共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
A. Basset L. Sabetta A. Fonnesu D. Mouillot T. Do Chi P. Viaroli G. Giordani S. Reizopoulou M. Abbiati G. C. Carrada 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2006,16(5):441-455
- 1. Transitional waters are ecotones between terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, being characterized by high spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability.
- 2. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) posed to the scientific community the challenge to classify these ecosystems into a small number of types, while retaining a functional classification of ecosystem types.
- 3. A niche theory approach is proposed to identify the limiting forcing factors organizing biological quality elements, i.e. the limiting niche dimensions.
- 4. The analysis of a macro‐invertebrate dataset from published papers on 36 Italian lagoons suggested a two‐level typological classification of Mediterranean lagoons.
- 5. Basic ecological theories, such as niche and island biogeography theories, have fundamental implications for the process of developing a typological classification for all aquatic ecosystems, as required by the WFD.
2.
- The European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) defines the ecological status of aquatic systems as the deviation between their present biological state and that which would be expected in the absence of any major human disturbance, referred to by the WFD as the ‘reference condition’ (RC). It assumes that their biotic composition should remain balanced and constant over time. This study tested both assumptions against an analysis of the historical distribution of the fish fauna in a large and highly disturbed Mediterranean basin. If fish communities change substantially over time, it will mean that the validity of the RC concept comes into question.
- Using presence/absence data for historical native fish fauna from the Guadalquivir Basin, distribution changes among sub-basins were quantified by mapping between the nineteenth century and today.
- The range of two native species (Anguilla anguilla and Salmo trutta) has changed significantly. In addition, the diadromous species assemblage has almost become locally extinct, with the exception of the eel. Finally, most Guadalquivir sub-basins (94.7%) have suffered major changes in the composition of their fish communities, either by losing native species or by adding new non-native species.
- These results render the definition of any RC unlikely. In Mediterranean areas, the WFD objective of ‘good ecological status’ recovery based on the integrity of aquatic communities is a theoretical rather than a real goal. Nonetheless, the WFD provides an ecological guiding principle that can also be transferred to the conservation of freshwater ecosystems.
- As an alternative to the RC concept in Mediterranean lotic ecosystems, specific multimetric indices can be used, based on expert criteria, the metrics of which can also relate to the conservation value of water bodies, and not only to their ecological status.
3.
4.
- 1. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that Member States differentiate the transitional water bodies into types.
- 2. WFD assigns coastal lagoons to two different water categories, ‘transitional waters’ and ‘coastal waters’ on the basis of freshwater influence.
- 3. The main physical factors that contribute to the genesis and characterization of coastal lagoons are coastal typology, tidal range and climate.
- 4. Italian lagoons are presented as an example of how these physical factors can be used in coastal lagoon characterization and typology. On this basis, a clear distinction of Italian lagoons into two main groups is possible: Northern Adriatic and Mediterranean.
- 5. Large lagoons can be profitably subdivided into a hierarchical system of sub‐basins facilitating both the comparison of parts of the same lagoon and the comparison between different lagoons.
- 6. The basins are consistent water bodies that can be used as managerial units for environmental conservation, species protection and wise use of resources.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
- 1. Historically, ecological assessment of lakes has depended on open‐water chemical and phytoplankton analysis, with trophic status determined by chlorophyll a and total phosphorus following the general protocol of the OECD lake classification scheme. This has been accompanied by a prevailing opinion that the littoral zone of lakes is too heterogeneous to allow meaningful inter‐lake comparisons.
- 2. Council of the European Communities Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) requires a broader approach to ecological assessment, including the need to incorporate a range of biotic variables. This paper describes the results of a monitoring programme designed to determine within‐ and among‐lake variation of macroinvertebrate communities found in defined mesohabitats of 22 lakes incorporating a range of lake types. Three sampling approaches were applied to the study.
- 3. Triplicate macroinvertebrate samples from a cobble/pebble mesohabitat of 11 lakes showed that community composition from a standard habitat was robust.
- 4. Twinned samples from contrasting habitats of pebble/cobble and macrophyte dominated mesohabitats of 21 lakes had greater similarity within than among lakes. This showed that even across contrasting habitat structure, macroinvertebrate assemblages can provide a reliable lake‐specific indicator.
- 5. Multivariate analysis of replicate samples from 15 visually distinct mesohabitats in one lake showed that within‐lake variation could, nevertheless, be identified as distinct clusters of invertebrate assemblages.
