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.

Summary
1. In an effort to develop quantitative relationships between various kinds of flow alteration and ecological responses, we reviewed 165 papers published over the last four decades, with a focus on more recent papers. Our aim was to determine if general relationships could be drawn from disparate case studies in the literature that might inform environmental flows science and management.

2. For all 165 papers we characterised flow alteration in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, timing and rate of change as reported by the individual studies. Ecological responses were characterised according to taxonomic identity (macroinvertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation) and type of response (abundance, diversity, demographic parameters). A ‘qualitative’ or narrative summary of the reported results strongly corroborated previous, less comprehensive, reviews by documenting strong and variable ecological responses to all types of flow alteration. Of the 165 papers, 152 (92%) reported decreased values for recorded ecological metrics in response to a variety of types of flow alteration, whereas 21 papers (13%) reported increased values.

3. Fifty-five papers had information suitable for quantitative analysis of ecological response to flow alteration. Seventy per cent of these papers reported on alteration in flow magnitude, yielding a total of 65 data points suitable for analysis. The quantitative analysis provided some insight into the relative sensitivities of different ecological groups to alteration in flow magnitudes, but robust statistical relationships were not supported. Macroinvertebrates showed mixed responses to changes in flow magnitude, with abundance and diversity both increasing and decreasing in response to elevated flows and to reduced flows. Fish abundance, diversity and demographic rates consistently declined in response to both elevated and reduced flow magnitude. Riparian vegetation metrics both increased and decreased in response to reduced peak flows, with increases reflecting mostly enhanced non-woody vegetative cover or encroachment into the stream channel.

4. Our analyses do not support the use of the existing global literature to develop general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration and ecological response; however, they do support the inference that flow alteration is associated with ecological change and that the risk of ecological change increases with increasing magnitude of flow alteration.

5. New sampling programs and analyses that target sites across well-defined gradients of flow alteration are needed to quantify ecological response and develop robust and general flow alteration–ecological response relationships. Similarly, the collection of pre- and post-alteration data for new water development programs would significantly add to our basic understanding of ecological responses to flow alteration.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/swrcb/swrcb_poff2010_2.pdf

Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows

Hydrologic regimes play a major role in determining the biotic composition, structure, and function of aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. But human land and water uses are substantially altering hydrologic regimes around the world. Improved quantitative evaluations of human-induced hydrologic changes are needed to advance research on the biotic implications of hydrologic alteration and to support ecosystem management and restoration plans. We propose a method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human influence within an ecosystem. This method, referred to as the “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration,” is based upon an analysis of hydrologic data available either from existing measurement points within an ecosystem (such as at stream gauges or wells) or model-generated data. We use 32 parameters, organized into five groups, to statistically characterize hydrologic variation within each year. These 32 parameters provide information on ecologically significant features of surface and ground water regimes influencing aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. We then assess the hydrologic perturbations associated with activities such as dam operations, flow diversion, groundwater pumping, or intensive land-use conversion by comparing measures of central tendency and dispersion for each parameter between user-defined “pre-impact” and “post-impact” time frames, generating 64 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. This method is intended for use with other ecosystem metrics in inventories of ecosystem integrity, in planning ecosystem management activities, and in setting and measuring progress toward conservation or restoration goals.

A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems

> * 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

Maintaining natural hydrologic variability is essential in conserving native riverine biota and river ecosystem integrity. Hydrologic variation plays a major role in structuring the biotic diversity within river ecosystems as it controls key habitat conditions within the river channel, the floodplain, and hyporheic (stream-influenced ground water) zones. Alterations in streamflow regimes may modify many of these habitat attributes and impair ecosystem connectivity. We demonstrate use of the ‘Range of Variability Approach’ for assessing hydrologic alteration at available streamgauge sites throughout a river basin. We then illustrate a technique for spatially mapping the degree of hydrologic alteration for river reaches at and between streamgauge sites. Such maps can be used to assess the loss of natural hydrologic variation at a river basin scale, thereby facilitating river restoration planning. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jeffrey V. Baumgartner

Papers

A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems

How much water does a river need

A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration within a river network

A scale-independent, site conservation planning framework in The Nature Conservancy