Kıyı bitki örtüsünün geniş kapsamlı ekosistem hizmetlerinin küresel ölçekte araştırılması

Öz

Kıyı bitki örtüsü, nehir sistemlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak sucul ve karasal ekosistemler arasında bağlantıyı güçlendirerek çeşitli sosyo-ekolojik işlevler sunar. Fiziksel, kimyasal, biyolojik ve sosyal açıdan kapsamlı ekosistem hizmetleri sunarak insanlar ve çevre arasında kritik bir bağ kurarlar. Bu çalışma, 2000-2023 yılları arasında yapılan bilimsel yayınların bibliyometrik analizi yoluyla nehir kıyı bitki örtüsünün ve ekosistem hizmetlerinin artan önemini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışmada analiz edilen 494 yayında, %72 düzenleyici (su kalitesi, erozyon önleme, iklim düzenleme) ve %43 destekleyici (habitat sağlama) ekosistem hizmetleri ağırlıklı olarak değerlendirilmiş, tedarik ve kültürel hizmetler ise yeterince ele alınmamıştır. Ayrıca, incelenen çalışmalarda istatistiksel analiz, CBS ve model tabanlı yaklaşımlar gibi çeşitli yöntemler kullanılmış olmasına rağmen, standartlaştırılmış değerlendirme yöntemlerinin eksikliği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma nehir kıyı alanlarında bilinçli karar alma ve planlama konusundaki eksiklikleri vurgulamaktadır. Nehir kıyı bitki örtüsünün korunması, yönetilmesi ve restore edilmesinin su kaynaklarının sürdürülebilirliği, biyoçeşitlilik, insan refahı ve genel ekosistem sağlığı için kritik olduğunu belirtmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kıyı bitki örtüsü
• Kıyı zonu
• Ekosistem hizmetleri

Exploring the wide-ranging ecosystem services of riparian vegetation on a global scale

Öz

Riparian vegetation, as an integral part of river systems, provides various socio-ecological functions by strengthening the link between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. They provide comprehensive ecosystem services in physical, chemical, biological and social terms, establishing a critical link between humans and the environment. This study highlights the growing importance of riverine riparian vegetation and ecosystem services through a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications between 2000 and 2023. In the 494 publications analyzed in the study, 72% regulating (water quality, erosion prevention, climate regulation) and 43% supporting (habitat provision) ecosystem services were predominantly evaluated, while provisioning and cultural services were not sufficiently addressed. In addition, although various methods such as statistical analysis, GIS and model-based approaches were used in the reviewed studies, the lack of standardized assessment methods was identified. In conclusion, this study highlights the gaps in informed decision-making and planning in riparian areas. It emphasizes that protecting, managing and restoring riparian vegetation is critical for the sustainability of water resources, biodiversity, human well-being and overall ecosystem health.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Riparian vegetation
• Riparian zone
• Ecosystem services

Kaynakça

1. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A., Belmonte-Ureña, L.J., López-Serrano, M.J., Velasco-Muñoz, J.F., 2018. Forest ecosystem services: An analysis of worldwide research. Forests, 9(8): 453.
2. Betz, F., Lauermann M., Cyffka, B., 2018. Delineation of the riparian zone in data-scarce regions using fuzzy membership functions: An evaluation based on the case of the Naryn River in Kyrgyzstan. Geomorphology, 306:170-181.
3. Bogdan, S.M., Pătru-Stupariu, I., Zaharia L., 2016. The assessment of regulatory ecosystem services: the case of the sediment retention service in a mountain landscape in the Southern Romanian Carpathians. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 32:12-27.
4. Clarke, A., Mac Nally, R., Bond, N., Lake, P.S., 2008. Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review. Freshwater biology, 53(9): 1707-1721.
5. National Research Council, 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
6. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3): 393-408.
7. de Sosa, L.L., Glanville, H.C., Marshall, M.R., Williams, A.P., Jones, D.L., 2018. Quantifying the contribution of riparian soils to the provision of ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 624: 807-819.
8. Deeksha, Shukla, A.K., 2022. Ecosystem services: A systematic literature review and future dimension in freshwater ecosystems. Applied Sciences, 12(17): 8518.

9. Dufour, S., Rodríguez-González, P., 2020. Riparian zone/riparian vegetation definition: principles and recommendations. report, COST Action CA16208, Converges European Riparian Ecosystems, 20, https://converges.eu/resources/riparian-zone-riparian-vegetation-definition-principles-and-recommendations/. Access date: 01.11.2023
10. Dufour, S., Rodríguez-González, P.M., Laslier, M., 2019. Tracing the scientific trajectory of riparian vegetation studies: Main topics, approaches and needs in a globally changing world. Science of the Total Environment, 653: 1168-1185.
11. EC, 2019. European Commission, The European Green Deal, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF Fonseca, A., Zina, V., Duarte, G., Aguiar, F.C., Rodríguez-González, P.M., Ferreira, M.T., Fernandes, M.R., 2021. Riparian Ecological Infrastructures: Potential for biodiversity-related ecosystem services in Mediterranean human-dominated landscapes. Sustainability, 13(19): 10508.
12. Fu, B., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, B., Yin, S., Zhu, H., Xing, Z., 2016. Evaluation of ecosystem service value of riparian zone using land use data from 1986 to 2012. Ecological Indicators, 69: 873-881.
13. González, E., Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Bourgeois, B., Boz, B., Nilsson, C., Palmer, G., Sher A.A., 2017. Integrative conservation of riparian zones. Biological Conservation, 211: 20-29.
14. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, 43: 413-433.
15. Hanna, D.E., Tomscha, S.A., Ouellet Dallaire, C., Bennett, E.M., 2018. A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(3): 1299-1311.
16. Hoppenreijs, J.H., Eckstein, R.L., Lind, L., 2022. Pressures on boreal riparian vegetation: A literature review. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 806130.
17. Kandel, P., Chettri, N., Chaudhary, S., Sharma, P., Uddin, K., 2021. Ecosystem services research trends in the water tower of Asia: A bibliometric analysis from the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Ecological Indicators, 121: 107152.
18. Liu, L., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Shen, J., Qin, D., Li, S., 2019. Trade-off analyses of multiple mountain ecosystem services along elevation, vegetation cover and precipitation gradients: A case study in the Taihang Mountains. Ecological Indicators, 103: 94-104.
19. Maraseni, T., Mitchell, C., 2016. An assessment of carbon sequestration potential of riparian zone of Condamine Catchment, Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy, 54: 139-146.
20. Martin-Lopez, B., Leister, I., Lorenzo Cruz, P., Palomo, I., Grêt-Regamey, A., Harrison, P.A., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., Luque, S., Walz, A., 2019. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: A review. PloS one, 14(6): e0217847.
21. McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T., Hutchinson, J.S., 2017. Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services, 25: 82-88.
22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington, DC.
23. Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., Legese, G., 2020. Ecosystem services research in mountainous regions: A systematic literature review on current knowledge and research gaps. Science of The Total Environment, 702: 134581.
24. Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106: 213-228.
25. Muller, E., 1997. Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Aquatic Botany, 58(3-4): 411-437.
26. Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., McClain, M.E., 2010. Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press, London, UK.
27. Nilsson, C., Jansson, R., Kuglerová, L., Lind, L., Ström, L., 2013. Boreal riparian vegetation under climate change. Ecosystems, 16: 401-410.
28. Pauna, V.H., Picone, F., Le Guyader, G., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., 2018. The scientific research on ecosystem services: A bibliometric analysis. Ecological Questions, 29(3): 53-62.
29. Pedraza, S., Clerici, N., Zuluaga Gaviria, J.D., Sanchez, A., 2021. Global research on riparian zones in the XXI century: A bibliometric analysis. Water, 13(13): 1836.
30. Prado, R.B., Damasceno, G.M.S., Aquino, F.d.G., 2022. Overview of studies on ecosystem services in riparian zones: a systematic review. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 34 (e19):1-16.
31. Price, P., Tubman, W., 2007. Structure and characteristics of riparian lands. Principles for Riparian Lands Management, Land & Water: Australia, Braddon ACT.
32. Riis, T., Kelly-Quinn, M., Aguiar, F.C., Manolaki, P., Bruno, D., Bejarano, M.D., Clerici, N., Fernandes, M.R., Franco, J.C., Pettit, N., 2020. Global overview of ecosystem services provided by riparian vegetation. BioScience, 70(6): 501-514.
33. Sil, Â., Rodrigues, A.P., Carvalho-Santos, C., Nunes, J.P., Honrado, J., Alonso, J., Marta-Pedroso, C., Azevedo, J.C., 2016. Trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem services in a mountain area in Portugal affected by landscape change. Mountain Research and Development, 36(4): 452-464.
34. Singh, R., Singh, G., 2020. Integrated management of the Ganga River: An ecohydrological approach. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 20(2): 153-174.
35. Singh, R., Tiwari, A., Singh, G., 2021. Managing riparian zones for river health improvement: an integrated approach. Landscape and ecological engineering, 17: 195-223.
36. Sweeney, B.W., Newbold, J.D., 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(3): 560-584.
37. UN, 2019. United Nations,Resolution adopted by the general assembly, The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration(2021-2030). https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n19/060/16/pdf/n1906016.pdf?token=xrNHWZHcy5YJNJDUDM&fe=true
38. Urbanič, G., Politti, E., Rodríguez-González, P.M., Payne, R., Schook, D., Alves, M.H., Anđelković, A., Bruno, D., Chilikova-Lubomirova, M., Di Lonardo, S., 2022. Riparian zones-from policy neglected to policy integrated. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 868527.
39. Verdonschot, P., Verdonschot, R., 2022. The role of stream restoration in enhancing ecosystem services. Hydrobiologia, 850: 2537-2562.
40. Vihervaara, P., Viinikka, A., Brander, L., Santos-Martín, F., Poikolainen, L., Nedkov, S., 2019. Methodological interlinkages for mapping ecosystem services-from data to analysis and decision-support. One Ecosystem 4: e26368
41. Wang, B., Tang, H., Xu, Y., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and human well-being into management practices: Insights from a mountain-basin area, China. Ecosystem Services, 27: 58-69.
42. Xu, J., Badola, R., Chettri, N., Chaudhary, R.P., Zomer, R., Pokhrel, B., Hussain, S.A., Pradhan, S., Pradhan, R., 2019. Sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Mountains, Climate Change, Sustainability and People. Springer, Cham.
43. Zhang, X., Estoque, R.C., Xie, H., Murayama, Y., Ranagalage, M., 2019. Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services. PloS one, 14(2): e0210707.