The Biological Assessment and Rehabilitation of the World's Rivers: An Overview.
biological elements
ecological status
freshwater
reference conditions
restoration
Journal
Water
ISSN: 2073-4441
Titre abrégé: Water (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101613952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jan 2021
31 Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez:
19
4
2021
pubmed:
20
4
2021
medline:
20
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33868721
doi: 10.3390/w13030371
pmc: PMC8048141
mid: NIHMS1672837
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
371Subventions
Organisme : Intramural EPA
ID : EPA999999
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. This manuscript was reviewed by the USEPA Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment’s Pacific Ecological Systems Division and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the USEPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Références
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 15;573:1079-1088
pubmed: 27632785
Rev Biol Trop. 2014 Apr;62 Suppl 2:249-73
pubmed: 25189082
Environ Monit Assess. 2017 Feb;189(2):65
pubmed: 28110450
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jan 20;753:141865
pubmed: 32891996
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:777-84
pubmed: 23993684
Ambio. 2020 Apr;49(4):926-938
pubmed: 31506845
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:757-67
pubmed: 24238949
Ambio. 2017 Sep;46(5):578-587
pubmed: 28074402
Ecography. 2018 Jan 01;41(1):219-232
pubmed: 29910537
Ecol Evol. 2019 Oct 29;9(22):12869-12885
pubmed: 31788221
Annu Rev Entomol. 2004;49:115-39
pubmed: 14651459
Science. 2005 Apr 29;308(5722):636-7
pubmed: 15860611
Sci Total Environ. 2012 Mar 15;420:33-42
pubmed: 22326313
Environ Manage. 2019 Nov;64(5):661-673
pubmed: 31591669
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jun 11;116(24):11558-11561
pubmed: 31186378
Rev Biol Trop. 2012 Dec;60(4):1669-85
pubmed: 23342521
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:745-56
pubmed: 23791044
Environ Manage. 2017 Dec;60(6):1155-1170
pubmed: 28980050
Environ Monit Assess. 2010 Feb;161(1-4):83-91
pubmed: 19184486
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017 Nov;24(33):25955-25976
pubmed: 28940082
Ecol Indic. 2020 May 1;112:
pubmed: 33628123
Environ Monit Assess. 2013 Aug;185(8):6247-59
pubmed: 23250724
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 12;12(6):e0179251
pubmed: 28604830
Ecol Indic. 2019 Jul 1;102:166-174
pubmed: 32802000
Sci Total Environ. 2011 Jan 15;409(4):844-52
pubmed: 21146199
Environ Manage. 2002 Aug;30(2):294-310
pubmed: 12105768
Environ Monit Assess. 2010 Apr;163(1-4):545-54
pubmed: 19387856
Environ Manage. 2012 Jul;50(1):123-39
pubmed: 22569704
Sci Total Environ. 2011 Nov 1;409(23):5034-45
pubmed: 21925711
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019 Sep;26(26):26636-26645
pubmed: 31292867
Ambio. 2019 Aug;48(8):867-878
pubmed: 30448993
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Nov 15;691:1005-1015
pubmed: 31326793
Nature. 2019 May;569(7755):215-221
pubmed: 31068722
Environ Monit Assess. 2017 Dec 02;190(1):2
pubmed: 29209819
Environ Monit Assess. 2019 Oct 24;191(11):664
pubmed: 31650234
Braz J Biol. 2011 Feb;71(1):15-25
pubmed: 21437395
Ecol Appl. 2017 Dec;27(8):2397-2415
pubmed: 28871655
Ecol Appl. 1991 Feb;1(1):66-84
pubmed: 27755684
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):163-82
pubmed: 16336747
Environ Manage. 2013 Feb;51(2):474-91
pubmed: 23151970
Rev Biol Trop. 2014 Apr;62 Suppl 2:221-31
pubmed: 25189080
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Oct 1;637-638:1295-1310
pubmed: 29801222
Environ Monit Assess. 2020 Mar 5;192(4):214
pubmed: 32140788
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:785-94
pubmed: 24071063
Environ Monit Assess. 2015 Jan;187(1):4132
pubmed: 25487459
J Environ Manage. 2016 Dec 15;184(Pt 3):609-616
pubmed: 27784580
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:768-76
pubmed: 24342490
Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1926-31
pubmed: 21939034
Annu Rev Entomol. 2006;51:495-523
pubmed: 16332221
Environ Manage. 2015 Jul;56(1):260-9
pubmed: 25861910
Rev Biol Trop. 2014 Apr;62 Suppl 2:155-67
pubmed: 25189076
Environ Monit Assess. 2014 Aug;186(8):4685-95
pubmed: 24829159
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 Aug 31;:
pubmed: 32865679