Three major steps toward the conservation of freshwater and riparian biodiversity

Abstract

Freshwater ecosystems and their bordering wetlands and riparian zones are vital for human society and biological diversity. Yet, they are among the most degraded ecosystems, where sharp declines in biodiversity are driven by human activities, such as hydropower development, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Because freshwater ecosystems are characterized by strongly reciprocal linkages with surrounding landscapes, human activities that encroach on or degrade riparian zones ultimately lead to declines in freshwater–riparian ecosystem functioning. We synthesized results of a symposium on freshwater, riparian, and wetland processes and interactions and analyzed some of the major problems associated with improving freshwater and riparian research and management. Three distinct barriers are the lack of involvement of local people in conservation research and management, absence of adequate measurement of biodiversity in freshwater and riparian ecosystems, and separate legislation and policy on riparian and freshwater management. Based on our findings, we argue that freshwater and riparian research and conservation efforts should be integrated more explicitly. Best practices for overcoming the 3 major barriers to improved conservation include more and sustainable use of traditional and other forms of local ecological knowledge, choosing appropriate metrics for ecological research and monitoring of restoration efforts, and mirroring the close links between riparian and freshwater ecosystems in legislation and policy. Integrating these 3 angles in conservation science and practice will provide substantial benefits in addressing the freshwater biodiversity crisis.

Full text

Received: 14 July 2023 Revised: 24 November 2023 Accepted: 28 November 2023
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14226
ESSAY
Three major steps toward the conservation of freshwater and
riparian biodiversity
Jacqueline H. T. Hoppenreijs1Jeffery Marker1Ronald J. Maliao2,3
Henry H. Hansen1Erika Juhász4,5Asko Lõhmus6Vassil Y. Altanov7
Petra Horká8Annegret Larsen9Birgitta Malm-Renöfält10 Kadri Runnel6
John J. Piccolo1Anne E. Magurran11
1Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
2Pál Juhász-Nagy Doctoral School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
3Community Resiliency and Environmental Education Development (CREED) Foundation, Iloilo, Philippines
4Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary
5National Laboratory for Health Security’, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary
6Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
7Department of Community and Ecosystem Ecology, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany
8Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
9Department of Soil Geography and Landscape, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
10Department of Ecolog y and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
11Centre for Biological Diversity, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
Correspondence
Jacqueline H. T. Hoppenreijs, Department of
Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstads
University, Universitetsgatan 2, 651 88 Karlstad,
Sweden. Email: jacqueline.hoppenreijs@kau.se
Article impact statement: Better use of local
knowledge and diversity metrics, and anchoring
freshwater–riparian links in policy, can improve
freshwater conservation.
Funding information
Leverhulme Trust, Grant/Award Number:
RPG-2019-402; Stiftelsen Längmanska
Kulturfonden, Grant/Award Number: BA22-0561;
Eesti Teadusagentuur, Grant/Award Number: 1121;
National Laboratory for Health Security,
Grant/Award Number: RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006;
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions,
Grant/Award Number: 860800
Abstract
Freshwater ecosystems and their bordering wetlands and riparian zones are vital for human
society and biological diversity. Yet, they are among the most degraded ecosystems, where
sharp declines in biodiversity are driven by human activities, such as hydropower develop-
ment, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Because freshwater ecosystems are characterized
by strongly reciprocal linkages with surrounding landscapes, human activities that encroach
on or degrade riparian zones ultimately lead to declines in freshwater–riparian ecosystem
functioning. We synthesized results of a symposium on freshwater, riparian, and wetland
processes and interactions and analyzed some of the major problems associated with
improving freshwater and riparian research and management. Three distinct barriers are
the lack of involvement of local people in conservation research and management, absence
of adequate measurement of biodiversity in freshwater and riparian ecosystems, and sepa-
rate legislation and policy on riparian and freshwater management. Based on our findings,
we argue that freshwater and riparian research and conservation efforts should be inte-
grated more explicitly. Best practices for overcoming the 3 major barriers to improved
conservation include more and sustainable use of traditional and other forms of local
ecological knowledge, choosing appropriate metrics for ecological research and monitor-
ing of restoration efforts, and mirroring the close links between riparian and freshwater
ecosystems in legislation and policy. Integrating these 3 angles in conservation science and
practice will provide substantial benefits in addressing the freshwater biodiversity crisis.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
© 2024 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Conservation Biology. 2024;38:e14226. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cobi 1of9
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14226

2of9 HOPPENREIJS ET AL.
KEYWORDS
biodiversity, conservation, freshwater, policy, riparian, traditional ecological knowledge, wetlands
INTRODUCTION
Fresh water is a vital resource for life, yet freshwater ecosys-
tems are among the most highly threatened on Earth (Albert
et al., 2021; Tickner et al., 2020). Historically, ecological research
focused on freshwater and terrestrial areas separately, and
research on riparian zones only started to develop in the 1980s
(Odum, 1979). Riparian zones are generally defined as the land
along a freshwater waterbody that is affected by its hydrologi-
cal regime and can be as narrow as mere decimeters or so wide
that they encompass entire floodplains and wetlands (Naiman
et al., 2005). Although fresh water and riparian zones make up
only a small fraction of Earth’s surface, many people’s social and
economic well-being depends on them (Dudgeon et al., 2006).
The development of riparian research has improved under-
standing of the reciprocal links between freshwater biodiversity,
adjacent riparian zones, and surrounding wetlands (Baxter
et al., 2005; Nakano & Murakami, 2001). Despite considerable
progress in understanding of these ecosystems, anthropogenic
pressures on freshwater, riparian, and wetland ecosystems have
increased (Hoppenreijs et al., 2022; Reid et al., 2019; Sten-
dera et al., 2012). Land-use change, fragmentation, pollution,
and biological invasions are among the main threats to fresh-
water, riparian, and wetland biodiversity (Reid et al., 2019;
Tolkkinen et al., 2020). Because biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning are closely linked (Cardinale et al., 2006;Yachi
& Loreau, 1999), these pressures also can lead to declines in
ecological functioning and potentially to the collapse of impor-
tant ecosystem services (Moi et al., 2022). These problems
are particularly urgent because freshwater and riparian sys-
tems, despite their close ecological linkage, are rarely considered
together in research, management, and policy (Maasri et al.,
2022; Rodríguez-González et al., 2022). The most effective way
forward in dealing with the threats humanity poses to these vital
systems is stewardship in which freshwater and riparian research
and management are integrated (Muehlbauer et al., 2019;Singh
et al., 2021; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2020).
