Biological quality of running waters in protected areas: the influence of size and land use

Abstract

There are still substantial questions about whether protected areas affect the quality and biodiversity of surface waters within their borders. In this study, the size and land use of 19 protected areas of Latium Region (central Italy) were related to the biological quality of 32 streams running inside them. Additionally, the biological quality of 18 out of the 32 streams was compared with the quality recorded on the same streams outside the boundaries of the protected areas. The biological quality was assessed using the Extended Biotic Index, which indicates the macroinvertebrate community health. The quality of 32 study streams running through the protected areas was not related to the size of these areas, but it did reflect land use. On average, the 18 study sites inside protected areas had biological quality similar to external control sites. In the protected areas, the biological quality of streams was higher than for the same streams in the surrounding territory provided that anthropogenic changes were fewer. These data indicate that the creation of protected areas per se does not increase freshwater biodiversity and that land use has a major impact on the biological quality of the stream in a protected area. As a consequence, a higher number of reserves or landscape designations specifically created for aquatic conservation is necessary and recovery programs aimed at restoring physical habitats and reducing sources of impact to aquatic life have to be pursued. Also, where the anthropogenic impact is high (e.g., as in the case of strongly urbanised areas), the creation of effective protected areas might improve the biological quality of water courses

Weak Concordance between Fish and Macroinvertebrates in Mediterranean Streams

“…Variance partitioning with partial CCA indicated that benthic invertebrate assemblages were predominantly influenced by local land-use (as expressed by the Anthropogenic Index), channel morphology and water quality, each explaining a significant proportion of variance. Previous surveys support the role of local land-use and morphological features in structuring benthic assemblages in this Region [37], [38], [70].…”

“…The following k values were attributed to the respective CORINE land use categories: 1, natural woods; 2, pastures, meadows, bush areas, scrub and olive grove; 3 agricultural areas and urban green areas; 4, urban and industrial areas. The 1 km buffer was chosen since, in this region, macroinvertebrates appeared influenced by land use at this scale [37], [38]. The index therefore represents a surrogate of anthropogenic development and ranges from 1 (minimum development) to 4 (maximum development).…”

Effect of spatial scale on macroinvertebrate assemblages along a Mediterranean river

“…In central Italy, many rivers are characterised by marked longitudinal patterns in anthropogenic pressure, with up-and middle-stream sections draining semi-natural or extensive agricultural areas, while downstream sections being detrimentally stressed by urbanisation, impoundment and industrial sewage effluents (Solimini et al, 2001;Mancini et al, 2005;Manfrin et al, 2013). In these circumstances, the extent to which benthic assemblages reflect differences among local micro-habitat types or larger-scale longitudinal variation is not clear.…”

Diversity, habitat use and conservation of freshwater molluscs in the lower Guadiana River basin (SW Iberian Peninsula)

“…The relatively good overlap between streams with high species richness and the protected natural spaces shows the importance of these areas as a starting point for monitoring and conservation plans of the aquatic biocoenosis of the lower Guadiana River basin (Iba´n˜ez et al, 1997;European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC;So´lymos and Fehe´r, 2005). It is also important to preserve streams as biological corridors within protected areas, creating buffer zones between a larger number of different habitats and, consequently, a richer freshwater biodiversity (Lammert and Allan, 1999;Voelz and McArthur, 2000;Haila, 2002;Sa´nchez-Ferna´ndez et al, 2004;Bonn and Gaston, 2005;Mancini et al, 2005). Nevertheless, some important streams with high species richness and the presence of naiads (Unionidae) } Foupana (GD81), Odeleite (GD88), Chanza (GD67) and, partially, Ardila (GD49) and Oeiras (GD60) } remain unprotected and threatened by tourism and pollution.…”