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

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

Influence of selected biotopes on chironomid-based bioassessment of the Swartkops River, Eastern Cape, South Africa

Impact of pollution on aquatic biota is usually assessed by comparing the assemblage at an impacted site with those at a control or reference site. In South Africa, except in rivers where not all biotopes are represented, the characterisation of a macroinvertebrate-based pollution effect is usually based on samples collected from three distinct biotopes, i.e., stones, vegetation and sediments. In this study, the influence of reducing the numbers of biotopes on chironomid-based bioassessment of pollution in the Swartkops River was investigated. This paper addresses the following questions: (i) can the chironomid species assemblage from any single distinct biotope analysed separately provide sufficiently accurate results similar to those of the composite-biotope group assemblage, and (ii) can chironomid community types be identified based on their biotope preferences? Chironomid larvae were sampled seasonally from three distinct biotopes: stones (stone-inand- out-of-current), vegetation (marginal and aquatic), and sediment (gravel, sand and mud, GSM) at one upstream control site, i.e., Site 1, and three downstream sites, i.e., Sites 2, 3 and 4. Site 2 in Uitenhage was impacted by diffuse pollution sources including runoff from road networks. Site 3, also in Uitenhage, was impacted by wastewater effluent discharges as well as diffuse pollution sources, while Site 4 in Despatch was about 2.5 km downstream of Site 3. The multivariate analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) indicated that the chironomid species assemblages based on the composite biotopes were significantly different between all site pairs in terms of species composition and abundance. However, when the assemblages were analysed separately for each of the three distinct biotopes, only the stone-based assemblage indicated significant differences between all of the site pairs similarly to those of the composite biotopes. Thus, the results suggest that, when resources are limited, sampling only the stony benthos could still provide bioassessment results similar to benthos from all three biotopes combined

Using a Risk-based Approach for Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines for Sulphate

© 2017, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany. Sulphate is a major salt component in acid mine drainage and a crucial ecological concern in most coal and gold mining regions, globally. However, there remains a paucity of data on sulphate salinity toxicity on freshwater taxa. In this study, we hypothesised sensitivity differences for five freshwater species (Adenophlebia auriculata, Burnupia stenochorias, Caridina nilotica, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, and Oreochromis mossambicus) to increasing sulphate salinity concentrations after 240 h of exposure. Species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) were used to rank the sensitivity of tested species to the inorganic sulphate salts, which included magnesium sulphate (MgSO4), sodium sulphate (Na2SO4), and calcium sulphate (CaSO4) as models of mining salinisation in South Africa. The SSDs were also used to estimate appropriate protective concentrations of the salts for the tested species. Sensitivity differences were measured and Na2SO4 was the most toxic of the tested salts. A concentration of 0.020 g/L Na2SO4, 0.055 g/L CaSO4, and 0.108 g/L MgSO4 or a combined salts limit of 0.067 g/L would be protective of 95% of the populations of the five species tested; these all suggest that the 0.25 g/L compliance limit for South Africa is insufficient. Future studies should incorporate more species in the SSD approach to be coupled by field validations to further improve the ecological relevance of these findings