safer http ://safer-iai
DESCRIPTION
Understanding and Adapting to Altered Energy and Mass Inputs to Freshwater Ecosystems : A Pan-American Pilot Study of Ecosystem Service Risk Assessment and Mitigation. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Understanding and Adapting to Altered Energy and Mass Inputs to Freshwater
Ecosystems: A Pan-American Pilot Study of Ecosystem Service Risk Assessment and Mitigation
T.C. Harmon, D. Conde, J. Rusak, G.M. Perillo, M.I. Velez Caicedo, J.H. Escobar Jaramillo,
M.C. Piccolo, B. Reid, and S. London
SAFER http://safer-iai.org/
Presentation outline:• The SAFER Project• Introduction: current SAFER
study sites• Approach to ecosystem
services risk assessment ▫ Characterizing domain
encompassing watershed▫ Energy-mass flux basis,
integrating paleo-information▫ Risk and risk perception analysis
(stakeholders)• Progress: selection of key
ES and pressures for further study
• Next steps
SAFER http://safer-iai.org/
SAFER: Sensing the Americas’ Freshwater Ecosystem Risk…
• To employ freshwater ecosystems as “sensors” of climate variability and watershed processes
• Investigate ecosystem interactions with other multiple stressors and assess risks to ecosystem services in the Americas
• To determine management and mitigation strategies which are both feasible and culturally acceptable.
• Integration of the stakeholders and decision makers into the learning arena
• Expand supporting research capacity in the Americas
SAFER: Sensing the Americas’ Freshwater Ecosystem Risk
Muskoka River WatershedOntario, CanadaLower San Joaquin River
California, U.S.A.
Ciénaga Grande de Santa MartaMagdalena, Colombia
Laguna de RochaRocha, Uruguay
Río SenguerrChubut, Argentina
La Paloma Lake ComplexCoyhaique, Chile
Köppen-Geiger Climate ClassificationMap from M.C. Peel, U Melbourne
Forcing climatic factorsBiodiversity & water quality
Socio/Econ/Cult stateSocial perception
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Climate, Limnological & Ecological history
Socio/Econ/Cult history
Prediction of impacts on Risk & Perception ecosystem Analysis Climatic projections
Economic & land use scenarios
Paleo- Human PRESENT FUTURErecord Occupation (2100)
6 sites (+ more…)
Overall SAFER approach
SAFER sites• Río Senguerr Basin, Argentina
▫ Andes to Pampas gradient▫ Wet to Semi-arid▫ Changing runoff regime▫ Streams, lakes, reservoirs ▫ Agriculture, oil recovery, sports
fishing
• Lower San Joaquin River, USA▫ Central Valley▫ Semi-arid, snowpack dependent▫ Changing runoff regime▫ Rivers and reservoirs▫ Agriculture, hydropower, salmon
restoration Water Sustainabili
ty & Climate
SAFER sites (continued)• La Cienaga Granda de Santa
Marta (Colombia)▫ Wetland and coastal lagoon▫ Tropical to cooler highlands▫ Sea level/surge and salinity issues▫ Agriculture, artisanal fishery,
drinking water-wastewater• Laguna de Rocha (Uruguay)
▫ Wetland and coastal lagoon▫ Humid subtropical▫ Sea level/surge and salinity issues▫ Drinking water-wastewater,
nutrient regulation, artisanal fishery
SAFER sites (continued)• Muskoka River Watershed,
Ontario, Canada▫ Lake-cottage setting▫ Humid continental▫ Changing hydrograph▫ Land use-water clarity
• La Paloma Lake Complex, Coyhaique, Chile ▫ Low population density▫ Oceanic climate▫ Glacier reduction, changing
hydrograph▫ Drinking water, grazing pressure,
invasive algae and sport fishing
Proposed Approach1. Gather data on sites• Energy-mass (E-m) approach• Past (paleo-environmental, human history)
2. Inventory ecosystem services, and links between pressures, ecosystems, ecosystem services and stakeholders
3. Prioritize ecosystem services4. Risk and perception 5. (Meta-)analysis of different biophysical,
socioeconomic and cultural settings
Overall approach schematically:
Lozoya et al. (2014) in press
1. Site Characterization: E-m (Energy flux, mass transport)
• Freshwater ecosystems respond to direct and indirect transfers of energy (E) and mass (m)▫ Climate-driven or
anthropogenic• 2 advantages to E-m
approach:▫ Couples naturally with
process models (hydroclimate, water quality)
▫ Emphasizes inclusion of the paleo-record Leavitt et al. (2009) Limnol. Oceanogr.
