Next Article in Journal
Altitudinal Variation in Effect of Climate and Neighborhood Competition on Radial Growth of Picea schrenkiana Fisch. et C.A.Mey. in the Middle Tianshan Mountains, China
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Long-Term Agroforestry Systems on Carbon Pools and Sequestration in Top and Deep Soil Layers of Semi-Arid Region of Western India
Previous Article in Special Issue
Climate Vulnerability Analysis of Marginal Populations of Yew (Taxus baccata L.): The Case of the Iberian Peninsula
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Understanding the Ecosystem Services of Riparian Forests: Patterns, Gaps, and Global Trends

1
National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor 128, 077190 Voluntari, Romania
2
Department of Chemistry, Physics and Environment, Faculty of Sciences and Environmental, Dunarea de Jos University Galati, Domneasca Street No. 47, 800008 Galati, Romania
3
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dunarea de Jos University Galati, 35 A.I. Cuza Str., 800010 Galaţi, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(6), 947; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060947
Submission received: 25 April 2025 / Revised: 24 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 4 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions in Forests)

Abstract

:
Riparian forests are usually situated between terrestrial and aquatic systems. They play an essential role in the health of the environment and in providing complex ecosystem services. This is especially essential in arid and semi-arid regions. However, despite these facts, riparian ecosystems are underexplored in the specialty literature. As such, the purpose of this study is to address this gap by synthesizing the current knowledge about riparian forests, using both a bibliometric analysis and a qualitative literature approach. This analysis allowed us to identify six main ecosystem services provided by riparian forests: biodiversity support, carbon sequestration, water quality regulation, slope stability, pollution mitigation, and sociocultural benefits. Furthermore, we have emphasized local challenges (deforestation, agricultural expansion, a lack of policies). Connecting ecological knowledge with a socio-cultural context is the first step in creating a strong foundation for the adequate management of these essential ecosystems, while also supporting their conservation, development and climate resilience.

1. Introduction

The concept of riparian comes from the Latin word riparius, meaning “adjacent to the banks of a river” [1]. This includes the ecological areas that flank rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands, and emphasizes the transition between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Because of this fact, these areas are very rich from a biological perspective, with species that have adapted over time to these changing hydrological conditions [2,3,4,5,6].
Riparian forests have important ecological functions, among which we mention sediment retention, erosion control, nutrient filtration, and water quality control. Furthermore, they offer ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, and habitat support [7,8,9,10,11]. These aspects are crucial, especially in arid and semi-arid regions [12,13,14,15,16].
However, despite these important aspects, riparian forests and their ecosystem services are still understudied in the specialty literature. Current research studies focus on certain services like carbon storage or on contextual areas, without encompassing the global perspective or using integrative methods [17,18,19,20,21]. Furthermore, many studies have focused on ecosystem services [22,23,24] and forest-related services [25,26,27,28], but missed the perspective of riparian forests as providers of numerous ecosystem services.
This study intends to fulfill that gap by concentrating on synthesizing the ecosystem services provided by riparian forests through a combination of bibliometry and qualitative review. On the one hand, the bibliometric analysis provides scientific trends, geographic context and thematic clusters. On the other hand, the qualitative review allows an in-depth exploration of the types of ecosystem services, contextual challenges and policies.
The need to consolidate this fragmented knowledge and sustain the integration of riparian forest management plans is even more important under the current context of intensifying climate change, shifts in land usage and hydrological changes. This study intends to emphasize the essential ecological functions of riparian forests, but also focuses on policy frameworks, restoration strategies and the future directions needed at a global and interdisciplinary level.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study was developed in two parts: a bibliometric analysis, and a classic literature review. Combined together, these two approaches create a comprehensive view of the scientific research dedicated to forest ecosystem services from riparian areas during the years 1993–2024.

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis

The first stage focused on a bibliometric evaluation of global research trends concerning the ecosystem services provided by riparian forests. Our research used two major scientific databases: the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) via Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus.
The Web of Science is a platform with over 7100 indexed journals covering more than 150 scientific disciplines. Most importantly, this database goes back to the 1900s. In a similar manner, Scopus offers a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, covering over 16,000 journals, plus conferences, trade publications and books. Both of them are recognized at an international scale for their coverage, reliability and citation capabilities [29]. An interesting comparison between these two systems, realized by Adriaanse and Rensleigh [30], revealed that WOS offered the largest number of citations and the most unique journal coverage, while Scopus provides the least inconsistencies and offers more accuracy. In comparison, a third system (Google Scholar) ranked lower as it had many duplicates and inconsistencies in author names, issue numbers and data.
Our keyword search strategy was created by testing different combinations. Our initial Boolean search string was (“riparian forest” OR “riparian vegetation” OR “riparian zone”) AND (“ecosystem service” OR “ecological function*” OR “environmental benefit*”). We used this search for titles, abstracts and keywords, with a search result focused on the keyword forest ecosystem services in riparian areas. By applying this search system, we reached 361 articles from Web of Science and 345 from Scopus. We then proceeded to filter the duplicates, irrelevant publications, and items that lacked abstracts, reaching a final dataset of 382 relevant entries.
The articles were filtered based on these criteria: (1) peer-reviewed article; (2) includes an abstract; and (3) focuses on riparian forests and their ecosystem services. On the other hand, the articles that were excluded were (1) publications that used keywords in an unrelated context (for example, using the term “champion” in marketing or sports contexts); (2) publications whose terms were used in a non-scientific content (editorial notes, errata); and (3) non-English sources or grey literature (technical reports, NGO publications).
As such, our bibliometric analysis was centered around ten main indicators: (1) Publication types; (2) Research areas; (3) Year of publication; (4) Country of origin; (5) Authors; (6) Institutional affiliations; (7) Language; (8) Journals; (9) Publishers; and (10) Keywords.
The data were processed and structured by using these tools: the Web of Science Core Collection [31], Scopus [32], Microsoft Excel [33], and Geochart [34]. The visualization clusters and mapping were obtained with VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) [35]. To calculate the number of citations, we used the Web of Science database (version 5.35, Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA).
An important note is that some biases may be visible as we excluded non-English and grey literature. This can lead to an underrepresentation of local or regional studies as English-language papers, countries and institutions tend to be more represented in both Web of Science and Scopus. In addition, some works that are relevant might not have been captured in our specific search string as they might have used other terminologies or themes. We acknowledge these limitations and propose this transparency in interpreting the findings of this study.

2.2. Traditional Literature Review

In the second phase, a traditional literature review was conducted using the refined dataset of 382 selected articles. This in-depth qualitative assessment allowed for the thematic categorization of the research into six major areas: (1) Ecosystem services provided by riparian forests; (2) Carbon sequestration in riparian forests; (3) Riparian forests and water quality regulation; (4) Contributions of riparian forests to slope stability; (5) National and regional perspectives on riparian forest conditions and management; and (6) Degradation and loss of ecosystem services in riparian forests.
An overview of the complete methodological framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Results

3.1. A Bibliometric Review

We inventoried a total of 382 publications related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas. The majority of these are research articles (337, or 88%), followed by reviews (20, or 5%), book chapters (13, or 4%), and conference proceedings (12, or 3%) (Figure 2).
The research areas into which the published articles can be classified are diverse. Out of a total of 19 research areas, the ones with the highest share are as follows: Environmental Sciences & Ecology (85 articles); Forestry (42 articles), Biodiversity & Conservation-Environmental Sciences & Ecology (41 articles); Environmental Sciences & Ecology—Water Resources (14 articles) and Agriculture (10 articles).
The number of published articles has increased over time, with the highest number recorded in 2021 (49 articles) (Figure 3).
Authors from 72 countries have published articles on this topic. The most well-represented countries by the number of articles are the USA, Brazil, and Germany, while by total link strength they are the USA, England, Germany, Brazil, and Canada (Figure 4).
According to the analysis conducted with the VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), the countries of origin of the authors of articles on this topic can be grouped into seven clusters, among which four clusters contain a larger number of constituent countries. Cluster 1 includes countries from North and South America: USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica. Cluster 2 mainly includes countries from Asia and Australia: China, Indonesia, and Australia. Two European countries can be added to this: the Netherlands (located very close to Indonesia in the graph—likely due to historical ties as Indonesia is a former colony, with scientific collaborations possibly being maintained) and Germany (positioned centrally in the graph, with numerous connections to all other clusters except the American one). Cluster 3 includes only European countries: United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Spain, and Austria. Cluster 4 includes three European countries (Italy, Greece, and Denmark) plus Colombia, which interestingly does not belong to the American cluster. However, it is represented by only a small number of articles (2), which is not representative (Figure 5).
The articles have been published in 183 journals. The most well-represented journals are as follows: Ecological Indicators, Forest Ecology and Management, and Science of the Total Environment and Forests (Figure 6).
In these articles, the most frequently used keywords are as follows: ecosystem services, conservation, biodiversity and forest.
Based on their connections, keywords can be grouped into several clusters, the most important being as follows: Cluster 1: ecosystem, forest, indicators, land use, quality, riparian forest, stream water quality (keywords related to ecosystem services and their indicators); Cluster 2: agriculture, biodiversity, conservation, corridors, disturbance, diversity, urbanization (keywords mainly related to disturbance and the domains affected by it); Cluster 3: benefits, climate change, dynamics, flood-plain, forest management, riparian forests, vegetations (keywords related to the influences exerted on riparian forests), (Figure 7).
Regarding the evolution of keyword usage over time, we can identify three periods: between 2015 and 2017, the most frequently used keywords were vegetation, riparian, forests, landscape, patterns, and disturbance; in the period 2017–2019, they were ecosystem services, management, conservation, rivers, and diversity; and in the period 2019–2021, they were climate change, services, urbanization, biodiversity conservation (Figure 8).
The institutions to which the authors of these articles belong, ranked by importance, are as follows: Universidade de Sao Paulo (9 articles); Chinese Academy of Sciences (8 articles); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), (8 articles); and Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (5 articles).
The top publishers publishing these articles are dominated by the four major publishers: Elsevier (99 articles), Springer Nature (51 articles), Wiley (42 articles) and MDPI (33 articles).

