An integrated approach to support a river ecological network: A case study from the Mediterranean

Abstract

Riverine ecosystems are among the most impacted ecosystems worldwide since they are exposed to multiple stressors. Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) changes is the main human imprint on those ecosystems whose spatiotemporal habitat destructions pose a threat to biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and ecological processes. The most important statutory instruments for riverine ecosystem protection, conservation and restoration in the European Union are the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directive (HBDs). In this study, we develop a methodological framework to spatially link the ecological integrity of river sub-basins with the protected areas therein, taking into account the influence of land use as expressed in the WFD. We combined a multi-criteria evaluation approach using six of the most frequently applied criteria for conservation evaluation to assess river basin integrity (RBI) index at the sub-basin level, and used as a proxy for functional connectivity categories. In addition, we used the distance of every sub-basin from the surrounding Natura 2000 sites as a measure of structural connectivity. Using ecological network design principles (i.e. Core areas; Corridors; Stepping Stones; Buffer areas; and Restoration areas), we incorporated the two aspects of connectivity into a framework, which links river management at the basin level with the site level assessment as dictated by the HBDs. We implemented this framework in a Mediterranean river basin located in Southern Tuscany, which is part of the Natura 2000 network. Six of the sub-basins (20%) have high functional connectivity, 14 sub-basins (47%) medium and 10 sub-basins (33%) low functional connectivity. Structural connectivity of the study area followed the same tendency as that of functional connectivity, with the majority of the sub-basins having medium connectivity (57%; 17 sub-basins), and 23% (7 sub-basins) and 20% (6 sub-basins) high and low structural connectivity respectively. As a result, six of the sub-basins were characterised as corridor areas while the majority of the sub-basins were identified as buffer areas (57%). Two sub-basins were characterised restoration areas and one as stepping stone (SS). Our approach is one of many plausible ecological networks, which although analytically simple, can be enriched with data on species and stakeholders’ involvement.