Advertisement

Ambio

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Hidden treasures: Human-made aquatic ecosystems harbour unexplored opportunities

  • Matthias KoschorreckEmail author
  • Andrea S. Downing
  • Josef Hejzlar
  • Rafael Marcé
  • Alo Laas
  • Witold G. Arndt
  • Philipp S. Keller
  • Alfons J. P. Smolders
  • Gijs van Dijk
  • Sarian Kosten
Perspective

Abstract

Artificial water bodies like ditches, fish ponds, weirs, reservoirs, fish ladders, and irrigation channels are usually constructed and managed to optimize their intended purposes. However, human-made aquatic systems also have unintended consequences on ecosystem services and biogeochemical cycles. Knowledge about their functioning and possible additional ecosystem services is poor, especially compared to natural ecosystems. A GIS analysis indicates that currently only ~ 10% of European surface waters are covered by the European Water Framework directive, and that a considerable fraction of the excluded systems are likely human-made aquatic systems. There is a clear mismatch between the high possible significance of human-made water bodies and their low representation in scientific research and policy. We propose a research agenda to build an inventory of human-made aquatic ecosystems, support and advance research to further our understanding of the role of these systems in local and global biogeochemical cycles as well as to identify other benefits for society. We stress the need for studies that aim to optimize management of human-made aquatic systems considering all their functions and to support programs designed to overcome barriers of the adoption of optimized management strategies.

Keywords

Artificial waterbodies Biogeochemistry Ecosystem services Water management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

MK and PSK were financially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (project TregaTa, KO 1911/6-1). JH was financially supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, project no. 17-09310S. RM was supported by project C-HydroChange funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (CGL2017-86788-C3-2-P). AL was supported by Estonian Research Council Grants PSG 32 and IUT 21-2 of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. This study benefitted from the collaborative environment of the GLEON network.

Supplementary material

13280_2019_1199_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1488 kb)

