Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment management

During the 20th century, environmental problems have increased from sewage discharge in the first decennia towards climate change today. An increase in scale of threats implies an increase in scale of management and assessment. Successively, physico-chemical, biological and ecological assessment evolved but failed to stop deterioration. The development in techniques runs parallel to the evolution in assessment. Eight major groups of assessment techniques are distinguished: indices (saprobic, diversity, biotic), multimetrics and rapid techniques, physico-ecological, catchment scale, ecosystem components, assemblage/community, process, and non-taxonomic assessment. An increasing refinement is observed in objectives, measures and complexity, and a decreasing one in levels of scale, stream type and, more often, taxonomy. The applied algorithms were typically restricted to single summary measures. Multivariate analysis was introduced only recently. Assessment can do without a reference condition. Still, this condition is often used in assessment. Therefore, the role of the reference is discussed and it is concluded that, if used, it needs to be defined strictly. The role of nine concepts of lotic ecology in assessment is studied. Two major groups of concepts are distinguished. One is related to catchment-scale functioning of streams and the other to instream habitat-related processes and biodiversity. The 5-S-Model, a frame that divides the stream ecosystem into five major components: system conditions, stream hydrology, structures, substances and species (Verdonschot et al., 1998: The 5-S-Model, an integrated approach for stream rehabilitation. In H.O. Hansen & B.L. Madsen, River Restoration ′96, Session lectures proceedings. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, International Conference arranged by the European Centre for River Restoration: 36–44), is a first attempt to comprise this knowledge in management. Finally, integrated ecological assessment is defined. It is based on three major approaches: an ecological typology approach, an ecological catchment approach and a societal approach. Ecological typology implies a nested multiple parameter approach based on regional ecological stream typology where types are scaled and different taxonomic groups are incorporated. Ecological typology sets the ecological demands necessary to make management sustainable. The ecological catchment approach implies a nested multiple scale approach which couples natural and anthropogenic features and dynamics of the catchment both in space and time. This approach sets the conditions within the catchment to facilitate sustainable catchment management. The societal approach adds human activities to the first two. It couples ecological demands and anthropogenic uses and supports those user choices that make management sustainable. The application of these three approaches is initiated to enable sustainable catchment management.

[1]  M. T. Furse,et al.  The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites , 1983 .

[2]  V. Resh,et al.  Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. , 1975, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[3]  David P. Braun,et al.  A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems , 1996 .

[4]  H. B. N. Hynes,et al.  The stream and its valley , 1975 .

[5]  C. Pringle Managing riverine connectivity in complex landscapes to protect ‘remnant natural areas’ , 2000 .

[6]  H. Tolkamp Using several indices for biological assessment of water quality in running water: With 1 figure and 1 table in the text , 1985 .

[7]  J. Allan,et al.  The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales , 1997 .

[8]  James R. Karr,et al.  Regional Applications of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Use in Water Resource Management , 1988 .

[9]  P. Bourgeron,et al.  Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. , 1994 .

[10]  James R. Karr,et al.  Assessing biological integrity in running waters : a method and its rationale , 1986 .

[11]  H. Washington,et al.  Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems , 1984 .

[12]  J. Allan,et al.  Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystems , 1997 .

[13]  David A. Kovacic,et al.  Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality restoration and stream management , 1993 .

[14]  J. M. Hellawell Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management , 1986 .

[15]  Thomas B. Starr,et al.  Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity , 1982 .

[16]  Michael T. Barbour,et al.  Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites , 1992 .

[17]  Vladimir Sládecek,et al.  System of water quality from the biological point of view , 1973 .

[18]  J. Karr Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities , 1981 .

[19]  Peter M. Vitousek,et al.  Ecosystem Succession and Nutrient Retention: A Hypothesis , 1975 .

[20]  C. Frissell,et al.  A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context , 1986 .

[21]  W. Nelson Prospects for Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Evaluating Habitat Degradation in Coastal Systems , 1990 .

[22]  R. Naiman,et al.  The ecology and management of aquatic-terrestrial ecotones. , 1990 .

[23]  P. J. Raven,et al.  River habitat quality : the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man , 1998 .

[24]  R. L. Costanz,et al.  Modeling complex ecological economic systems , 1993 .

[25]  H. Sparholt,et al.  A modification of the Trent Index for use in Denmark , 1984 .

[26]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Towards an integrated approach to classifying and evaluating rivers in the UK , 1998 .

[27]  Colin R. Townsend,et al.  The Patch Dynamics Concept of Stream Community Ecology , 1989, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[28]  J. Stanford,et al.  The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems , 1983 .

[29]  Do ent Dr. J. Braun-Blanquet,et al.  Pflan?enso?iologie: Grund?uge der Vegetationskunde , 1928 .

[30]  Pier Francesco Ghetti,et al.  Biological assessment methods for running waters , 1992 .

[31]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[32]  Hans Ole Hansen,et al.  European rivers and lakes : assessment of their environmental state , 1994 .

[33]  S. Schumm The Fluvial System , 1977 .

[34]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data , 1984 .

[35]  Vincent H. Resh,et al.  Year-to-Year Variation in the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Fauna of a Northern California Stream , 1989, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[36]  Mark E. Jensen,et al.  ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: A LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY PERSPECTWE1 , 1996 .

[37]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[38]  L. Botosanéanu,et al.  Problèmes et méthodes de la classification et de la zonation écologique des eaux courantes, considerées surtout du point de vue faunistique: Avec 18 figures dans le texte et en supplément , 1963 .

[39]  Klement Tockner,et al.  Ecological Aspects of the Restoration Strategy for a River-Floodplain System on the Danube River in Austria , 1997 .

[40]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. , 1989, Environmental pollution.

[41]  Ken D. Bovee,et al.  A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. IFIP No. 12 , 1982 .

[42]  Stephen A. Forbes,et al.  Studies on the Biology of the Upper Illinois River , 1913 .

[43]  James R. Karr,et al.  A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Rivers of the Tennessee Valley , 1994 .

[44]  B. Statzner,et al.  Potential contribution of system‐specific knowledge (SSK) to stream‐management decisions: ecological and economic aspects , 1993 .

[45]  R. Kolkwitz,et al.  Ökologie der tierischen Saprobien. Beiträge zur Lehre von der biologischen Gewässerbeurteilung , 1909 .

[46]  Claude Amoros,et al.  Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: I. A scientific base , 1995 .

[47]  T. R. E. Southwood,et al.  HABITAT, THE TEMPLET FOR ECOLOGICAL STRATEGIES? , 1977 .

[48]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Typology of macrofaunal assemblages applied to water and nature management: a Dutch approach. , 2000 .

[49]  M Allen,et al.  Conceptual frameworks and the philosophical foundations of general living systems theory. , 1979, Behavioral science.

[50]  M. M. Ellis Detection and measurement of stream pollution , 1937 .

[51]  B. Statzner,et al.  The synthesis of long-term ecological research in the context of concurrently developed ecological theory: design of a research strategy for the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain , 1994 .

[52]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Ecological characterization of surface waters in the province of Overijssel, The Netherlands , 1990 .

[53]  M. T. Furse,et al.  Prediction of invertebrate communities using stream measurements , 1989 .

[54]  Thomas A. McMahon,et al.  Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists , 1997 .

[55]  T. R. E. Southwood,et al.  Tactics, strategies and templets* , 1988 .

[56]  D. Slocombe Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management , 1993 .

[57]  James R. Karr,et al.  Assessing Invertebrate Responses to Human Activities: Evaluating Alternative Approaches , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[58]  E.T.H.M. Peeters,et al.  New methods to assess the ecological status of surface waters in The Netherlands. Part 1: Running waters. , 1994 .

[59]  David P. Braun,et al.  How much water does a river need , 1997 .

[60]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Landscape changes in nine rural counties in Georgia. , 1990 .

[61]  N. Poff,et al.  Physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity , 1990 .

[62]  John Pastor,et al.  Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance , 1990 .

[63]  John Cairns,et al.  Biological monitoring: Part IIA—receiving system functional methods, relationships and indices , 1982 .

[64]  Charles P. Hawkins,et al.  Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: Modern fragmented and disconnected river systems , 1990 .

[65]  A. J. Bailer,et al.  Exploratory analysis of population genetic assessment as a water quality indicator. II. Campostoma anomalum. , 1995, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[66]  G. Mathias Kondolf,et al.  Historical channel analysis and its application to riparian and aquatic habitat restoration , 1995 .

[67]  W. Junk The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems , 1989 .

[68]  M. Barbour,et al.  A Framework for Biological Criteria for Florida Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[69]  Wayne S. Davis,et al.  Biological assessment and criteria : tools for water resource planning and decision making , 1995 .

[70]  J. Webster,et al.  The Role of Filter Feeders in Flowing Waters , 1977 .

[71]  J. A. Schot,et al.  The 5-S-Model, an integrated approach for stream rehabilitation , 1998 .

[72]  J. R. Chandler A biological Approach to water quality management , 1970 .

[73]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[74]  J. Stanford,et al.  The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems , 1988, Nature.

[75]  Gary M. Smillie,et al.  A sensitivity analysis of nine diversity and seven similarity indices , 1990 .

[76]  M. Brunke,et al.  The ecological significance of exchange processes between rivers and groundwater , 1997 .

[77]  M. Huston A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[78]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The Mathematical Theory of Communication , 1950 .

[79]  J. Omernik Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States , 1987 .

[80]  Ronald D. Anderson,et al.  Status assessment in acid-sensitive and non-acid-sensitive Maryland coastal planin streams using an integrated biological, chemical, physical, and land-use approach , 1994 .

[81]  Carl Richards,et al.  Landscape influences on water chemistry in Midwestern stream ecosystems , 1997 .

[82]  P. Calow,et al.  Essential elements in the case for river conservation , 1992 .

[83]  Stuart Gage,et al.  Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems , 1997 .

[84]  James R. Karr,et al.  Ecological perspective on water quality goals , 1981 .

[85]  H. Tolkamp Biological Assessment of Water Quality in Running Water Using Macroinvertebrates: A Case Study for Limburg, The Netherlands , 1985 .

[86]  E. Odum Fundamentals of ecology , 1972 .

[87]  J. Ward,et al.  The Four-Dimensional Nature of Lotic Ecosystems , 1989, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[88]  F. Colijn,et al.  A quantitative method for description & assessment of ecosystems: The AMOEBA-approach , 1991 .

[89]  J. M. Elliott,et al.  Biological Surveillance of Rivers: a Biological Monitoring Handbook , 1978 .

[90]  M. Hill,et al.  Data analysis in community and landscape ecology , 1987 .

[91]  R. Thorne,et al.  The response of benthic macroinvertebrates to pollution in developing countries : a multimetric system of bioassessment , 1997 .