Back

Representing the sediment retention ecosystem service within an ecosystem account of the Mitchell catchment

McMahon, J. M.; Hasan, S.; Brooks, A.; Curwen, G.; Dyke, J.; Saint Ange, C.; Smart, J. C. R.

2021-08-08 ecology
10.1101/2021.08.06.455476 bioRxiv
Show abstract

If soil resources and the benefits derived from water quality are to be maintained, the on- and off-site effects of soil erosion must be adequately represented and communicated to decision makers so that appropriate management responses can be identified. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA), is one approach to quantify both the contributions that ecosystems make to the economy, and the impacts of economic activity on ecosystems. However, due to the difficulty of obtaining empirical data on ecosystem service flows, in many cases such quantification is informed by ecosystem service models. Previous research on the Mitchell catchment, Queensland Australia allowed us to explore the implications of using a model of hillslope erosion and sediment delivery in isolation (as represented in one of the most frequently used ecosystem service models - InVEST) by comparing such estimates against multiple lines of local empirical data, and a more comprehensive representation of locally important erosion and deposition processes through a sediment budget model. Estimates of the magnitude of hillslope erosion modelled using an approach similar to InVEST and the calibrated sediment budget differed by an order of magnitude. If an uncalibrated InVEST-type model was used to inform the relative distribution of erosion magnitude, findings suggest the incorrect erosion process would be identified as the dominant contributor to suspended sediment loads. However, the sediment budget model could only be calibrated using data on sediment sources and sinks that had been collected in the catchment through a sustained research effort. A comparable level of research investment may not be available to inform ecosystem service assessments elsewhere. The results summarised here for the Mitchell catchment demonstrate that practitioners must exercise caution when using estimates of the sediment retention ecosystem service flow which have not been calibrated and validated against locally collected empirical data.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.0%
4
Journal of Environmental Management
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
5
Ecosphere
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
8
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
9
Ecological Applications
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
10
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.7%
12
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
Basic and Applied Ecology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Forest Ecology and Management
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
19
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
20
Water Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
21
Hydrobiologia
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
23
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
Ecography
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
26
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
27
Landscape Ecology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%