Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1187–1200 | Cite as

The use of macroinvertebrates and algae as indicators of riparian ecosystem services in the Mexican Basin: a morpho-functional approach

  • Angela Caro-Borrero
  • Javier Carmona-JiménezEmail author
Article

Abstract

Peri-urban rivers have been subjected to poor environmental management, especially in developing countries, due to urban expansion and channel transformation in the context of a lack of public conservation policies. As an example, Mexico City, the second largest city in the world, has a socioenvironmental mosaic that allows the evaluation of ecosystem services (ES) associated with aquatic ecosystems amid urbanistic pressures. The main objective of this research was to identify sites with the greatest ES potential supplied by conserved areas that are in a rural-urban transition using the ecological traits of riparian bioindicators, including eco-physiological metrics of communities and assemblages and hydromorphological quality. The aquatic ES most influenced by the peri-urban context was nutrient cycling through the incorporation of organic matter from the riparian ecosystem into the river. Water quantity was also influenced, due to local extraction and structures such as gabion dams. The support and provision ES were sensitive to changes in the geomorphology configuration. In conclusion our results showed that the biological morpho-functional indicators of blue ES were an objective tool to assess the state of river functioning and translate these functions into the language of decision makers. Finally, we determined that the ES provision into the Mexico Basin mainly responds to three major factors: physical characteristics, hydromorphological functioning and the functional ecology of organisms.

