Fluvial riparian vegetation (RV) links fluvial and terrestrial ecosystems. It is under significant pressure from anthropogenic activities, and, therefore, the management and restoration of RV are increasingly important worldwide. RV has been investigated from different perspectives, so knowledge on its structure and function is widely distributed. An important step forward is to convert existing knowledge into an overview easily accessible—for example, for use in decision-making and management. We aim to provide an overview of ecosystem services provided by RV by adopting a structured approach to identify the ecosystem services, describe their characteristics, and rank the importance of each service. We evaluate each service within four main riparian vegetation types adopting a global perspective to derive a broad concept. Subsequently, we introduce a guided framework for use in RV management based on our structured approach. We also identify knowledge gaps and evaluate the opportunities an ecosystem service approach offers to RV management.

a b s t r a c tRiparian areas are among the most threatened habitats in the world, due to human activities and land use in adjacent areas. In this study we sought to identify landscape metrics for describing the spatial patterns of riparian vegetation affected by land use. We also hypothesize that land use in the immediate vicinity of the riparian area (considered as a 30-m buffer) can have a greater effect on the structure of riparian vegetation than that in an enlarged buffer (i.e. 200 m). The study was conducted in the highly humanized River Tagus watershed (Central Portugal; Western Iberia), along over 80 km of river stretches. Riparian vegetation and land use data were obtained from high-resolution digital images (RGB-NIR 0.5 m × 0.5 m, spring 2005). Patch analyst was used to calculate landscape metrics related to the spatial configuration, isolation, inter-connectivity, and distribution of patches of three riparian cover classes (tree, shrub, and herbaceous). We quantified and accounted for the global and local spatial autocorrelation of data. Data treatment included redundancy analysis and geostatistic methods. Results showed that only a combined interpretation of various landscape metrics can consistently describe the spatial patterns of riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation near agricultural areas (irrigation crops, rice fields, orchards, and vineyards), presented a low number of much smaller riparian tree patches with less complex shapes, and a low interspersion of the patch distribution. We found that proximal land use affects the structure of riparian vegetation more than distal land use -an important consideration for the establishment of streamside protection buffers.

Rivers are among the most sensitive of all ecosystems to the effects of global change, but options to prevent, mitigate or restore ecosystem damage are still inadequately understood. Riparian buffers are widely advocated as a cost-effective option to manage impacts, but empirical evidence is yet to identify ideal riparian features (e.g. width, length and density) which enhance ecological integrity and protect ecosystem services in the face of catchment-scale stressors. Here, we use an extensive literature review to synthesise evidence on riparian buffer and catchment management effects on instream environmental conditions (e.g. nutrients, fine sediments, organic matter), river organisms and ecosystem functions. We offer a conceptual model of the mechanisms through which catchment or riparian management might impact streams either positively or negatively. The model distinguishes scale-independent benefits (shade, thermal damping, organic matter and large wood inputs) that arise from riparian buffer management at any scale from scale-dependent benefits (nutrient or fine sediment retention) that reflect stressor conditions at broader (sub-catchment to catchment) scales. The latter require concerted management efforts over equally large domains of scale (e.g. riparian buffers combined with nutrient restrictions). The evidence of the relationships between riparian configuration (width, length, zonation, density) and scale-independent benefits is consistent, suggesting a high certainty of the effects. In contrast, scale-dependent effects as well as the biological responses to riparian management are more uncertain, suggesting that ongoing diffuse pollution (nutrients, sediments), but also sources of variability (e.g. hydrology, climate) at broader scales may interfere with the effects of local riparian management. Without concerted management across relevant scales, full biological recovery of damaged lotic ecosystems is unlikely. There is, nevertheless, sufficient evidence that the benefits of riparian buffers outweigh potential adverse effects, in particular if located in the upstream part of the stream network. This supports the use of riparian restoration as a no-regrets management option to improve and sustain lotic ecosystem functioning and biodiversity.

No abstract