Understanding and Adapting to Altered Energy and Mass Inputs to Freshwater

Ecosystems: A Pan-American Pilot Study of Ecosystem Service Risk Assessment and Mitigation

T.C. Harmon, D. Conde, J. Rusak, G.M. Perillo, M.I. Velez Caicedo, J.H. Escobar Jaramillo,

M.C. Piccolo, B. Reid, and S. London

SAFER http://safer-iai.org/

Presentation outline:• The SAFER Project• Introduction: current SAFER

study sites• Approach to ecosystem

services risk assessment ▫ Characterizing domain

encompassing watershed▫ Energy-mass flux basis,

integrating paleo-information▫ Risk and risk perception analysis

(stakeholders)• Progress:  selection of key

ES and pressures for further study

• Next steps

SAFER http://safer-iai.org/

SAFER: Sensing the Americas’ Freshwater Ecosystem Risk…

• To employ freshwater ecosystems as “sensors” of climate variability and watershed processes

• Investigate ecosystem interactions with other multiple stressors and assess risks to ecosystem services in the Americas

• To determine management and mitigation strategies which are both feasible and culturally acceptable.

• Integration of the stakeholders and decision makers into the learning arena

• Expand supporting research capacity in the Americas

SAFER: Sensing the Americas’ Freshwater Ecosystem Risk

Muskoka River WatershedOntario, CanadaLower San Joaquin River

California, U.S.A.

Ciénaga Grande de Santa MartaMagdalena, Colombia

Laguna de RochaRocha, Uruguay

Río SenguerrChubut, Argentina

La Paloma Lake ComplexCoyhaique, Chile

Köppen-Geiger Climate ClassificationMap from M.C. Peel, U Melbourne

Forcing climatic factorsBiodiversity & water quality

Socio/Econ/Cult stateSocial perception

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Climate, Limnological & Ecological history

Socio/Econ/Cult history

Prediction of impacts on Risk & Perception ecosystem Analysis Climatic projections

Economic & land use scenarios

Paleo- Human PRESENT FUTURErecord Occupation (2100)

6 sites (+ more…)

Overall SAFER approach

SAFER sites• Río Senguerr Basin, Argentina

▫ Andes to Pampas gradient▫ Wet to Semi-arid▫ Changing runoff regime▫ Streams, lakes, reservoirs ▫ Agriculture, oil recovery, sports

fishing

• Lower San Joaquin River, USA▫ Central Valley▫ Semi-arid, snowpack dependent▫ Changing runoff regime▫ Rivers and reservoirs▫ Agriculture, hydropower, salmon

restoration Water Sustainabili

ty & Climate

SAFER sites (continued)• La Cienaga Granda de Santa

Marta (Colombia)▫ Wetland and coastal lagoon▫ Tropical to cooler highlands▫ Sea level/surge and salinity issues▫ Agriculture, artisanal fishery,

drinking water-wastewater• Laguna de Rocha (Uruguay)

▫ Wetland and coastal lagoon▫ Humid subtropical▫ Sea level/surge and salinity issues▫ Drinking water-wastewater,

nutrient regulation, artisanal fishery

SAFER sites (continued)• Muskoka River Watershed,

Ontario, Canada▫ Lake-cottage setting▫ Humid continental▫ Changing hydrograph▫ Land use-water clarity

• La Paloma Lake Complex, Coyhaique, Chile ▫ Low population density▫ Oceanic climate▫ Glacier reduction, changing

hydrograph▫ Drinking water, grazing pressure,

invasive algae and sport fishing

Proposed Approach1. Gather data on sites• Energy-mass (E-m) approach• Past (paleo-environmental, human history)

2. Inventory ecosystem services, and links between pressures, ecosystems, ecosystem services and stakeholders

3. Prioritize ecosystem services4. Risk and perception 5. (Meta-)analysis of different biophysical,

socioeconomic and cultural settings

Overall approach schematically:

Lozoya et al. (2014) in press

1. Site Characterization: E-m (Energy flux, mass transport)

• Freshwater ecosystems respond to direct and indirect transfers of energy (E) and mass (m)▫ Climate-driven or

anthropogenic• 2 advantages to E-m

approach:▫ Couples naturally with

process models (hydroclimate, water quality)

▫ Emphasizes inclusion of the paleo-record Leavitt et al. (2009) Limnol. Oceanogr.

