Ecological and socioeconomic aspects of subterranean hydrosystems have changed during the past 40–50 years. The major environmental pressures (mainly anthropogenic ones) impact the quantity and quality of groundwater resources and the state of subsurface ecosystems, and it is expected that the environmental pressures on groundwater will continue, at least until 2025, unless new environmental policies change this state of affairs. The world demographic increase and the general rise of water demand constitute one of the major environmental pressures on groundwater ecosystems especially in less developed countries in Africa, Asia and South America. Specific human activities leading to the depletion of groundwater reserves include agricultural practices, landscape alteration, urbanization demand for domestic and public drinking water, various industrial activities such as thermoelectric production and mining, and the rise of tourism in coastal areas. Climate change is contributing to the water crisis too, especially in areas with arid climate and/or in some humid monsoonal countries. The overload of aquifers with pollutants derived from agriculture (fertilizers and pesticides), from industry (release of hydrocarbon chemicals, especially spills), from waste and industrial waters, from domestic and industrial landfills, from the infiltration of pollutants from surface and from the intrusion of saline water affect groundwater quality. The dangerous increase in contaminated subsurface sites with chemicals and microbial pathogens brings with it health risks to humans. Changes of redox condition in groundwater zones, changes of biological diversity, vegetation changes with modification of agriculture practices and impacts at the biosphere scale, such as the increase in the concentration of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere, all impact groundwater ecosystems. Groundwater ecosystems must be better investigated and understood. Economic, social and ecological lines of thinking have to be combined in order to achieve meaningful policies for the sustainable development of groundwater reserves and for the protection of subsurface ecosystems. Practical measures and ideas for the development of policies up to the 2025 time-horizon should improve the sustainable usage of the world's groundwater resources.

Summary 1. This overview of metazoans associated with the riparian/groundwater interface focuses on the fauna inhabiting substratum interstices within the stream bed and in alluvial aquifers beneath the floodplain. The objective is to integrate knowledge of habitat conditions and ecology of the interstitial fauna into a broad spatiotemporal perspective of lotic ecosystems. 2. Most aquatic metazoans of terrestrial ancestry, secondarily aquatic forms including insects and water mites (Hydracarina), are largely confined to surface waters (epigean), most of the time penetrating only the superficial interstices of the stream bed. 3. Primary aquatic metazoans include crustaceans and other groups whose entire evolutionary histories took place in water. Some species are epigean, whereas other members of the primary aquatic fauna are true subterranean forms (hypogean), residing deep within the stream bed and in alluvial aquifers some distance laterally from the channel. 4. The hypogean/epigean affinities of interstitial animals are reflected in repetitive gradients of species distribution patterns along vertical (depth within the stream bed), longitudinal (riffle/pool), and lateral (across the floodplain) spatial dimensions, as well as along recovery trajectories following floods (temporal dimension). 5. Fluvial dynamics and sediment characteristics interact to determine hydraulic conductivity, oxygen levels, pore space, particle size heterogeneity, organic content and other habitat conditions within the interstitial milieu. 6. Multidimensional environmental gradients occur at various scales across riparian/groundwater boundary zones. The spatiotemporal variability of hydrogeomorphological processes plays an important role in determining habitat heterogeneity, habitat stability, and connectivity between habitat patches, thereby structuring biodiversity patterns across the riverine landscape. 7. The erosive action of flooding maintains a diversity of hydrarch and riparian successional stages in alluvial floodplains. The patchy distribution patterns of interstitial communities at the floodplain scale reflect, in part, the spatial heterogeneity engendered by successional processes. 8. Interstitial metazoans engage in passive and active movements between surface waters and ground waters, between aquatic and riparian habitats, and between different habitat types within the lotic system. Some of these are extensive migrations that involve significant exchange of organic matter and energy between ecosystem compartments. 9. The generally high resilience of lotic ecosystems to disturbance is attributable, in part, to high spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Habitat patches less affected by a particular perturbation may serve as ’refugia ‘; from which survivors recolonize more severely affected areas. Mechanisms of refugium use may also occur within habitats, as, for example, through ontogenetic shifts in microhabitat use. Rigorous investigations of interstitial habitats as refugia should lead to a clearer understanding of the roles of d...

Investigation of the sedimentary record of pre‐Alpine Lake Mondsee (Upper Austria) focused on the environmental reaction to rapid Lateglacial climatic changes. Results of this study reveal complex proxy responses that are variable in time and influenced by the long‐term evolution of the lake and its catchment. A new field sampling approach facilitated continuous and precisely controlled parallel sampling at decadal to sub‐annual resolution for µ‐XRF element scanning, carbon geochemistry, stable isotope measurements on ostracods, pollen analyses and large‐scale thin sections for microfacies analysis. The Holocene chronology is established through microscopic varve counting and supported by accelerator mass spectrometry 14C dating of terrestrial plant macrofossils, whereas the Lateglacial age model is based on δ18O wiggle matching with the Greenland NGRIP record, using the GICC05 chronology. Microfacies analysis enables the detection of subtle sedimentological changes, proving that depositional processes even in rather large lake systems are highly sensitive to climate forcing. Comparing periods of major warming at the onset of the Lateglacial and Holocene and of major cooling at the onset of the Younger Dryas reveals differences in proxy responses, reflecting threshold effects and ecosystem inertia. Temperature increase, vegetation recovery, decrease of detrital flux and intensification of biochemical calcite precipitation at the onset of the Holocene took place with only decadal leads and lags over a ca. 100 a period, whereas the spread of woodlands and the reduction of detrital flux lagged the warming at the onset of the Lateglacial Interstadial by ca. 500–750 a. Cooling at the onset of the Younger Dryas is reflected by the simultaneous reaction of δ18O and vegetation, but sedimentological changes (reduction of endogenic calcite content, increase in detrital flux) were delayed by about 150–300 a. Three short‐term Lateglacial cold intervals, corresponding to Greenland isotope substages GI‐1d, GI‐1c2 and GI‐1b, also show complex proxy responses that vary in time. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract