DOCSLIB.ORG

Ozone Bioindicator Plants (Combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ozone Bioindicator Plants (Combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011 Phase 3 Field Guide – Ozone Bioindicator Plants (combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011 Section 20. Ozone Bioindicator Plants 20.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3 20.1.1 Scope and Application ................................................................................................................ 3 20.1.2 Summary of Method .................................................................................................................... 4 20.1.3 Summary of PDR Screens and Tally Procedures ....................................................................... 4 20.1.4 Equipment And Supplies ............................................................................................................. 4 20.1.5 Training and Quality Assurance .................................................................................................. 5 20.1.6 Voucher Specimens .................................................................................................................... 5 20.1.7 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 5 20.2 Ozone Biomonitoring Procedures ..................................................................................................... 7 20.2.1 Evaluation Window ...................................................................................................................... 7 20.2.2 Site Selection Procedures ........................................................................................................... 7 20.2.3 Site Mapping ............................................................................................................................... 8 20.2.4 Split Plots .................................................................................................................................... 9 20.2.5 Species Selection ...................................................................................................................... 10 20.2.6 Plant Selection .......................................................................................................................... 12 20.2.7 Symptom Identification and Scoring .......................................................................................... 13 20.2.8 Collection of Leaf Samples and Voucher Data ......................................................................... 15 20.2.9 Voucher Mailing Procedures ..................................................................................................... 18 20.2.10 Crew Member Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 18 20.2.11 Field Procedures for Untrained Field Crews .......................................................................... 18 20.3 Site Intensification ........................................................................................................................... 19 20.4 Plot Level Data .................................................................................................................................. 19 20.4.1 STATE ...................................................................................................................................... 19 20.4.2 COUNTY .................................................................................................................................. 19 20.4.3 FIELD ID .................................................................................................................................. 20 20.4.4 SPLITPLOT ID ......................................................................................................................... 20 20.4.5 QA STATUS ............................................................................................................................. 20 20.4.6 CREW TYPE ............................................................................................................................ 20 20.4.7 OZONE SAMPLE KIND ........................................................................................................... 21 20.4.8 CURRENT DATE ...................................................................................................................... 21 20.4.8.1 YEAR ................................................................................................................................. 21 20.4.8.2 MONTH .............................................................................................................................. 21 20.4.8.3 DAY .................................................................................................................................... 21 20.4.9 PLOT SIZE ............................................................................................................................... 22 20.4.10 ASPECT ............................................................................................................................... 22 20.4.11 TERRAIN POSITION ............................................................................................................ 22 20.4.12 SOIL DEPTH ........................................................................................................................ 22 20.4.13 SOIL DRAINAGE (East only) ............................................................................................... 23 20.4.13 PLOT WETNESS (West only) .............................................................................................. 23 20.4.14 DISTURBANCE .................................................................................................................... 23 20.4.15 INJURY CHECK ................................................................................................................... 23 20.4.16 ELEVATION ......................................................................................................................... 24 20.4.17 Plot Notes .................................................................................................................................. 24 20.4.17.1 REMARK1 and REMARK2 ............................................................................................. 24 20.5 GPS Coordinates .............................................................................................................................. 24 20.5.1 GPS Unit Settings, Datum, and COORDINATE SYSTEM ........................................................ 25 20.5.2 Collecting Readings .................................................................................................................. 25 20.5.3 GPS UNIT ................................................................................................................................. 25 20.5.4 GPS SERIAL NUMBER ............................................................................................................ 25 20.5.5 GPS ENTRY METHOD ............................................................................................................. 26 20.5.6 GPS DATUM ............................................................................................................................. 26 20.5.7 Latitude...................................................................................................................................... 26 20.5.7.1 LATITUDE DEGREES ....................................................................................................... 26 1 Phase 3 Field Guide – Ozone Bioindicator Plants (combined), Version 5.1 October, 2011 20.5.7.2 LATITUDE MINUTES ........................................................................................................ 27 20.5.7.3 LATITUDE SECONDS ....................................................................................................... 27 20.5.8 Longitude................................................................................................................................... 27 20.5.8.1 LONGITUDE DEGREES ................................................................................................... 27 20.5.8.2 LONGITUDE MINUTES ..................................................................................................... 27 20.5.8.3 LONGITUDE SECONDS ................................................................................................... 28 20.5.9 GPS ELEVATION ..................................................................................................................... 28 20.5.10 GPS ERROR ......................................................................................................................... 28 20.5.11 NUMBER OF GPS READINGS ............................................................................................. 28 20.5.12 GPS FILENAME (CORE OPTIONAL) ................................................................................... 28 20.6 Foliar Injury Data ........................................................................................................................ 29 20.6.1 SPECIES .................................................................................................................................. 29 20.6.2 AMOUNT .................................................................................................................................. 29 20.6.3 NUMBER OF PLANTS ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do We Need to Use Bats As Bioindicators?
