4.6 Article

Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions Improve Ecosystem Services Risk Assessment: Case Studies from Two Coastal Lagoons in South America

期刊

WATER
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w10101350

关键词

paleoenvironmental reconstructions; risk assessment; ecosystem services; paleolimnology; EBRM protocol

资金

  1. Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) - US National Science Foundation [CRN3038, GEO-1128040]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation (Award CBET) [1336839]
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1336839] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paleoenvironmental reconstructions are increasingly being used in conservation biology, ecosystem management, and evaluations of ecosystem services (ES), but their potential to contribute to the ES risk assessment process has not been explored. We propose that the long-term history of the ecosystem provides valuable information that augments and strengthens an ES risk assessment and that it should be considered routinely when undertaking risk assessments. We adjusted a standard ecosystem-based risk management (EBRM) protocol to include paleoenvironmental data, and tested the modified approach on two coastal lagoons in South America. Paleolimnological reconstructions in both lagoons indicate that salinity and nutrients (in Laguna de Rocha), and salinity (in Cienaga Grande de Santa Marta), as controlled by hydrologic connectivity with the ocean and freshwater tributaries, have been the key variables behind ecosystem's function. This understanding, applied to inform various components and steps in the EBRM protocol, suggests that the maintenance of hydrological connections should be a management priority to minimize risk to ES. This work illustrates the utility of including paleoenvironmental data in an EBRM context and highlights the need for a more holistic approach to risk management by incorporating the long-term history of ecosystem function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据