Research and conservation thus need to reflect the close link-
ages of the freshwater, riparian, and wetland components of
the landscape. The flow regime and water quality determine the
extent to which riparian life is facilitated, for example, through
material deposition and by creating habitat for riparian species
(Bejarano et al., 2020; Naiman et al., 2005). Simultaneously, the
riparian zone is a determinant of in-stream conditions because
it buffers lateral inflow, regulates water temperature, and sup-
ports in-stream life through nutrient addition, habitat provision,
and protection from pollution (Luke et al., 2007; Riis et al.,
2020). Wetlands also play key roles in water storage by creating a
diversity of aquatic and semiaquatic conditions and connections
(Lane et al., 2018). Many species use or contribute to more than
one of these ecosystems, which further solidifies their linkages
(Juhász et al., 2020; Larsen et al., 2021; Naiman et al., 2002).
Anthropogenic transformation and disturbances lead to a weak-
ening of these crucial connections or a disruption of flows.
Thus, efforts to counter freshwater biodiversity loss and biodi-
versity change (Arthington, 2021; Xu et al., 2023) must explicitly
acknowledge and address freshwater–riparian linkages.
This essay results from a symposium held at the 2022 Euro-
pean Congress on Conservation Biology (ECCB), at which
conservation scientists and practitioners from around Europe
and the world gathered to address the theme of the meeting
Biodiversity Crisis in a Changing World. The symposium Biodi-
versity across the Aquatic-Terrestrial Boundary: Rivers and their
Riparian Zones addressed freshwater and riparian issues. We
assembled scientists, conservationists, and policymakers from
freshwater, wetland, and riparian disciplines and explored how
these fields may be better integrated and how this integra-
tion can improve biodiversity. The symposium presentations
and consequential discussions between presenters and orga-
nizers led to a consensus on 3 key conservation issues and
potential solutions: application of traditional and local ecolog-
ical knowledge and citizen science in research and conservation;
measurement of freshwater and riparian biodiversity to support
ecosystem-scale research questions and justify research actions,
while acknowledging the uncertainty and limitations of biodi-
versity measurements; and embedding of freshwater–riparian
linkages in policy and management. Advances in these areas
will help researchers, policymakers, managers, and local stake-
holders work together more effectively, and advance freshwater
conservation.
KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, LOCAL
STAKEHOLDERS, AND CITIZEN
SCIENTISTS
Ecosystem conservation needs to involve the people who
depend on the focal ecosystems and who are affected by their
degradation. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is one
form of knowledge that should be recognized more widely
(Huntington, 2000). It is especially relevant in riparian and fresh-
water ecosystems that play a part in people’s daily lives, for
example as hunting and fishing grounds and recreational areas
(Arthington et al., 2010; Riis et al., 2020). Scientists and con-
servationists should respect TEK, strive for the constructive
engagement with TEK holders beyond using their local exper-
tise during data collection (Shackeroff & Campbell, 2007), and
help build transformative social–ecological systems based on
common visions (Lam et al., 2020; Molnár & Babai, 2021).
Traditional and other forms of local ecological knowledge
shared among fishers, hunters, foresters, farmers, and water
managers, as well as local conservationists, can have sig-
nificant conservation relevance. All these knowledge holders

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 3of9
can provide expert knowledge and may have valuable and
diverse perceptions about riparian–freshwater conservation and
restoration targets (Berkes et al., 2000; Remm et al., 2019;
Wheeler & Root-Bernstein, 2020). To ensure that conserva-
tion impacts are equitable, it is also crucial to integrate gender
dimensions. Men and women may have different knowledge sets
because they experience the environment and its changes differ-
ently (McElwee et al., 2021). For example, gender-specific labor
specialization can lead to differences in perceptions of the envi-
ronment (Maliao & Polohan, 2008). Regardless of the source,
researchers need to ensure that the inclusion of TEK or local
knowledge represents more than “buy-in” (Hall et al., 2016).
Researchers should also avoid reducing these forms of knowl-
edge to a single idea or action (Shackeroff & Campbell, 2007)
and make sure that knowledge holders are collaborating based
on free prior and informed consent well before measures are
decided on and implemented (Hanna & Vanclay, 2013).
Citizen science programs have a key role to play in conser-
vation science (Adler et al., 2020). Because rivers and riparian
zones often have cultural significance and are popular places
to visit (Riis et al., 2020), there is considerable scope for data
collection even by people who do not use them on a day-to-
day basis. Citizen science programs have been responsible for
the accumulation of millions of data points worldwide (Kobori
et al., 2016), and freshwater ecosystems make up a relatively
large share of those, compared with terrestrial and marine
ecosystems (Theobald et al., 2015). Engaging TEK holders and
other knowledge holders in conservation can help improve sci-
entific and community support especially for freshwater and
riparian projects (Cash et al., 2003), potentially beyond the
lifetime of the project itself (Arnold et al., 2012).
Declines in freshwater biodiversity and weakening of fresh-
water and riparian systems can be countered by involving TEK
and local perceptions because both can provide important eco-
logical information outside of other research methods. The
impacts of involving TEK and other local knowledge more can
extend far beyond ecological conservation. By aligning conser-
vation actions with traditional practices, other cultural aspects
of TEK are maintained and can develop further.
