Incorporating functional traits to enhance multimetric index performance and assess land use gradients

Chen, Kai; Rajper, Abdul Razzaque; Hughes, Robert M.; Olson, John R.; Wei, Huiyu; Wang, Beixin

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.047

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This requires monitoring fish, aquatic mammals, benthic invertebrates, epiphytic algae, phytoplankton, aquatic vascular plants, waterside vegetation, beach vegetation, amphibians, reptiles, wetland birds, and rare, endangered and endemic species. The assessment indices include predictive models and multi-metric indices but the latest is more widely used in China for both diatoms and macroinvertebrates (e.g., [ 83 , 84 ]). Yet, up to now China has not conducted a national river ecological survey.…”

Section: Biological Assessment Of Riversmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: An Overview

Feio

Hughes

Callisto

et al. 2021

Water

Self Cite

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological assessment of rivers i.e., their assessment through use of aquatic assemblages, integrates the effects of multiple-stressors on these systems over time and is essential to evaluate ecosystem condition and establish recovery measures. It has been undertaken in many countries since the 1990s, but not globally. And where national or multi-national monitoring networks have gathered large amounts of data, the poor water body classifications have not necessarily resulted in the rehabilitation of rivers. Thus, here we aimed to identify major gaps in the biological assessment and rehabilitation of rivers worldwide by focusing on the best examples in Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North, Central, and South America. Our study showed that it is not possible so far to draw a world map of the ecological quality of rivers. Biological assessment of rivers and streams is only implemented officially nation-wide and regularly in the European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, and the USA. In Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, and Singapore it has been implemented officially at the state/province level (in some cases using common protocols) or in major catchments or even only once at the national level to define reference conditions (Australia). In other cases, biological monitoring is driven by a specific problem, impact assessments, water licenses, or the need to rehabilitate a river or a river section (as in Brazil, South Korea, China, Canada, Japan, Australia). In some countries monitoring programs have only been explored by research teams mostly at the catchment or local level (e.g., Brazil, Mexico, Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam) or implemented by citizen science groups (e.g., Southern Africa, Gambia, East Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada). The existing large-extent assessments show a striking loss of biodiversity in the last 2–3 decades in Japanese and New Zealand rivers (e.g., 42% and 70% of fish species threatened or endangered, respectively). A poor condition (below Good condition) exists in 25% of South Korean rivers, half of the European water bodies, and 44% of USA rivers, while in Australia 30% of the reaches sampled were significantly impaired in 2006. Regarding river rehabilitation, the greatest implementation has occurred in North America, Australia, Northern Europe, Japan, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea. Most rehabilitation measures have been related to improving water quality and river connectivity for fish or the improvement of riparian vegetation. The limited extent of most rehabilitation measures (i.e., not considering the entire catchment) often constrains the improvement of biological condition. Yet, many rehabilitation projects also lack pre-and/or post-monitoring of ecological condition, which prevents assessing the success and shortcomings of the recovery measures. Economic constraints are the most cited limitation for implementing monitoring programs and rehabilitation actions, followed by technical limitations, limited knowledge of the fauna and flora and their life-history traits (especially in Africa, South America and Mexico), and poor awareness by decision-makers. On the other hand, citizen involvement is recognized as key to the success and sustainability of rehabilitation projects. Thus, establishing rehabilitation needs, defining clear goals, tracking progress towards achieving them, and involving local populations and stakeholders are key recommendations for rehabilitation projects (Table 1). Large-extent and long-term monitoring programs are also essential to provide a realistic overview of the condition of rivers worldwide. Soon, the use of DNA biological samples and eDNA to investigate aquatic diversity could contribute to reducing costs and thus increase monitoring efforts and a more complete assessment of biodiversity. Finally, we propose developing transcontinental teams to elaborate and improve technical guidelines for implementing biological monitoring programs and river rehabilitation and establishing common financial and technical frameworks for managing international catchments. We also recommend providing such expert teams through the United Nations Environment Program to aid the extension of biomonitoring, bioassessment, and river rehabilitation knowledge globally.

show abstract

Section: Biological Assessment Of Riversmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: An Overview

Feio

Hughes

Callisto

et al. 2021

Water

Self Cite

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But at both larger and smaller spatial extents, as in our study, moderate differences in elevation range encompass other environmental variables that are associated with elevation range, such as catchment size, temperature, precipitation, DO, channel slope, and substrate size, which are often more important drivers of assemblage composition and richness than basin (Pont et al., 2009). Therefore, such drivers are frequently used for calibrating metrics employed in multimetric indices globally to increase their precision and assessment accuracy (Chen et al., 2019; Hering et al., 2006; Moya et al., 2011; Ruaro et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2017; Stoddard et al., 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beta diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages associated with leaf patches in neotropical montane streams

Callisto

Linares

Kiffer

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MMIs have been reported recently to be more responsive to anthropogenic pressures and better able to discern the ecological mechanisms of those biological responses (Chen et al, 2019;Saito, Siqueira, & Fonseca-Gessner, 2015). Not only have MMIs been effective for determining ecological condition, they also can be significantly correlated with human well-being (Angermeier, Krometis, Stern, & Hemby, 2021).…”

Section: Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, I. Martins, Macedo, Hughes, and Callisto (2020) reported that MMIs developed in seven different nations were able to satisfactorily assess macroinvertebrate assemblage condition in a Brazilian river basin. Many MMIs are based on taxonomic metrics; however, trait‐based MMIs have been reported recently to be more responsive to anthropogenic pressures and better able to discern the ecological mechanisms of those biological responses (Chen et al, 2019; Saito, Siqueira, & Fonseca‐Gessner, 2015). Not only have MMIs been effective for determining ecological condition, they also can be significantly correlated with human well‐being (Angermeier, Krometis, Stern, & Hemby, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological assessment of western USA sandy bottom rivers based on modeling historical and current fish and macroinvertebrate data

Hughes

Zeigler

Stringer³

et al. 2022

River Research & Apps

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological monitoring is important for assessing the ecological condition of surface waters. However, there are challenges in determining what constitutes reference conditions, what assemblages should be used as indicators, and how assemblage data should be converted into quantitative indicator scores. In this study, we developed and applied biological condition gradient (BCG) modeling to fish and macroinvertebrate data previously collected from large, sandy bottom southwestern USA rivers. Such rivers are particularly vulnerable to altered flow regimes resulting from dams, water withdrawals and climate change. We found that sensitive ubiquitous taxa for both fish and macroinvertebrates had been replaced by more tolerant taxa, but that the condition assessment ratings based on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages differed. We conclude that the BCG models based on both macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage condition were useful for classifying the condition of southwestern USA sandy bottom rivers. However, our fish BCG model was slightly more sensitive than the macroinvertebrate model to anthropogenic disturbance, presumably because we had historical fish data, and because fish may be more sensitive to dams and altered flow regimes than are macroinvertebrates.

show abstract

Incorporating functional traits to enhance multimetric index performance and assess land use gradients

Cited by 30 publications

References 98 publications

The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: An Overview

The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: An Overview

Beta diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages associated with leaf patches in neotropical montane streams

Biological assessment of western USA sandy bottom rivers based on modeling historical and current fish and macroinvertebrate data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About