4.7 Review

Assessing the ecological integrity of endorheic wetlands, with focus on Mediterranean temporary ponds

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 54, Issue -, Pages 1-11

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.016

Keywords

Biological indicators; Temporary wetlands; Ecological assessment; WFD

Funding

  1. VLIR-UOS (VLADOC)
  2. VLIR-UOS SI [ZEIN2011Z092/2011-101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

EU countries are required to perform an assessment of all freshwater habitats larger than 50 ha by 2015 to meet the requirements set by the Water Framework Directive (2000). To achieve this, an array of indicators and multimetric indices has been developed to monitor European waters. In general, these indicators are developed for large water bodies, while they are still largely lacking for smaller wetlands. This is in contrast with the conservation value, valuable ecosystem services and the often unique biodiversity of these systems, and the fact that like large (>50 ha) wetlands they are also covered by the Ramsar Convention. In (semi) and regions, such as the Mediterranean basin, small water bodies are often of a temporary nature, are abundant and provide an important source of water for the local people, their livestock and agriculture. The quantity and quality of temporary wetlands are, however, decreasing at an alarming rate worldwide. Although some monitoring techniques were recently proposed, there is still an urgent need for a consistent policy and a user friendly set of monitoring tools for temporary wetlands that can be applied in different regions. In the following review, we present a whole range of indicators used to monitor different types of freshwater habitats, and discuss how some of these methods could be applied to temporary wetlands. Finally, we formulate some recommendations for temporary wetland monitoring and conservation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available