Ecosystem services in Lu

1
Ecosystem services in Lužnice river floodplain,
Czech Republic
David Pithart and Jirí Dušek Institute of
Systems Biology and Ecology, Czech Academy of
Science, Department of wetland and shallow water
ecology, Trebon, Czech Republic
2
Reservoir conflict in 2005
Management plan for the main catchments for the
Czech Republic
3
Land reservation for (possible) reservoir
construction in 205 localities

• To place any infrastructure of supraregional
  importance is not allowed
• To place any infrastructure which can disturb
  geological and/or morphological conditions for
  reservoir constructions is not allowed

4
1 962,3
910,0
1 017,9
5
(No Transcript)
6
Trebechovice pod Orebem
1997
2007
Source Martin Hanousek
7
Counteraction

• Protests of people and local politicians from
  relevant ereas
• Open letter of academic and university community
• Remarks (amandements) of NGOs during public
  comment period

8
Temporary victory

• Land reservation has been wiped out and postponed
  to regional plans, much more thorough
  consideration is expected
• Soft measures have been adopted in much larger
  scale
• Dialogue between ecologists and water managers
  has been strengthened

9
Lesson from this

• Argumentation for ecohydrological principles
  should be strengthened
• General knowledge of benefits of healthy
  floodplain on general level is not enough
• Quantification of these benefits (processes
  services) is urgently needed
• Valuation of these benefits is also urgently
  needed

10
Case study Ecosystem services in Lužnice river
floodplain
11
Ecosystem services concept

• What are ES?
• Proceses functions services. Monetary
  evaluationce. Water retention example
• Critique of this concept
• From the environmentalistic positions
• From the economist positions

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Aim of the study

• Quantification and evaluation of selected
• ecosystem services
• Biodiversity
• Flood mitigation
• Carbon sequestration
• Production of comodities
• What was not evaluated
• Water purification
• Recreation and aesthetic value
• Impact on (micro)climate
• Sediment retention

15
Biodiversity
16
(No Transcript)
17
250 permanent standing water bodies
18
Number of species

• Algae 463
• Zooplankton 63
• Macrophytes 47
• Fish 21

1. Inoculum transport
19
2. Geodiversity
New pool after large flood in 2002
20
(Modified Hessenská metoda, Seják et Dejmal)
Biodiversity evaluation
21
?
Cutting off of old meander, 1992
Source Rostislav Cerný
22
New bifurcation after flood in 2002 (2005)
Source Rostislav Cerný
23
3. Different connectivity with river
different phasing of
limnological processes
different sourcing of water Input of oxygen
Source Rostislav Cerný
24
Pools inside of deciduous forest microaerobic or
anaerobic type
Pools in open terrain aerobic type
Organic matter
Lack of light
Sufficient light
Primary production is prevailing
Decomposition is prevailing
Dissolved oxygen
Low concentrations
Sufficient concentrations
Fish
NO
YES
Large Cladocera - able to control phytoplankton
Small species - not able to control
phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Low biomass
High biomass
25
4.Oxygen input
26
Evaluation

• Value of biotopes in points based on different
  criteria
• Maturity
• Structural diversity
• Species diversity
• Biotope rareness
• Species rareness
• Antropogenic impact
• Vulnerability
• Endangerenment)

27
Value and area contribution of biotopes

• Bream zone of running water 62 3
• Macrophyte vegetation of shallow standing waters
  53 1
• Wetland willow carrs 36 15
• Hardwood alluvial forest (bottomland hardwoods)
  66 13
• Softwood alluvial forest (bottomland softwood) 65
  5
• Solitary trees 25 1
• Riparian beds of reed canary grass 28 30
• Aluvial foxtail meadows 46 15
• Vegetation of tall sedges 26 10
• Arable land 10 8
• Average per ha 38

28
D. Veselý
Financial value of 1 point average cost of real
revitalization projects investment needed for
increase of biotope value by one point - 0.8 USD

29
Retence sedimentu
Flood mitigation - Water retention
30

Digital elevation model of terrain
Source J.Žaloudík
31
Retention volume, spring 2006)
Area flooded 478 ha Volume 4.9 mil. m³ Full
capacity 7 mil.m3 Average depth 1,023 m
32
Infiltration and evaporation 16 of the total
volume Reservoir 20 m deep 2.5
33
Mitigation effect on major flood events
Decrease of culmination discharge from
10-20 Delay of culmination 2 days
34
D. Veselý
Cost of 1 m3 of retention 13 35 USD, average
23 USD
35
Carbon sequestration Mokré louky study site
36
Parameters measured
Weather station

• Soil temp. at 0, 5, 10, 20 a 30 cm
• Groundwater level
• Soil humidity
• Precipitation
• Temperature and air humidity at 1, 2 a 4 m.
• Wind velocity and direction
• Radiation (Phar,Glob.,long wave)

Eddy covariace system

• Wind velocity and direction in 3D
• Flux of CO2 a H2O

37
Mokré louky carbon sequestration
NEP (C sequestrat.) 20061988 kg C ha-1 20072202
kg C ha-1
Month
38
Production of comodities

• hay 20 q/ha/r (1800 Kc/q)
• timber 5 m3/ha/r (594 Kc/m3)(source local
  economic subjects)
• fish angling list of species angled in district
  Lužnice 11

Species Weigth Price/kg Total price
kg Kc
kapr 2 466 47 4140
štika 790 180 5080
cejn 115 25 103
ostatní 94 100 339
Celkem 3 465 9656
(zdroj monitoring Ceského rybárského svazu)
39
Calculation of ES monetary value

• Flood mitigation
• 10 251 m3/ha . 400 / 20 205 020 Kc.ha-1.r-1
  (7322 )
• Biodiversity
• Point value 12 Kc . 10 000 . 38 / 20
• 228 000 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (8143 )
• Carbon sequestration
• 7.54 t.ha-1 . 419 Kc.t-1 3 159 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (113
  )
• Production of comodities
• hay 658 440 Kc/471 ha 1 463 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (52 )
• timber 181 170 Kc/471 ha 403 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (14
  )
• fish 270 377 Kc (úlovek celkem)/ 471 ha 575
  Kc.ha-1.r-1 (21 )
• Comodities in total 2 441 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (87 )
• In total 438 620 Kc.ha-1.r-1 (7322 )

40
Next time

• Evaluation of other services
• Comparison with ES of transformed floodplain

41
Pool Radka
42
Retence živin
Profily CHMÚ Nová Ves a Suchdol n.Lužnicí
Mesícní monitoring za období 1996 2007 Data
nejsou vztažena k prutokum COV Suchdol není
zahrnuta
43
Celkový fosfor
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)