1. Site Characterization: E-m approach• Tier 1 models* are first-approximation models

(usually simple indices) ▫ Climate: e.g., water scarcity index, etc.▫ Socioeconomic: e.g., “potential tourism” index

• Tier 2 models are simulate distributed processes and mechanisms in physical, ecological and socioeconomic systems.▫ Climate: distributed parameter hydrologic model (e.g.,

SWAT, WEAP)▫ Socioeconomic: model of annual visitors/dollars based on

environmental attributes, etc.

*Tier 1 and Tier 2 based on the Natural Capital Project’s InVEST Model terminology(http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/)

1. Site Characterization: integrating “paleo”

Velez et al. (2014 ) The Holocene, in press

• Freshwater conditions dominated in past• Transition to brackish with sea level rise• Balance between seal level and watershed

hydrology• Will human activity accelerate La Cienaga SM to

the “tipping point” to marine conditions?

2. Characterizing ES and links to pressures

• Created exhaustive list of ecosystem services and pressures on them (using CISES* nomenclature)▫ Key services and pressures

• Gathering local stakeholder perceptions (Uruguay complete)

*CISES = Common International System for Ecosystems Services

SAFER meeting with Dirección de General de Aguas (DGA), Coyhaique, Chile, April 2014

SAFER PI meeting at La Paloma Lake Complex study site, April 2014

3. Prioritization: Key ecosystem services

Ecosystem Services:

SAFER Site: Provisioning Regulating Cultural/SpiritualCanada   water quality recreation (swimming, boating)

  flood control  

United Statesirrigated agriculture water quality salmon restoration

Colombiairrigated agriculture water quality  

Uruguay artisanal fishery water quality sightseeing/heritage

Argentinairrigated agriculture water quality  drinking water    

Chile livestock   recreation (flyfishing)hydropower    

Project team and local expertise combined to narrow focus to 2 or 3 key ecosystem services:

4. Risk and Risk Perception Analysis• Method based on Lozoya et al. (2011) Environ. Sci. Policy.• In brief, risk is product of relative weights:

RES-V = EPES x VALES x VULSTK

RES-V is the risk estimate for an ecosystem service EPES is the “effective provision” of that service [science]VALES is the value of that service [social science, stakeholders]VULSTK is the stakeholder vulnerability to reduced service [stakeholders]

Key Question: How well will this approach translate across sites with major biogeographical, socioeconomic, and cultural differences?

5. (Meta-)Analysis over 6 sites• Compare and contrast sites

with respect to:▫ Biophysical gradients▫ Socioeconomic development▫ Water rights and land tenure setting▫ LU/LC ▫ Vulnerability to climatic and

anthropogenic pressures▫ Risk perception▫ Watershed policy/regulatory setting

• Identify gaps in coverage and recruit new collaborators

Watershed demographics

Río Senguerr: sparse population, agriculture, and oil

Water footprint (national)

• Green: Precipitation and soil moisture directly consumed• Blue: Surface and groundwater applied and consumed (e.g.

irrigation)• Grey: Water needed to assimilate pollutants back into water bodies

Fulton et al. (2012) California Water InstituteMekonnen and Hoekstra (2011) UNESCO-IHE

Getting involved! tharmon@ucmerced.edu

https://eng.ucmerced.edu/harmon/wsc-savi2.html

Summary of progress:• 6 current SAFER study sites covering a broad

biophysical, socioeconomic and cultural space• Characterized ecosystem services

▫ Domain encompassing watershed▫ Energy-mass flux basis, integrating paleo-information▫ Risk and risk perception analysis

• Prognosis: Individual site results should be valuable▫Challenge will be in overall synthesis

Thank you!

Acknowledgments:

• InterAmerican Institute (IAI) for Global Change Research, Coordinated Research Network Program

• National Science Foundation (NSF):▫ Science Across Virtual

Institutes (SAVI) CBET-1336839

▫ Water Sustainability & Climate (WSC) CBET-1204841

First SAFER graduate training workshopCoihaique, Chile May 1-6, 2014