3.2. Literature Review

3.2.1. Ecosystem Services Provided by Forests from Riparian Areas

From the large number of ecosystem services offered by riparian forests, those that have a direct description in the articles published so far are presented in Table 1.

3.2.2. Carbon Sequestration of Riparian Forests

The findings indicate that land-use changes favoring improved agricultural practices, the establishment of secondary forests, and especially the implementation of stricter land-use restrictions significantly enhance carbon sequestration. In contrast, relaxing riparian zone regulations is associated with a considerable risk of carbon loss. Notably, reducing buffer zone widths can lead to land conversion into agricultural or pasture uses, diminishing the carbon sequestration capacity and undermining other ecosystem services [13].
Model simulations suggest that establishing riparian forests can more than triple the baseline carbon stock of unforested soils. At maturity, riparian forests typically store between 68 and 158 Mg C/ha in biomass, with the highest carbon stocks found in warmer and wetter climatic conditions. Active reforestation efforts, such as planting, greatly accelerate biomass carbon accumulation—early growth rates were observed to be more than twice as high compared to naturally regenerating forests [66].
In the arid inland river basins of Northwest China, desert riparian forests play a crucial role in both regional environmental stability and the regulation of the global carbon cycle. Biomass productivity in these ecosystems is significantly influenced by proximity to water sources. A strong inverse correlation was found between biomass productivity and both distance from the river and groundwater depth. Approximately 64% of total biomass was concentrated within 200 m of the river, where groundwater availability supports vegetation growth. Beyond 800 m, both biomass and carbon storage decline sharply [67].
In Mexico, riparian ecosystems were found to store approximately 93 t C/ha—about 1.5 times greater than oak forests, which store an estimated 65 t C/ha. The productivity of riparian ecosystems was comparable to that of highly productive land uses, such as agriculture and oak forest, and exceeded the productivity observed in other regional ecosystems [68].

3.2.3. Riparian Forests and Water Quality Regulation

The water quality within riparian zones is closely linked to the composition and structure of ground vegetation, which is, in turn, influenced by stand density, total yield, and species composition. Effective riparian forest management requires site-specific approaches, as dominant tree species and stand characteristics (such as age and productivity) vary across landscapes. For instance, integrating Betula pubescens Ehrh. into coniferous stands has been shown to enhance litterfall quality and provide essential shading for streams during summer, helping to regulate stream temperatures [53].
Forest understory vegetation and woody plant components contribute significantly to water quality through the retention of nutrients and the sequestration of organic matter [69]. Nutrient uptake in riparian zones occurs via plant root systems interacting with water flow through the soil, as well as through microbial assimilation and sorption processes [70,71]. Riparian areas with tree-dominated vegetation—particularly those with deep-rooted plant communities—demonstrate greater effectiveness in removing nitrogen and phosphorus compared to areas dominated by shrubs or grasses [72].
Tree species, particularly those from the Salicaceae family, have been extensively studied for their capacity to accumulate environmental pollutants over extended periods. Their expansive root systems, efficient nutrient uptake, and rapid growth make them especially valuable for nutrient filtering in riparian contexts [73,74].
Riparian forested wetlands further improve downstream water quality by trapping suspended sediments and associated nutrients from surface runoff. The alternating hydrologic conditions (wet and dry periods) induced by water flow into adjacent wetlands also influence site productivity and nutrient cycling dynamics [52].
Due to their physical connectivity between aquatic systems and terrestrial catchments, riparian ecosystems play a pivotal role in regulating hydrological and ecological processes. They reduce sediment transport, provide organic inputs to aquatic systems, stabilize stream banks, and help structure both aquatic and terrestrial communities. Additionally, riparian buffer strips serve to moderate the solar radiation reaching water bodies; the removal of riparian vegetation can result in elevated water temperatures and the consequent deterioration of water quality [75].

3.2.4. Influences of Riparian Forests on Slope Stability

Vegetation is a fundamental component in maintaining slope stability within riparian ecosystems, contributing through both mechanical and hydrological mechanisms [76,77]. Mechanically, root systems bind soil particles, enhancing structural integrity and resistance to erosion. Hydrologically, vegetation influences the soil moisture content through evapotranspiration and transpiration, reducing pore water pressure and contributing to slope stability [70].
Shrubs and trees are particularly effective in stabilizing slopes compared to herbaceous vegetation, due to their deeper and more extensive root systems, which provide stronger reinforcement against soil displacement and landslides. This root reinforcement anchors above-ground biomass and lowers the likelihood of shear failure at the ecosystem scale [78,79].
The role of vegetation in enhancing slope stability is not only species-dependent but also context-specific, particularly in relation to topography. Topographical variations—such as the slope gradient, elevation, and aspect—can influence the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones. For example, elevation was found to follow the same spatial pattern as riparian width and exhibited a complex relationship with ecological indicators: it was negatively associated with habitat quality and the presence of exotic species, but positively correlated with vegetation regeneration [80].
These findings highlight the need for integrated riparian management strategies that account for both vegetative structure and topographic variability. Effective buffer zone planning should consider plant species with strong root systems as well as the local terrain, as both significantly influence erosion control, slope resilience, and the overall stability of riparian landscapes.

3.2.5. National Perspectives on Riparian Forest Conditions and Management

Riparian forest ecosystems from all over the world are under a series of pressures and challenges, all depending on policy frameworks, ecological priorities and the socioeconomic and cultural context. As such, we have focused on finding country-specific examples and then grouping them into thematic categories that emphasize patterns in their conditions, threats and conservation strategies.

Policy Frameworks, Buffers and Regulations

A number of countries have already developed policy frameworks that help define and manage riparian areas. However, their implementation and precision vary, depending on the country. For example, Aquatic Buffer Zones (ABZs) from Ireland have been mandated since 1991 in order to supply conifers during afforestation or replantation. These areas, ranging from 10 to 25 m, are usually left alone so that native vegetation can take over [81]. A similar case is found in the United Kingdom, where riparian buffers are used to address land pollution or offer ecosystems services. However, the lack of a standardized width for these buffers poses certain limits, especially from an ecological perspective. As such, fixed buffers are more effective in removing pollution, while variable buffers are better for supporting denitrification. Research only confirms the need to design buffers based on the specific case, and then validate it directly on the field [55]. Another example can be found in the United States, where the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) moved away from timber production and focused more on preserving the ecosystem. As such, more than 1 million riparian hectares were used to support ecological functions. And what is still more important is that the effectiveness of these buffers is still monitored, through the Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study (DMS) [64]. One last example comes from Brazil, where the Forest Code (BFC) requires the protection and restoration of riparian areas. However, a clear guideline regarding their location around small streams leaves room for uncertainties. This only requires a clearer guideline, as well as a focus on small areas as well [82].

Restoration and Rehabilitation Initiatives

Restoration programs are already in use in many countries that deal with ecological degradation. For example, since 2000, China has put in place a series of initiatives (the Integrated Water Resource Management of the Tarim River Basin, the Ecological Water Diversion Project (EWDP)) that focus on the regenerative role of riparian forests. Further studies have focused on the response of groundwater and the rehabilitation of the physiological traits of forests [83,84]. Another program from China, the Grain for Green Program (GGP), focuses on soil erosion and promotes afforestation, especially on slopes and riparian farmlands. Over time, these actions proved to improve soil functions, purify water and mitigate floods [85,86,87,88]. Moving to another country, the native riparian forests from the Koiliaris watershed in Greece have been restored and proved to be the most effective natural solution to reversing soil degradation and desertification [89]. On the other hand, riparian forests from Poland are deteriorating, with only 46% having a good conservation status. This situation has been caused by lower precipitation, the influence of humans, a lack of forest management initiatives and the spread of invasive species [90].

Governance and Implementation Challenges

Although legal frameworks are in place in many countries, there are still challenges that impact the effective management of these riparian forests. For example, Kenya has instituted policies such as the Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) and Water Resources Management Rules (WRMR). However, their implementation has been fragmented because of overlapping mandates and confusing laws. This situation is commonly found in southeastern semiarid regions that have been affected by deforestation in order to make place for agriculture or human settlements [91,92]. For example, Tanzania has similar problems and lacks conservation practices that can improve the management of riparian areas. This is especially true considering that riparian vegetation is crucial in sustaining water flow [93].

Ecosystem Services and Community Dependence

Numerous communities depend on riparian forests for their livelihoods as well as ecosystem services. For example, the riparian ecosystem in the Bangladesh delta is threatened by monsoon erosion, freshwater loss and salinity intrusions. Climate change only accentuates these vulnerabilities as sea levels increase. In this context, the restoration of mangroves is essential in improving ecosystem resilience and impending environmental risks [94]. Another example can be found in Mexico, where the Río Grande de Comitán–Lagos de Montebello proves that forests are responsible for improving fog, evapotranspiration and water yield. This must be studied further in order to adapt current strategies to local conditions [57]. Communities from the native Nothofagus dombeyi forests in Chile value these forests as they play an essential role in water flow and quality [95]. The tugai forests of Central Asia are another example of the impact of riparian forests on ecosystems, erosion, biodiversity and migratory birds [96,97,98]. One last example is from Botswana, where the riparian vegetation from the Okavango Delta is praised and used by local communities in construction, transportation (traditional mekoro canoes) or products such as palm beverages. This only underscores the interdependence of ecology and humanity [99,100,101,102].

