human and ecosystem needs with particular attention to their spatial and temporal character; (4) collaboratively searching for solutions to resolve incompatibilities; (5) conducting water management experiments to resolve critical uncertainties that frustrate efforts to integrate human and ecosystem needs; and (6) designing and implementing an adaptive management program to facilitate ecologically sustainable water management for the long term. Drawing from case studies around the world to illustrate our framework, we suggest that ecologically sustainable water management is attainable in the vast majority of the world's river basins. However, this quest will become far less feasible if we wait until water supplies are further over-appro- priated. Key words: adaptive management; biodiversity; dam operations; ecological flow assessment; ecosystem management; ecosystem monitoring; freshwater ecosystems; hydrologic alteration; instream flow; river management; sustainable water development; water resources management.

/pdf/ecologically-sustainable-water-management-managing-river-34od1s8a1z.pdf

Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity

Conventional instream flow water rights protect up to a specified level of flow to be left in a stream and indirectly allocate the remaining flows for water development. Such instream water rights have been quantified with constant year- round or monthly values that bear little resemblance to a river's natural pattern of flow and that may maximize the reservation of water for development. In this paper, we examine whether instream flow water rights can be turned "upside down" by directly specifying a level of water development and protecting the remaining flows in the stream; review the structure of such upside down instream flow water rights and a host of examples under state and federal law; explore one case in which instream flows were protected upside-down, not with water rights but under a fed- eral regulatory scheme; summarize our arguments for the legal recognition of upside-down instream flow water rights; and suggest that such rights be considered when seeking to protect complex and not easily predictable natural flow patterns.

Robert Wigington

Papers

How much water does a river need

Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity

Turning Instream Flow Water Rights Upside Down