TEK and biodiversity conservation in the
Philippines
TEK in the Philippines contributes to freshwater ecosys-
tem conservation, particularly in species-deprived and data-
deficient freshwater ecosystems (Magbanua et al., 2017). In
the province of Aklan, artisanal riverine fishers exhibit an
extensive understanding of local environmental changes and
resource fluctuations, reflecting the intimate relationship of sub-
sistence communities with their local environment (Maliao et al.,
2023). Riverine biodiversity is perceived as declining, with over-
all catch and their respective sizes shrinking (Altamirano &
Kurokura, 2010). River prawn (Macrobrachium spp.) harvest in
2021 was approximately 0.4 kg per individual per fishing trip,
a 76% decrease in the catch since the 1960s (Maliao et al.,
2023). The overall decline of freshwater biodiversity is locally
associated with the diminished state of river systems. Water
quality is poorer due to pollution and siltation, riverbanks have
weakened and have become prone to erosion, and flow and dis-
charge have been altered. The local communities attribute these
changes to continuing deforestation, alteration of riparian veg-
etation, pollution, and overexploitation. Some people connect
the diminishing state of rivers to “ageing earth” and thus show
an understanding of the planet as a living entity. The diminished
state of rivers is heralded by the decline of frog and dragonfly
populations, locally used as indicators of river condition (Maliao
et al., 2023).
In Aklan, fishing is prohibited on Tuesdays and Fridays, when
malevolent engkantos (nature spirits) are thought to be most
active, and around big boulders and old trees, where benevo-
lent engkantos are perceived to reside (Maliao et al., 2023). Such
local resource and habitat taboos can simplify local conservation
efforts because of the voluntary compliance features implicit in
the taboo system (Colding & Folke, 2001). They are analogous
to Western temporal and spatial management measures against
overfishing (Watson et al., 2021). Through the shared culture,
local communities of TEK holders can have relevant informal
institutions that can provide insights for building resilient gov-
ernance systems to address local freshwater conservation issues
and concerns. Traditional and local knowledge can thus lead to
better understanding of past and ongoing transformations, and
inform future transformative changes (Lam et al., 2020).
BIODIVERSITY MEASUREMENT AND
UNCERTAINTY IN FRESHWATER AND
RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS
Reflecting the high human impact on freshwater ecosystems
(Albert et al., 2021), one of the goals of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2023) is that, “[b]y 2030,
freshwater systems support and sustain biodiversity and human
needs.” However, biodiversity is a multidimensional concept
that can be quantified in multiple ways, each of which pro-
vides different insights into the status of the focal system. A
key decision point, then, in research on freshwater and riparian
biodiversity and conservation, is how to measure biodiversity.
Classical measures of biodiversity quantify diversity at local
levels (αdiversity), between communities (βdiversity), and at
regional levels (γdiversity) (Magurran, 2004). When used in the
traditional way, measures of alpha or beta diversity in isolation
(i.e., that do not consider species’ identities) may be of limited
value for conservation decision-making. However, recent work
(Gotelli et al., 2022) on beta diversity shows how species of
conservation interest are mediating biodiversity change at the
assemblage level. Analyses of these facets can also employ the
different dimensions of biodiversity, namely taxonomic, func-
tional, and phylogenetic diversity (Chao et al., 2021; Gallardo
et al., 2011); patterns of biodiversity change that were not
apparent when only taxonomic diversity is measured can be
uncovered in the process. However, the scaling patterns of dif-
ferent αand βmetrics over space and time are complex (McGill
et al., 2015), particularly in linear or fragmented systems, or

4of9 HOPPENREIJS ET AL.
where connectivity patterns are complex, as is often the case
in freshwater and riparian ecosystems or connected watersheds
embedded within heterogeneous landscapes. Tools that uncover
cross-ecosystem linkages and trophic diversity provide further
insight into biodiversity patterns and are thus also relevant in
the freshwater and riparian context (Horká et al., 2023; Kraus
et al., 2021). In addition, there are suites of metrics that set out
to quantify ecosystem functioning in a broader sense. Indices of
biotic integrity, which quantify change in species composition
in fresh waters, were introduced in the 1980s (Karr, 1981)and
continue to be refined today (Hill et al., 2023). Ecosystem intact-
ness and resilience, as measured by species composition, are
also applied to riparian and freshwater ecosystems (Baho et al.,
2017), as are other metrics, such as mean species abundances
(Rowe et al., 2002), potentially extirpated fractions (Hanafiah
et al., 2011), and extinction rates (Burkhead, 2012).
We present a short overview of biodiversity measurement
with particular relevance to freshwater and riparian ecosystems.
Our overarching message is that there is no single best descrip-
tor of an aquatic system’s biodiversity. It is therefore essential
that users justify their metrics as appropriate to the research
question being asked or the management task at hand and be
explicit when reporting progress in relation to the IUCN and
other targets. These points are well established in the ecological
literature. However, they bear reemphasis because many stud-
ies discuss concepts, such as biodiversity loss, in general terms
only or quote metrics, such as species richness, without pro-
viding information on sampling duration or coverage. They are
also relevant to emerging technologies, such as eDNA (Carraro
et al., 2020). Furthermore, because basing conservation plans on
inadequate information can lead to ineffective action (Catalano
et al., 2019), choosing appropriate time frames and spatial scales
rather than being restricted by funding-based periods and polit-
ical boundaries is crucial for understanding ecological changes
over time (Lowe et al., 2006;Mace,2014).
Tailoring freshwater and riparian biodiversity
measurement for conservation
Considerations on which aspects and scales to measure apply
to assessment of biodiversity in any system but have addi-
tional implications for freshwater and riparian ecosystems. First,
because sampling methods are often ecosystem specific as well
as taxon specific (Radinger et al., 2019), sampling across ecosys-
tem types brings particular challenges. For example, freshwater
and terrestrial phases of a wetland may be important determi-
nants of the diversity of its insects; sampling methodologies, and
data analyses, need to accommodate this heterogeneity. Second,
the highly dynamic nature of freshwater, riparian, and wetland
ecosystems can cause high seasonal and interannual variation
(Biggs et al., 2005). Timing and amplitude of flooding are among
the main drivers of the composition of communities in and
along watercourses (Davidson et al., 2012; Greet et al., 2013).