3.2.6. Degradation and Loss of Ecosystem Services in Riparian Forests

Riparian forests worldwide are under increasing threat from anthropogenic activities, which have led to significant degradation and the consequent loss of critical ecosystem services. One of the most impactful drivers is the construction of dams for hydroelectric power, which inundates riverbanks and leads to the destruction of riparian biotic communities [42] (de Araujo).
In addition to damming, widespread land-use changes—particularly from agriculture, industrial expansion, and urban encroachment—have made riparian zones some of the most heavily degraded ecosystems globally [103,104]. Poorly managed forestry operations, especially in timber-producing regions, further exacerbate this degradation. Logging in riparian and adjacent upland areas can disrupt key ecosystem functions, particularly in zones characterized by high groundwater (GW) discharge. These areas often have sensitive soils and strong hydrological connectivity with upland regions, increasing their vulnerability. Therefore, forestry planning must integrate enhanced riparian buffer zone management, particularly in GW discharge hotspots, to safeguard these ecosystems [105].
In Brazil, the continuous conversion of riparian forests into agricultural land has resulted in both vegetative degradation and negative alterations to soil characteristics and ecosystem functions. Forest degradation significantly reduces soil carbon, phosphorus, cation exchange capacity, silt content, porosity, and water infiltration capacity. Vegetation structure—particularly tree height, basal area, and herbaceous biomass—proves to be a reliable proxy for monitoring soil-related ecosystem services such as water regulation, erosion control, and nutrient cycling. This relationship offers a strategic approach to monitoring and modeling riparian forest services at broader spatial scales, aiding restoration and conservation efforts [106].
In the rural Peruvian Amazon, the deforestation of riparian zones has direct social implications. Given the region’s dependence on aquatic resources, such ecological disturbances pose substantial risks to local community health and well-being [107].
Hydrological alterations also pose significant challenges. In hyper-arid regions such as the floodplains of Populus euphratica, decreasing water availability—driven by intensive agricultural irrigation—threatens the long-term regeneration of forest species and undermines the overall structure and functioning of these ecosystems [108].
Empirical studies further illustrate the ecological consequences of riparian deforestation. A comparative analysis of 16 stream reaches in eastern North America revealed that deforestation leads to channel narrowing, which decreases stream habitat availability and impairs in-stream processing of organic matter and pollutants. In contrast, forested reaches support higher biodiversity, greater organic matter breakdown, and more efficient nutrient uptake. These findings emphasize that riparian vegetation enhances not only channel morphology but also the functional integrity of aquatic ecosystems [17].
Across the western United States, riparian systems have been extensively modified by urban development, dam construction, groundwater extraction, overgrazing, and the introduction of invasive species. These disruptions, combined with land-use changes within watersheds, have fundamentally altered riparian biotic communities [62].
In Central Asia, particularly in Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin, growing demands for water-intensive cash crops such as cotton have intensified pressures on riparian ecosystems. Overextraction of water has led to declining groundwater levels and extensive salinization, resulting in significant losses of ecosystem services and the degradation of poplar-dominated floodplain forests [109,110].
In northeastern China (Altai Prefecture), riparian forest health has been severely compromised by long-term inappropriate land use and large-scale hydrological projects. Reservoir management and water diversion activities have disrupted natural flow regimes essential for riparian regeneration. Mining activities have further accelerated soil erosion, and conflicting agricultural and pastoral land-use demands have impeded forest recovery. These cumulative impacts have led to significant declines in vegetation structure and habitat quality [111,112,113,114].

4. Discussion

4.1. Bibliometric Review

Unsurprisingly, research articles dominate the body of literature on this topic. However, what stands out is the relatively high number of review papers, which highlights the complexity and breadth of the subject. This diversity allows for more comprehensive, synthesis-based analyses. The wide array of research areas these publications span is also evident. There are several review articles directly related to our topic. For example, Gundersen et al. [4] provide a review of the ecosystem services offered by riparian forests in Nordic countries, focusing on water protection, terrestrial biodiversity, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas dynamics. Similarly, Vidal-Abarca Gutierrez and Suarez Alonso [115] examine the ecosystem services provided by rivers and riparian zones in Spain.
One country that stands out due to the high volume of published research and contributing researchers is Brazil. This can be attributed to the presence of one of the world’s largest river systems, namely the Amazon. However, riparian ecosystems in Brazil have faced significant pressures from human activities and shifting environmental policies [13]. Studies show that land use and land cover changes in tropical riparian zones critically impact ecosystem services tied to soil carbon and nitrogen cycles [116,117]. However, the data on subtropical riparian systems remain limited, particularly in the southern part of the Atlantic Forest Biome.
The journals in which these articles have been published mainly fall under two broad scientific domains: Environmental Sciences (e.g., Science of the Total Environment, Ecological Indicators, Journal of Environmental Management) and Forestry (e.g., Forest Ecology and Management, Forests, Frontiers in Forest and Global Change). Frequently used keywords such as ecosystem services, conservation, biodiversity, and forest also align with these categories. In recent years, however, there has been a noticeable shift toward keywords that reflect current global concerns, including climate change, urbanization, and biodiversity conservation.
Among the most frequently used keywords, we mention ecosystem services, conservation, biodiversity, and forest. However, recent years have shifted the focus towards keywords that are more aligned with global concerns such as climate change, urbanization, and biodiversity conservation. This fact emphasizes the interest of researchers in studying riparian forests under a broader socio-environmental and political context. As riparian forests play an essential role in carbon sequestration, climate regulation and adaptive strategies, it is normal to see a growth of studies focused on the climate change approach. Furthermore, studies have started to explore more how riparian forests can be a buffer against climate disruptions such as floods and droughts. The reverse also applies, where studies focus on the effects of climate changes on riparian biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In a similar manner, urbanization keywords are more prevalent, highlighting the impact of urban expansion on riparian areas and landscapes. Numerous studies focus on the degradation and fragmentation of riparian forests because of urban developments. Here, the reverse also applies, with many studies focusing on how riparian forests can positively affect urban spaces, due to stormwater mitigation, heat reduction, and the creation of recreational spaces. We can also note the preponderance of biodiversity conservation keywords, sustaining the need to protect species from riparian forests. Many studies focus on the need to preserve these habitats because of their ecological value, but also because of their impact of human societies. All these emerging keywords sustain the need to continue and even extend the studies on riparian ecosystems. More importantly, rather than focusing only on their ecological role, studies must embrace an interdisciplinary approach, integrating both social, political and cultural contexts. Only through this method can we address these global challenges.

4.2. Literature Review

4.2.1. Ecosystem Services Provided by Forests from Riparian Areas

Riparian forests are essential providers of ecosystem services that have both an ecological and societal impact. By analyzing the literature, we have synthesized their role in sequestrating carbon, regulating water, stabilizing slopes and supporting biodiversity. Through this, we can emphasize patterns and trends, as well as identify key priorities in their research and regulation.
Riparian forests are similar to carbon sinks, having important sequestration advantages. These are also recognized by reforestation works and buffer policies [13]. These effects are even more accentuated in secondary areas or forests that are regulated by strict land usage. As such, the reduction in buffer widths can be linked to decreases in carbon storage as land-use conversions increase.
In Central Asia, particularly in Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin, growing demands for water-intensive cash crops such as cotton have intensified pressures on riparian ecosystems. Overextraction of water has led to declining groundwater levels and extensive salinization, resulting in significant losses of ecosystem services and the degradation of poplar-dominated floodplain forests [109,110].
In northeastern China (Altai Prefecture), riparian forest health has been severely compromised by long-term inappropriate land use and large-scale hydrological projects. Reservoir management and water diversion activities have disrupted natural flow regimes essential for riparian regeneration. Mining activities have further accelerated soil erosion, and conflicting agricultural and pastoral land-use demands have impeded forest recovery. These cumulative impacts have led to significant declines in vegetation structure and habitat quality [111,112,113,114].
The potential for sequestration depends on the climate, succession stage and proximity to water. For example, biomass from arid regions decreases significantly beyond 800 m as river water and groundwater become more limited [67]. In contrast, restoration (especially through active planting) increases carbon in the early stages, compared to passive regeneration [66]. This is complemented by the hydrological conditions of riparian areas (such as high soil moisture and nutrients), with essential effects on the development of biomass [118,119,120]. Sometimes, this can place riparian species even above their upland counterparts [121,122]. But, we must ascertain that this depends on local conditions and variables, as many studies have shown that there are no significant differences between some temperate areas [123,124].
These findings only sustain the need to include riparian areas in climate strategies and national policies, with a special focus on degraded and arid locations. These policies should focus on restoration, as well as on buffer zones and their standards based on the local hydrological context.
Riparian forests play a special role in filtering sediments, stopping pollutants and regulating nutrient flows [39,125]. A dense, layered vegetation impacts runoff and improves the capture of sediments. Furthermore, the rich microbial soils of riparian forests play a role in denitrification. However, the mobility of phosphorus can sometimes increase [75,126].
Some species with deep roots (Salix, Populus) play an essential role in the cycle of nutrients and the stabilization of soils [127,128]. Another crucial role in the buffer of nutrients is played by riparian wetlands as their flood–dry cycles influence biological and chemical transformations [52,129]. These processes are essential in mitigating non-point source pollution, particularly in agricultural landscapes, where runoff contributes to eutrophication and sedimentation [130].
A great example is the usage of riparian forests in agricultural areas that are affected by nutrient runoff and eutrophication (such as the US Midwest, China or India). Here, the restoration of riparian forests can be a valuable solution for reaching local and national water quality targets. The physical presence of trees improves infiltration, enhances soil porosity and permeability, and contributes to greater water retention [131,132].