    biology Perspective Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators? Danilo Russo * , Valeria B. Salinas-Ramos , Luca Cistrone, Sonia Smeraldo, Luciano Bosso * and Leonardo Ancillotto Wildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Università, 100, 80055 Portici, Italy; [email protected] (V.B.S.-R.); [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (L.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (L.B.) Simple Summary: Bioindicators are organisms that react to the quality or characteristics of the environment and their changes. They are vitally important to track environmental alterations and take action to mitigate them. As choosing the right bioindicators has important policy implications, it is crucial to select them to tackle clear goals rather than selling specific organisms as bioindicators for other reasons, such as for improving their public profile and encourage species conservation. Bats are a species-rich mammal group that provide key services such as pest suppression, pollination of plants of economic importance or seed dispersal. Bats show clear reactions to environmental alterations and as such have been proposed as potentially useful bioindicators. Based on the rel- atively limited number of studies available, bats are likely excellent indicators in habitats such as rivers, forests, and urban sites. However, more testing across broad geographic areas is needed, and establishing research networks is fundamental to reach this goal. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators exist, such as difficulties in separating cryptic species and identifying bats in flight from their calls.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioindicator
    Bioindicator INTRODUCTION A bioindicator is any species (an indicator species) or group of species whose function, population, or status can reveal the qualitative status of the environment. For example, copepods and other small water crustaceans that are present in many water bodies can be monitored for changes (biochemical, physiological, or behavioural) that may indicate a problem within their ecosystem. Bioindicators can tell us about the cumulative effects of different pollutants in the ecosystem and about how long a problem may have been present, which physical and chemical testing cannot. A biological monitor or biomonitor is an organism that provides quantitative information on the quality of the environment around it. Therefore, a good biomonitor will indicate the presence of the pollutant and can also be used in an attempt to provide additional information about the amount and intensity of the exposure. A biological indicator is also the name given to a process for assessing the sterility of an environment through the use of resistant microorganism strains (eg. Bacillus or Geobacillus). Biological indicators can be described as the introduction of a highly resistant microorganisms to a given environment before sterilization, tests are conducted to measure the effectiveness of the sterilization processes. As biological indicators use highly resistant microorganisms, any sterilization process that renders them inactive will have also killed off more common, weaker pathogens. The advantages associated with using Bioindicators are as follows: (a) Biological impacts can be determined. (b) To monitor synergetic and antagonistic impacts of various pollutants on a creature. (c) Early stage diagnosis as well as harmful effects of toxins to plants, as well as human beings, can be monitored.