This type of variation needs to be accounted for when designing
studies and when interpreting their outcomes. It is also crucial
to take into account sampling effort and to report uncertainty
(Wiens, 2008). Third, most of the reports of biodiversity change
are framed in terms of loss of taxonomic αdiversity (Albert
et al., 2021), whereas growing evidence indicates that losses in
taxonomic βdiversity in freshwater systems may be even more
severe (Blowes et al., 2019; Magurran et al., 2018). Using a
range of complementary metrics will improve understanding of
biodiversity change in aquatic ecosystems. Fourth, because bio-
diversity assessment is at its core a comparative quest, decisions
about the choice of baseline or control assemblages against
which to compare new data points are crucial (Soga & Gaston,
2018). Because all ecological assemblages undergo composi-
tional turnover and population fluctuations across space and
time, a baseline is not a single species list or diversity level but
rather a range of values or qualities within which functional or
restored systems would be expected to be placed. Researchers
also need to be aware of the possibility of ecological inertia in
their study system (Essl et al., 2015).
EMBEDDING OF COMBINED
RIPARIAN–FRESHWATER RESEARCH IN
POLICYMAKING
The strong reciprocal linkage between freshwater and riparian
ecosystems and the urgency of the conservation of these sys-
tems require that policymakers apply an integrated approach
in management. Many scientists and policymakers in the field
call for a more fundamental, transformative change to achieve
more effective conservation (DellaSala, 2021). This requires that
the scientific community develops inter- and transdisciplinary
collaboration, fostering connections not only among scien-
tific domains, but also actively participating in policymaking.
This facilitates information flow to and from decision-makers,
increasing their access to the most accurate and up-to-date sci-
entific evidence (Ekberzade et al., 2024). These connections are
especially relevant in the freshwater–riparian context, where dif-
ferent research fields and different groups of funding agencies,
managers, and stakeholders meet. Because of the many ecologi-
cal functions that freshwater and riparian ecosystems fulfill, the
societal stakeholders make for a very diverse group with dif-
ferent, and sometimes opposing, interests (Arnold et al., 2012).
Effective communication (Cash et al., 2003) among all parties
about these interests, the parties’ knowledge, and action plans
and uncertainty is key to successful freshwater and riparian
research and management.
Freshwater–riparian conservation cannot rely on good com-
munication and effective collaboration between scientists and
policymakers alone. A good understanding of the ecologi-
cal reality should not depend on which groups or individuals
are involved and thus risk being different from case to case.
Rather, it needs to be anchored in legislation so that it can
serve as a baseline for practical implementation. Anchoring the
functioning and conservation of riparian and freshwater ecosys-
tems combined and following the precautionary principle, such
as suggested in the section “Watercourses and their riparian
zones in Norwegian national laws and policies”, can stimulate
timely communication and help policymakers and practitioners

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 5of9
balance society’s many and sometimes divergent interests better.
Realistically, such legislation does not prevent every potential
damage to riparian–freshwater ecosystems. In cases where such
damage seems unavoidable, legislation should oblige the ini-
tiator to consider possibilities to mitigate and compensate for
ecological losses and to implement the strategies that account
for the reciprocal linkages between riparian and freshwater
ecosystems and limit or counteract the damage on both the
most.
Watercourses and their riparian zones in
Norwegian national laws and policies
Norwegian laws, regulations, and national guidelines acknowl-
edge the link between watercourses and their riparian zones and
recognize the importance of functional riparian zones by includ-
ing both parts in many of their laws and regulations. This way,
Norway makes their mutual protection the default.
The Norwegian Water Resources Act states that “some nat-
ural vegetation zone must be maintained to reduce runoff
and provide habitat along the banks of watercourses” (Van-
nresursloven, 2000). The European Union’s Water Framework
Directive has been applied in Norwegian law in the form of
the Norwegian Water Regulation. It states that whether a water
body reaches “good ecological status” partially depends on the
structure and condition of its riparian zones (Vannforskriften,
2006). Finally, the Norwegian Planning and Building Act states
that “special consideration must be given to the natural environ-
ment in the 100-metre zone alongside watercourses” (Plan- og
bygningsloven, 2008). Any plans for projects that could affect
the riparian zone or its watercourse must abide by these 3 laws
and regulations. As such, any project that is likely to violate or
interfere with these laws, because it will negatively affect a water-
course or its riparian zones, cannot take place. This is unless
the initiative taker can prove that an exception is warranted
given the alternatives or other issues, or if there is no signif-
icant expected damage, before the project is permitted. The
integrated effects of projects on waterbodies and their riparian
zones are thus taken into account while simultaneously placing
the burden of riparian protection on the project initiator.
Norway implicitly sees the riparian zone as a nature-based
solution for climate change adaptation, for example, through
bank stabilization by functional riparian vegetation and through
natural water retention by the riparian flood plain. The Nor-
wegian National Planning Guidelines for Climate Action and
Adaptation state that “wetlands, riparian zones etc. which can
mitigate the effects of climate change, are important to safe-
guard in spatial planning” (Statlige planretningslinjer for klima-
og energiplanlegging og klimatilpasning, 2018). These guide-
lines specifically put the burden of protection on actors who are
considering constructing so-called gray infrastructure, such as
retaining walls along watercourses. They state “if other solutions
are chosen, explanations must be given as to why nature-based
solutions have not been chosen.” We are unaware of any other
laws or guidelines that so distinctly favor the choice of nature-
based solutions, strengthening the argument for combined
conservation of riparian and freshwater ecosystems.
Norwegian regional and local authorities are “expected to
contribute to good environmental status and manage land use
in the riparian zone along the watercourses in a comprehensive
and long-term perspective” (Ministry of Local Government and
Regional Development, 2019). This means that well-integrated
management of Norwegian freshwater and riparian ecosystems
is guaranteed even further, offering a third aspect in which Nor-
wegian legislation and policy are likely to enhance freshwater
and riparian functioning in the future.
The 3 issues detailed above provide distinct, but comple-
mentary, angles from which one can approach the freshwater
biodiversity crisis and mitigate or even reverse ecosystem degra-
dation. Fundamentally, they require an integrated approach
where freshwater and the connected riparian and wetland
ecosystems are considered. This integration needs to involve
FIGURE 1 Small streams with (a) a forest clearcut reaching to the stream bank and windfallen trees and (b) between pastures with a narrow grazing exclosure.

6of9 HOPPENREIJS ET AL.
the people affected by ecosystem degradation, which sustains
the cultures of knowledge production and practical conserva-
tion stewardship; lead to adequate biodiversity measurement
and clear communication about what can and cannot be inferred
from the outcomes; and be implemented through institutional
policies and practices.
We illustrate the above through examples of small-stream
riparian zones in forest and pasture landscapes (Figure 1).
Riparian zones are often subject to intensive land use through
agriculture, urbanization, or forestry (Hoppenreijs et al., 2022),
which have cascading effects on in-stream conditions. In the
forest case (Figure 1a), clearcutting extended up to the stream-
bank, disrupting ecological functions, such as subsidy input,
recruitment of woody debris, and nutrient and sediment fil-
tration (Lind et al., 2019). In the pasture case (Figure 1b),
a livestock exclosure allowed recovery of riparian vegetation,
improving in-stream flow, reducing sedimentation, and modu-
lating water temperature (Krall & Roni, 2023). For both forest
and pasture riparian systems, scientific knowledge and TEK
exist that support the positive effects of riparian zone protec-
tion for biodiversity and ecosystem function. Such ecological
knowledge is the basis for the policies described in “Water-
courses and Their Riparian Zones in Norwegian National Laws
and Policies.” In our forest case example (Figure 1a), eco-
logical recommendations were not followed, whereas in the
pasture example ecological function was restored by follow-
ing best practices. Better integration of local stakeholder needs
and knowledge with scientific research has the potential to
improve knowledge transfer to ensure that best practices are
implemented more consistently.
CONCLUSION
Our society is currently at a crossroads; it has the chance to
better integrate riparian, freshwater, and wetland research and
management for sustaining these socioecological systems for
the future. Researchers can contribute by involving the peo-
ple who hold forms of relevant knowledge in research and
management, asking the right research questions, and help-
ing the public and policymakers prioritize integrated freshwater
and ecosystem protection. Mirroring the ecological links in our
research and policy practices can help identify and mend broken
linkages in the current conservation of freshwater–riparian sys-
tems and provides an opportunity to preserve and restore their
biodiversity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank A. Iversen (Norwegian Environment Agency) for
informative and constructive discussions about Norwegian leg-
islation and policy. We also thank I. Wallnöefer (RAMSAR)
for her contribution to the symposium. J.M. and J.H. thank
Stiftelsen Längmanska kulturfonden for funding travel to the
conference. As.L. and K.R. thank the Estonian Research Coun-
cil (grant 1121) for financial support, and A.M. acknowledges
the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2019-402). H.H. was supported
by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innova-
tion Programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
(grant agreement 860800): RIBES (river flow regulation, fish
behaviour, and status), and V.A. acknowledges the support
from the Leibniz Competition project Freshwater Megafauna
Futures. E.J. received support through the National Labora-
tory for Health Security (RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006), Centre for
Ecological Research, Budapest, Hungary, and thanks Z. Mol-
nár for support. We are grateful to the Society for Conservation
Biology for organizing the ECCB and the Czech University of
Life Sciences Prague for hosting it. We thank K. Lund Bjørnås
for feedback on parts of the manuscript and J.H. thanks J. Watz
for constructive discussion.
ORCID
Jacqueline H. T. Hoppenr eijs https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4284-5453
Jeffery Marker https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6011-8540
Ronald J. Maliao https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7414-1365
Henry H. Hansen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8630-2875
Erika Juhász https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-7211
Asko Lõhmus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7283-8716
VassilY.Altanov https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9831-6307
Petra Horká https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-7594
Annegret Larsen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2241-0313
Birgitta Malm-Renöfält https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0092-
6842
Kadri Runnel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7308-3623
John J.Piccolo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2633-4178
Anne E. Magurran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0036-2795
REFERENCES
Adler, F. R., Green, A. M., & ¸Sekercio˘
glu, Ç. H. (2020). Citizen science in ecol-
ogy: A place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1469(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14340
Albert, J. S., Destouni, G., Duke-Sylvester, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Oberdorff, T.,
Reis, R. E., Winemiller, K. O., & Ripple, W. J. (2021). Scientists’ warning to
humanity on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Ambio,50(1), 85–94. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01318-8
Altamirano, J. P., & Kurokura, H. (2010). Failing inshore fisheries in Batan
Estuary, Aklan, Central Philippines. Journal of Nature Studies,9, 13–20.
Arnold, J. S., Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Bartels, W. L. (2012). Power and conflict in
adaptive management: Analyzing the discourse of riparian management on
public lands. Ecology and Society,17(1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-04636-170119
Arthington, A. H. (2021). Grand challenges to support the freshwater biodi-
versity emergency recovery plan. Frontiers in Environmental Science,9, Article
664313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.664313
Arthington, A. H., Naiman, R. J., McClain, M. E., & Nilsson, C. (2010). Pre-
serving the biodiversity and ecological services of rivers: New challenges
and research opportunities. Freshwater Biology,55, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02340.x
Baho, D. L., Allen, C. R., Garmestani, A., Fried-Petersen, H., Renes, S. E.,
Gunderson, L., & Angeler, D. G. (2017). A quantitative framework for
assessing ecological resilience. Ecology and Society,22(3), Article 17. https://
doi.org/10.5751/ES-09427-220317
Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D., & Saunders, W. C. (2005). Tangled webs: Reciprocal
flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology,
50(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01328.x
Bejarano, M. D., Sarneel, J., Su, X., & Sordo-Ward, Á. (2020). Shifts in riparian
plant life forms following flow regulation. Forests,11(5), Article 518. https://
doi.org/10.3390/f11050518

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 7of9
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications,10(5), 1251–1262.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;
2.
Biggs, B. J. F., Nikora, V. I., & Snelder, T. H. (2005). Linking scales of
flow variability to lotic ecosystem structure and function. River Research and
Applications,21(2–3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.847
Blowes, S. A., Supp, S. R., Antão, L. H., Bates, A., Bruelheide, H., Chase, J.
M., Moyes, F., Magurran, A., McGill, B., Myers-Smith, I. H., Winter, M.,
Bjorkman, A. D., Bowler, D. E., Byrnes, J. E. K., Gonzalez, A., Hines, J.,
Isbell, F., Jones, H. P., Navarro, L. M., … Dornelas, M. (2019). The geog-
raphy of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science,
366(6463), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1620
Burkhead, N. M. (2012). Extinction rates in north American freshwater fishes,
1900–2010. BioScience,62(9), 798–808. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.
9.5
Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., Wright, J. P., Downing, A. L.,
Sankaran, M., & Jouseau, C. (2006). Effects of biodiversity on the function-
ing of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature,443, 989–992. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature05202
Carraro, L., Mächler, E., Wüthrich, R., & Altermatt, F. (2020). Environmental
DNA allows upscaling spatial patterns of biodiversity in freshwater ecosys-
tems. Nature Communications,11(1), Article 3585. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-020-17337-8
Cash,D.W.,Clark,W.C.,Alcock,F.,Dickson,N.M.,Eckley,N.,Guston,D.
H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable
development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America,100(14), 8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Catalano, A. S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M. M., & Knight, A. T. (2019). Learning
from published project failures in conservation. Biological Conservation,238,
Article 108223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108223
Chao, A., Henderson, P. A., Chiu, C. H., Moyes, F., Hu, K. H., Dornelas, M.,
& Magurran, A. E. (2021). Measuring temporal change in alpha diversity:
A framework integrating taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity
and the iNEXT.3D standardization. Methods in Ecology and Evolution,12(10),
1926–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13682
Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: “Invisible” systems
of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecologi-
cal Applications,11(2), 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)
011[0584:STISOL]2.0.CO;2.
Davidson, T. A., MacKay, A. W., Wolski, P., Mazebedi, R., Murray-Hudson, M.,
& Todd, M. (2012). Seasonal and spatial hydrological variability drives aquatic
biodiversity in a flood-pulsed, sub-tropical wetland. Freshwater Biology,57(6),
1253–1265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
DellaSala, D. (2021). Conservation science and advocacy for a planet in peril. Elsevier.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z.-I., Knowler, D.
J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R. J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.
L. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews,81(2), 163–182. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Ekberzade, B., Carrasco, A. R., Izdebski, A., Sofo, A., Larsen, A., Akinyemi,
F.O., Bruckman, V. J., Baker, N., Clark, S., & Hill, C. (2024). GC Insights:
Fostering transformative change for biodiversity restoration through trans-
disciplinary research. Geoscience Communication,7, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.
5194/gc-7-57-2024
Essl, F., Dullinger, S., Rabitsch, W., Hulme, P. E., Pyšek, P., Wilson, J. R. U.,
& Richardson, D. M. (2015). Delayed biodiversity change: No time to waste.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,30(7), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.
2015.05.002
Gallardo, B., Gascón, S., Quintana, X., & Comín, F. A. (2011). How to choose
a biodiversity indicator—Redundancy and complementarity of biodiversity
metrics in a freshwater ecosystem. Ecological Indicators,11(5), 1177–1184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.12.019
Gotelli, N. J., Moyes, F., Antão, L. H., Blowes, S. A., Dornelas, M., McGill, B.
J., Penny, A., Schipper, A. M., Shimadzu, H., Supp, S. R., Waldock, C. A., &
Magurran, A. E. (2022). Long-term changes in temperate marine fish assem-
blages are driven by a small subset of species. Global Change Biology,28(1),
46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15947
Greet, J., Cousens, R. D., & Webb, J. A. (2013). Seasonal timing of inundation
affects riparian plant growth and flowering: Implications for riparian vege-
tation composition. Plant Ecology,214(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11258-012-0148-8
Hall, D. M., Gilbertz, S. J., Anderson, M. B., & Ward, L. C. (2016). Beyond “buy-
in”: Designing citizen participation in water planning as research. Journal of
Cleaner Production,133, 725–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.
170
Hanafiah, M. M., Xenopoulos, M. A., Pfister, S., Leuven, R. S. E. W., &
Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2011). Characterization factors for water consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions based on freshwater fish species extinction.
Environmental Science and Technology,45(12), 5272–5278. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es1039634
Hanna, P., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the
concept of free, prior and informed consent. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal,31(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.78037
3
Hill, R. A., Moore, C. C., Doyle, J. M., Leibowitz, S. G., Ringold, P. L., &
Rashleigh, B. (2023). Estimating biotic integrity to capture existence value
of freshwater ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America,120(118), Article e2120259119. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.2120259119
Hoppenreijs, J. H. T., Eckstein, R. L., & Lind, L. (2022). Pressures on boreal
riparian vegetation: A literature review. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,9,
Article 806130. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.806130
Horká, P., Musilova, Z., Holubova, K., Jandova, K., Kukla, J., Rutkayova, J., &
Jones, J. I. (2023). Anthropogenic nutrient loading affects both individual
species and the trophic structure of river fish communities. Front ie rs i n Ecol-
ogy and Evolution,10, Article 1076451. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.
1076451
Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science:
Methods and applications. Ecological Applications,10(5), 1270–1274. https://
doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2023). Wa te r .
https://www.iucn.org/nature-2030/water
Juhász, E., Katona, K., Molnár, Z., Hahn, I., & Biró, M. (2020). A rein-
troduced ecosystem engineer species may exacerbate ongoing biological
invasion: Selective foraging of the Eurasian beaver in floodplains. Global
Ecology and Conservation,24, Article e01383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.
2020.e01383
Karr, J. R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communi-
ties. Fisheries,6(6), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1981)006%
3C0021:AOBIUF%3E2.0.CO;2
Kobori, H., Dickinson, J. L., Washitani, I., Sakurai, R., Amano, T., Komatsu, N.,
Kitamura, W., Takagawa, S., Koyama, K., Ogawara, T., & Miller-Rushing, A.
J. (2016). Citizen science: A new approach to advance ecology, education,
and conservation. Ecological Research,31(1), Article 1–19. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11284-015-1314-y
Krall, M., & Roni, P. (2023). Effects of livestock exclusion on stream habitat
and aquatic biota: A review and recommendations for implementation and
monitoring. North American Journal of Fisheries Management,43(2), 476–504.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10863
Kraus, J. M., Kuivila, K. M., Hladik, M. L., Shook, N., Mushet, D. M., Dowdy,
K., & Harrington, R. (2021). Cross-ecosystem fluxes of pesticides from
prairie wetlands mediated by aquatic insect emergence: Implications for ter-
restrial insectivores. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistr y,40(8), 2282–2296.