Slope Stability and Erosion Control

Riparian ecosystems also play an essential role in stabilizing slopes because of their complex roots that can hold soils together, increase strength and reduce moisture levels [40,77]. The risk of erosion is determined by the slope angle, the intensity of land usage and the vegetation present [51]. In this context, trees are crucial because of their deeper roots [78,79]. In this context, restoration plans should integrate root architecture and data when planning riparian forests as they can improve and control erosion. This is specially applicable to vulnerable landscapes such as the Andean foothills or the Southeast Asian watersheds.

Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity

Riparian forests include a diverse range of plants and animals, especially in fragmented landscapes [133,134,135]. Furthermore, they support and sustain rare and endangered species [136,137]. Studies report higher abundances of native plant species, woodland beetles, insectivorous mammals, and bats in riparian woodlands compared to open buffers [138,139,140]. Through leaf litter and deadwood, they also improve these habitats [141,142,143]. An important difference is between deciduous systems, which support invertebrate biomass, and coniferous ones [144].
In addition, these forests promote gene flow and the migration of species [145,146,147], which is especially important in areas that are affected by climate changes or urban developments [148,149].
As such, when creating policies for riparian forests, these should take into account both their conservation and connectivity. Riparian forests must be included in landscape planning as they are a core element of their infrastructure.

4.2.2. National Perspectives on Riparian Forest Conditions and Management

The comparative analysis of riparian forest management across countries reveals both shared challenges and context-specific strategies that reflect diverse ecological conditions, governance structures, and societal priorities. A recurring theme is the recognition of riparian forests as multifunctional systems that deliver a broad suite of ecosystem services (ES), from water purification and erosion control to biodiversity support and cultural values. Despite this, the conservation status and management of these forests vary widely.
Several European countries, such as Poland, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, have made progress in integrating ES into forest policy and planning, yet practical implementation gaps remain. In Poland, the unfavorable conservation status of nearly half the monitored riparian hardwood stands underscores the pressure exerted by hydrological alterations, invasive species, and unsustainable land use. This situation highlights the need for more adaptive and ecologically informed management approaches that account for altered flood regimes and declining groundwater levels. Conversely, in the UK and Ireland, policy frameworks have begun to emphasize riparian buffers and aquatic buffer zones, respectively, as tools to safeguard ES. However, the lack of standardized criteria for buffer design—particularly in terms of width and service-specific optimization—indicates a critical knowledge gap that must be addressed through field-based validation and service-targeted planning [55,82].
Southern European and Mediterranean countries, such as Greece, also illustrate how historical land degradation and ongoing agricultural pressures necessitate nature-based solutions. The restoration of riparian forests in areas like the Koiliaris watershed demonstrates that reestablishing native vegetation can significantly enhance ecological resilience and mitigate desertification. This aligns with the broader EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 objectives, which emphasize the role of ES in informing management practices and conserving multifunctional landscapes [150,151].
In Asia, large-scale ecological restoration programs exemplify how targeted government initiatives can reverse ecological decline. In China, programs such as the Ecological Water Diversion Project (EWDP) and Grain for Green (GGP) reflect a comprehensive approach to the rehabilitation of riparian zones through afforestation, hydrological rebalancing, and service enhancement. These efforts demonstrate a strategic alignment of riparian forest restoration with national development and climate mitigation goals, especially in fragile arid regions like the Tarim Basin. Similarly, the tugai forests of Central Asia are recognized for their vital ES, though their continued degradation underscores the need for stronger protection mechanisms across national boundaries. In Bangladesh, the convergence of climate-related stressors and transboundary water issues has intensified the vulnerability of riparian and mangrove ecosystems. Restoration strategies, particularly for mangroves, are being increasingly adopted as frontline defenses against sea-level rise, salinity intrusion, and storm surges, highlighting the direct link between ecological restoration and human adaptation.
In the Americas, forest policies have increasingly shifted from production to conservation-oriented paradigms. The United States’ Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and associated studies like the DMS reflect an evidence-based approach to riparian buffer management, aiming to balance habitat preservation with broader ES goals. Meanwhile, Mexico and Brazil present contrasting challenges: in Mexico, the ecosystem–water nexus is emphasized in watershed management, although strategies remain locally contingent; in Brazil, regulatory ambiguity under the Forest Code complicates enforcement, particularly for small stream riparian zones whose cumulative importance is often underappreciated.
In South America, particularly in Chile, the acknowledgment of ES by local communities provides a strong socioecological foundation for riparian forest protection. This bottom-up valuation is key to successful, enduring conservation outcomes, especially where institutional enforcement is limited.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, structural governance challenges persist. Tanzania and Kenya both illustrate how fragmented policies and institutional overlap hinder coherent riparian management. In Kenya, although legislation exists, implementation suffers due to regulatory fragmentation and land use pressure. In Botswana, the traditional dependence on riparian resources within the Okavango Delta exemplifies how ecosystem health is directly tied to local livelihoods, making the protection of riparian vegetation a socio-economic imperative as well as an ecological one.
Overall, these national case studies affirm the growing recognition of riparian forests as integral to sustainable land and water management. Recent forest planning frameworks increasingly account for ecosystem multifunctionality, as noted by Frank et al. [150], offering a path toward better conservation outcomes. To bridge the gap between policy intent and ecological reality, riparian forest management must be grounded in service-specific, site-appropriate strategies that are co-developed with local stakeholders. Elevating riparian zones within national biodiversity and climate strategies—while clarifying regulatory standards and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration—can unlock their full potential as providers of critical ecosystem services.

4.2.3. Degradation and Loss of Ecosystem Services in Riparian Forests

However, despite of all these advantages, riparian forests are one of the most endangered ecosystems at a global scale [152,153,154]. The main pressures are posed by land conversion (towards agriculture and urban development), river regulations (such as dams) and certain forestry operations.
A good example comes from dam-induced changes [103,104]. These can significantly alter floodplain connectivity, with a visible impact on the regeneration of forests and the delivery of their services [105]. Arid regions are especially targeted, such as Populus euphratica zones [108]. On the other hand, agricultural practices in Brazil and deforestation in the Amazon have a degrading effect on ecosystem services. They affect the cycle of nutrients, infiltration processes and the overall biodiversity [106,107]. As for deforestation, cuttings from temperate forests have proved to disrupt groundwater and the overall structure of forests [155,156,157,158,159].
These cumulative disturbances illustrate the fragility of riparian systems under combined pressures from hydrological alteration and land-use change. As floodplain vegetation becomes increasingly threatened by drought and altered flow regimes, even early successional stages (seedlings and saplings) are at risk of mortality, compromising long-term forest regeneration [160,161,162].
The degradation of riparian buffer strips and associated forest cover also directly impacts water quality and yield at the catchment level. Mismanagement of water resources, including uncoordinated reservoir operations and unsustainable irrigation, further exacerbates these effects. As noted byJunk Hunter, and Kroes [163,164,165] disturbances that alter the hydrologic regime of riparian forested wetlands not only disrupt their structure but also their functional capacity to provide ecosystem services—ranging from flood attenuation and sediment retention to nutrient filtering and biodiversity support.
As such, management practices should include integrated strategies that take into account all these aspects (hydrological integrity, land usage, species recovery threshold). This emphasizes the need to restore natural flood regimes and to include riparian forests in local and national policies. A high level of genetic diversity and a maximum caution to the transfer of forest reproductive materials is also needed [166,167,168]. In particular, statistical and numerical methods are still widely used [169,170].
In summary, the degradation of riparian forests across diverse global contexts underscores the critical need for integrated, adaptive management that reconciles ecological function with human demands. Protection and restoration strategies must account for the unique vulnerabilities of RFs to hydrological change, land-use pressure, and climate variability. Emphasizing riparian zones as dynamic ecological corridors—rather than static buffer strips—may help shift the management paradigm toward a more holistic, process-oriented approach capable of safeguarding their ecosystem service potential in the future.
While this review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current state of knowledge on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas, several gaps and limitations must be acknowledged. The bibliometric analysis, though robust, is inherently constrained by the search terms and databases used. By focusing primarily on Web of Science and Scopus and using the phrase “forest ecosystem services in riparian areas” as the core search term, some relevant studies—particularly those published in non-indexed regional journals or in grey literature (e.g., government and NGO reports)—may have been overlooked. As a result, there may be a geographic or linguistic bias in the literature base, with English-language publications and research from countries with greater scientific visibility being disproportionately represented. The ecological heterogeneity of riparian zones poses challenges for generalization. Riparian forests vary widely in structure, function, and management across climatic zones, hydrological regimes, and socio-political contexts. Although we included a range of case studies, our ability to offer globally applicable recommendations is limited by the context-specific nature of many findings. The dynamic and often rapidly changing policy environments surrounding land use and forest management in many countries mean that some of the policy insights reviewed here may already be in flux. Continuous updates and adaptive research frameworks are therefore necessary to ensure that conclusions remain relevant in light of evolving environmental and governance challenges.
Despite growing academic and policy interest in riparian forest ecosystem services, several key areas remain underexplored and present promising opportunities for future research. For regional data gaps and understudied ecosystems, while substantial work has been performed in regions such as North America, Europe, and Brazil, there remains a notable lack of research from subtropical, semi-arid, and developing regions—particularly in parts of Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. Future studies should prioritize these areas to develop a more globally representative understanding of riparian ecosystem services. Regarding the quantification of ecosystem service trade-offs, more research is needed to assess the trade-offs between the different ecosystem services provided by riparian forests. For example, maximizing carbon sequestration may conflict with biodiversity conservation or water yield. Regarding the integration of social–ecological frameworks, riparian forest research must increasingly consider the social dimensions of ecosystem services. Understanding local perceptions, community dependencies, and cultural values can improve conservation outcomes. Participatory mapping, stakeholder engagement, and socio-economic valuation studies are necessary to inform equitable and effective management practices.

4.2.4. Gaps, Research Needs, and Future Directions

Although our synthesis is broad, there are still some areas that can be addressed in the future:
Underrepresented regions and ecosystem types. Most of the studies come from North America, Europe, and Brazil, while subtropical, semi-arid and tropical regions (Sahel—Africa, Tarim River Basin—Central Asia, Mekong and Salween basins—Southeast Asia) are clearly understudied. Future studies should be devoted to these areas.
Neglected ecosystem services. Most of the studies have focused solely on carbon and water-related services. Some aspects that should be considered by future studies include biodiversity trade-offs, the cultural values of riparian forests, and their complex services (including medicinal plants, fisheries).
Research agendas and methods. More research is needed regarding the methods used in these studies. Some examples include field validation, social and ecological assessments, trade-off modelling, participatory mapping and stakeholder involvement.
Conceptual and policy frameworks. Riparian areas can be grouped based on their ecological status (intact, degraded, recovering), dominant ecosystem services (hydrological, carbon, biodiversity) and socio-political context (high governance capacity, contested land). This approach can be an effective tool in restoring and protecting these areas, while also being adapted to regional contexts.

5. Conclusions

Our review reinforces the complex importance of riparian forests as providers of diverse ecosystem services, especially under growing climate change and environmental pressures. By synthesizing data from almost 400 peer-reviewed studies covering three decades, we have documented a growth in academic and policy interest regarding these ecosystems.
Our study shows that riparian forests are essential for biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, water quality enhancement, and slope stabilization. Most importantly, we emphasize the complex interactions between biophysical factors (such as vegetation type, hydrology, soil properties) and socio-political factors (land-use policy, management regulations and institutional frameworks).
Despite a widespread recognition of their value, riparian forests remain among the most vulnerable ecosystems. Pressures such as deforestation, hydrology alterations, agricultural expansion and weak regulations have triggered their degradation. Furthermore, the absence of specific management strategies and standards undermines their conservation and restoration.
Our analysis points to several pressing needs: (1) the better integration of ecosystem frameworks into riparian management policies; (2) better research in understudied regions such as subtropical and semi-arid ones; (3) adopting a cross-disciplinary approach that connects scientific findings with policies and local; and (4) developing targeted restorations that reflect the ecological conditions and community needs.
In conclusion, riparian forests should not be viewed as marginal landscapes but recognized as resilient and essential for both natural ecosystems and local communities. Protecting and enhancing their uniqueness should be a priority at a global level, especially under climatic changes and intensifying land-usage. The research and governance communities should work together to make them more visible and valuable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.D., G.M. and M.L.; methodology, L.D.; software, G.M. and M.L.; validation, L.D. and G.M.; formal analysis, L.D.; investigation, L.D.; resources, M.L.; data curation, G.M. and M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, L.D.; writing—review and editing, G.M.; visualization, G.M.; supervision, G.M. and M.L.; project administration, L.D.; funding acquisition, L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

L.D. was supported by the project PN 23090202 (Contract No. 12N/2023), within the FORCLIMSOC program (Sustainable Forest Management Adapted to Climate Change and Societal Challenges), financed by the Romanian National Authority for Research (ANC). The work of Gabriel Murariu was supported by a grant of the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI—UEFISCDI, project number PN-IV-P8-8.1-PRE-HE-ORG-2024-0212, within PNCDI IV.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Naiman, R.J.; Decamps, H. The ecology of the interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997, 28, 621–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Naiman, R.J.; Fetherston, K.L.; McKay, S.J.; Chen, J. Riparian forests. In River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 289–383. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lowrance, R.; Leonard, R.; Sheridan, J. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. J. Soil Watre Conserv. 1985, 40, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gundersen, P.; Laurén, A.; Finér, L.; Ring, E.; Koivusalo, H.; Sætersdal, M.; Weslien, J.O.; Sigurdsson, B.D.; Högbom, L.; Laine, J.; et al. Environmental services provided from riparian forests in the Nordic countries. Ambio 2010, 39, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Castelle, A.J.; Johnson, A.W.; Conolly, C. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—A review. J. Environ. Qual. 1994, 23, 878–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Luke, S.H.; Luckai, N.J.; Burke, J.M.; Prepas, E.E. Riparian areas in the Canadian boreal forest and linkages with water quality in streams. Environ. Rev. 2007, 15, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lowrance, R. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest. J. Environ. Qual. 1992, 21, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. MacDonald, J.S.; MacIsaac, E.A.; Herunter, H.E. The effect of variable-retention riparian buffer zones on water temperatures in small headwater streams in sub-boreal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33, 1371–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nilsson, C.; Svedmark, M. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 468–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tagwireyi, P.; Sullivan, S.M.P. Riverine landscape patch heterogeneity drives riparian ant assemblages in the Scioto River Basin, USA. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. O’Hara, K.L. What is close-to-nature silviculture in a changing world? For. Int. J. For. Res. 2016, 89, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Daily, G.C. (Ed.) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  13. Garrastazú, M.C.; Mendonça, S.D.; Horokoski, T.T.; Cardoso, D.J.; Rosot, M.A.; Nimmo, E.R.; Lacerda, A.E. Carbon sequestration and riparian zones: Assessing the impacts of changing regulatory practices in Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, Y.J.; Li, W.H.; Liu, J.Z.; Yang, Y.H. Effects of water conveyance embankments on riparian forest communities at the middle reaches of the Tarim River, Northwest China. Ecohydrology 2013, 6, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Halik, Ü.; Aishan, T.; Kurban, A.; Cyffka, B.; Opp, C. Response of crown diameter of Populus euphratica to ecological water transfer in the lower reaches of the Tarim River. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2011, 39, 82–84. [Google Scholar]
  16. Egoh, B.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Richardson, D.M.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Jaarsveld, A.S. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sweeney, B.W.; Bott, T.L.; Jackson, J.K.; Kaplan, L.A.; Newbold, J.D.; Standley, L.J.; Hession, W.C.; Horwitz, R.J. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 14132–14137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tomscha, S.A.; Gergel, S.E.; Tomlinson, M.J. The spatial organization of ecosystem services in river-floodplains. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clerici, N.; Paracchini, M.L.; Maes, J. Land-cover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2014, 14, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sharps, K.; Masante, D.; Thomas, A.; Jackson, B.; Redhead, J.; May, L.; Prosser, H.; Cosby, B.; Emmett, B.; Jones, L. Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McVittie, A.; Norton, L.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Siameti, I.; Glenk, K.; Aalders, I. Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 110, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hasan, S.S.; Zhen, L.; Miah, M.G.; Ahamed, T.; Samie, A. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Campagne, C.S.; Roche, P.; Müller, F.; Burkhard, B. Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosyst. 2020, 5, e51103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Milcu, A.I.; Hanspach, J.; Abson, D.; Fischer, J. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dincă, L.; Crișan, V.; Ienașoiu, G.; Murariu, G.; Drasovean, R. Environmental indicator plants in mountain forests: A review. Plants 2024, 13, 3358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gambella, F.; Sistu, L.; Piccirilli, D.; Corposanto, S.; Caria, M.; Arcangeletti, E.; Proto, A.R.; Chessa, G.; Pazzona, A. Forest and UAV: A bibliometric review. Contemp. Eng. Sci. 2016, 9, 1359–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Timiș-Gânșac, V.; Dincă, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G.; Cheregi, G.; Timofte, C.S.C. Conservation biodiversity in arid areas: A review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dinca, L.; Marin, M.; Radu, V.; Murariu, G.; Drasovean, R.; Cretu, R.; Georgescu, L.; Timiș-Gânsac, V. Which Are the Best Site and Stand Conditions for Silver Fir (Abies alba Mill.) Located in the Carpathian Mountains? Diversity 2022, 14, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Salisbury, L. Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative review of content and searching capabilities. Charleston Advisor 2009, 11, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  30. Adriaanse, L.; Rensleigh, C. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. Electron. Libr. 2013, 31, 727–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clarivate.com. Web of Science Core Collection. Available online: https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/ (accessed on 20 January 2025).
  32. Scopus. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  33. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel?legRedir=true&CorrelationId=3bb60ab0-fe13-41a4-812b-2627667cf346 (accessed on 1 February 2025).
  34. Geochart. Available online: https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/geochart (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  35. VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 28 January 2025).
  36. Cole, L.J.; Stockan, J.; Helliwell, R. Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 296, 106891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kinnoumè, S.M.D.; Gouwakinnou, G.N.; Noulèkoun, F.; Balagueman, R.O.; Houehanou, T.D.; Natta, A.K. Trees diversity explains variations in biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships across environmental gradients and conservation status in riparian corridors. Front. For. Glob. Change 2024, 7, 1291252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pasion, B.O.; Barrias, C.D.; Asuncion, M.P.; Angadol, A.H.; Pabiling, R.R.; Pasion, A., Jr.; Braulio, A.A.; Baysa, A.M., Jr. Assessing tree diversity and carbon density of a riparian zone within a protected area in southern Philippines. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2021, 14, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tabacchi, E.; Lambs, L.; Guilloy, H.; Planty-Tabacchi, A.M.; Muller, E.; Decamps, H. Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrol. Process. 2000, 14, 2959–2976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gray, C.L.; Simmons, B.I.; Fayle, T.M.; Mann, D.J.; Slade, E.M. Are riparian forest reserves sources of invertebrate biodiversity spillover and associated ecosystem functions in oil palm landscapes? Biol. Conserv. 2016, 194, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Collier, C.A.; de Almeida Neto, M.S.; de Almeida, G.M.A.; Rosa Filho, J.S.; Severi, W.; El-Deir, A.C.A. Effects of anthropic actions and forest areas on a neotropical aquatic ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. de Araújo, G.J.; Monteiro, G.F.; Messias, M.C.T.B.; Antonini, Y. Restore it, and they will come: Trap-nesting bee and wasp communities (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) are recovered by restoration of riparian forests. J. Insect Conserv. 2018, 22, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. García-Martínez, M.Á.; Valenzuela-González, J.E.; Escobar-Sarria, F.; López-Barrera, F.; Castaño-Meneses, G. The surrounding landscape influences the diversity of leaf-litter ants in riparian cloud forest remnants. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guadalquiver, D.M.; Nuñeza, O.M.; Dupo, A.L. Species diversity of Lepidoptera in Mimbilisan Protected Landscape, Misamis Oriental, Philippines. Entomol. Appl. Sci. Lett. 2019, 6, 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  45. Almeida, P.D.; Hartmann, M.T.; Hartmann, P.A. How riparian forest integrity influences anuran species composition: A case study in the Southern Brazil Atlantic Forest. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 43, 209ri19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sanguila, M.B. Herpetological assemblages in tropical forests of the Taguibo Watershed, Butuan City, eastern Mindanao, Philippines. Philipp. J. Sci. 2020, 150, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hernández-Dávila, O.A.; Sosa, V.J.; Laborde, J. Effects of landscape context and vegetation attributes on under-storey bird communities of cloud forest riparian belts. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 167, 106269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Monadjem, A.; Reside, A. The influence of riparian vegetation on the distribution and abundance of bats in an African savanna. Acta Chiropterol. 2008, 10, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Murta, J.R.D.M.; Brito, G.Q.D.; Mendonça Filho, S.F.; Salemi, L.F. Topsoil physical properties under a riparian forest in Central Brazil: Infiltration and penetration resistance. Hoehnea 2022, 49, e332021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jacinthe, P.A.; Vidon, P.; Fisher, K.; Liu, X.; Baker, M.E. Soil methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from cropland and riparian buffers in different hydrogeomorphic settings. J. Environ. Qual. 2015, 44, 1080–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cordeiro, G.G.; Vasconcelos, V.; Salemi, L.F.; Nardoto, G.B. Factors affecting the effectiveness of riparian buffers in retaining sediment: An isotopic approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kidd, K.R.; Copenheaver, C.A.; Aust, W.M. Sediment accretion rates and radial growth in natural levee and backswamp riparian forests in southwestern Alabama, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 358, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saklaurs, M.; Dubra, S.; Liepa, L.; Jansone, D.; Jansons, Ā. Vegetation affecting water quality in small streams: Case study in hemiboreal forests, Latvia. Plants 2022, 11, 1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brumberg, H.; Beirne, C.; Broadbent, E.N.; Zambrano, A.M.A.; Zambrano, S.L.A.; Gil, C.A.Q.; Gutierrez, B.L.; Eplee, R.; Whitworth, A. Riparian buffer length is more influential than width on river water quality: A case study in southern Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 286, 112132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. De Sosa, L.L.; Glanville, H.C.; Marshall, M.R.; Abood, S.A.; Williams, A.P.; Jones, D.L. Delineating and mapping riparian areas for ecosystem service assessment. Ecohydrology 2018, 11, e1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hernandez-Santana, V.; Asbjornsen, H.; Sauer, T.; Isenhart, T.; Schilling, K.; Schultz, R. Enhanced transpiration by riparian buffer trees in response to advection in a humid temperate agricultural landscape. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1415–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ávila-García, D.; Morató, J.; Pérez-Maussán, A.I.; Santillán-Carvantes, P.; Alvarado, J.; Comín, F.A. Impacts of alternative land-use policies on water ecosystem services in the Río Grande de Comitán–Lagos de Montebello watershed, Mexico. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. de la Fuente, B.; Mateo-Sánchez, M.C.; Rodríguez, G.; Gastón, A.; de Ayala, R.P.; Colomina-Pérez, D.; Melero, M.; Saura, S. Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: The connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 429–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Benez-Secanho, F.J.; Dwivedi, P. Analyzing the impacts of land use policies on selected ecosystem services in the upper Chattahoochee Watershed, Georgia, United States. Environ. Res. Commun. 2021, 3, 115001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hanna, D.E.; Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Bennett, E.M. Effects of land use, cover, and protection on stream and riparian ecosystem services and biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lowrance, R. Riparian forest ecosystems as filters for nonpoint-source pollution. In Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 113–141. [Google Scholar]