References

  1. Barbour, E., I.A.G. Wilson, J. Radcliffe, Y.L. Ding, and Y.L. Li. 2016. A review of pumped hydro energy storage development in significant international electricity markets. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 61: 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkley, J. 2013. Opportunities for collaborative adaptive management progress: Integrating stakeholder assessments into progress measurement. Ecology and Society 18: 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birk, S., W. Bonne, A. Borja, S. Brucet, A. Courrat, S. Poikane, A. Solimini, W.V. van de Bund, et al. 2012. Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, C.E., C.W. Wood, P.L. Chaney, and J.F. Queiroz. 2010. Role of aquaculture pond sediments in sequestration of annual global carbon emissions. Environmental Pollution 158: 2537–2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer, A.-L., E. Comby, S. Flaminio, Y.-F. Le Lay, and M. Cottet. 2018. The social dimensions of a river’s environmental quality assessment. Ambio 48: 409–422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1089-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, B.P., K. Falbo, R.L. Schneider, Z.M. Easton, and M.T. Walter. 2013. Hydrological impact of roadside ditches in an agricultural watershed in Central New York: implications for non-point source pollutant transport. Hydrological Processes 27: 2422–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, R., M. Deng, X.G. He, and J. Hou. 2017. Enhancing nitrate removal from freshwater pond by regulating carbon/nitrogen ratio. Frontiers in Microbiology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01712/full.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, Y., S.L. Dong, Z.A. Wang, F. Wang, Q.F. Gao, X.L. Tian, and Y.H. Xiong. 2016. Variations in CO2 fluxes from grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella aquaculture polyculture ponds. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 8: 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CHMI. 2017. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of the Czech Republic (reported inventories 1990–2015). Prague: Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Coenen, P.W.H.G., C.W.M. van der Maas, P.J. Zijlema, E.J.M.M. Arets, K. Baas, A.C.W.M. van den Berghe, E.P. van Huis, G. Geilenkirchen, et al. 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions in The Netherlands 1990–2015. RIVM.Google Scholar
  11. Couto, T.B.A., and J.D. Olden. 2018. Global proliferation of small hydropower plants—Science and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dollinger, J., C. Dages, J.S. Bailly, P. Lagacherie, and M. Voltz. 2015. Managing ditches for agroecological engineering of landscape. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35: 999–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dugan, P.J., C. Barlow, A.A. Agostinho, E. Baran, G.F. Cada, D.Q. Chen, I.G. Cowx, J.W. Ferguson, et al. 2010. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio 39: 344–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0036-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EC. 2016. InlandWaterBodies. EU-Hydro Upgrade River Network dataset.Google Scholar
  15. EC. 2017. Prod-ID: DAT-30-en. In s. WWrsd, editor. WISE WFD reference spatial data sets European Community.Google Scholar
  16. EPA. 2015. Clean water rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States. Page 75 In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Register 80 FR 37053.Google Scholar
  17. EU. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. In Official Journal of the European Union, editor. 273.Google Scholar
  18. Fencl, J.S., M.E. Mather, K.H. Costigan, and M.D. Daniels. 2015. How big of an effect do small dams have? Using geomorphological footprints to quantify spatial impact of low-head dams and identify patterns of across-dam variation. PLoS ONE 10: e0141210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31: 437–440.  https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437.short.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Four, B., E. Arce, M. Danger, J. Gaillard, M. Thomas, and D. Banas. 2017. Catchment land use-dependent effects of barrage fishponds on the functioning of headwater streams. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24: 5452–5468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaillard, J., M. Thomas, A. Lazartigues, B. Bonnefille, C. Pallez, X. Dauchy, C. Feidt, and D. Banas. 2016. Potential of barrage fish ponds for the mitigation of pesticide pollution in streams. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grizzetti, B., D. Lanzanova, C. Liquete, A. Reynaud, and A.C. Cardoso. 2016. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy 61: 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunderson, L.H. 2001. South Florida: The reality of change and prospect for sustainability: Managing surprising ecosystems in southern Florida. Ecological Economics 37: 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hahn, T., M. Heinrup, and R. Lindborg. 2018. Landscape heterogeneity correlates with recreational values: A case study from Swedish agricultural landscapes and implications for policy. Landscape Research 43: 696–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herzon, I., and J. Helenius. 2008. Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biological Conservation 141: 1171–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higler, L.W.G. 1979. Sloten. Levensgemeenschappen, 57–63. Wageningen: Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer.Google Scholar
  27. Hirsch, P.E., A.P. Eloranta, P.A. Amundsen, A. Brabrand, J. Charmasson, I.P. Helland, M. Power, J. Sanchez-Hernandez, et al. 2017. Effects of water level regulation in alpine hydropower reservoirs: An ecosystem perspective with a special emphasis on fish. Hydrobiologia 794: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holgerson, M.A., and P.A. Raymond. 2016. Large contribution to inland water CO2 and CH4 emissions from very small ponds. Nature Geoscience 9: 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hu, Z., J.W. Lee, K. Chandran, S. Kim, and S.K. Khanal. 2012. Nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from aquaculture: A review. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 6470–6480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyvonen, N.P., J.T. Huttunen, N.J. Shurpali, S.E. Lind, M.E. Marushchak, L. Heitto, and P.J. Martikainen. 2013. The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emissions and surface leaching losses from a cutaway peatland cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop. Boreal Environment Research 18: 109–126.Google Scholar
  31. Ibarra, G., A. De la Fuente, and M. Contreras. 2015. Effects of hydropeaking on the hydrodynamics of a stratified reservoir: the Rapel Reservoir case study. Journal of Hydraulic Research 53: 760–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In H.S. Egglestone, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe, editors. Prepared by the national Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programm. IPCC.Google Scholar
  33. IPCC. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands IPCC, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  34. IUCN. 1997. Fishing for living—The cology and economics of fishponds in Central Europe. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  35. Jaramillo, F., and G. Destouni. 2015. Comment on “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet”. Science 348: 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaika, M. 2003. The Water Framework Directive: A new directive for a changing social, political and economic European Framework. European Planning Studies 11: 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katopodis, C., and J.G. Williams. 2012. The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecological Engineering 48: 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehner, B., C.R. Liermann, C. Revenga, C. Vörösmarty, B. Fekete, P. Crouzet, P. Döll, M. Endejan, et al. 2011a. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehner, B., C. Reidy Liermann, C. Revenga, C. Vörösmarty, B. Fekete, P. Crouzet, P. Döll, M. Endejan, et al. 2011b. Global Reservoir and Dam (GRanD) database—Technical Documentation Version 1.1.Google Scholar
