Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1058–1067 | Cite as

Areal Changes of Lentic Water Bodies Within an Agricultural Basin of the Argentinean Pampas. Disentangling Land Management from Climatic Causes

  • Gisel Carolina Booman
  • Mirta Calandroni
  • Pedro Laterra
  • Fabián Cabria
  • Oscar Iribarne
  • Pablo Vázquez
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Wetland loss is a frequent concern for the environmental management of rural landscapes, but poor disentanglement between climatic and land management causes frequently constrains both proper diagnoses and planning. The aim of this study is to address areal changes induced by non-climatic factors on lentic water bodies (LWB) within an agricultural basin of the Argentinean Pampas, and the human activities that might be involved. The LWB of the Mar Chiquita basin (Buenos Aires province, Argentina) were mapped using Landsat images from 1998–2008 and then corrected for precipitation variability by considering the regional hydrological status on each date. LWB areal changes were statistically and spatially analyzed in relation to land use changes, channelization of streams, and drainage of small SWB in the catchment areas. We found that 12 % of the total LWB in the basin had changed (P < 0.05) due to non-climatic causes. During the evaluated decade, 30 % of the LWB that changed size had decreased while 70 % showed steady increases in area. The number of altered LWB within watersheds lineally increased or decreased according to the proportion of grasslands replaced by sown pastures, or the proportion of sown pastures replaced by crop fields, respectively. Drainage and channelization do not appear to be related to the alteration of LWB; however some of these hydrologic modifications may predate 1998, and thus earlier effects cannot be discarded. This study shows that large-scale changes in land cover (e.g., grasslands reduction) can cause a noticeable loss of hydrologic regulation at the catchment scale within a decade.

Keywords

Lentic water bodies Agricultural intensification Watersheds Land management Channelization Wetland drainage 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion (FONCYT, Argentina), the National University of Mar del Plata (UNMdP), and the National Institute of Agricultural Technnology of Argentina (INTA). We thank Laura Giménez from INTA Corrientes, whose assessment in statistics was crucial for the simultaneous analysis of the 3,689 LWB. Also, we thank Dr. Marino Puricelli from INTA Balcarce, for hydrological assessment and ideas, and Ing. Karina Zelaya for sharing basic information of land use in the study area.

References

  1. Booman GC, Orúe ME, Laterra P (2010) Valoración de los humedales como filtros ecológicos para la identificación de áreas vulnerables a la contaminación difusa de aguas superficiales. Estudio de caso: la Cuenca Mar Chiquita (Prov. de Bs As). In: Hacia la Gestión Integral de los Recursos Hídricos en Zonas de Llanura Proceedings of the First International Congress on Hydrology of the Plains, Azul, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridgham SD, Megonigal JP, Keller JK, Bliss NB, Trettin C (2006) The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooker MP (1985) The ecological effects of channelization. The Geographical Journal 151:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chander G, Markham BL, Helder DL (2009) Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sensing of Environment 113(5):893–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 127:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finlayson CM, Rea N (1999) Reasons for the loss and degradation of Australian wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerakis A, Kalburtji K (1998) Agricultural activities affecting the functions and values of Ramsar wetland sites of Greece. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 70:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E (2008) Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org). Accessed 14 Jan 2011
  11. Jensen JR, Qiu F, Patterson K (2001) A neural network image interpretation system to extract rural and urban land use and land cover information from remote sensor data. Geocarto International 16:1–10Google Scholar
  12. Jobbágy EG (2011) Servicios Hídricos de los ecosistemas y su relación con el uso de la tierra en la llanura chaco-pampeana. In: Laterra P (Ed.) Valoración de Servicios Ecosistémicos Conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial. Ediciones INTA, pp 163–183Google Scholar
  13. Kandus P, Minotti P, Malvárez AI (2008) Distribution of wetlands in Argentina estimated from soil charts. Acta Scientiarum, 30 (4): 403–409. Brasil, ISSN 1415-6814Google Scholar
  14. Keddy PA (2010) Wetland ecology: principles and conservation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu J, Tian H, Liu M, Zhuang D, Melillo JM, Zhang Z (2005) China’s changing landscape during the 1990s: Large-scale land transformations estimated with satellite data. Geophysical Research Letters 32:1–5Google Scholar
  16. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moser M, Prentice C, Frazier S (1996) A global overview of wetland loss and degradation. In: Wetlands International Presented to Technical Session B of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. NASA (2009) Landsat 7 Science Data User’s Handbook. Landsat Project Science Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Science Center Available at: http://landsathandbook.gsfc.nasa.gov/handbook/handbook toc.html
  19. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nosetto MD, Jobbágy EG, Brizuela AB, Jackson RB (2012) The hydrologic consequences of land cover change in central Argentina. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment 154:2–11Google Scholar
  21. Quirós R, Boveri MB, Petracchi CA, Rennella AM, Rosso JJ, Sosnovsky A, von Bernard HT (2006) Los efectos de la agriculturización del humedal pampeano sobre la eutrifización de sus lagunas, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  22. Rebelo LM, Finlayson CM, Nagabhatla N (2009) Remote sensing and GIS for wetland inventory, mapping and change analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2144–2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoof R (1980) Envirnonmental impact of channel modification. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 16:697–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soriano A (1992) Rio de la Plata grasslands. In: Coupland RT (ed) Ecosystems of the world 8A. Natural grasslands. Introduction and western hemisphere. Elsevier, New York, pp 367–407Google Scholar
  25. Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Viglizzo EF, Frank FC, Carreño L (2006) Situación ambiental en las ecorregiones Pampa y Campos Malezales. In: Brown A, Ortíz UM, Acerbi M, Corcuera J (eds) La situación Ambiental Argentina 2005. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  27. Viglizzo EF, Jobbagy EG, Carreño LV, Frank FC, Aragón R (2009) The dynamics of cultivation and floods in arable lands of central Argentina. Hydrology and Earth System Science 13:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. WCMC (1992) Global biodiversity: status of the Earth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, London, p 594Google Scholar
  29. Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zelaya DK, Maceira NO (2007) Avance de la Agricultura en la Cuenca Hidrológica de Mar Chiquita, Región Pampeana Argentina. In: XII Congreso de la Asociación Española de Teledetección, Mar del Plata, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang J, Ma K, Fu B (2010) Wetland loss under the impact of agricultural development in the Sanjiang Plain, NE China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 166:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gisel Carolina Booman
    • 1
  • Mirta Calandroni
    • 2
  • Pedro Laterra
    • 2
  • Fabián Cabria
    • 2
  • Oscar Iribarne
    • 1
  • Pablo Vázquez
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias ExactasUniversidad Nacional de Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidad Nacional de Mar del PlataBalcarceArgentina
  3. 3.EEA Guillermo Covas AnguilInstituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaAnguilArgentina

Personalised recommendations