Suchergebnisse

AbstractNew environmental policies establish the need to maintain the ecological integrity of freshwater ecosystems. The hydrologic regime is a key element in determining river processes and therefore the definition of environmental flow regimes (EFR) is essential to achieve this goal. The EFR can be broadly defined as the water required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems, and the human livelihood that depend on these ecosystems. Nevertheless, the role of the EFR and the methods to calculate them has not been clearly stated in many countries. This paper sets out a procedure to calculate EFRs, which includes not only a minimum flow, but also a temporal variability of this flow. The procedure integrates the results of hydrologic and habitat simulation methods in a temporal scale that takes into consideration the natural hydrologic seasonality while providing a certain level of flexibility to regulate water resources still meeting the requirements of the Spanish Water Planning legislation. The results highlighted the advantages of using different methodological approaches to calculate EFRs. Therefore, this study concludes the validity of a relatively simple hydrologic method for defining minimum environmental flows at a period of maximum hydrologic stress, but also the need to consider different approaches to take into account as many ecosystem elements as possible.

49th European Marine Biology Symposium (EMBS) -- SEP 08-12, 2014 -- Saint Petersburg, RUSSIA ; WOS: 000364937700002 ; The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful. ; Russian Acad Sci, Zool Inst ; COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System; MARES Grant under the Erasmus Mundus framework [FPA 2011- 0016]; SZN PhD fellowship; Portuguese PhD FCT grant [SFRH/BD/84933/2012] ; Meetings to prepare this paper were made possible by funding through COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System. Carlos Castellanos Perez Bolde acknowledges MARES Grant FPA 2011- 0016 under the Erasmus Mundus framework, Marlene Jahnke has been supported by a SZN PhD fellowship, and Joao N. Franco by Portuguese PhD FCT grant SFRH/BD/84933/2012.

13 páginas, 1 figura, 2 tablas. ; The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful. ; Meetings to prepare this paper were made possible by funding through COST Action ES1003 EMBOS on the Development and Implementation of a Pan-European Marine Biodiversity Observatory System. Carlos Castellanos Perez Bolde acknowledges MARES Grant FPA 2011–0016 under the Erasmus Mundus framework, Marlene Jahnke has been supported by a SZN PhD fellowship, and Joa˜o N. Franco by Portuguese PhD FCT grant SFRH/BD/84933/2012. ; Peer reviewed