  62. Patten, D.T. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: Diversity and human impacts. Wetlands 1998, 18, 498–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rodewald, A.D.; Bakermans, M.H. What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Anderson, P.D.; Poage, N.J. The Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: A large-scale silviculture experiment informing riparian management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 316, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bakx, T.R.; Akselsson, C.; Droste, N.; Lidberg, W.; Trubins, R. Riparian buffer zones in production forests create unequal costs among forest owners. Eur. J. For. Res. 2024, 143, 1035–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dybala, K.E.; Matzek, V.; Gardali, T.; Seavy, N.E. Carbon sequestration in riparian forests: A global synthesis and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Aishan, T.; Betz, F.; Halik, Ü.; Cyffka, B.; Rouzi, A. Biomass carbon sequestration potential by riparian forest in the Tarim River Watershed, Northwest China: Implication for the mitigation of climate change impact. Forests 2018, 9, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mendez-Estrella, R.; Romo-Leon, J.R.; Castellanos, A.E. Mapping changes in carbon storage and productivity services provided by riparian ecosystems of semi-arid environments in northwestern Mexico. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lidman, F.; Köhler, S.J.; Mörth, C.M.; Laudon, H. Metal transport in the boreal landscape—The role of wetlands and the affinity for organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3783–3790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Broadmeadow, S.; Nisbet, T.R. The effects of riparian forest management on the freshwater environment: A literature review of best management practice. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2004, 8, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mayer, P.M.; Reynolds, S.K.; McMutchen, M.D.; Canfield, T.J. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 1172–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Goudarzian, P.; Yazdani, M.; Matinkhah, S.H. Greenhouse and field evaluation of phytoremediation for nitrogen and phosphorus in a riparian buffer strip. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2021, 19, 933–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Aronsson, P.; Perttu, K. Willow vegetation filters for wastewater treatment and soil remediation combined with biomass production. For. Chron. 2001, 77, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ericsson, T. Growth and nutrition in three Salix clones grown in low conductivity solutions. Physiol. Plant. 1981, 52, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Osborne, L.L.; Kovacic, D.A. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biol. 1993, 29, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gray, D.H.; Sotir, R.B. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A Practical Guide for Erosion Control; John Wiley & Sons: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1996; p. 365. [Google Scholar]
  77. Langendoen, E.J.; Lowrance, R.R.; Williams, R.G.; Pollen, N.; Simon, A. Impacts of global climate change—Modeling the impact of riparian buffer systems on bank stability of an incised stream. In Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2005, Anchorage, AK, USA, 15–19 May 2005. [Google Scholar]
  78. Thorne, C.R. Effects of vegetation on riverbank erosion and stability. In Vegetation and Erosion; Thornes, J.B., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 125–144. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wu, T.; Watson, A. In situ shear tests of soil blocks with roots. Can. Geotech. J. 1998, 35, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Arif, M.; Petrosillo, I.; Changxiao, L. Effects of changing riparian topography on the decline of ecological indicators along the drawdown zones of long rivers in China. Front. For. Glob. Change 2024, 7, 1293330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mc Conigley, C.; Lally, H.; O’Callaghan, M.; O’Dea, P.; Little, D.; Kelly-Quinn, M. The vegetation communities of unmanaged aquatic buffer zones within conifer plantations in Ireland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 353, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Biggs, T.W.; Santiago, T.M.O.; Sills, E.; Caviglia-Harris, J. The Brazilian Forest Code and riparian preservation areas: Spatiotemporal analysis and implications for hydrological ecosystem services. Reg. Environ. Change 2019, 19, 2381–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Xu, H.L.; Ye, M.; Li, J.M. The ecological characteristics of the riparian vegetation affected by river-overflowing disturbance in the lower Tarim River. Environ. Geol. 2009, 58, 1749–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chen, Y.N.; Ye, Z.X.; Shen, Y.J. Desiccation of the Tarim River, Xinjiang, China, and mitigation strategy. Quat. Int. 2011, 244, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Peng, J.; Hu, X.; Wang, X.; Meersmans, J.; Liu, Y.; Qiu, S. Simulating the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Yunnan, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 100998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liu, J.; Li, S.; Ouyang, Z.; Tam, C.; Chen, X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9477–9482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fu, B.; Liu, Y.; Lü, Y.; He, C.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, B. Assessing the soil erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Complex. 2011, 8, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, X.; Tian, Y.; Gao, T.; Jin, L.; Li, S.; Zhao, D.; Zheng, X.; Yu, L.; Zhu, J. Trade-offs analysis of ecosystem services for the grain for green program: Informing reforestation decisions in a mountainous headwater region, Northeast China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Masiero, M.; Bottaro, G.; Righetti, C.; Nikolaidis, N.P.; Lilli, M.A.; Pettenella, D. Riparian forests as nature-based solutions within the Mediterranean context: A biophysical and economic assessment for the Koiliaris River Watershed (Crete, Greece). Forests 2024, 15, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kowalska, A.; Affek, A.; Wolski, J.; Regulska, E.; Kruczkowska, B.; Zawiska, I.; Kołaczkowska, E.; Baranowski, J. Assessment of regulating ES potential of lowland riparian hardwood forests in Poland. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Matunda, J.M. Sustainable Management of Riparian Areas in Kenya: A Critique of the Inadequacy of the Legislative Framework Governing the Protection of Sustainable Management of Riparian Zones in Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; p. 65. [Google Scholar]
  92. Nzau, J.M.; Rogers, R.; Shauri, H.S.; Rieckmann, M.; Habel, J.C. Smallholder perceptions and communication gaps shape East African riparian ecosystems. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 3745–3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lalika, M.C.; Meire, P.; Ngaga, Y.M. Exploring watershed conservation and water governance along Pangani River Basin, Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Leal Filho, W.; Alam, G.M.; Nagy, G.J.; Rahman, M.M.; Roy, S.; Wolf, F.; Kovaleva, M.; Saroar, M.; Li, C. Climate change adaptation responses among riparian settlements: A case study from Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0278605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Esse, C.; Santander-Massa, R.; Encina-Montoya, F.; De los Ríos, P.; Fonseca, D.; Saavedra, P. Multicriteria spatial analysis applied to identifying ecosystem services in mixed-use river catchment areas in south central Chile. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Säumel, I.; Ziche, D.; Yu, R.; Kowarik, I.; Overdieck, D. Grazing as a driver for Populus euphratica woodland degradation in the semi-arid Aibi Hu region, northwestern China. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Betz, F.; Halik, Ü.; Kuba, M.; Tayierjiang, A.; Cyffka, B. Controls on aeolian sediment dynamics by natural riparian vegetation in the eastern Tarim Basin, NW China. Aeolian Res. 2015, 18, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Qiao, J.; Yang, W.; Gao, X. Natural diet and food habitat use of the Tarim red deer, Cervus elaphus yarkandensis. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2006, 51, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mazvimavi, D.; Wolski, P. Long-term variations of annual flows of the Okavango and Zambezi Rivers. Phys. Chem. Earth 2006, 31, 944–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Heath, A.; Heath, R. Field Guide to the Plants of Northern Botswana Including the Okavango Delta; Kew Publishing: Kew, UK, 2009; pp. 1–593. [Google Scholar]
  101. Ecosurv. Field Investigation into the Mokoro Industry; Kalahari Conservation Society: Gaborone, Botswana, 1988; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  102. Babitseng, T.M.; Teketay, D. Impact of wine tapping on the population structure and regeneration of Hyphaene petersiana Klotzsch ex Mart in Northern Botswana. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2013, 11, 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  103. Décamps, H.; Fortuné, M.; Gazelle, F.; Pautou, G. Historical influence of man on the riparian dynamics of a fluvial landscape. Landscape Ecol. 1988, 1, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nilsson, C.; Berggren, K. Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. BioScience 2000, 50, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kuglerová, L.; Ågren, A.; Jansson, R.; Laudon, H. Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: Ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 334, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Celentano, D.; Rousseau, G.X.; Engel, V.L.; Zelarayán, M.; Oliveira, E.C.; Araujo, A.C.M.; de Moura, E.G. Degradation of riparian forest affects soil properties and ecosystem services provision in eastern Amazon of Brazil. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. McClain, M.E.; Cossío, R.E. The use of riparian environments in the rural Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Conserv. 2003, 30, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Keram, A.; Halik, Ü.; Aishan, T.; Keyimu, M.; Jiapaer, K.; Li, G. Tree mortality and regeneration of Euphrates poplar riparian forests along the Tarim River, Northwest China. For. Ecosyst. 2021, 8, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Thomas, F.M.; Lang, P. Growth and water relations of riparian poplar forests under pressure in Central Asia’s Tarim River Basin. River Res. Appl. 2021, 37, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Feng, Q.; Liu, W.; Si, J.H.; Su, Y.H.; Zhang, Y.W.; Cang, Z.Q.; Xi, H.Y. Environmental effects of water resource development and use in the Tarim River basin of northwestern China. Environ. Geol. 2005, 48, 202–210. [Google Scholar]
  111. Hrkal, Z.; Gadalia, A.; Rigaudiere, P. Will the river Irtysh survive the year 2030? Impact of long-term unsuitable land use and water management of the upper stretch of the river catchment (North Kazakhstan). Environ. Geol. 2006, 50, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Xu, J.; Zhu, X.; Yuan, K. Effects of different restoration measures on species diversity and aboveground biomass of the gold-mining area in headwaters of the Ertix River. Arid Land Geogr. 2019, 42, 581–589. [Google Scholar]
  113. Popova, E. Morphological and biological characteristics of some anthropogenic plant communities in the lower Irtysh floodplain. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 392, 012005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Liu, S.; Liu, L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, K.; Guo, Y. Study on ecological protection and restoration path of arid area based on improvement of ecosystem service capability: A case of the ecological protection and restoration pilot project area in Irtysh River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 8998–9007. [Google Scholar]
  115. Vidal-Abarca Gutierrez, M.R.; Suarez Alonso, M.L. Which are, what is their status and what can we expect from ecosystem services provided by Spanish rivers and riparian areas? Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 2469–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hennings, N.; Becker, J.N.; Guillaume, T.; Damris, M.; Dippold, M.A.; Kuzyakov, Y. Riparian wetland properties counter the effect of land-use change on soil carbon stocks after rainforest conversion to plantations. Catena 2021, 196, 104941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wantzen, K.M.; Couto, E.G.; Mund, E.E.; Amorim, R.S.S.; Siqueira, A.; Tielbörger, K.; Seifan, M. Soil carbon stocks in stream-valley-ecosystems in the Brazilian Cerrado agroscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 151, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Rieger, I.; Kowarik, I.; Cierjacks, A. Drivers of carbon sequestration by biomass compartment of riparian forests. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Borin, M.; Passoni, M.; Thiene, M.; Tempesta, T. Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 32, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Udawatta, R.P.; Jose, S. Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Matzek, V.; Puleston, C.; Gunn, J. Can carbon credits fund riparian forest restoration? Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sutfin, N.A.; Wohl, E.E.; Dwir, K.A. Banking carbon: A review of organic carbon storage and physical factors influencing retention in floodplains and riparian ecosystems. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2016, 41, 38–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Eglin, T.; Walter, C.; Nys, C.; Follain, S.; Forgeard, F.; Legout, A.; Squividant, H. Influence of waterlogging on carbon stock variability at hillslope scale in a beech forest (Fougères forest—West France). Ann. For. Sci. 2008, 65, 202p1–202p10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Hazlett, P.W.; Gordon, A.M.; Sibley, P.K.; Buttle, J.M. Stand carbon stocks and soil carbon and nitrogen storage for riparian and upland forests of boreal lakes in northeastern Ontario. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 219, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, M.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Eitzel, M. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Roberts, W.M.; Stutter, M.I.; Haygarth, P.M. Phosphorus retention and remobilization in vegetated buffer strips: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Christen, B.; Dalgaard, T. Buffers for biomass production in temperate European agriculture: A review and synthesis on function, ecosystem services and implementation. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 55, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rood, S.B.; Bigelow, S.G.; Polzin, M.L.; Gill, K.M.; Coburn, C.A. Biological bank protection: Trees are more effective than grasses at resisting erosion from major river floods. Ecohydrology 2015, 8, 772–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Johnes, P.J.; Gooddy, D.C.; Heaton, T.H.; Binley, A.; Kennedy, M.P.; Shand, P.; Prior, H. Determining the impact of riparian wetlands on nutrient cycling, storage and export in permeable agricultural catchments. Water 2020, 12, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Keeton, W.S.; Kraft, C.E.; Warren, D.R. Mature and old-growth riparian forests: Structure, dynamics, and effects on Adirondack stream habitats. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 852–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Dixon, S.; Sear, D.A.; Sykes, T.; Odoni, N. The effects of floodplain forest restoration and logjams on flood risk and flood hydrology. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts; European Geosciences Union: Munich, Germany, 2015; p. 5104. [Google Scholar]