Keywords

Aquatic functions Peri-urban rivers Biological ecosystem indicators 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the PASPA-DGAPA-UNAM Support Program for the sabbatical stay of JCJ and postdoctoral fellowship PASPA-DGAPA-UNAM Support Program of ACB.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Affek AN, Kowalska A (2017) Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users. Ecosyst Serv 26:183–196Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar AG, Santos C (2011) Informal settlement ́s needs and environmental conservation in Mexico City: an unsolved challenge for land-use policy. Land Use Policy 28:649–662Google Scholar
  3. Alberti M (2010) Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Environ Sustain 2:178–184Google Scholar
  4. Anagnostidis K, Komárek J (2005) Oscillatoriales. In: Budel B, Gartner G, Krienitz L, Schagerl M (eds) Cyanoprokaryota. Freshwater flora of Central Europe 9/2 (pp. 1–759). Elsevier, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. APHA (American Public Health Association), American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation (2005) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. Port City Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Ávila-Akerberg VD (2010) Forest quality in the southwest of México City. Assessment towards ecological restoration of ecosystem services. Doctoral Dissertation in Natural Resources, Department of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. BenDor TK, Spurlock D, Woodruff SC, Olander L (2017) A research agenda for ecosystem services in American environmental and land use planning. Cities 60:260–271Google Scholar
  8. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overwiev highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 38:67–98Google Scholar
  9. Brill G, Anderson P, O’Farrell P (2017) Methodological and empirical considerations when assessing freshwater ecosystem service provision in a developing city context: making the best of what we have. Ecol Indic 76:256–274Google Scholar
  10. Bojorge MG, Carmona JJ, Cartajena AM, Beltrán MY (2010) Temporal and spatial distribution of macroalgal communities of mountain streams in Valle de Bravo Basin, central México. Hydrobiologia 641:159-169.Google Scholar
  11. Bueno-Soria J (2010) Guía de identificación ilustrada de los géneros de larvas de insectos del orden Trichoptera de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ciudad de México, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai W, Gibbs D, Zhang L, Ferrier G, Cai Y (2017) Identifying hotspots and management of critical ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region, China. J Environ Manag 191:258–267Google Scholar
  13. Carmona-Jiménez J, Caro-Borrero A (2017) The last peri-urban rivers of the Mexico Basin: establishment of potential reference conditions through the evaluation of ecological quality and biological indicators. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 88(2):425–436Google Scholar
  14. Carmona-Jiménez J, Necchi O Jr (2002) Taxonomy and distribution of Paralemanea (Lemaneaceae, Rhodophyta) in Central Mexico. Cryptogam Algol 23:39–49Google Scholar
  15. Carmona-Jiménez J, Vilaclara FG (2007) Survey and distribution of Batrachospermaceae (Rhodophyta) in high-altitude tropical streams from Central Mexico. Cryptogam Algol 28:271–282Google Scholar
  16. Carmona-Jimenez. J, Ramírez, R. Bojorge, G., González, B & Cantoral, U.E. 2016. Estudio del valor indicador de las comunidades de algas bentónicas: Una propuesta de evaluación y aplicación en el río Magdalena, Ciudad de México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental, 32 (2), 139–152Google Scholar
  17. Caro-Borrero A, Carmona-Jiménez J (2018) Habitat preferences in freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates: algae as substratum and food resource in high mountain rivers from Mexico. Limnologica 69:10–17Google Scholar
  18. Caro-Borrero A, Carmona-Jiménez J, Marisa-Mazari H (2015) Evaluation of ecological quality in peri-urban rivers in Mexico City: a proposal for identifying and validating reference sites using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators. J Limnol 75(1s):1–16Google Scholar
  19. Caro-Borrero A, Carmona-Jiménez J, Varley A, De Garay-Arellano G, Mazari-Hiriart M, Adams D (2017) The potential of local and scientific ecological knowledge as a source of information in a periurban sub-basin: a case study from Mexico City. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(1):541–562Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, K., Gorley, R. 2006. User manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd., PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  21. Cummins KW, Merritt RW, Andrade PCN (2005) The use of macroinvertebrate functional groups to characterize ecosystem attributes in selected streams and rivers in South Brazil. Stud Neotropical Fauna Environ 40(1):69–89Google Scholar
  22. Demars BOL, Kemp JL, Friberg N, Usseglio-Polatera P, Harper DM (2012) Linking biotopes to invertebrates in rivers: biological traits, taxonomic composition and diversity. Ecol Indic 23:301–311Google Scholar
  23. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación) (2003) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (aclaración a la NOM-001-ECOL-1996), que establece los límites máximos permisibles de contaminantes en las descargas de aguas residuales en aguas y bienes nacionales. [In Spanish]. Available from: http://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/DOFsr/60197.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
  24. Eastwood A, Brooker R, Irvine RJ, Artz RRE, Norton LR, Bullock JM, Ross L, Fielding D, Ramsay S, Roberts J, Anderson W, Dugan D, Cooksley S, Pakeman RJ (2016) Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery? Ecosyst Serv 17:152–162Google Scholar
  25. Encalada A, Rieradeval M, García B, Prat N (2011) Protocolo simplificado y guía de evaluación de la calidad ecológica de ríos andinos (CERA-S). USFQ, UB, AECID, FONAG, QuitoGoogle Scholar
  26. Espinosa G, Sarukhán J (1997) Manual de malezas del Valle de México. Ediciones Científicas Universitarias UNAM- Fondo de Cultura Económica, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  27. Ettl H, Gartner G (1988) Chlorophyta II. In: Pascher A, Ettl H, Gerloff J, Heynig H, Mollenhauer D (eds) Subwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Tetrasporales, Chlorococclales, Gloeodendrales (pp. 1–807). Gustav Fischer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferrusquía-Villafranca F (1998) Geología de México: una sinopsis. [Mexican geology: a synopsis]. In: Ramamoorthy TP, Bye R, Lot A, Fa J (eds) Diversidad Biológica de México. Orígenes y Distribución. Biology Institute (pp. 3–108). UNAM, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  29. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manag 10(2):199–214Google Scholar
