Modelling the role of ground-true riparian vegetation for providing regulating services in a Mediterranean watershed

Intensive agricultural and industrial activities are often considered major sources of water contamina-tion.Currently,riparian vegetation(RV)is increasingly being promoted as a solution to balance the potentially adverse effects that agriculture may have on water quality.Nonetheless,existing RV is often overlook in recent modelling efforts,failing to capture the current amount of ecosystem services provide.Here,we used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool ecohydrological model to simulate the influence of ground-true RV on i)nutrient(nitrate and total phosphorus)and sediment exports from agricultural areas and ii)its effect for in-stream concentrations.These results are further compared against a set of hypothetical scenarios of different RV widths and different land-uses.Our results point to a great rele-vance of existing RV in controlling in-stream concentration of sediments and nutrients where pressure from agriculture is highest,preventing them to surpass limits set in the EU Water Framework Directive.On the other hand,in areas with industry discharges,the role of RV is limited and model results suggest that restoring RV would have limited impacts.We illustrate how existing RV may already provide strong but not acknowledged water quality regulation services,how these services can differ substantially between nearby streams,and that effective strategies to improve water quality using RV must acknowledge existing patterns of vegetation,land use and contamination sources.

Global concerns related to water biology and security:The need for language and policies that safeguard living resources versus those that dilute scientific knowledge

Increasingly,scientists and non-scientists,especially employees of government agencies,tend to use weak or equivocal language when making statements related to science policy and governmental regulation.We use recent publications to provide examples of vague language versus examples of strong language when authors write about regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.Lifeless language is common in agency reports,policy documents,and even scientific papers published by academics.Such language limits success in regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.This challenge must be recognized and countered as a driver of the condition of water and associated resources.We also list sources of vague wording,provide global examples of how ambiguous language and political influences have contributed to water resource degradation,discuss the recent history of science censorship,and offer possible solutions for more direct scientific discourse.We found that:(1)equivocal language was especially common in concluding statements and not only by government employees;(2)authors discussed confusing language concerns in an agency publication;and(3)agency employees sometimes used active,strong language.Key drivers of weak language include:(1)holding on to old paradigms and resisting new knowledge;(2)scientific uncertainty;(3)institutional manuscript review policies;(4)employment and funding insecurity;and(5)avoiding the appearance of advocacy.Examples associated with euphemistic language included climate change,flow and physical habitat alteration,dams,agriculture,mining,forestry,and fisheries,as well as resistance towards monitoring,assessing,and reporting ecological conditions.Suggestions for mitigating equivocal language involve employment protections and greater focus on scientific ethics.We conclude that natural resource scientists should resist calls to employ imprecise language.Instead,they should be strong advocates for prescriptive and protective natural resource actions—based on their science—to halt and reverse the systemic degradation of those resources.