- 6. Conclusions from the work are that variations within lakes were nested in among‐lake variation across a range of lake types, and that macroinvertebrate assemblages can provide meaningful assessment of ecological differences across lakes. Monitoring can, however, produce a substantial amount of ‘noise’ from the data that reflects the complexity of macroinvertebrate community structure in littoral zones. It is recommended that incorporation of macroinvertebrates in ecological assessment is most useful when confined to well defined mesohabitats rather than attempt to incorporate a complete range of mesohabitats within a single lake.
10.
J.S. Rowan J. Carwardine R.W. Duck O.M. Bragg A.R. Black M.E.J. Cutler I. Soutar P.J. Boon 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2006,16(6):637-657
- 1. In the absence of a standard procedure for characterizing the physical habitat of lakes in Europe, this paper describes the development of a multi‐purpose Lake Habitat Survey (LHS). The technique has been designed to meet the hydromorphological assessment needs of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), as well as to assist in monitoring the condition of designated sites in the UK and for wider application in environmental impact assessments and restoration programmes.
- 2. LHS involves detailed recording of shoreline features at a number of plots (Hab‐Plots), complemented by a meso‐scale survey of the entire lake, including shoreline characteristics and pressures, and modifications to the hydrological regime. A temperature and dissolved oxygen profile is also compiled at the deepest point of the lake (Index Site). Existing databases are exploited where possible, and remote sensing data (e.g. aerial photographs) are used to assist field‐based observations.
- 3. Initial field trials demonstrated that the consistency of the method, whether conducted by boat or on foot, was high. More than 250 surveys were carried out across the UK in 2004 through collaboration with the statutory environment and conservation agencies.
- 4. Two levels of complexity were tested — a full version requiring 10 Hab‐Plots and an abridged version, LHScore, involving four plots and omitting the Index Site. While 8–10 plots were required to capture the full diversity of features at complex sites, LHScore data were sufficient to generate metrics for classification purposes.
- 5. A Lake Habitat Modification Score (LHMS) may be calculated from LHS data. This synthesizes a wide array of hydromorphological and human pressures and has direct applications for assessment of ecological status under the WFD. Preliminary analysis illustrates a spectrum of hydromorphological alteration of 82 lakes in the UK.
- 6. Further considerations are discussed, including the prospect that the LHS protocol might form the basis of a European standard developed through CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation).
11.
《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2003,13(6):507-549
- 1. The European Water Framework Directive requires the determination of ecological status in European fresh and saline waters. This is to be through the establishment of a typology of surface water bodies, the determination of reference (high status) conditions in each element (ecotype) of the typology and of lower grades of status (good, moderate, poor and bad) for each ecotype. It then requires classification of the status of the water bodies and their restoration to at least ‘good status’ in a specified period.
- 2. Though there are many methods for assessing water quality, none has the scope of that defined in the Directive. The provisions of the Directive require a wide range of variables to be measured and give only general guidance as to how systems of classification should be established. This raises issues of comparability across States and of the costs of making the determinations.
- 3. Using expert workshops and subsequent field testing, a practicable pan‐European typology and classification system has been developed for shallow lakes, which can easily be extended to all lakes. It is parsimonious in its choice of determinands, but based on current limnological understanding and therefore as cost‐effective as possible.
- 4. A core typology is described, which can be expanded easily in particular States to meet local conditions. The core includes 48 ecotypes across the entire European climate gradient and incorporates climate, lake area, geology of the catchment and conductivity.
- 5. The classification system is founded on a liberal interpretation of Annexes in the Directive and uses variables that are inexpensive to measure and ecologically relevant. The need for taxonomic expertise is minimized.
- 6. The scheme has been through eight iterations, two of which were tested in the field on tranches of 66 lakes. The final version, Version 8, is offered for operational testing and further refinement by statutory authorities.
12.
- 1. River restoration is now widely undertaken and may be considered an increasingly important aspect of river management. Recent developments in European legislation (Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive) should give further impetus to river restoration across EU member states, as this legislation places greater emphasis on the processes that support river ecology.
- 2. Traditional river restoration approaches have been reach‐focused and opportunistic, capitalizing on flood defence works and the cooperation of sympathetic landowners.
- 3. Furthermore, many schemes have been species‐ or habitat‐driven and, thus, have sought to recreate channel forms believed to be favoured by particular species or associated with particular habitats. Such approaches have not always given due attention to the underlying geomorphological processes that create channel form and, consequently, the schemes have not been self‐sustaining, requiring continued management input.
- 4. Consistent with the ethos of the Water Framework Directive, an eco‐hydromorphic approach to river restoration is proposed here. This approach views spatial and temporal heterogeneity as fundamental characteristics of fluvial systems and advocates recreating a framework within which natural processes, such as sediment transport and nutrient dynamics, can occur.
