4.5 Review

Use of ecosystem health indicators for assessing anthropogenic impacts on freshwaters in Argentina: a review

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-020-08559-w

关键词

Integrity; Stressor; Monitoring; Indices; Aquatic ecosystems

资金

  1. Iberoamerican Network for the Development of Protocols for the Network for the Ecological Assessment, Management and Restoration of Rivers (IBEPECOR) - Ibero-American Program for Science & Technology for the development (CYTED) [P415RT0143]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Indicators of ecosystem health are effective tools to assess freshwater ecosystem impairment. However, they are scarcely used as a monitoring tool by local environmental agencies in Argentina. Here, we review the literature to analyze the use of ecosystem health indicators in freshwaters from Argentina. We found 91 scientific articles relating to the use of ecological indices to assess the impact of different environmental stressors in aquatic environments published between 1996 and 2019. We generated Google Earth map where we deployed the sampling sites and type of indices reported by each article. As biological indices were the most used, we also surveyed bioindication experts to gather information on their application. We found that most studies were concentrated mainly in Pampas (34%), Dry Chaco (20%), Espinal (12%), and Patagonian Steppe (10%) ecoregions. Biological indices (mainly with invertebrates) were more used than geomorphological or physico-chemical indices. Indices resulted useful to evaluate the impact of stressors in 63% of cases, being land use the most studied stressor. However, sampling design varied greatly among studies, making their comparison difficult. The information compiled here could help to the design of monitoring protocols, the adoption of regional indices, and the creation of a national inventory of ecosystem health status, which are mandatory to propose well-grounded conservation and management policies for freshwaters in Argentina.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据