    [Show full text]
  • The Amphipod <I>Orchomenella Pinguis</I>
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Valery Forbes Publications Papers in the Biological Sciences 2009 The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic Lis Bach Aarhus University, [email protected] Valery E. Forbes University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Ingela Dahllöf Aarhus University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Other Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Toxicology Commons Bach, Lis; Forbes, Valery E.; and Dahllöf, Ingela, "The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic" (2009). Valery Forbes Publications. 47. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes/47 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valery Forbes Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:11 (November 2009), pp. 1664–1670; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.07.001 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Used by permission. The amphipod Orchomenella pinguis — A potential bioindicator for contamination in the Arctic Lis Bach,1,2 Valery E. Forbes,2 and Ingela Dahllöf 1 1. Department of Marine Ecology, National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark 2. Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Corresponding author — L. Bach, email [email protected] , [email protected] Abstract Indigenous organisms can be used as bioindicators for effects of contaminants, but no such bioindicator has been estab- lished for Arctic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Leaves As Bioindicator to Assess Air Pollution Based on Composite Proxy Measure (APTI), Dust Amount and Elemental Concentration of Metals
    plants Article Use of Leaves as Bioindicator to Assess Air Pollution Based on Composite Proxy Measure (APTI), Dust Amount and Elemental Concentration of Metals Vanda Éva Molnár 1 ,Dávid T˝ozsér 2, Szilárd Szabó 1 ,Béla Tóthmérész 3 and Edina Simon 2,* 1 Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] (V.É.M.); [email protected] (S.S.) 2 Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] 3 MTA-DE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Research Group, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 October 2020; Accepted: 7 December 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: Monitoring air pollution and environmental health are crucial to ensure viable cities. We assessed the usefulness of the Air Pollution Tolerance Index (APTI) as a composite index of environmental health. Fine and coarse dust amount and elemental concentrations of Celtis occidentalis and Tilia europaea leaves were measured in June and September at three sampling sites (urban, × industrial, and rural) in Debrecen city (Hungary) to assess the usefulness of APTI. The correlation between APTI values and dust amount and elemental concentrations was also studied. Fine dust, total chlorophyll, and elemental concentrations were the most sensitive indicators of pollution. Based on the high chlorophyll and low elemental concentration of tree leaves, the rural site was the least disturbed by anthropogenic activities, as expected. We demonstrated that fine and coarse dust amount and elemental concentrations of urban tree leaves are especially useful for urban air quality monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Shifts in Water Quality Show Scale-Dependent Bioindicator
    Ecological Indicators 98 (2019) 476–482 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Original Articles Long-term shifts in water quality show scale-dependent bioindicator responses across Russia – Insights from 40 year-long bioindicator monitoring T program ⁎ Otso Ovaskainena,b, ,1, Benjamin Weigela,1, Oleg Potyutkoc, Yury Buyvolovc a Research Centre for Ecological Change, Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland b Centre for Biodiversity Dynamics, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway c Yu. A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, Glebovskaya str., 20b, Moscow 107258, Russia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Scale-related assessment strategies are important contributions to successful ecosystem management. With Bioindicator varying impact of environmental drivers from local to regional scales, a focal task is to understand scale-de- Hierarchical modelling of species communities pendent responses when assessing the state of an ecosystem. In this study we use large-scale monitoring data, Joint species distribution modelling spanning 40 years and including four aquatic bioindicator groups (phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, Phytoplankton zoobenthos) to expose the long-term changes of water quality across Russia. We include four hierarchical spatial Periphyton scales (region, basin, waterbody and observation point) to identify the relative importance of different spatio- Zoobenthos Zooplankton temporal scales for the variation of each bioindicator and patterns of co-variation among the bioindicators at different hierarchical levels. We analysed the data with Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities (HMSC), an approach that belongs to the framework of joint species distribution models.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agricultural Impact of Pesticides on Physalaemus Cuvieri Tadpoles (Amphibia: Anura) Ascertained by Comet Assay
    ZOOLOGIA 34: e19865 ISSN 1984-4689 (online) zoologia.pensoft.net RESEARCH ARTICLE The agricultural impact of pesticides on Physalaemus cuvieri tadpoles (Amphibia: Anura) ascertained by comet assay Macks W. Gonçalves1,4, Priscilla G. Gambale3, Fernanda R. Godoy4, Alessandro Arruda Alves1,4, Pedro H. de Almeida Rezende1, Aparecido D. da Cruz4, Natan M. Maciel2, Fausto Nomura2, Rogério P. Bastos2, Paulo de Marco-Jr2, Daniela de M. Silva1,4 1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, Laboratório de Genética e Mutagênese, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás. Estrada do Campus, Campus Universitário, 74690-900 Goiânia, GO, Brazil. 2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Evolução e Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade Animal, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás. Estrada do Campus, Campus Universitário, 74690- 900 Goiânia, GO, Brazil. 3Universidade Estadual de Mato Grosso do Sul. Rua General Mendes de Moraes 370, Jardim Aeroporto, 74000000 Coxim, MS, Brazil. 4Núcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás. Rua 235, 40, Bloco L, Setor Leste Universitário, 74605-050 Goiânia, GO, Brazil. Corresponding author: Daniela de M. Silva ([email protected], [email protected]) http://zoobank.org/A65FFC07-75B6-4DE4-BE59-8CE6BB2D4448 ABSTRACT. Amphibians inhabiting agricultural areas are constantly exposed to large amounts of chemicals, which reach the aquatic environment during the rainy season through runoff, drainage, and leaching. We performed a comet assay on the erythrocytes of tadpoles found in the surroundings of agricultural fields (soybean and corn crops), where there is an intense release of several kinds of pesticides in different quantities. We aimed to detect differences in the genotoxic parameters be- tween populations collected from soybeans and cornfields, and between them and tadpoles sampled from non-agricultural areas (control group).
    [Show full text]
  • Lichen Bioindication of Biodiversity, Air Quality, and Climate: Baseline Results from Monitoring in Washington, Oregon, and California
    United States Department of Lichen Bioindication of Biodiversity, Agriculture Forest Service Air Quality, and Climate: Baseline Pacific Northwest Results From Monitoring in Research Station General Technical Washington, Oregon, and California Report PNW-GTR-737 Sarah Jovan March 2008 The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sus- tained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and manage- ment of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Author Sarah Jovan is a research lichenologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Biomonitoring of Freshwater Environment
    WITPress_BMTA_ch003.qxd 12/1/2007 13:06 Page 47 3 Biomonitoring of freshwater environment M E Conti 1 Principles of the Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive 2000/60 EC (WFD) [1] is an important opportunity to reorganize the basic integrated resource management. The key issue of the Directive is an extremely wide-ranging and integrated approach based on a sustainable use of the aquatic resource, 1. first of all, it introduces quality standards that will serve as points of reference for the quality assessment of bodies of water in the UE member countries. The objective is for the artificial and heavily polluted water bodies to regain a good ecological potential. In view of this, a ‘maximum ecological potential’ has to be established as a reference condition; 2. it therefore defines quality objectives to be met; quality classes have been ranked in a five-class-system ecological status (high, good, moderate, poor and bad); 3. it establishes criteria for the identification of significant water bodies and the assessment of their environmental quality status. The environmental quality status is defined on the basis of the chemical and ecological status of the water body. For superficial water bodies, the assessment of the chemical status is carried out on the basis of the presence – beyond a given threshold value – of harmful substances. The ecological status is the expression of the various components of the aquatic ecosystem (physical and chemical nature of waters and sediments, characteristics of the water flow, structure of the river bed). The use of bioindicators, as effective means for the evaluation of human impact on the water body, is provided for in view of a clas- sification of running water, within the framework of the definition of the ecological status.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioluminescent Bacteria, Algae, and Honeybees
    Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology Rhodes, Greece, 3-5 September 2015 BIOINDICATORS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING: BIOLUMINESCENT BACTERIA, ALGAE AND HONEYBEES GIROTTI S.1, BOLELLI L.1, FERRI E.1, CARPENÉ E.2 and ISANI G.2 1 Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, University of Bologna, Via S. Donato, 15- 40127 Bologna, Italy. 2 Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche Veterinarie, Via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia, Bologna, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Environment protection actions can result effective and adequate when based on a complete awareness about the extension, intensity, quality and respective quantity of chemicals involved, fate during time, and above all about the real impact on the biosphere of the pollution to be removed or to make harmless. Sophisticated analytical methodologies can offer a multianalyte, traces detections, but a monitoring plan requires the collection of a high number of samples and rapid, low-cost screening analyses before to employ them. To this aim biosensors and bioindicators can be very useful tools. Among the several organisms which can be employed as bioindicators we have along research experience about luminescent bacteria, microalgae, and honeybees [1-2]. Luminescent bacteria started to be employed for environmental monitoring in the middle eighties and now their use in sediment and water analysis is recognized officially by European and international policies as a reference toxicity test. We performed various monitoring activities [1] by using a bioluminescent bacteria (BLB) based assay, performed at room temperature, rapid and versatile even unspecific. The use of 96 wells microplates allowed to test several sample at one time, to reduce the working volumes and therefore the cost per assay.
    [Show full text]
  • Ozone Bioindicators and Forest Health: a Guide to the Evaluation, Analysis, and Interpretation of the Ozone Injury Data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
    United States Department of Agriculture Ozone Bioindicators and Forest Forest Service Health: A Guide to the Evaluation, Northern Research Station Analysis, and Interpretation of the General Technical Report NRS-34 Ozone Injury Data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Gretchen C. Smith John W. Coulston Barbara M. O’Connell Abstract In 1994, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and Forest Health Monitoring programs of the U.S. Forest Service implemented a national ozone (O3) biomonitoring program designed to address specific questions about the area and percent of forest land subject to levels of O3 pollution that may negatively affect the forest ecosystem. This is the first and only nationally consistent effort to monitor O3 stress on the forests of the United States. This report provides background information on O3 and its effects on trees and ecosystems, and describes the rationale behind using sensitive bioindicator plants to detect O3 stress and assess the risk of probable O3 impact. Also included are a description of field methods, analytic techniques, estimation procedures, and how to access, use and interpret the ozone bioindicator attributes and data outputs such as the national ozone risk map. The Authors GRETCHEN C. SMITH, National Ozone Field Advisor, University of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Amherst, MA. [email protected] JOHN W. COULSTON, National Ozone Advisor and Supervisory Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Knoxville, TN. [email protected] BARBARA M. O’CONNELL, Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. [email protected] Acknowledgments The ozone biomonitoring program began in the early 1990s and has succeeded due to the persistent efforts of numerous investigators, regional trainers, and state forest health coordinators.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Seagrasses to Understand the Condition of the Estuary
    Department of Water 21 Science supporting estuary management IssueIssue 1, February 21, April 2000 2013 Using seagrasses to understand the condition of the estuary Macrophytes are aquatic plants that may have fully effectively as an indicator of ecological health. These Contents submerged, emergent or floating growth forms. This include understanding: article will deal primarily with one species of fully Seagrasses within the • the natural variability of the characteristic/s estuary...............................1 submerged macrophyte, the seagrass Halophila measured ovalis (common name ‘paddleweed’), which is Seagrass distribution ........2 found within the shallows of the Swan-Canning • the expected response of the organism to changes Seagrass depth range ......2 estuary, Western Australia. For information on the in environmental condition Seagrass growth biology and historical distribution of this species • the sensitivity of the species (a successful indicator requirements .....................4 in the Swan-Canning estuary see River Science 20. has the response to environmental changes greater Measures of ecophysiology: a pilot study .......................4 Estuarine environments are particularly vulnerable than the natural variability for the measured to human impacts. Eutrophication has increased characteristic). Halophila ovalis physiological responses ....5 nutrient and organic matter deposition within This article reports on work (undertaken between Sediment conditions affect estuaries worldwide. Associated changes in the 2006 to 2008) to understand the distribution and seagrass growth ................6 condition of the sediment and decreased light physiological behaviour of H. ovalis and examines Future directions ...............6 availability results in additional stresses for benthic the potential of using this seagrass as an indicator organisms. of estuarine health in the Swan-Canning estuary. Glossary ............................7 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Biodiversity As Bioindicators for Water Pollution
    National Conference on Biodiversity, Development and Poverty Alleviation 22nd May , 2010 Exploring Biodiversity as Bioindicators for Water Pollution Akanksha Jain, Brahma N. Singh, S. P. Singh, H. B. Singh* & Surendra Singh *Department of Botany; Department of Mycology and Plant Pathology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005 *Email : hbs1@red iffmail.com iodiversity plays a central role in making life water supply, tourism, flood control and waste sustainable on this planet for all organisms. The management. Healthy ecosystems, healthy people Bfate of human species is interlinked with demand clean water and the control of vector-based fates of all organisms whether plant, animals or and other diseases depending on ecosystem processes. microbes living around us and directly or indirectly Water scarcity and declining access to fresh water is affecting our lives. The simplest way to understand a globally significant and accelerating problem for this is to just remember the mode of energy transfers, 1-2 billion people worldwide, leading to reductions nutrient, oxygen and water cycling going on. Our in food production, human health, and economic planet is tightly linked by global communication development. systems, exchange of materials and their maintenance Together with the air we breathe, the provision where all of them are being interdependent. For of clean water is arguably the most fundamental example our health depends upon the environment service provided by ecosystems. Human activities we live in and food we eat. To protect our self we have fundamentally altered and threatened inland need to protect our planet, the ecosystems and water ecosystems. As a consequence species depen- individual species present around the globe.
    [Show full text]