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5111
Lam, D. P. M., Hinz, El., Lang, D. J., Tengö, M., von Wehrden, H., &
Martín-López, B. (2020). Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability
transformations research: A literature review. Ecology and Society,25(1), Article
3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11305-250103
Lane, C. R., Leibowitz, S. G., Autrey, B. C., LeDuc, S. D., & Alexander, L.
C. (2018). Hydrological, physical, and chemical functions and connectiv-
ity of non-floodplain wetlands to downstream waters: A review. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association,54(2), 346–371. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1752-1688.12633
Larsen, A., Larsen, J. R., & Lane, S. N. (2021). Dam builders and their works:
Beaver influences on the structure and function of river corridor hydrology,

8of9 HOPPENREIJS ET AL.
geomorphology, biogeochemistry and ecosystems. Earth-Science Reviews,218,
Article 103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103623
Lind, L., Hasselquist, E. M., & Laudon, H. (2019). Towards ecologically func-
tional riparian zones: A meta-analysis to develop guidelines for protecting
ecosystem functions and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of
Environmental Management,249, Article 109391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109391
Vannresursloven. (2000). Lov om vassdrag og grunnvann (LOV-2000-11-24-82).
Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2000-11-24-82
Vannforskriften. (2006). Forskrift om rammer for vannforvaltningen (FOR--2006-12-
15-1446). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006-12-
15-1446
Plan- og bygningsloven. (2008). Lov om planlegging og byggesaksbehandling (LOV-
2008-06-27-71). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-
27-71
Statliga planretningslinjer for klima- og energiplanlegging og klimatilpasning.
(2018). Statlige planretningslinjer for klima- og energiplanlegging og klimatilpas-
ning (FOR-2018-09-28-1469). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/
forskrift/2018-09-28-1469
Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. (2019). Nasjonale
forventninger til regional og kommunal planlegging 2019–2023.https://www.
regjeringen.no/contentassets/cc2c53c65af24b8ea560c0156d885703/
nasjonale-forventninger-2019-bm.pdf
Lowe, W. H., Likens, G. E., & Power, M. E. (2006). Linking scales in stream ecol-
ogy. BioScience,56(7), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)
56[591:LSISE]2.0.CO;2.
Luke, S. H., Luckai, N. J., Burke, J. M., & Prepas, E. E. (2007). Riparian areas
in the Canadian boreal forest and linkages with water quality in streams.
Environmental Reviews,15, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1139/A07-001
Maasri, A., Jähnig, S. C., Adamescu, M. C., Adrian, R., Baigun, C., Baird, D. J.,
Batista-Morales, A., Bonada, N., Brown, L. E., Cai, Q., Campos-Silva, J. V.,
Clausnitzer, V., Contreras-MacBeath, T., Cooke, S. J., Datry, T., Delacámara,
G., de Meester, L., Dijkstra, K. D. B., Do, V. T., … Worischka, S. (2022). A
global agenda for advancing freshwater biodiversity research. Ecology Letters,
25(2), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13931
Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science,345(6204), 1558–1560.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24917674
Magbanua, F. S., Fontanilla, A. M., Ong, P. S., & Hernandez, M. B. M. (2017). 25
years (1988-2012) of freshwater research in the Philippines: What has been
done and what to do next? Philippine Journal of Systematic Biology,11(1), 1–15.
Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing.
Magurran, A. E., Deacon, A. E., Moyes, F., Shimadzu, H., Dornelas, M., Phillip,
D. A. T., & Ramnarine, I. W. (2018). Divergent biodiversity change within
ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America,115(8), 1843–1847. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712594115
Maliao, R. J., Cahilig, R. C., Cahilig, R. R., & Jaspe, B. T. (2023). Climate change,
traditional ecological knowledge, and riverine biodiversity conservation: A
case in Aklan, Central Philippines. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04096-x
Maliao, R. J., & Polohan, B. B. (2008). Evaluating the impacts of mangrove
rehabilitation in Cogtong Bay, Philippines. Environmental Management,41(3),
414–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9021-2
McElwee, P., Lê, H., Nghiêm, T., V˜
u, H., & Tran, N. (2021). Gender and pay-
ments for environmental services: Impacts of participation, benefit-sharing
and conservation activities in Viet Nam. Oryx,55(6), 844–852. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0030605320000733
McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J., & Magurran, A. E. (2015). Fif-
teen forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropocene. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution,30(2), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.006
Moi, D., Romero, G., Sobral-Souza, T., Cardinale, B., Pavel, K., Perkins, D.,
Teixeira de Mello, F., Jeppesen, E., Heino, J., Lansac-Tôha, F., Velho, L., &
Mormul, R. (2022). Human pressure drives biodiversity–multifunctionality
relationships in neotropical wetlands. Nature Ecology and Evolution,6,
1279–1289. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1151882/v1
Molnár, Zs., & Babai, D. (2021). Inviting ecologists to delve deeper into tra-
ditional ecological knowledge. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,36(8), 679–690.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006
Muehlbauer, J. D., Lupoli, C. A., & Kraus, J. M. (2019). Aquatic–terrestrial
linkages provide novel opportunities for freshwater ecologists to engage
stakeholders and inform riparian management. Freshwater Science,38(4),
946–952. https://doi.org/10.1086/706104
Naiman, R. J., Bilby, R. E., Schindler, D. E., & Helfield, J. M. (2002). Pacific
salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems.
Ecosystems,5(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0083-3
Naiman, R. J., Décamps, H., & McClain, M. E. (2005). Riparia: Ecology, conserva-
tion, and management of streamside communities. Academic Press. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-663315-3.X5000-X
Nakano, S., & Murakami, M. (2001). Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdepen-
dence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,98(1), 166–170. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.98.1.166
Odum, E. P. (1979). Ecological importance of the riparian zone. In P. P. John-
son & J. F. McCormick (Eds.), Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands and other riparian ecosystems (pp. 2–4). U.S. Forest Service General
Technical Report WO-12.
Radinger, J., Britton, J. R., Carlson, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Alcaraz-Hernández,
J. D., Almodóvar, A., Benejam, L., Fernández-Delgado, C., Nicola, G. G.,
Oliva-Paterna, F. J., Torralva, M., & García-Berthou, E. (2019). Effective
monitoring of freshwater fish. Fish and Fisheries,20(4), 729–747. https://doi.
org/10.1111/faf.12373
Reid, A. J., Carlson, A. K., Creed, I. F., Eliason, E. J., Gell, P. A., Johnson, P.
T. J., Kidd, K. A., MacCormack, T. J., Olden, J. D., Ormerod, S. J., Smol, J.
P.,Taylor,W.W.,Tockner,K.,Vermaire,J.C.,Dudgeon,D.,&Cooke,S.J.
(2019). Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwa-
ter biodiversity. Biological Reviews,94(3), 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/
brv.12480
Remm, L., Lõhmus, A., Leibak, E., Kohv, M., Salm, J., Lõhmus, P., Rosenvald,
R., Runnel, K., Vellak, K., & Rannap, R. (2019). Restoration dilemmas
between future ecosystem and current species values: The concept and a
practical approach in Estonian mires. Journal of Environmental Management,250,
Article 109439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109439
Riis, T., Kelly-Quinn, M., Aguiar, F. C., Manolaki, P., Bruno, D., Bejarano,
M. D., Clerici, N., Fernandes, M. R., Franco, J. C., Pettit, N., Portela, A.
P., Tammeorg, O., Tammeorg, P., Rodríguez-González, P. M., & Dufour,
S. (2020). Global overview of ecosystem services provided by ripar-
ian vegetation. BioScience,70(6), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/
biaa041
Rodríguez-González, P. M., Abraham, E., Aguiar, F., Andreoli, A., Baležentien˙
e,
L., Berisha, N., Bernez, I., Bruen, M., Bruno, D., Camporeale, C., ˇ
Carni,
A., Chilikova-Lubomirova, M., Corenblit, D., ´
Cušterevska, R., Doody, T.,
England, J., Evette, A., Francis, R., Garófano-Gómez, V., … Dufour, S.
(2022). Bringing the margin to the focus: 10 challenges for riparian vege-
tation science and management. WIREs Water,9(5), Article e1604. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1604
Rowe, D. K., Smith, J., Quinn, J., & Boothroyd, I. (2002). Effects of logging with
and without riparian strips on fish species abundance, mean size, and the
structure of native fish assemblages in Coromandel, New Zealand, streams.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,36(1), 67–79. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2002.9517071
Shackeroff, J. M., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). Traditional ecological knowledge
in conservation research: Problems and prospects for their constructive
engagement. Conservation and Society,5(3), 343–360. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/26392893
Singh, R., Tiwari, A. K., & Singh, G. S. (2021). Managing riparian zones for
river health improvement: An integrated approach. Landscape and Ecological
Engineering,17(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-020-00436-5
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2018). Shifting baseline syndrome: Causes, con-
sequences, and implications. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,16(4),
222–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1794
Stendera, S., Adrian, R., Bonada, N., Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Hugueny, B.,
Januschke, K., Pletterbauer, F., & Hering, D. (2012). Drivers and stressors
of freshwater biodiversity patterns across different ecosystems and scales:
Areview.Hydrobiologia,696(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-
1183-0

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 9of9
Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Schmidt, N. R.,
Froehlich, H. E., Wagner, C., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., Harsch,
M. A., & Parrish, J. K. (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping
the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological
Conservation,181, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021
Tickner, D. P., Opperman, J. J., Abell, R., Acreman, M., Arthington, A. H., Bunn,
S. E., Cooke, S. J., Dalton, J., Darwall, W., Edwards, G., Harrison, I., Hughes,
K., Jones, T., Leclère, D., Lynch, A. J., Leonard, P., McClain, M. E., Muruven,
D., Olden, J. D., … Young, L. (2020). Bending the curve of global freshwa-
ter biodiversity loss: An emergency recovery plan. BioScience,70(4), 330–342.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa002
Tolkkinen, M. J., Heino, J., Ahonen, S. H. K., Lehosmaa, K., & Mykrä, H. (2020).
Streams and riparian forests depend on each other: A review with a spe-
cial focus on microbes. Forest Ecology and Management,462, Article 117962.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.117962
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Quiring, S. M., Peña-Gallardo, M., Yuan, S., &
Domínguez-Castro, F. (2020). A review of environmental droughts:
Increased risk under global warming? Earth-Science Reviews,201, Article
102953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102953
Watson, A. S., Hickford, M. J. H., & Schiel, D. R. (2021). Freshwater reserves
for fisheries conservation and enhancement of a widespread migratory fish.
Journal of Applied Ecology,58(10), 2135–2145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.13967
Wheeler, H. C., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2020). Informing decision-making with
Indigenous and local knowledge and science. Journal of Applied Ecology,57(9),
1634–1643. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13734
Wiens, J. A. (2008). Uncertainty and the relevance of ecology. Bulletin of the British
Ecological Society,39, 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051569
Xu, W. B., Blowes, S. A., Brambilla, V., Chow, C. F. Y., Fontrodona-Eslava, A.,
Martins, I. S., McGlinn, D., Moyes, F., Sagouis, A., Shimadzu, H., van Klink,
R., Magurran, A. E., Gotelli, N. J., McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., & Chase, J. M.
(2023). Regional occupancy increases for widespread species but decreases
for narrowly distributed species in metacommunity time series. Nature
Communications,14(1), Article 1463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-
37127-2
Yachi, S., & Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a
fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,96(4), 1463–1468. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463
How to cite this article: Hoppenreijs, J. H. T., Marker,
J., Maliao, R. J., Hansen, H. H., Juhász, E., Lõhmus, A.,
Altanov, V. Y., Horká, P., Larsen, A., Malm-Renöfält, B.,
Runnel, K., Piccolo, J. J., & Magurran, A. E. (2024).
Three major steps toward the conservation of
freshwater and riparian biodiversity. Conservation Biology,
38, e14226. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14226