Development of macroinvertebrate-based multimetric index and establishment of biocriteria for river health assessment in Malaysia

Arman, Nor Zaiha; Salmiati, Salmiati; Said, Mohd Ismid Mohd; Aris, Azmi

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.060

Cited by 35 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We mostly focused on three insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), which are among the most frequently used macroinvertebrates for the bioassessment of streams (e.g. Brabec et al 2004;Hering et al 2006a;Gabriels et al 2010;Arman et al 2019; but see also Cox et al 2019). We also considered a broad range of organisms belonging to other orders of insects and other classes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study we combined in vitro and in silico analyses to compare the performance of three primer pairs potentially suitable for the metabarcoding of bulk or eDNA from freshwater macroinvertebrates (macrobenthos), and we developed an extensive reference database for benthic macroinvertebrates living in European freshwaters. We focused mostly on three insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), which are among the most frequently used macroinvertebrates for the bioassessment of streams (e.g., Brabec et al., 2004; Hering et al., 2006; Gabriels et al., 2010; Arman et al., 2019; but see also Cox et al., 2019). We also considered a broad range of organisms belonging to other orders of insects and other classes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metabarcoding of bulk or environmental DNA has great potential for biomonitoring freshwater environments. However, successful application of metabarcoding to biodiversity monitoring requires universal primers with high taxonomic coverage that amplify highly variable, short metabarcodes with high taxonomic resolution. Moreover, reliable and extensive reference databases are essential to match the outcome of metabarcoding analyses with the available taxonomy and biomonitoring indices. Benthic invertebrates, particularly insects, are key taxa for freshwater bioassessment. Nevertheless, few studies have so far assessed markers for metabarcoding of freshwater macrobenthos. Here we combined in silico and laboratory analyses to test the performance of different markers amplifying regions in the 18S rDNA (Euka02), 16S rDNA (Inse01), and COI (BF1_BR2-COI) genes, and developed an extensive database of benthic macroinvertebrates of France and Europe, with a special focus on key insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Analyses on 1514 individuals representing different taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates showed very different amplification success across primer combinations. The Euka02 marker showed the highest universality, while the Inse01 marker showed excellent performance for the amplification of insects. BF1_BR2-COI showed the highest resolution, while the resolution of Euka02 was often limited. By combining our data with GenBank information, we developed a curated database including sequences representing 822 genera. The heterogeneous performance of the different primers highlights the complexity of the identification of the best markers, and advocates for the integration of multiple metabarcodes for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of ecological impacts on freshwater biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blumetto et al established the ecosystem integrity index (EII), which includes vegetation structure, plant species, soil and riverbank, to evaluate specific ecosystems [16]. Many studies have evaluated rivers or riparian zones by establishing the macroinvertebrate index of biological integrity (MIBI), which can provide necessary information for effectively managing river ecosystems [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Status of Natural Habitat Restoration in the Liao River’s Riparian Zone

Su¹,

Chen²,

Feng³

et al. 2021

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to clarify the restoration status of natural habitat in riparian zone of Liao River Conservation Area, promote the healthy management of riparian zone ecosystem of Liao River Conservation area, and realize the sustainable development of river and regional ecosystem, this paper build a practical and feasible evaluation index system and formulate appropriate evaluation criteria by combining geographical features with its natural and artificial factors. The comprehensive index method was used to evaluate the restoration status of natural habitats in the riparian zone of Liao River reserve. The results show that, 21.74% of the sampling sites were in excellent condition, 17.39% in good condition, 26.09% in general condition, 17.39% in worse condition, and 17.39% in very bad condition. Compared with historical data, 82.61% of riparian natural habitats were improved, while only 17.39% of riparian natural habitats remained unchanged. There was no degradation of natural habitats in riparian zones, and natural habitats in riparian zones in the Liao River reserve were in a state of recovery.

show abstract

“…Unlike the simple indices, this system integrates different response characteristics of each metric to environmental stressors, and shows a more stable response to pressure [4]. In the following decades, various countries applied different types of indices according to their use habits and monitoring capabilities [14][15][16]. For example, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires European Union member states to monitor and assess the ecological quality of rivers and streams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Sensitivity and Limitations of Frequently Used Aquatic Biota Indices in Temperate Mountain Streams and Plain Streams of China

Zhang

Shang

Yang

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different biological groups show biased responses to similar or different environmental stressors on different scales. The selection of bioindicators based on pressure characteristics is the basis for accurately assessing ecological quality. In this study, we investigated the responses of common bioindicators, namely, macroinvertebrates and fish, to multiple stressors in temperate mountain and plain streams of northeast China. We used 56 indices, including the single biological evaluation index and biological evaluation index system, to analyze and compare characteristic response to different scales under varying environmental stressors. The principal component analysis (PCA) showed that PCA axis 1 in the catchment scale explained 83.6% and 96.1% of the variance in mountain and plain rivers, respectively, which characterized the comprehensive pressure gradient integrated by land-use development and water pollution. PCA axis 1 explained 40.7% and 53.9% of variance in mountain and plain rivers on the reach scale and 63.1% and 61.8% of variance on the site scale. The correlation analysis showed responses of different indices to abiotic variables which did not overlap. Macroinvertebrate and fish indices successfully explained the change in water chemistry on a small scale, whereas fish indices additionally explained the change in land use on a large scale. Macroinvertebrate and fish indices were recommended because of their rich responses to environmental stressors, particularly in plain rivers. For mountain stream biomonitoring programs, especially in the Taizi River of northeastern China, we suggest that macroinvertebrates and fish should be used separately or jointly according to the actual capacity and cost, Moreover, compared with the possible differences in the evaluation results of different single biological evaluation indexes, the biological evaluation index system shows more stable monitoring results, and the single sensitivity index is more significant in biological evaluation, and more sensitive to some special environmental factors.

show abstract

Development of macroinvertebrate-based multimetric index and establishment of biocriteria for river health assessment in Malaysia

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

Evaluation of the Status of Natural Habitat Restoration in the Liao River’s Riparian Zone

Testing the Sensitivity and Limitations of Frequently Used Aquatic Biota Indices in Temperate Mountain Streams and Plain Streams of China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About