scholarly journals Overcoming Information Limitations for the Prescription of an Environmental Flow Regime for a Central American River

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Esselman ◽  
Jeffrey J. Opperman
Author(s):  
Don Moll ◽  
Edward O. Moll

Turtles and their eggs have long served as an important source of food for humans—almost certainly since very early in the evolution of the hominid lineage, and surely for at least the last 20,000 years (Nicholls, 1977). Evidence in the form of shells and skeletal material (some showing burn marks as evidence of cooking) in the middens of Paleolithic aboriginal cultures, and from eyewitness accounts of explorer-naturalists in more recent times is available from numerous locations around the world (e.g., Bates, 1863; St. Cricq, 1874; Goode, 1967; Rhodin, 1992, 1995; Pritchard, 1994; Lee, 1996; Stiner et al., 1999). Skeletal evidence of river turtles, in particular from such locations as Mohenjodaro and Harappa in the Indus Valley (e.g., Indian narrow-headed softshells and river terrapins), Mayapan, and many other Mesoamerican Mayan sites (e.g., Central American river turtles), and Naga ed-Der of Upper Ancient Egypt (e.g., Nile softshell) suggest that river turtles have helped to support the rise of the world's great civilizations as well (de Treville, 1975; Nath, 1959 in Groombridge & Wright, 1982; Das, 1991; Lee, 1996). Their role continues and, in fact, has expanded as human populations have burgeoned and spread throughout the modern world. River turtles have always been too convenient and succulent a source of protein to ignore. Often large, fecund, and easily collected with simple techniques and equipment, especially in communal nesters which may concentrate at nesting sites in helpless thousands (at least formerly), river turtles are ideal prey. Much of the harvesting has been, and continues to be, conducted in relative obscurity in many parts of the world. Occasionally, however, the sheer magnitude of the resource and its slaughter has attracted the attention of literate observers, such as the early explorer-naturalists of the New and Old World tropics. Their accounts have given us some idea of the former truly spectacular abundance of some riverine species, and the equally spectacular levels of consistent exploitation which have brought them to their modern, much-diminished condition. Summaries of the exploitation of the two best documented examples of destruction of formerly abundant riverine species, the Asian river terrapin, and the giant South American river turtle, are provided under their appropriate geographic sections below.


2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Alfredsen ◽  
A. Harby ◽  
T. Linnansaari ◽  
O. Ugedal

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 5041-5059 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Pastor ◽  
F. Ludwig ◽  
H. Biemans ◽  
H. Hoff ◽  
P. Kabat

Abstract. As the water requirement for food production and other human needs grows, quantification of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) is necessary to assess the amount of water needed to sustain freshwater ecosystems. EFRs are the result of the quantification of water necessary to sustain the riverine ecosystem, which is calculated from the mean of an environmental flow (EF) method. In this study, five EF methods for calculating EFRs were compared with 11 case studies of locally assessed EFRs. We used three existing methods (Smakhtin, Tennant, and Tessmann) and two newly developed methods (the variable monthly flow method (VMF) and the Q90_Q50 method). All methods were compared globally and validated at local scales while mimicking the natural flow regime. The VMF and the Tessmann methods use algorithms to classify the flow regime into high, intermediate, and low-flow months and they take into account intra-annual variability by allocating EFRs with a percentage of mean monthly flow (MMF). The Q90_Q50 method allocates annual flow quantiles (Q90 and Q50) depending on the flow season. The results showed that, on average, 37% of annual discharge was required to sustain environmental flow requirement. More water is needed for environmental flows during low-flow periods (46–71% of average low-flows) compared to high-flow periods (17–45% of average high-flows). Environmental flow requirements estimates from the Tennant, Q90_Q50, and Smakhtin methods were higher than the locally calculated EFRs for river systems with relatively stable flows and were lower than the locally calculated EFRs for rivers with variable flows. The VMF and Tessmann methods showed the highest correlation with the locally calculated EFRs (R2=0.91). The main difference between the Tessmann and VMF methods is that the Tessmann method allocates all water to EFRs in low-flow periods while the VMF method allocates 60% of the flow in low-flow periods. Thus, other water sectors such as irrigation can withdraw up to 40% of the flow during the low-flow season and freshwater ecosystems can still be kept in reasonable ecological condition. The global applicability of the five methods was tested using the global vegetation and the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed land (LPJmL) hydrological model. The calculated global annual EFRs for fair ecological conditions represent between 25 and 46% of mean annual flow (MAF). Variable flow regimes, such as the Nile, have lower EFRs (ranging from 12 to 48% of MAF) than stable tropical regimes such as the Amazon (which has EFRs ranging from 30 to 67% of MAF).


2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Rainwater ◽  
Thomas Pop ◽  
Octavio Cal ◽  
Anthony Garel ◽  
Steven G. Platt ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document