A Global Assessment of Inland Wetland Conservation Status

Reis, Vanessa; Hermoso, Virgilio; Hamilton, Stephen K.; Ward, Douglas; Fluet‐Chouinard, Etienne; Lehner, Bernhard; Linke, Simon

doi:10.1093/biosci/bix045

Cited by 167 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Major obstacles to environmental flow implementation (elaborated by Moore, 2004;Le Quesne et al, 2010;Harwood et al, 2017) include: lack of political will and public support; constraints on resources, knowledge and capacity; and, institutional barriers and conflicts of interest. For these and other reasons the condition of aquatic ecosystems continues to decline while the pressures continue to grow (Vörösmarty et al, 2013;Bunn, 2016;Reis et al, 2017;Degefu et al, 2018). The world is experiencing a renewed period of dam building driven by new donors and applying different social and environmental safeguards Greenhill et al, 2016;Kirchherr et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018)

Arthington

Bhaduri

Bunn

et al. 2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

293

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018)

Arthington

Bhaduri

Bunn

et al. 2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

293

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both measures are equally valid because they are considering different threat processes (VI measures the intrinsic extinction vulnerability from being fished, based on biological traits of fish species whilst the IUCN Red List evaluates the extinction risk of species considering a wide range of threat processes that are affecting species, and including data on symptoms of extinction risk, such as population declines, distribution size, population size, etc.). With aquatic systems being affected by a number of different threats (Reis et al, ), including emerging threats such as climate change and plastic pollution, the understanding of species vulnerability needs to be expanded to the wide spectrum of threats, e.g. through assessment processes such as climate change vulnerability assessments (Chin, Kyne, Walker, & McAuley, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is particularly important given the threats of naturalized species (e.g. non‐native fish; Pelicice, Vitule, Junior, Orsi, & Agostinho, ), and damming (Reis et al, ), among others, which are likely to affect a large number of freshwater species in South America. In addition, these threats have the potential for impacts on freshwater community structure, leading to homogenization of the fauna, loss of genetic diversity, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment gaps and biases in knowledge of conservation status of fishes

Miqueleiz

Böhm

Ariño

et al. 2020

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 33,500 fish species inhabit freshwater and marine environments, according to FishBase database records. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has assessed the conservation status of approximately half of them, the lowest percentage in any vertebrate group. In order to identify what factors may underlie this assessment gap, several traits were examined related to distribution, life‐history, taxonomy, conservation, and the economic relevance of species according to their assessment status. IUCN assessment patterns were explored and separate analyses were included for freshwater and marine species. The results showed that IUCN assessments were biased towards economically developed regions, species with early description dates and species covered by current IUCN specialist groups. Species living in remote areas or habitats were more likely to be unassessed. In particular, South America had low assessment levels. Other traits such as commercial importance did not influence the assessment status of fish species. We therefore encourage assessment in poorly assessed areas and taxonomic subgroups to prompt timely conservation action to prevent species extinctions.

show abstract

“…Both coarse wetland classification strategies for data‐poor environments (Deventer et al, ) and new high‐resolution inundation maps that detail wetland dynamics (Aires et al, ; Fluet‐Chouinard, Lehner, Rebelo, Papa, & Hamilton, ; Pekel, Cottam, Gorelick, & Belward, ) were released in recent years and are freely available to interested researchers and practitioners. To focus on palustrine wetlands, Reis et al () developed a global data layer by removing lakes, rivers, and coastal zones from these maps. For these wetlands, they also quantified protection status and human influence, showing that wetland protection varies globally, but on average does not meet international targets.…”

Section: Integrated Approaches To Account For Connectivity Between Frmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward process‐based conservation prioritizations for freshwater ecosystems

Linke

Hermoso

Januchowski‐Hartley

2019

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, systematic conservation planning has been increasingly applied in terrestrial and marine systems. The approach has traditionally been lagging in freshwater environments, partly because considering unique ecological processes, such as connectivity and propagation of threats along river networks, is a key factor for conservation success in freshwater landscapes. This review highlights advances in freshwater planning in the last decade, but also discusses areas in need of increased efforts. Including riverine connectivity and disturbances are largely resolved topics. Both processes have been included in major conservation planning software packages and applied globally. Theoretical advances to connectivity in wetlands and groundwater systems have started to appear, but no encompassing framework has emerged. Spatial solutions to conservation planning in lakes do not yet exist. Some headway has been made when dealing with functional connectivity and genetic processes. For the latter, approaches have been developed to deal with cryptic biodiversity and to investigate the adequacy of conservation plans to include genetic diversity. Functional connectivity has been included in conservation plans in ephemeral waterscapes, and initial steps have been made to include migratory species in conservation prioritizations. Conservation planning in socio‐ecological landscapes is catching up with biophysical prioritizations. Multiple protection tiers have been realized in river conservation planning frameworks, and freshwater scientists are leading the charge in both multi‐objective planning and in including direct functional responses. We conclude that tight integration between ecological sciences and optimization approaches is needed to further process‐based conservation planning.

show abstract

A Global Assessment of Inland Wetland Conservation Status

Cited by 167 publications

References 52 publications

The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018)

The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018)

Assessment gaps and biases in knowledge of conservation status of fishes

Toward process‐based conservation prioritizations for freshwater ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About