1. Site Characterization: E-m approach• Tier 1 models* are first-approximation models
(usually simple indices) ▫ Climate: e.g., water scarcity index, etc.▫ Socioeconomic: e.g., “potential tourism” index
• Tier 2 models are simulate distributed processes and mechanisms in physical, ecological and socioeconomic systems.▫ Climate: distributed parameter hydrologic model (e.g.,
SWAT, WEAP)▫ Socioeconomic: model of annual visitors/dollars based on
environmental attributes, etc.
*Tier 1 and Tier 2 based on the Natural Capital Project’s InVEST Model terminology(http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/)
1. Site Characterization: integrating “paleo”
Velez et al. (2014 ) The Holocene, in press
• Freshwater conditions dominated in past• Transition to brackish with sea level rise• Balance between seal level and watershed
hydrology• Will human activity accelerate La Cienaga SM to
the “tipping point” to marine conditions?
2. Characterizing ES and links to pressures
• Created exhaustive list of ecosystem services and pressures on them (using CISES* nomenclature)▫ Key services and pressures
• Gathering local stakeholder perceptions (Uruguay complete)
*CISES = Common International System for Ecosystems Services
SAFER meeting with Dirección de General de Aguas (DGA), Coyhaique, Chile, April 2014
SAFER PI meeting at La Paloma Lake Complex study site, April 2014
3. Prioritization: Key ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services:
SAFER Site: Provisioning Regulating Cultural/SpiritualCanada water quality recreation (swimming, boating)
flood control
United Statesirrigated agriculture water quality salmon restoration
Colombiairrigated agriculture water quality
Uruguay artisanal fishery water quality sightseeing/heritage
Argentinairrigated agriculture water quality drinking water
Chile livestock recreation (flyfishing)hydropower
Project team and local expertise combined to narrow focus to 2 or 3 key ecosystem services:
4. Risk and Risk Perception Analysis• Method based on Lozoya et al. (2011) Environ. Sci. Policy.• In brief, risk is product of relative weights:
RES-V = EPES x VALES x VULSTK
RES-V is the risk estimate for an ecosystem service EPES is the “effective provision” of that service [science]VALES is the value of that service [social science, stakeholders]VULSTK is the stakeholder vulnerability to reduced service [stakeholders]
Key Question: How well will this approach translate across sites with major biogeographical, socioeconomic, and cultural differences?
5. (Meta-)Analysis over 6 sites• Compare and contrast sites
with respect to:▫ Biophysical gradients▫ Socioeconomic development▫ Water rights and land tenure setting▫ LU/LC ▫ Vulnerability to climatic and
anthropogenic pressures▫ Risk perception▫ Watershed policy/regulatory setting
• Identify gaps in coverage and recruit new collaborators
Watershed demographics
Río Senguerr: sparse population, agriculture, and oil
Water footprint (national)
• Green: Precipitation and soil moisture directly consumed• Blue: Surface and groundwater applied and consumed (e.g.
irrigation)• Grey: Water needed to assimilate pollutants back into water bodies
Fulton et al. (2012) California Water InstituteMekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) UNESCO-IHE
Getting involved! [email protected]
https://eng.ucmerced.edu/harmon/wsc-savi2.html
Summary of progress:• 6 current SAFER study sites covering a broad
biophysical, socioeconomic and cultural space• Characterized ecosystem services
▫ Domain encompassing watershed▫ Energy-mass flux basis, integrating paleo-information▫ Risk and risk perception analysis
• Prognosis: Individual site results should be valuable▫Challenge will be in overall synthesis
Thank you!
Acknowledgments:
• InterAmerican Institute (IAI) for Global Change Research, Coordinated Research Network Program
• National Science Foundation (NSF):▫ Science Across Virtual
Institutes (SAVI) CBET-1336839
▫ Water Sustainability & Climate (WSC) CBET-1204841
First SAFER graduate training workshopCoihaique, Chile May 1-6, 2014