Temporal environmental fluctuations, such as seasonality, exert strong controls on biodiversity. While the effects of seasonality are well known, the predictability of fluctuations across years may influence seasonality in ways that are less well understood. The ability of a habitat to support unique, non-nested assemblages of species at different times of the year should depend on both seasonality (occurrence of events at specific periods of the year) and predictability (the reliability of event recurrence) of characteristic ecological conditions. Drawing on tools from wavelet analysis and information theory, we developed a framework for quantifying both seasonality and predictability of habitats, and applied this using global long-term rainfall data. Our analysis predicted that temporal beta diversity should be maximized in highly predictable and highly seasonal climates, and that low degrees of seasonality, predictability, or both would lower diversity in characteristic ways. Using stream invertebrate communities as a case study, we demonstrated that temporal species diversity, as exhibited by community turnover, was determined by a balance between temporal environmental variability (seasonality) and the reliability of this variability (predictability). Communities in highly seasonal mediterranean environments exhibited strong oscillations in community structure, with turnover from one unique community type to another across seasons, whereas communities in aseasonal New Zealand environments fluctuated randomly. Understanding the influence of seasonal and other temporal scales of environmental oscillations on diversity is not complete without a clear understanding of their predictability, and our framework provides tools for examining these trends at a variety of temporal scales, seasonal and beyond. Given the uncertainty of future climates, seasonality and predictability are critical considerations for both basic science and management of ecosystems (e.g., dam operations, bioassessment) spanning gradients of climatic variability.

No abstract

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.

BackgroundAquatic insects and other freshwater animals are some of the most threatened forms of life on Earth. Caddisflies (Trichoptera) are highly biodiverse in the Neotropics and occupy a wide variety of freshwater habitats. In Andean countries, including Ecuador, knowledge of the aquatic biota is limited, and there is a great need for baseline data on the species found in these countries. Here we present the first list of Trichoptera known from Ecuador, a country that harbors two global biodiversity “hotspots.”MethodsWe conducted a literature review of species previously reported from Ecuador and supplemented these data with material we collected during five recent field inventories from about 40 localities spanning both hotspots. Using species presence data for each Ecuadorian province, we calculated the CHAO 2 species estimator to obtain the minimum species richness for the country.ResultsWe recorded 310 species, including 48 new records from our own field inventories for the country. CHAO 2 calculations showed that only 54% of the species have been found. Hydroptilidae and Hydropsychidae were the most species rich families. We report the family Xiphocentronidae for the first time from Ecuador as well as several new records of genera from different families.DiscussionAs in the neighboring Andean countries of Colombia and Peru, it is common to find undescribed species of caddisflies. There are vast areas of Ecuador and the northern Andes that are completely unexplored, and we expect that hundreds of new species are yet to be discovered.

We studied the Piburja stream, a high-altitude tropical stream in Ecuador. Our main goals were to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community composition and abundance differed between seasons, reaches and velocity patches. Likewise, we aimed to examine the importance of the hydrological regime in determining these differences. Flow was significantly higher in the wet season, but the stability of flow was higher in the dry season. There was a strong increase in macroinvertebrate community metrics (richness, density and diversity) in the dry season. Seasons and velocity patches better explained the community composition. Reaches did not show differences at the community level, but some taxa showed significant differences among reaches. Our findings differed from those published in previous studies that have suggested that mountain tropical streams are non-seasonal.