How Far Can Nature-Based Solutions Increase Water Supply Resilience to Climate Change in One of the Most Important Brazilian Watersheds?

IF 1.6 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
L. D. de Freitas, Jener Fernando Leite de Moraes, Adriana Monteiro da Costa, Letícia Lopes Martins, B. M. Silva, J. C. Avanzi, Alexandre Uezu
{"title":"How Far Can Nature-Based Solutions Increase Water Supply Resilience to Climate Change in One of the Most Important Brazilian Watersheds?","authors":"L. D. de Freitas, Jener Fernando Leite de Moraes, Adriana Monteiro da Costa, Letícia Lopes Martins, B. M. Silva, J. C. Avanzi, Alexandre Uezu","doi":"10.3390/earth3030042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Water resources are paramount for the maintenance of the Earth’s system equilibrium; however, they face various threats and need increased conservation and better management. To restore water resources, nature-based solutions can be applied. Nevertheless, it is unclear which solution promotes greater water supply resilience: restoring riparian vegetation, improving management practices in key areas for water recharge, or both? In addition, how significant are these results in the face of climate change effects? To answer this, we used the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model to simulate and compare four different land use scenarios under three climate conditions (i.e., observed climate and two of the IPCC’s future climate projections). Focusing on key areas contributed more to increasing water supply resilience than forest restoration. Applying both solutions, however, yielded the greatest increases in resilience and groundwater recharge and the greatest decreases in surface runoff and sediment loads. None of the solutions caused a significant difference in streamflow and water yield. Furthermore, according to both of the IPCC climate projections evaluated, by the end of this century, the average annual streamflow will be lower than the historical mean for the region. Climate adaptation strategies alone will be insufficient to ensure future water access, highlighting the need for implementing drastic mitigation actions.","PeriodicalId":51020,"journal":{"name":"Earth Interactions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030042","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Water resources are paramount for the maintenance of the Earth’s system equilibrium; however, they face various threats and need increased conservation and better management. To restore water resources, nature-based solutions can be applied. Nevertheless, it is unclear which solution promotes greater water supply resilience: restoring riparian vegetation, improving management practices in key areas for water recharge, or both? In addition, how significant are these results in the face of climate change effects? To answer this, we used the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model to simulate and compare four different land use scenarios under three climate conditions (i.e., observed climate and two of the IPCC’s future climate projections). Focusing on key areas contributed more to increasing water supply resilience than forest restoration. Applying both solutions, however, yielded the greatest increases in resilience and groundwater recharge and the greatest decreases in surface runoff and sediment loads. None of the solutions caused a significant difference in streamflow and water yield. Furthermore, according to both of the IPCC climate projections evaluated, by the end of this century, the average annual streamflow will be lower than the historical mean for the region. Climate adaptation strategies alone will be insufficient to ensure future water access, highlighting the need for implementing drastic mitigation actions.
在巴西最重要的流域之一,基于自然的解决方案能在多大程度上提高供水对气候变化的适应能力?
水资源对维持地球系统平衡至关重要;然而,它们面临着各种威胁,需要加强保护和更好的管理。为了恢复水资源,可以采用基于自然的解决方案。然而,尚不清楚哪一种解决方案能提高供水弹性:恢复河岸植被,改善关键地区的水补给管理措施,还是两者兼而有之?此外,面对气候变化的影响,这些结果有多重要?为了回答这个问题,我们使用SWAT(水土评估工具)模型来模拟和比较三种气候条件下(即观测到的气候和IPCC对未来气候的两种预测)的四种不同的土地利用情景。与森林恢复相比,重点地区对提高供水弹性的贡献更大。然而,采用这两种解决方案,恢复力和地下水补给的增加最大,地表径流和泥沙负荷的减少最大。没有任何一种解决方案对流量和水量造成显著差异。此外,根据IPCC的两次气候预估,到本世纪末,该地区的年平均流量将低于历史平均水平。仅靠气候适应战略不足以确保未来的水资源获取,这突出表明需要实施大规模的缓解行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Earth Interactions
Earth Interactions 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Publishes research on the interactions among the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere, including, but not limited to, research on human impacts, such as land cover change, irrigation, dams/reservoirs, urbanization, pollution, and landslides. Earth Interactions is a joint publication of the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and American Association of Geographers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信