  30. García E (2004) Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen. Modifications to the Köppen Climate Classification System. Geography Institute, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  31. Gopal B (2016) A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Ecosyst Serv 21:53–58Google Scholar
  32. Gore J (1996) Discharge measurement and stream flow analysis. In: Hauer R, Lamberti G (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, Londres, pp 53–74Google Scholar
  33. Gunderson LH, Cosens B, Garmestani AS (2016) Adaptive governance of riverine and wetland ecosystem goods and services. J Environ Manag 183(Pt 2):353–360Google Scholar
  34. Haase D (2015) Reflections about blue ecosystem services in cities. Sustainability Water Qual Ecol 5:77–83Google Scholar
  35. Hach (2003) DR 3900 Spectrophotometer. User Manual. Loveland, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  36. Jeffers ES, Nogué S, Willis KJ (2015) The role of palaeoecological records in assessing ecosystem services. Quat Sci Rev 112:17–32Google Scholar
  37. Komárek A (2013) Heterocytous genera, Vol. 19/3rd part. In: Budel B, Gartner G, Krienitz L, Schagerl M (eds) Cyanoprokaryota. Freshwater flora of Central Europe (pp. 1–1131). Springer Spektrum, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. Legorreta J (2009) Ríos, lagos y manantiales del valle de México. Rivers, Lakes, and Springs of the Mexico Valley. Autonomous Metropolitan University, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  39. López-Morales CA, Mesa-Jurado MA (2017) Valuation of Hidden Water Ecosystem Services: The Replacement Cost of the Aquifer System in Central Mexico. Water 9:571.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w9080571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G (2011) A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem Services: Towards an Atlas of Ecosystem Services. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2788/63557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maron M, Mitchell MGE, Runting RK, Rhodes JR, Mace GM, Keith DA, Watson JEM (2017) Towards a threat assessment framework for ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 32(4):240–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.01 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mendoza-Cariño M, Quevedo-Nolasco A, Bravo-Vinaja A, Flores-Magdaleno H, De la Isla De Bauer MDL, Gavi-Reyes F, Zamora-Morales BP (2014) Estado ecológico de ríos y vegetación ribereña en el contexto de la nueva ley general de aguas de México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental 30(4):429–436Google Scholar
  43. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg M, Novak JA, Higgins JM, Wessell KJ, Lessard JL (2002) Development and application of a macroinvertebrate functional-group approach in the bioassessment of remnant river oxbows in southwest Florida. J.N. Am Benthol Soc 21(2):290–310Google Scholar
  44. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 4th edn. Kendall/Hant Publishing Company, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well- being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Necchi O Jr, Branco LHZ, Branco CCZ (1995) Comparison of three techniques for estimating periphyton abundance in bedrock streams. Arch Hydrobiol 134:393–402Google Scholar
  47. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world's large river systems. Science 308(5720):405–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ortíz-Fernández R (2016) La calidad hidromorfológica de la Cuenca de México: una propuesta metodológica para reconocer la calidad del ecosistema de ribera. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Ciudad de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  49. Oswald U (2011) Aquatic systems and water security in the Metropolitan Valley of Mexico City. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3:497–505Google Scholar
  50. PAOT (Procuraduria Ambiental y Ordenamiento Territorial) (2011). Atlas Cartográfico del Suelo de Conservación del Distrito Federal (cartographic atlas of conservation soil of the Federal Distric). Ciudad de México, Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Procuraduria Ambiental y Ordenamiento Territorial. Distrito Federal, México. Available on line: http://centro.paot.org.mx/documentos/paot/estudios/Atlas_Version_final.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  51. Rieth A (1980) Xathophycecte, 2. Teil. In: Ettl H, Gerloff J, Heynig H (eds) Subwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, vol 4. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 1–147Google Scholar
  52. Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM (2000) Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. AIBS Bull 50(9):746–751Google Scholar
  53. Rzedowski GC, Rzedowski J (2005) Flora fanerogámica del Valle de México. 2a. ed., 1a reimp., Instituto de Ecología, A.C. y Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Pátzcuaro (Michoacán)Google Scholar
  54. Sánchez-Montayo MM, Vidal-Abarca MR, Ponti T, Poquet JM, Prat N, Rieradevall M, Alba-Tercedor J, Zamora-Muñoz C, Toro M, Robles S, Álvarez M, Suárez NL (2009) Defending criteria to select references sites in Mediterranean streams. Hydrobiologia 619:39–54Google Scholar
  55. Sheath RG, Cole KM (1992) Biogeography of stream macroalgae in North America. J Phycol 28:448–460Google Scholar
  56. Sirakaya A, Cliquet A, Harris J (2018) Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments. Ecosyst Serv 29:205–212Google Scholar
  57. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137Google Scholar
  58. Vidal-Abarca MR, Suárez-Alonso ML, Santos-Martín F, Martínez-López B, Benatas J, Montes C (2014) Undestanding complex links between fluvial ecosystems and social indicators in Spain: an ecosystem services approach. Ecol Complex 20:1–10Google Scholar
  59. Vollmer D, Pribadi DO, Remondi F, Rustiadi E, Grêt-Regamey A (2016) Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river basins: a spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustain Cities Soc 20:237–252Google Scholar
  60. Walsh C, Roy A, Feminella J, Cottingham P, Groffman P, Morgan R II (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24(3):706–723Google Scholar
  61. Ward JV, Robinson CT, Tockner K (2002) Applicability of ecological theory to riverine ecosystems. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 28:443–450Google Scholar
  62. Wher JD, Sheath RG (2003) Freshwater algae of North America: ecology and classification. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  63. Yao J, He X, Chen W, Ye Y, Guo R, Yu L (2016) A local-scale spatial analysis of ecosystem services and ecosystem service bundles in the upper Hun River catchment, China. Ecosyst Serv 22:104–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Ecología y Recursos NaturalesLaboratorio Ecosistemas de Ribera, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCiudad de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations