IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jworld/v4y2023i4p40-652d1247769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Restoration and Conservation of Riparian Vegetation on Sediment Retention in the Catchment Area of Corumbá IV Hydroelectric Power Plant, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Natália Pezzi Fachinelli

    (Energy Planning Program PPE/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-914, Brazil)

  • Amaro Olímpio Pereira

    (Energy Planning Program PPE/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-914, Brazil)

Abstract

Vegetation cover and land use are important factors related to the capacity of ecosystems to provide soil loss regulation and sediment retention services, which are highly relevant for sediment management in watersheds draining into reservoirs with multiple water uses. One way to ensure the protection and recovery of vegetation by landowners in Brazil is the implementation of the federal Native Vegetation Protection Law (NVPL), which designates environmentally sensitive areas as Areas of Permanent Preservation (APPs), aiming to conserve water resources and prevent soil erosion. The benefits of riparian vegetation in the catchment of Corumbá IV Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), located in the Brazilian Cerrado, were analyzed considering landscape reconfigurations from a baseline condition (year 2011) in order to account for the recovery of riparian vegetation by the agricultural sector, as foreseen in the NVPL. The Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) model from the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs) package was used to map and quantify variations in sediment export and sediment retention throughout the catchment. The reduction in annual sediment export in the drainage basin of the Corumbá IV reservoir reached −27% in the scenario where the total deficit of riparian APPs occupied by pasture or agriculture in the baseline map (41.000 ha) are recovered. While 14% of riparian APP are occupied by crops versus 86% occupied by pasture in the drainage basin of the Corumbá IV HPP, the recovery of riparian zones occupied by agricultural activities resulted in the greatest benefits in sediment retention for the reservoir. The methodology employed in this study can support the prioritization of sectoral efforts for the restoration and conservation of native vegetation, considering the highest returns in benefits perceived by water users affected by sediment input in reservoirs. The study’s results reinforce the importance of conserving vegetation in riparian areas and their surroundings for sediment retention, highlighting the role of these areas as assets in providing water-related ecosystem services. For future developments, it is suggested to assess the interconnections among the energy, water, and food sectors to better understand the barriers and challenges to the maintenance and improvement of water-related ecosystem services in the catchment area of Corumbá IV HPP.

Suggested Citation

  • Natália Pezzi Fachinelli & Amaro Olímpio Pereira, 2023. "Effects of Restoration and Conservation of Riparian Vegetation on Sediment Retention in the Catchment Area of Corumbá IV Hydroelectric Power Plant, Brazil," World, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jworld:v:4:y:2023:i:4:p:40-652:d:1247769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/4/4/40/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/4/4/40/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guidotti, Vinicius & Ferraz, Silvio Frosini de Barros & Pinto, Luis Fernando Guedes & Sparovek, Gerd & Taniwaki, Ricardo H. & Garcia, Lara Gabrielle & Brancalion, Pedro H.S., 2020. "Changes in Brazil’s Forest Code can erode the potential of riparian buffers to supply watershed services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Vogl, Adrian L. & Dennedy-Frank, P. James & Wolny, Stacie & Johnson, Justin A. & Hamel, Perrine & Narain, Urvashi & Vaidya, Anil, 2016. "Managing forest ecosystem services for hydropower production," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-229.
    3. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mingjing Guo & Ziyu Jiang & Yan Bu & Jinhua Cheng, 2019. "Supporting Sustainable Development of Water Resources: A Social Welfare Maximization Game Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Jonathan Fletcher & Nigel Willby & David M. Oliver & Richard S. Quilliam, 2023. "Field-Scale Floating Treatment Wetlands: Quantifying Ecosystem Service Provision from Monoculture vs. Polyculture Macrophyte Communities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Siyu Yue & Huaien Li & Fengmin Song, 2023. "Temporal–Spatial Variations in the Economic Value Produced by Environmental Flows in a Water Shortage Area in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Ioannis Souliotis & Nikolaos Voulvoulis, 2021. "Natural Capital Accounting Informing Water Management Policies in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Chen, Haojie, 2020. "Complementing conventional environmental impact assessments of tourism with ecosystem service valuation: A case study of the Wulingyuan Scenic Area, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. Vera Nikolić & Zlatko Nedić & Dubravka Škraba Jurlina & Vesna Djikanović & Tamara Kanjuh & Ana Marić & Predrag Simonović, 2023. "Status and Perspectives of the Ichthyofauna of the Labudovo okno Ramsar Site: An Analysis of 14 Years of Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Jonathan Higgins & John Zablocki & Amy Newsock & Andras Krolopp & Phillip Tabas & Michael Salama, 2021. "Durable Freshwater Protection: A Framework for Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Protection for Freshwater Ecosystems and the Values They Sustain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Tatiana Kaletová & Luis Loures & Rui Alexandre Castanho & Elena Aydin & José Telo da Gama & Ana Loures & Amélie Truchy, 2019. "Relevance of Intermittent Rivers and Streams in Agricultural Landscape and Their Impact on Provided Ecosystem Services—A Mediterranean Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Susan Stratton Sayre, 2019. "Pay for the Option to Pay? The Impact of Improved Scientific Information on Payments for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 591-625, June.
    11. Hongfei Zhao & Hongming He & Jingjing Wang & Chunyu Bai & Chuangjuan Zhang, 2018. "Vegetation Restoration and Its Environmental Effects on the Loess Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Silvia Ronchi & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2018. "Adopting an Ecosystem Services-Based Approach for Flood Resilient Strategies: The Case of Rocinha Favela (Brazil)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Anzaldua, Gerardo & Gerner, Nadine V. & Lago, Manuel & Abhold, Katrina & Hinzmann, Mandy & Beyer, Sarah & Winking, Caroline & Riegels, Niels & Krogsgaard Jensen, Jørgen & Termes, Montserrat & Amorós, 2018. "Getting into the water with the Ecosystem Services Approach: The DESSIN ESS evaluation framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 318-326.
    14. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Ifigenia Kagalou & Dionissis Latinopoulos, 2020. "Filling the Gap between Ecosystem Services Concept and River Basin Management Plans: The Case of Greece in WFD 20+," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    17. Ebun Akinsete & Stella Apostolaki & Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri & Stella Tsani, 2019. "The Link between Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing in the Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: Assessing Four River Basins in Europe," DEOS Working Papers 1911, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    18. Claude Meisch & Uta Schirpke & Lisa Huber & Johannes Rüdisser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Assessing Freshwater Provision and Consumption in the Alpine Space Applying the Ecosystem Service Concept," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Fitri Nurfatriani & Yonky Indrajaya & Tri Wira Yuwati & Sulistya Ekawati & Mimi Salminah & Hendra Gunawan & Subarudi Subarudi & Markus Kudeng Sallata & Merryana Kid, 2022. "Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    20. Bekri, Eleni S. & Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Skuras, Dimitrios & Hein, Lars & Dimopoulos, Panayotis, 2024. "Ecosystem accounting for water resources at the catchment scale, a case study for the Peloponnisos, Greece," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jworld:v:4:y:2023:i:4:p:40-652:d:1247769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.