Should ‘wetlands’ cover all aquatic ecosystems and do macrophytes make a difference to their ecosystem services?

• Autores: Brij Gopal
• Localización: Folia geobotánica: A journal of plant ecology and systematics, ISSN-e 1874-9348, ISSN 1211-9520, Vol. 51, Nº 3, 2016 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Dagmar Dykyjova (1914-2011)), págs. 209-226
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • The Ramsar Convention has gradually expanded the scope of the term ‘wetland’ to bring under its umbrella all kinds of inland freshwater (and saline) ecosystems as well as many marine ecosystems. It is not possible to develop a common framework for the study, management or policy of such a large and divergent assemblage of habitats with water being a single shared feature. In this paper, I argue that wetlands are distinct from deep open water systems such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs. The restriction of macrophytes (except the free floating plants like salvinia and water hyacinth) to shallow water habitats helps distinguish between wetlands and deep water systems. Following an ecosystem service approach, I discuss that wetlands are generally characterized by the occurrence of macrophytes, which critically contribute to their provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ecosystem services that differ significantly from those of the microphyte (phytoplankton)-dominated deep water habitats. I argue that wetlands do lie adjacent to deep and open water systems (including large rivers), which interact with them regularly and influence their biodiversity, hydrology, water quality and functioning, depending upon their relative areal extent and characteristics of the macrophyte community, but that only the littoral zones between the mean highest and lowest water levels (and stream banks and the floodplains beyond them in the case of rivers) should be treated as wetlands. Shallow lakes devoid of macrophytes because of eutrophication are degraded wetlands that need to be restored.