ArticleEnvironmental management2016
Exploring the Capacity of Water Framework Directive Indices to Assess Ecosystem Services in Fluvial and Riparian Systems: Towards a Second Implementation Phase.
Article in Environmental management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We explored the capacity of the biological and hydromorphological indices used in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to assess ecosystem services by evaluating the ecological status of Spanish River Basins. This analysis relies on an exhaustive bibliography review which showed scientific evidence of the interlinkages between some ecosystem services and different hydromorphological and biological elements which have been used as indices in the WFD. Our findings indicate that, of a total of 38 ecosystem services analyzed, biological and hydromorphological indices can fully evaluate four ecosystem services. In addition, 18 ecosystem services can be partly evaluated by some of the analyzed indices, while 11 are not related with the indices. While Riparian Forest Quality was the index that was able to assess the largest number of ecosystem services (N = 12), the two indices of macrophytes offered very poor guarantees. Finally, biological indices related to diatoms and aquatic invertebrates and the Fluvial Habitat Index can be related with 7, 6, and 6 ecosystem services, respectively. Because the WFD indices currently used in Spain are not able to assess most of the ecosystem services analyzed, we suggest that there is potential to develop the second phase of the WFD implementation taking this approach into consideration. The incorporation of the ecosystem services approach into the WFD could provide the framework for assess the impacts of human activities on the quality of fluvial ecosystems and could give insights for water and watershed management in order to guarantee the delivery of multiple ecosystem services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26884142What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.