  132. Dincă, L.; Achim, F. The management of forests situated on fields susceptible to landslides and erosion from the Southern Carpathians. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2019, 19, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  133. Magdaleno, F.; Blanco Garrido, F.; Bonada i Caparrós, N.; Herrera Grao, T. How are riparian plants distributed along the riverbank topographic gradient in Mediterranean rivers? Application to minimally altered river stretches in Southern Spain. Limnetica 2014, 33, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Merritt, D.M.; Scott, M.L.; LeRoy Poff, N.; Auble, G.T.; Lytle, D.A. Theory, methods, and tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: Riparian vegetation-flow response guilds. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 206–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Ishida, S.; Yamazaki, A.; Takanose, Y.; Kamitani, T. Off-channel temporary pools contribute to native riparian plant species diversity in a regulated river floodplain. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Pielech, R. Plant species richness in riparian forests: Comparison to other forest ecosystems, longitudinal patterns, role of rare species and topographic factors. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 496, 119400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Hylander, K.; Nilsson, C.; Göthner, T. Effects of buffer-strip retention and clearcutting on land snails in boreal riparian forests. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 1052–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Stockan, J.A.; Langan, S.J.; Young, M.R. Investigating riparian margins for vegetation patterns and plant–environment relationships in northeast Scotland. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Maisonneuve, C.; Rioux, S. Importance of riparian habitats for small mammal and herpetofaunal communities in agricultural landscapes of southern Québec. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 83, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Scott, S.J.; McLaren, G.; Jones, G.; Harris, S. The impact of riparian habitat quality on the foraging and activity of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.). J. Zool. 2010, 280, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Gilvear, D.J.; Spray, C.J.; Casas-Mulet, R. River rehabilitation for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services at the river network scale. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 126, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Nakano, S.; Murakami, M. Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Malmqvist, B. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshw. Biol. 2002, 47, 679–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Thomas, H.; Nisbet, T.R. An assessment of the impact of floodplain woodland on flood flows. Water Environ. J. 2007, 21, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bueno, A.S.; Bruno, R.S.; Pimentel, T.P.; Sanaiotti, T.M.; Magnusson, W.E. The width of riparian habitats for understory birds in an Amazonian forest. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 722–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rojas, I.M.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Radeloff, V.C. Restoring riparian forests according to existing regulations could greatly improve connectivity for forest fauna in Chile. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 203, 103895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Lees, A.C.; Peres, C.A. Conservation value of remnant riparian forest corridors of varying quality for Amazonian birds and mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Swanson, A.C.; Bohlman, S. Cumulative impacts of land cover change and dams on the land-water interface of the Tocantins River. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 662904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Bennett, A.F. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation (No. 1); IUCN: Fontainebleau, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  150. Frank, S.; Fürst, C.; Pietzsch, F. Cross-sectoral resource management: How forest management alternatives affect the provision of biomass and other ecosystem services. Forests 2015, 6, 533–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Campos Tisovec-Dufner, K.; Teixeira, L.; Marin, G.D.L.; Coudel, E.; Morsello, C.; Pardini, R. Intention of preserving forest remnants among landowners in the Atlantic Forest: The role of the ecological context via ecosystem services. People Nat. 2019, 1, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Best, J. Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Nilsson, C.; Reidy, C.A.; Dynesius, M.; Revenga, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 2005, 308, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Perry, L.G.; Andersen, D.C.; Reynolds, L.V.; Nelson, S.M.; Shafroth, P.B. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 18, 821–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Lee, P.; Smyth, C.; Boutin, S. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 70, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. MacDonald, R.L.; Chen, H.Y.; Palik, B.P.; Prepas, E.E. Influence of harvesting on understory vegetation along a boreal riparian-upland gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 312, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Löfgren, S.; Ring, E.; von Brömssen, C.; Sørensen, R.; Högbom, L. Short-term effects of clear-cutting on the water chemistry of two boreal streams in northern Sweden: A paired catchment study. Ambio 2009, 38, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Sibley, P.K.; Richardson, J.S.; Gordon, A.M. Introduction and a theoretical basis for using disturbance by forest management activities to sustain aquatic ecosystems. Freshw. Sci. 2012, 31, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Schelker, J.; Kuglerová, L.; Eklöf, K.; Bishop, K.; Laudon, H. Hydrological effects of clear-cutting in a boreal forest–Snowpack dynamics, snowmelt and streamflow responses. J. Hydrol. 2013, 484, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Deng, M.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L. Study on ecological scheduling of multi-scale coupling of reservoir group. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017, 48, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar]
  161. Gries, D.; Zeng, F.; Foetzki, A.; Arndt, S.K.; Bruelheide, H.; Thomas, F.M. Growth and water relations of Tamarix ramosissima and Populus euphratica on Taklamakan desert dunes in relation to depth to a permanent water table. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zeng, F.J.; Zhang, W.J.; Liu, G.J.; Zhang, D.Y.; Li, X.Y.; Zhang, L.; Yuan, L.M.; Zhang, X.M. Stable restoration pattern and sustainable management technology of main dominant vegetation in typical desert areas of China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2020, 214, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
  163. Junk, W.J.; Piedade, M.T.F.; Schöngart, J.; da Cunha, C.N.; Goncalves, S.R.A.; Wantzen, K.M.; Wittmann, F. Riparian wetlands of low-order streams in Brazil: Extent, hydrology, vegetation cover, interactions with streams and uplands, and threats. Hydrobiologia 2024, 851, 1657–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hunter, R.G.; Faulkner, S.P.; Gibson, K.A. The importance of hydrology in restoration of bottomland hardwood wetland functions. Wetlands 2008, 28, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kroes, D.E.; Hupp, C.R. The effect of channelization on floodplain sediment deposition and subsidence along the Pocomoke River, Maryland. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 686–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Budeanu, M.; Besliu, E.; Pepelea, D. Testing the Radial Increment and Climate–Growth Relationship Between Swiss Stone Pine European Provenances in the Romanian Carpathians. Forests 2025, 16, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Besliu, E.; Curtu, A.L.; Budeanu, M.; Apostol, E.N.; Ciocîrlan, M.I. Exploring the effects of the assisted transfer of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances in the Romanian Carpathians. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2024, 52, 13968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Budeanu, M.; Apostol, E.N.; Radu, R.G.; Ioniță, L. Genetic variability and juvenile–adult correlations of Norway spruce (Picea abies) provenances, tested in multisite comparative trials. Ann. For. Res. 2021, 64, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Murariu, G.; Dinca, L.; Tudose, N.; Crisan, V.; Georgescu, L.; Munteanu, D.; Dragu, M.D.; Rosu, B.; Mocanu, G.D. Structural Characteristics of the Main Resinous Stands from Southern Carpathians, Romania. Forests 2021, 12, 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Popa, P.; Murariu, G.; Timofti, M.; Georgescu, L. Multivariate Statistical Analyses of water quality of Danube River at Galati, Romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1249–1266. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Schematic presentation of the workflow used in our research.
Figure 1. Schematic presentation of the workflow used in our research.
Forests 16 00947 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of the main publication types related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 2. Distribution of the main publication types related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g002
Figure 3. Annual distribution of articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 3. Annual distribution of articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g003
Figure 4. Countries with contributing authors of articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 4. Countries with contributing authors of articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g004
Figure 5. Country clusters of authors publishing on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 5. Country clusters of authors publishing on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g005
Figure 6. Key journals featuring articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 6. Key journals featuring articles on forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g006
Figure 7. Authors’ keywords related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 7. Authors’ keywords related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g007
Figure 8. Annual distribution of keywords related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Figure 8. Annual distribution of keywords related to forest ecosystem services in riparian areas.
Forests 16 00947 g008
Table 1. Some of the ecosystem services provided by riparian forests (extracted from the literature).
Table 1. Some of the ecosystem services provided by riparian forests (extracted from the literature).
Cur. No.Ecosystem ServiceRegionCiting Article
Biodiversity
1BiodiversitygeneralCole et al., 2020 [36]
Plant biodiversity
2Tree speciesBenin; PhilippinesKinnoumè et al., 2024 [37]; Pasion et al., 2021 [38];
3The amount and the potential role of dead woodItalyTabacchi et al., 2000 [39]
Animal biodiversity
4InvertebratesMalaysiaGray et al., 2016 [40]
5IchthyofaunaBrazilCollier et al., 2019 [41]
6Bees and waspsBrazilde Araújo et al., 2018 [42]
7Leaf-litter antsMexicoGarcía-Martínez et al., 2017 [43]
8LepidopteraPhilippinesGuadalquiver et al., 2019 [44]
9AmphibiansBrazilAlmeida et al., 2020 [45]
10ReptilesPhilippineSanguila, 2020 [46]
11BirdsMexico; BrazilHernández-Dávila et al., 2021 [47]
12ButsSwazilandMonadjem and Reside, 2008 [48]
Soil
13Improve soil permeabilitygeneralCole et al., 2020 [36]
14Soil penetration resistanceBrazilMurta et al., 2022 [49]
Carbon sequestration
15Carbon sequestrationBrazilGarrastazú et al., 2015 [13]
16Greenhouse gas productionUSAJacinthe et al., 2015 [50]
Sediments retention
17Retain sedimentsBrazilCordeiro et al., 2020 [51]
18Trapping suspended sedimentUSAKidd et al., 2105 [52]
Water
19Moderating aquatic temperaturesgeneralCole et al., 2020 [36]
20Water qualityLatvia; Italy;
Costa Rica
Saklaurs et al., 2022 [53]; Tabacchi et al., 2000 [39]; Brumberg et al., 2021 [54]
21Watercourse shadingBrazilde Sosa et al., 2018 [55]
22Transpiration of treesUSAHernandez-Santana et al., 2011 [56]
Land use
23Hydrological impacts of land-use and land-cover changeMexicoÁvila-García et al., 2020 [57]
24Connectivity across agricultural landscapesSpainde la Fuente et al., 2018 [58]
25Impacts of land use policies on ecosystem servicesUSABenez-Secanho et al., 2021 [59]
26Effects of land use, cover, and protectionCanadaHanna et al., 2020 [60]
Pollution
27Intercept and remove pollutantsgeneralCole et al., 2020 [36]
28Filters for nonpoint-source pollutionUSALowrance, 1998 [61]
Social and recreation
29Recreational sites for humansUSAPatten, 1998 [62]
30Social and recreational valuesBelgiumRodewald and Bakermans, 2006 [63]
31Economic benefitsUSA, SwedenAnderson and Poage, 2014 [64]; Bakx et al., 2024 [65]
Biomass carbon sequestrationDybala et al., 2019 [66], Aishan et al., 2018 [67]
32Nature-based solutionsMexicMendez Estrella et al., 2017 [68]; Lidman, F. et al., 2014 [69]
33Ecosystem service bundlesEnglandBroadmeadow S. et al., 2004 [70]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dinca, L.; Murariu, G.; Lupoae, M. Understanding the Ecosystem Services of Riparian Forests: Patterns, Gaps, and Global Trends. Forests 2025, 16, 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060947

AMA Style

Dinca L, Murariu G, Lupoae M. Understanding the Ecosystem Services of Riparian Forests: Patterns, Gaps, and Global Trends. Forests. 2025; 16(6):947. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060947

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dinca, Lucian, Gabriel Murariu, and Mariana Lupoae. 2025. "Understanding the Ecosystem Services of Riparian Forests: Patterns, Gaps, and Global Trends" Forests 16, no. 6: 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060947

APA Style

Dinca, L., Murariu, G., & Lupoae, M. (2025). Understanding the Ecosystem Services of Riparian Forests: Patterns, Gaps, and Global Trends. Forests, 16(6), 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16060947

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop