DOCSLIB.ORG

The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World's Rivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

water Review The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: An Overview Maria João Feio 1,* , Robert M. Hughes 2,3, Marcos Callisto 4 , Susan J. Nichols 5 , Oghenekaro N. Odume 6 , Bernardo R. Quintella 7,8 , Mathias Kuemmerlen 9 , Francisca C. Aguiar 10 , Salomé F.P. Almeida 11 , Perla Alonso-EguíaLis 12, Francis O. Arimoro 13 , Fiona J. Dyer 5 , Jon S. Harding 14 , Sukhwan Jang 15, Philip R. Kaufmann 3,16, Samhee Lee 17, Jianhua Li 18, Diego R. Macedo 19 , Ana Mendes 20 , Norman Mercado-Silva 21 , Wendy Monk 22 , Keigo Nakamura 23 , George G. Ndiritu 24 , Ralph Ogden 25, Michael Peat 26, Trefor B. Reynoldson 27, Blanca Rios-Touma 28 , Pedro Segurado 8 and Adam G. Yates 29 1 Department of Life Sciences, MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal 2 Amnis Opes Institute, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA 4 Laboratory of Ecology of Benthos, Department of Genetic, Ecology and Evolution, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenida Antônio Carlos 6627, CEP 31270-901 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil; [email protected] 5 Centre for Applied Water Science, Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, 2601 Canberra, Australia; [email protected] (S.J.N.); fi[email protected] (F.J.D.) 6 Unilever Centre for Environmental Water Quality, Institute for Water Research, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa; [email protected] 7 MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, University of Évora, 7000-812 Évora, Portugal; [email protected] 8 Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, Citation: Feio, M.J.; Hughes, R.M.; 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected] 9 Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity Centre for the Environment, Trinity College Callisto, M.; Nichols, S.J.; Odume, Dublin, The University of Dublin, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland; [email protected] O.N.; Quintella, B.R.; Kuemmerlen, 10 Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, M.; Aguiar, F.C.; Almeida, S.F.P.; 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected] Alonso-EguíaLis, P.; et al. The 11 Department of Biology and GeoBioTec—GeoBioSciences, GeoTechnologies and GeoEngineering Research Biological Assessment and Centre, University of Aveiro, Campus de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; [email protected] Rehabilitation of the World’s Rivers: 12 Mexican Institute of Water Technology, Bioindicators Laboratory, Jiutepec Morelos 62550, Mexico; An Overview. Water 2021, 13, 371. [email protected] 13 https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030371 Department of Animal and Environmental Biology (Applied Hydrobiology Unit), Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 65 Minna, Nigeria; [email protected] 14 School of Biologcal Sciences, University of Canterbury, 8140 Christchurch, New Zealand; Academic Editor: Jan H. Janse [email protected] Received: 9 December 2020 15 Department of Civil Engineering, Daejin University, Hoguk-ro, Pocheon-si 1007, Gyeonggi-do, Korea; Accepted: 25 January 2021 [email protected] Published: 31 January 2021 16 Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA; Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral [email protected] 17 with regard to jurisdictional claims in Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT), 283 Goyangdaero, Ilsanseo-gu, published maps and institutional affil- Goyang-si 10223, Gyeonggi-do, Korea; [email protected] 18 Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment, Ministry of Education of China, Tongji University, iations. Shanghai 200092, China; [email protected] 19 Department of Geography, Geomorphology and Water Resources Laboratory, Institute of Geosciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenida Antônio Carlos 6627, CEP 31270-901 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil; [email protected] 20 Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. MED—Instituto Mediterrâneo para a Agricultura, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, LabOr—Laboratório de Ornitologia, Universidade de Évora, Polo da Mitra, 7002-774 Évora, Portugal; [email protected] Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 21 Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Conservacíon, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, This article is an open access article Cuernavaca, 62209 Morelos, Mexico; [email protected] distributed under the terms and 22 Environment and Climate Change Canada and, Canadian Rivers Institute, Faculty of Forestry and conditions of the Creative Commons Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada; Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// [email protected] creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 23 Water Environment Research Group, Public Works Research Institute, 1-6 Minamihara, 4.0/). Tsukuba 305-8516, Japan; [email protected] Water 2021, 13, 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030371 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water Water 2021, 13, 371 2 of 45 24 School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Karatina University, P.O. Box 1957, 10101 Karatina, Kenya; [email protected] 25 Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, 2601 Canberra, Australia; [email protected] 26 Wetlands, Policy and Northern Water Use Branch, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, 2601 Canberra, Australia; [email protected] 27 Acadia University, Canada Creek, Wolfville, NS B0P 1V0, Canada; [email protected] 28 Grupo de Investigación en Biodiversidad, Medio Ambiente y Salud (BIOMAS), Facultad de Ingenierías y Ciencias Aplicadas, Ingeniería Ambiental, Universidad de Las Américas, Vía Nayón S/N, 170503 Quito, Ecuador; [email protected] 29 Department of Geography, Western University and Canadian Rivers Institute, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: 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
Recommended publications
  • Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity

    Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity

    Network of Conservation Educators & Practitioners Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Author(s): Nathaniel P. Hitt, Lisa K. Bonneau, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran, and Michael P. Marchetti Source: Lessons in Conservation, Vol. 5, pp. 5-16 Published by: Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History Stable URL: ncep.amnh.org/linc/ This article is featured in Lessons in Conservation, the official journal of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP is a collaborative project of the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC) and a number of institutions and individuals around the world. Lessons in Conservation is designed to introduce NCEP teaching and learning resources (or “modules”) to a broad audience. NCEP modules are designed for undergraduate and professional level education. These modules—and many more on a variety of conservation topics—are available for free download at our website, ncep.amnh.org. To learn more about NCEP, visit our website: ncep.amnh.org. All reproduction or distribution must provide full citation of the original work and provide a copyright notice as follows: “Copyright 2015, by the authors of the material and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the American Museum of Natural History. All rights reserved.” Illustrations obtained from the American Museum of Natural History’s library: images.library.amnh.org/digital/ SYNTHESIS 5 Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Nathaniel P. Hitt1, Lisa K. Bonneau2, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran3, and Michael P. Marchetti4 1U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, USA, 2Metropolitan Community College-Blue River, USA, 3Kerala Agricultural University, India, 4School of Science, St.
  • Torix Rickettsia Are Widespread in Arthropods and Reflect a Neglected Symbiosis

    Torix Rickettsia Are Widespread in Arthropods and Reflect a Neglected Symbiosis

    GigaScience, 10, 2021, 1–19 doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giab021 RESEARCH RESEARCH Torix Rickettsia are widespread in arthropods and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/10/3/giab021/6187866 by guest on 05 August 2021 reflect a neglected symbiosis Jack Pilgrim 1,*, Panupong Thongprem 1, Helen R. Davison 1, Stefanos Siozios 1, Matthew Baylis1,2, Evgeny V. Zakharov3, Sujeevan Ratnasingham 3, Jeremy R. deWaard3, Craig R. Macadam4,M. Alex Smith5 and Gregory D. D. Hurst 1 1Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, Wirral CH64 7TE, UK; 2Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK; 3Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada; 4Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Balallan House, 24 Allan Park, Stirling FK8 2QG, UK and 5Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Summerlee Science Complex, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada ∗Correspondence address. Jack Pilgrim, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. E-mail: [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2941-1482 Abstract Background: Rickettsia are intracellular bacteria best known as the causative agents of human and animal diseases. Although these medically important Rickettsia are often transmitted via haematophagous arthropods, other Rickettsia, such as those in the Torix group, appear to reside exclusively in invertebrates and protists with no secondary vertebrate host. Importantly, little is known about the diversity or host range of Torix group Rickettsia.
  • Bacterial Production and Respiration

    Bacterial Production and Respiration

    Organic matter production % 0 Dissolved Particulate 5 > Organic Organic Matter Matter Heterotrophic Bacterial Grazing Growth ~1-10% of net organic DOM does not matter What happens to the 90-99% of sink, but can be production is physically exported to organic matter production that does deep sea not get exported as particles? transported Export •Labile DOC turnover over time scales of hours to days. •Semi-labile DOC turnover on time scales of weeks to months. •Refractory DOC cycles over on time scales ranging from decadal to multi- decadal…perhaps longer •So what consumes labile and semi-labile DOC? How much carbon passes through the microbial loop? Phytoplankton Heterotrophic bacteria ?? Dissolved organic Herbivores ?? matter Higher trophic levels Protozoa (zooplankton, fish, etc.) ?? • Very difficult to directly measure the flux of carbon from primary producers into the microbial loop. – The microbial loop is mostly run on labile (recently produced organic matter) - - very low concentrations (nM) turning over rapidly against a high background pool (µM). – Unclear exactly which types of organic compounds support bacterial growth. Bacterial Production •Step 1: Determine how much carbon is consumed by bacteria for production of new biomass. •Bacterial production (BP) is the rate that bacterial biomass is created. It represents the amount of Heterotrophic material that is transformed from a nonliving pool bacteria (DOC) to a living pool (bacterial biomass). •Mathematically P = µB ?? µ = specific growth rate (time-1) B = bacterial biomass (mg C L-1) P= bacterial production (mg C L-1 d-1) Dissolved organic •Note that µ = P/B matter •Thus, P has units of mg C L-1 d-1 Bacterial production provides one measurement of carbon flow into the microbial loop How doe we measure bacterial production? Production (∆ biomass/time) (mg C L-1 d-1) • 3H-thymidine • 3H or 14C-leucine Note: these are NOT direct measures of biomass production (i.e.
  • Microbial Loop' in Stratified Systems

    Microbial Loop' in Stratified Systems

    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 59: 1-17, 1990 Published January 11 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1 A steady-state analysis of the 'microbial loop' in stratified systems Arnold H. Taylor, Ian Joint Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PLl 3DH, United Kingdom ABSTRACT. Steady state solutions are presented for a simple model of the surface mixed layer, which contains the components of the 'microbial loop', namely phytoplankton, picophytoplankton, bacterio- plankton, microzooplankton, dissolved organic carbon, detritus, nitrate and ammonia. This system is assumed to be in equilibrium with the larger grazers present at any time, which are represented as an external mortality function. The model also allows for dissolved organic nitrogen consumption by bacteria, and self-grazing and mixotrophy of the microzooplankton. The model steady states are always stable. The solution shows a number of general properties; for example, biomass of each individual component depends only on total nitrogen concentration below the mixed layer, not whether the nitrogen is in the form of nitrate or ammonia. Standing stocks and production rates from the model are compared with summer observations from the Celtic Sea and Porcupine Sea Bight. The agreement is good and suggests that the system is often not far from equilibrium. A sensitivity analysis of the model is included. The effect of varying the mixing across the pycnocline is investigated; more intense mixing results in the large phytoplankton population increasing at the expense of picophytoplankton, micro- zooplankton and DOC. The change from phytoplankton to picophytoplankton dominance at low mixing occurs even though the same physiological parameters are used for both size fractions.
  • Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of the International Society of Plecopterologists PERLA NO. 37, 2019

    Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of the International Society of Plecopterologists PERLA NO. 37, 2019

    PERLA Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of The International Society of Plecopterologists Nemoura cinerea (Retzius, 1783) (Nemouridae): Slovenia, near Planina, cave entrance to Ucina River, 15 June 2008. Photograph by Bill P. Stark PERLA NO. 37, 2019 Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA PERLA Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of the International Society of Plecopterologists Available on Request to the Managing Editor MANAGING EDITOR: Boris C. Kondratieff Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL BOARD: Richard W. Baumann Department of Biology and Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 USA E-mail: [email protected] J. Manuel Tierno de Figueroa Dpto. de Zoología Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Granada 18071 Granada, SPAIN E-mail: [email protected] Shigekazu Uchida Aichi Institute of Technology 1247 Yagusa Toyota 470-0392, JAPAN E-mail: [email protected] Peter Zwick Schwarzer Stock 9 D-36110 Schlitz, GERMANY E-mail: [email protected] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Subscription policy... ............................................................................................................ 3 The XVth International Conference on Ephemeroptera and XIXth International Symposium on Plecoptera .............................................................................................................................
  • Wisconsin's Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2015-2020 Page 1 A

    Wisconsin's Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 2015-2020 Page 1 A

    A Product of the 2013‐14 Monitoring Success Workgroup for the Water Division and USEPA Photo by Richard Hurd, Sunset at Big Spring, 05‐11‐2014 Water from Big Spring, in the University of Wisconsin‐Madison Arboretum, Wisconsin’s Water Quality MonitoringFlowing Strategy toward Lake2015 Wingra‐2020 on a spring evening at sunset Page 1 Wisconsin’s Water Monitoring Strategy 2015 to 2020 Water Quality Monitoring Coordination Team Team Sponsor Susan Sylvester, Water Quality Bureau Director Team Leader Tim Asplund, Monitoring Section Chief Monitoring Workgroup Steering Team Tim Asplund, Katie Hein, Lisa Helmuth, Ruth Person, Mike Shupryt Wisconsin Monitoring Workgroup and Contributors Citizen Monitoring: Kris Stepenuck, Laura Herman, Christina Anderson, Lindsey Albright Field Biologists: Mark Hazuga, Jim Amrhein, Mary Gansberg, Jim Kreitlow Fisheries Management: Tim Simonson, Lori Tate, Candy Schrank Groundwater Management: Mel Vollbrecht Lakes and Rivers: Carroll Schaal, Scott Van Egeren, Maureen Ferry Mississippi River Unit: John Sullivan, Sara Strassman, James Fischer Monitoring: Mike Shupryt, Katie Hein, Mike Miller, Tom Bernthal, Elizabeth Haber, Lisa Helmuth, Tom Bernthal Office of the Great Lakes: Andy Fayram, Donalea Dinsmore, Steve Galarneau Science Services: Matt Diebel, John Lyons, Ron Arneson Water Evaluation: Brian Weigel, Aaron Larson, Kristi Minahan, Water Resources Supervisors: Greg Searle, Paul LaLiberte, James Hansen Wastewater: Diane Figiel Water Use: Shaili Pfeiffer, Jeff Helmuth Watershed Management: Corinne Billings, Heidi Kennedy, Pat Trochlell, Cheryl Laatsch USEPA: Ed Hammer, Linda Holst, Pete Jackson EGAD #3200‐2016‐01 This document can be found on the WDNR Website at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/monitoring.html The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan.
  • Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme for Tweefontein Complex

    Aquatic Biomonitoring Programme for Tweefontein Complex

    Tweefontein Biomonitoring Programme: Wet Season Survey (April 2015) AQUATIC BIOMONITORING PROGRAMME FOR TWEEFONTEIN COMPLEX 2015 POST WET SEASON BIOMONITORING SURVEY Report reference: TFN/A/2015 Prepared by: Dr. P. Kotze (Pr.Sci.Nat. 400413/04) Mr. A. Strydom Clean Stream Biological Services P.O.Box 1358 Malalane 1320 Cell: 082-890-6452 Email: [email protected] Fax: 086-628-6926 Clean Stream Biological Services Tweefontein Biomonitoring Programme: Wet Season Biomonitoring Survey (April 2015) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on the results of the biomonitoring and aquatic biodiversity survey conducted during April 2015 on selected sites in the Tweefontein Complex surface rights area. Where applicable, reference is also made previous surveys in order to establish temporal trends. The primary objective of the biomonitoring survey was to monitor the potential impacts of the Tweefontein Complex activities on the receiving water bodies. Sites were selected strategically in the Tweefontein Spruit, Zaaiwater Spruit and its tributaries, pan wetlands and pollution control facilities within the study area. This survey included the application of various protocols, such as aquatic macro-invertebrate sampling (SASS5), habitat assessment and toxicity testing of selected water sources in the study area. Some of the sampling sites were dry at the time of sampling and therefore no biomonitoring protocols could be applied, limiting spatial and temporal trend analyses. The following conclusions were drawn from the April 2015 biomonitoring survey at Tweefontein complex, with reference to long-term trends where applicable: Tweefontein Spruit catchment: Due to the lack of flow during the April 2015 survey selected biomonitoring protocols could not be applied at the biomonitoring sites.
  • Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations

    Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations

    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:136–162, 2016 © American Fisheries Society 2016 DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1069211 Supplement A: Assumptions and Equations in Ecopath with Ecosim Governing Equations The Ecopath module of EwE is a static, mass-balance ecosystem model that uses two governing equations for each species and age group (Christensen and Walters 2004). The first governing equation describes each species group’s production for a time period, i.e., production (P) is the sum of fishery catch (F), predation (M2), net migration (immigration, I, and emigration, E), biomass accumulation (BA), and mortality from other sources (‘other mortality’, M0): P = F + M2 + (I - E) + BA - M0 The second governing equation is based on the principle of conservation of matter within a group, and is designed to balance the energy flows of a biomass pool, i.e., consumption (C) equals the sum of production (P), respiration (R), and unassimilated food (U): C = P + R + U At a minimum, Ecopath requires inputs of diet composition (DCi,j, where i is predator and j is prey), fishery catch (Yi), and three of the following four parameters for each model group (i): biomass (Bi), production-to-biomass ratio (Pi/Bi), consumption-to-biomass ratio (Qi/Bi), and the ecotrophic efficiency (EEi, the fraction of the production that is used in the system and does not move directly to the detritus pool). Mass-balance principles are then used to estimate the fourth parameter. P/B is the annual production rate of the population in Ecopath. Under equilibrium conditions, the P/B ratio of fish is equivalent to its total annual instantaneous mortality (Z) (Allen 1971).
  • Aquatic Biomonitoring at Greens Creek Mine, 2006 by James D

    Aquatic Biomonitoring at Greens Creek Mine, 2006 by James D

    Technical Report No. 07-02 Aquatic Biomonitoring at Greens Creek Mine, 2006 by James D. Durst Laura L. Jacobs May 2007 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Habitat Management and Permitting Cover: Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at Upper Greens Creek Site 48, 2006. ADNR/OHMP photo. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information please write to DNR, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203; or O.E.O., U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240. For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-269-8549 or (TDD) 907-269-8411. Aquatic Biomonitoring at Greens Creek Mine, 2006 Technical Report No. 07-02 by James D. Durst Laura L. Jacobs May 2007 Kerry Howard, Executive Director Office of Habitat Management and Permitting Alaska Department of Natural Resources Juneau, AK Suggested Citation: Durst, James D., and Laura L. Jacobs.
  • Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network

    Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network

    ONTARIO BENTHOS BIOMONITORING NETWORK PROTOCOL MANUAL Version 1.0 May 2004 Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol Manual Version 1.0 May 2004 Report prepared by: C. Jones1, K.M. Somers1, B. Craig2, and T. Reynoldson3 1Ontario Ministry of Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Biomonitoring Section, Dorset Environmental Science Centre, 1026 Bellwood Acres Road, P.O. Box 39, Dorset, ON, P0A 1E0 2Environment Canada, EMAN Coordinating Office, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6 3Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research, Box 115 Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, B4P 2R6 2 1 Executive Summary The main purpose of the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) is to enable assessment of aquatic ecosystem condition using benthos as indicators of water and habitat quality. This manual is a companion to the OBBN Terms of Reference, which detail the network’s objectives, deliverables, development schedule, and implementation plan. Herein we outline recommended sampling, sample processing, and analytical procedures for the OBBN. To test whether an aquatic system has been impaired by human activity, a reference condition approach (RCA) is used to compare benthos at “test sites” (where biological condition is in question) to benthos from multiple, minimally impacted “reference sites”. Because types and abundances of benthos are determined by environmental attributes (e.g., catchment size, substrate type), a combination of catchment- and site-scale habitat characteristics are used to ensure test sites are compared to appropriate reference sites. A variety of minimally impacted sites must be sampled in order to evaluate the wide range of potential test sites in Ontario. We detail sampling and sample processing methods for lakes, streams, and wetlands.
  • Plecoptera, Perlidae)

    Plecoptera, Perlidae)

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institutional Research Information System University of Turin 1 2 Feeding of Perla grandis nymphs (Plecoptera, Perlidae) 3 in an apennine first order stream (Rio Berga, NW Italy) 4 5 6 7 8 Stefano Fenoglio *, Tiziano Bo, Massimo Pessino and Giorgio Malacarne 9 10 University of Piemonte Orientale, Di.S.A.V., Via Bellini n. 25, 15100 Alessandria, Italy 11 * Corresponding author: [email protected] 12 13 14 Running title: 15 Feeding of Perla grandis in an apennine stream 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 21 Abstract 22 23 Feeding habits of Perla grandis nymphs have been investigated in the Rio Berga, an 24 Apenninic stream of Northwestern Italy. In this study, we analysed gut contents of 50 nymphs 25 of this species, with the aim to investigate feeding preferences. Nymphs were collected from a 26 single riffle, whose benthic coenosis was also determined. We detected a change in the diet 27 during ontogenesis, with small instars feeding mainly on detritus and large instars strictly 28 carnivorous. We also detected the existence of an evident trophic selection: diet was almost 29 entirely dominated by Chironomidae, independently from their availability on the substratum. 30 This finding is discussed on the basis of ecological and ethological considerations. 31 32 Keywords: Perla grandis, gut contents, diet, Plecoptera, NW Italy 33 34 35 36 2 36 Introduction 37 The use of benthic invertebrates in biological monitoring has produced an evident increase in 38 the knowledge of taxonomy and systematic of these organisms (Merritt & Cummins 1996).
  • Integration of DNA-Based Approaches in Aquatic Ecological Assessment Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates

    Integration of DNA-Based Approaches in Aquatic Ecological Assessment Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates

    water Review Integration of DNA-Based Approaches in Aquatic Ecological Assessment Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates Sofia Duarte 1,2,*, Barbara R. Leite 1,2 , Maria João Feio 3 , Filipe O. Costa 1,2 and Ana Filipa Filipe 4,5 1 Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology (CBMA), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; [email protected] (B.R.L.); [email protected] (F.O.C.) 2 Institute of Science and Innovation for Bio-Sustainability (IB-S), University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal 3 Department of Life Sciences, MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal; [email protected] 4 School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal; affi[email protected] 5 CIBIO/InBIO—Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, Campus de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Benthic macroinvertebrates are among the most used biological quality elements for assess- ing the condition of all types of aquatic ecosystems worldwide (i.e., fresh water, transitional, and marine). Current morphology-based assessments have several limitations that may be circumvented by using DNA-based approaches. Here, we present a comprehensive review of 90 publications on the use of DNA metabarcoding of benthic macroinvertebrates in aquatic ecosystems bioassessments. Metabarcoding of bulk macrozoobenthos has been preferentially used in fresh waters, whereas in marine waters, environmental DNA (eDNA) from sediment and bulk communities from deployed Citation: Duarte, S.; Leite, B.R.; Feio, artificial structures has been favored.