- 5. Mesoscale habitat approaches are considered as one possible way to plan and achieve this framework, providing the potential to link the wide range of spatial and temporal scales that characterize river systems.
- 6. It is argued that river restoration will only be sustainable if it is undertaken within a process‐driven and strategic framework with inputs from a wide range of specialists. Such an approach needs to be reviewed constantly in light of appraisal and monitoring of previous river restoration schemes.
13.
- 1. Macroalgae are one of the biological parameters considered in the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) for establishing the ecological status of coastal water bodies. In order to test the metric used to assess this element in the Cantabrian coast, the quality of rocky bottoms (CFR) index was applied to 164 transects at 28 sites on the coast of Asturias (northern Spain) in the summers of 2007 and 2008.
- 2. At each sampling point, three variables were measured: species richness, cover of characteristic and opportunistic macroalgae, and in 2008 the percentage of the area occupied by each characteristic species was also estimated.
- 3. Application of the Shapiro–Wilk test to the variables ‘cover of characteristic macroalgae’ and ‘cover of opportunistic algae’ revealed that the data were not normally distributed (P<0.001). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test revealed: (a) significant differences (P<0.01) between the exposed and semi‐exposed sites, for the three variables studied; (b) significant differences in cover, for six species depending on the type of exposure; and (c) significant differences (P<0.01) in opportunistic macroalgal cover in relation to the two subtypes of water bodies in the study area. However, no significant differences were observed for overall macroalgal cover or species richness.
- 4. According to the results obtained, new reference conditions and class boundaries are proposed for the implementation of the CFR index in Asturian coastal waters. The ranges proposed for the CFR index in the present study provide better discrimination for evaluating the ecological status of the studied area.
- 5. The results of SIMPER and MDS analyses reinforced the conclusion that the type of exposure and the degree of human impact are the factors that best explain the degree of similarity between the sites sampled. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14.
15.
16.
17.
- 1. The ecological status of floodplain areas along the Austrian section of the Danube was assessed by an approach based on dragonfly surveys. Although this river section contains a relatively high portion of the river‐type‐specific alluvial floodplain areas, most of them are influenced by river regulation and damming.
- 2. A key element of the assessment procedure, which is oriented towards the new EC Water Framework Directive, is the Odonate Habitat Index.
- 3. Classification of ecological status is based on the comparison between the status quo and reference conditions derived from a historical situation minimally influenced by human activities.
- 4. Data from 408 sites from 14 investigation areas were used. Ten of the 14 areas were ranked in class II (‘good ecological status’) within the five‐tiered system, which is the level of ecological status targeted in the directive. One area corresponds to the reference condition (class I, ‘high ecological status’), and three areas do not meet the quality objective (class III, ‘moderate ecological status’). A total of 49 species were found along the whole section, which represents 82% of the river‐type‐specific reference list.
18.
19.
Milaja Nyknen Machiel G. Oudejans Emer Rogan John W. Durban Simon N. Ingram 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2020,30(8):1674-1688
- Monitoring the abundance of mobile and wide‐ranging cetacean populations for conservation management is challenging, especially when the management is focused on static protected areas. Where abundance estimates are derived from mark–recapture data, such as photo‐identification of naturally marked individuals, unpredictable movements of animals in and out of the survey area can reduce ‘capture’ probabilities and affect the precision and accuracy of resulting estimates.
- A Bayesian hierarchical log–linear model was applied to photo‐identification data collected in summer 2014 to derive a multi‐site abundance estimate for a population of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, ranging widely throughout the coastal waters of western Ireland. In addition, the effects of varying levels of sampling effort on the minimum detectable decrease in population size were examined.
- The abundance (median) of dolphins was estimated as 189 (coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean), 0.11; 95% highest‐posterior density interval, 162–232). Over 50% of the well‐marked dolphins encountered throughout the study were sighted in more than one distinct coastal area, thus displaying high mobility. In addition, it was found that it would require biennial surveys to detect a 25% decline in abundance within the six‐year reporting period of the EU’s Habitats Directive.
- Given that the Special Area of Conservation designated for these dolphins consists of two separate areas covering a substantial portion of the west coast of Ireland, the multisite approach is appropriate for monitoring this population. It produces a more precise estimate and is well suited for sparse recapture data collected opportunistically at multiple sites, when the lack of resources prevents large‐scale surveys or when concentrating surveys on smaller localized areas fails to capture the broad range and unpredictable occurrence of the animals. The Bayesian multi‐site approach could be applied to the management of other wide‐ranging marine or terrestrial taxa.