  40. Linton, J., and J. Budds. 2014. The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum 57: 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Luan, J., and J. Wu. 2015. Long-term agricultural drainage stimulates CH4 emissions from ditches through increased substrate availability in a boreal peatland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 214: 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcé, R., B. Obrador, L. Gómez-Gener, N. Catalán, M. Koschorreck, M.I. Arce, G. Singer, and D. von Schiller. 2019. Emissions from dry inland waters are a blind spot in the global carbon cycle. Earth-Science Reviews 188: 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martínez-Sanchis, I., and M.J. Viñals. 2015. Enhancing the traditional Mediterranean irrigation agroecosystems: A case study of the rivers Túria and Júcar. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 192: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moss, B. 2008. The Water Framework Directive: Total environment or political compromise? Science of the Total Environment 400: 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moss, B., S. Kosten, M. Meerhoff, R.W. Battarbee, E. Jeppesen, N. Mazzeo, K. Havens, G. Lacerot, et al. 2011. Allied attack: Climate change and eutrophication. Inland Waters 1: 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Naiman, R.J. 1995. The freshwater imperative—A research agende. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nilsson, C., C.A. Reidy, M. Dynesius, and C. Revenga. 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308: 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olden, J.D., C.P. Konrad, T.S. Melis, M.J. Kennard, M.C. Freeman, M.C. Mims, E.N. Bray, K.B. Gido, et al. 2014. Are large-scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patocka, F. 2014. Environmental impacts of pumped storage hydro power plants. Master thesis. Norwegen University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  50. Pechar, L. 2000. Impacts of long-term changes in fishery management on the trophic level water quality in Czech fish ponds. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perez-Diaz, J.I., M. Chazarra, J. Garcia-Gonzalez, G. Cavazzini, and A. Stoppato. 2015. Trends and challenges in the operation of pumped-storage hydropower plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44: 767–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poff, N.L., and D.D. Hart. 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52: 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Potter, D.U., M.P. Stevens, and J.L. Meyer. 1982. Changes in physical and chemical-variables in a new reservoir due to pumped-storage operations. Water Resources Bulletin 18: 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reilly, K.H., and J.F. Adamowski. 2017. Stakeholders’ frames and ecosystem service use in the context of a debate over rebuilding or removing a dam in New Brunswick, Canada. Ecology and Society 22: 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Richter, B.D., R. Mathews, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13: 206–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14.Google Scholar
  57. Schrier-Uijl, A.P., A.J. Veraart, P.A. Leffelaar, F. Berendse, and E.M. Veenendaal. 2011. Release of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry 102: 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steffen, B. 2012. Prospects for pumped-hydro storage in Germany. Energy Policy 45: 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockstrom, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S.R. Carpenter, et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347: 1259855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Straskraba, M., J.G. Tundisi, and A. Duncan. 1993. Comparative reservoir limnology and water quality management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teodosiu, C., G. Barjoveanu, and D. Teleman. 2003. Sustainable water resources management 1. River Basin Management and the EC Water Framework Directive. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2: 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thornton, K.W., B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne. 1990. Reservoir limnology: Ecological perspectives. Somerset, New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. UnitedNations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  64. Veraart, A.J., W.J.J. de Bruijne, J.J.M. de Klein, E.T.H.M. Peeters, and M. Scheffer. 2011. Effects of aquatic vegetation type on denitrification. Biogeochemistry 104: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Verdegem, M.C.J., and R.H. Bosma. 2009. Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and options to produce more fish in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11: 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vermaat, J.E., F. Hellmann, A.T.C. Dias, B. Hoorens, R.S.P. van Logtestijn, and R. Aerts. 2011. Greenhouse gas fluxes from Dutch Peatland water bodies: importance of the surrounding landscape. Wetlands 31: 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verpoorter, C., T. Kutser, D.A. Seekell, and L.J. Tranvik. 2014. A global inventory of lakes based on high-resolution satellite imagery. Geophysical Research Letters 41: 6396–6402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vlachopoulou, M., D. Coughlin, D. Forrow, S. Kirk, P. Logan, and N. Voulvoulis. 2014. The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment 470: 684–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Voulvoulis, N., K.D. Arpon, and T. Giakoumis. 2017. The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment 575: 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weber, M., B. Boehrer, and K. Rinke. 2019. Minimizing environmental impact whilst securing drinking water quantity and quality demands from a reservoir. River Research and Applications 1: 1.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3406.Google Scholar
  71. Winemiller, K.O., P.B. McIntyre, L. Castello, E. Fluet-Chouinard, T. Giarrizzo, S. Nam, I.G. Baird, W. Darwall, et al. 2016. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351: 128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yang, P., Y. Zhang, D.Y.F. Lai, L. Tan, B. Jin, and C. Tong. 2018. Fluxes of carbon dioxide and methane across the water–atmosphere interface of aquaculture shrimp ponds in two subtropical estuaries: The effect of temperature, substrate, salinity and nitrate. Science of the Total Environment 635: 1025–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Lake ResearchHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Institute of HydrobiologyBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of SciencesCeske BudejoviceCzechia
  4. 4.Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA)GironaSpain
  5. 5.Chair of Hydrobiology and Fishery, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  6. 6.Eule GDIMünsterGermany
  7. 7.Institute of Landscape EcologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  8. 8.B-WARE Research CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Department of Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Institute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations