Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70203942

Planning for ecological drought: Integrating ecosystem services and vulnerability assessment

Nejem Raheem·Amanda E. Cravens·Molly Cross·Shelley D. Crausbay·Aaron R. Ramirez·Jamie McEvoy·Dionne Zoanni·Deborah J. Bathke·Michael Hayes·Shawn Carter·Madeleine Rubenstein·Ann Schwend·Kimberly R. Hall·Paul Suberu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As research recognizes the importance of ecological impacts of drought to natural and human communities, drought planning processes need to better incorporate ecological impacts. Drought planning currently recognizes the vulnerability of some ecological impacts from drought (e.g., loss of instream flow affecting fish populations). However, planning often does not identify all the ecological aspects in a landscape that stakeholders value, nor does it examine the extent to which those aspects are vulnerable to drought. One approach for identifying ecological aspects is ecosystem services (ES) -- i.e., the benefits humans receive from nature. To incorporate ecological impacts into drought planning in the Upper Missouri Headwaters region (Montana, USA), we combined ES elicitation using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services and a vulnerability assessment using semi-structured interviews. We juxtaposed results from the interviews and the ES elicitation to assess which ES might be vulnerable to drought and which impacts from interviews were associated with losses of ES. While both methods suggested common drought vulnerabilities, each method also suggested drought vulnerabilities not reported using the other method. The ES elicitation produced more detail about services present in the UMH ecosystem today while interviews resulted in more discussion about ecological transformation from future droughts. Results suggest that some combination of open-ended vulnerability assessment methods and ES elicitation using a structured framework can result in greater understanding of ecological drought vulnerability in a given region.

Explore related subjects

WIREs WaterArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 44.94924926661153° to 46.89023157359399° latitude; -113.13720703125° to -110.72021484375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nejem Raheem, Amanda E. Cravens, Molly Cross, Shelley D. Crausbay, Aaron R. Ramirez, Jamie McEvoy, Dionne Zoanni, Deborah J. Bathke, Michael Hayes, Shawn Carter, Madeleine Rubenstein, Ann Schwend, Kimberly R. Hall, Paul Suberu. 2019-05-23. Planning for ecological drought: Integrating ecosystem services and vulnerability assessment. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1352

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

Disparate groundwater responses to wildfire

Post-wildfire investigations of groundwater response reveal a range of outcomes, varying from substantial increases to notable decreases in recharge and baseflow, with some studies indicating negligible or short-lived effects. This review assesses these varied responses within five critical categories: climate, vegetation, hydrogeology, fire characteristics, and the cryosphere, examining both short-term (within 2 years) and intermediate (2–10 years post-fire) effects. Despite considerable variability, some consistent patterns emerge. For instance, in hydroclimatic settings where water input and evaporative demand cycles are out of sync, post-wildfire groundwater responses tend to be positive (i.e., increased flux or storage), whereas under low fire severity conditions or in vegetation types that quickly recover, groundwater responses tend to be negative (i.e., decreased flux or storage). We synthesize relevant findings into a compendium of testable hypotheses aimed at explaining the spatiotemporal variability in observed post-wildfire groundwater responses. A recurring theme is the critical influence of the pre-wildfire groundwater regime on expected response and recovery. We identify opportunities for specific improvements in post-wildfire monitoring and modeling that would further advance capabilities to predict groundwater response. A key area for further research is understanding how wildfire effects on snow dynamics and other cryospheric processes translate to changes in groundwater.

WIREs Water↗
USGS2024

Food for fish: Challenges and opportunities for quantifying foodscapes in river networks

Riverine fishes face many challenges including habitat degradation and climate change, which alter the productivity of the riverscapes in which fish live, reproduce, and feed. Understanding the watershed portfolio of foraging and growth opportunities that sustain productive and resilient fish populations is important for prioritizing conservation and restoration. However, the spatiotemporal distribution and availability of fish food are poorly understood relative to other factors such as abiotic habitat quantity and quality (e.g., water temperature). In this paper, we build on the concept of “foodscapes,” and describe three components of food for fish, including abundance, accessibility, and quality. We then discuss methodological advances to help address three key questions: (1) Why is food availability hard to estimate? (2) What are the consequences of uncertainty in food availability estimates? and (3) What approaches are available or emerging for quantifying food available to fish? To address the first question, we characterize data acquisition and analytical challenges; for the second, we demonstrate the importance of evaluating and communicating potential consequences of uncertainty; and for the third, we posit opportunities for future work. Collectively, we highlight the need for greater appreciation of the role food plays in stream fish conservation, especially given its critical influence on responses to warming temperatures.

WIREs Water↗
USGS2024

Resilient riverine social–ecological systems: A new paradigm to meet global conservation targets

The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity set forth the 30 × 30 target, an agenda for countries to protect at least 30% of their terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030. With <6 years to reach that goal, riverine conservation professionals are faced with the difficult decision of prioritizing which rivers or river segments should be conserved (protected and/or restored). While incorporating resilience into conservation planning is essential for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining the vital riverine ecosystem services (ES) most threatened by climate change and other environmental and human stresses, this paradigm is at odds with traditional conservation approaches that are either opportunistic or reactionary, where only unique and highly visible ecosystems have been prioritized. Barriers to implementing resilience-based riverine conservation planning include: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and quantifying resilience; (2) insufficient consideration of the social components of riverine systems; (3) the inapplicability of terrestrial-only conservation models to aquatic systems; and (4) the traditional ad hoc and opportunistic approach to conservation. To overcome these barriers, we propose a resilience-based riverine conservation framework that includes: (1) assessing riverine resilience using indicator frameworks; (2) considering rivers as dynamically coupled social–ecological systems; (3) explicitly incorporating terrestrial–aquatic network connectivity into conservation decision-making; and (4) strategic systems planning using a novel resilience–conservation matrix as a tool. This framework has the potential to transform conservation practices around the globe to more effectively protect river systems and enhance their resilience to climate change and human development.

WIREs Water↗