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.

No abstract

Aljustrel mining area is located in the Iberian Pyrite Belt, one of the greatest concentrations of massive sulphide deposits that extends from Lousal (Portugal) to Aznalcóllar (Spain). The surrounding streams, Roxo, Água Azeda and Água Forte, are influenced by the erosion of the tailing deposits and the input of acid mine drainage (AMD) from the abandoned Aljustrel pyrite mines, recently reopened in 2007. The purpose of this study was to understand how these adverse conditions influenced the stream sediments, water quality and periphytic diatom communities and establish the pre-restoration local conditions to judge the success of rehabilitation program now under way. For stream sediments, the highest metal concentration samples were found at sites F, G and H. Arsenic, Cu, Fe, Pb and Sb detected concentrations, generally exceeded the probable effect concentration values reaching level 4: the highest toxicity level. In surficial water samples of AMD affected sites (F, G and H), low pH values (1.5 to 3.5) and high metal concentrations of As (6,837 μg L

No abstract

Freshwater Diatoms Indices Predictive model a b s t r a c tDiatoms are widely used in stream bioassessment due to their broad distribution, extraordinary variability and the ability to integrate changes in water quality. The indices Specific Polluosensitivity Index (SPI), standardized Biological Diatom Index (BDI), European Economic Community Index (CEC) and Generic Diatom Index (GDI), originally developed in France, are often applied in Portugal to evaluate stream ecological quality based on diatom communities. Alternatively, predictive models resulting from the comparison between the communities of the study site and those of a set of reference sites representing undisturbed or the best available conditions of a given region have been proposed as valuable methods for evaluating the ecological status of streams. In the present study, we applied the four above-mentioned widely used diatom-based indices (SPI, BDI, CEC and GDI) and a predictive model (MoDi) to 54 sites located in central Portugal to assess the sensitivity of the five methods to a range of anthropogenic disturbances cumulatively affecting streams and represented by 27 variables (e.g., organic enrichment, changes in morphology of the channels, integrity of the riparian corridor, land use in the catchment). The results were analyzed comparatively through Spearman correlations, Boxplots and Stepwise Discriminant Analysis. This study confirmed the sensitivity of diatoms to organic and nutrient contamination (showed by the MoDi, BDI, CEC and SPI) and revealed the importance of suspended solids (through the MoDi, GDI, and SPI). The relevance of modifications in land use to diatoms was shown by all methods applied, except for the GDI. The MoDI also revealed the importance of changes in the structure and morphology of the reach and the channel, like the construction of artificial walls or embankments and connectivity; the BDI also related its assessments with the riparian zone integrity; and the SPI was not useful in detecting morphological pressures. The GDI produced the most divergent assessments and was less effective in revealing the anthropogenic disturbances. The use of the predictive model (MoDi) is therefore a good method for the assessment of streams in central Portugal because it expresses a great diversity of quantitative and qualitative changes in freshwater systems reflected in the structure (species richness and abundance) of diatom communities.