Exploring aquatic ecosystem health: a multi-trophic and an ecosystemic approach

Abstract

The field of aquatic ecosystem health is a new and developing discipline. The restoration and recovery of habitats is extremely complex and requires a clear understanding of a desirable and maximum/minimum set of conditions which is acceptable, achievable, and cost-effective for implementation. Since this field of research is still in its infancy, the technology for an integrative and innovative assessment will require a combination of physical, chemical, and biological methods and researchers will have to adopt and use some of the routine chemical, limnological, physiological, ecological, and toxicological procedures. A multi-disciplinary, multi-trophic and an ecosystemic approach has been initiated and applied in the North American Great Lakes during the past several years. This strategy, consisting of structural and functional indicators and endpoints, was implemented in the Great Lakes 'Areas of Concern' adopting a field to laboratory approach for a holistic and integrated evaluation of the ecosystem. Some examples from our Great Lakes experience are presented. The ecosystem health technology should look beyond the traditional approach and must develop innovative, sensitive, automated, and cost-effective procedures including computer-assisted techniques to deal with the problems of stress, healing, recovery, and remediation.

Composition and dynamics of autotrophic picoplankton and spectral light distribution in saline lignite mining lakes of Germany

“…Many studies show that deviation from the 'normal' structure of lake plankton can be observed in these habitats (Klapper and Schultze, 1995), where extreme chemical and physical conditions rarely prevail. The situation in these lakes can be characterized by phenomena such as altered seasonal plankton succession (Nixdorf et al, 1998), lack of certain food web The investigations focused on the occurrence of autotrophic picoplankton (APP), small (0.2-2 txm) pigmented organisms ubiquitous in all aquatic ecosystems (Stockner, 1988;Kuosa, 1988;Weisse, 1988;Ray et al, 1989;Munawar et al, 1992). This group includes chroococcoid cyanobacteria (Johnson and Sieburth, 1979;Waterbury et al, 1979), as well as small eucaryotes (Johnson and Sieburth, 1979;Murphy and Haugen, 1985;Nagata, 1986) and prochlorophytes (Chisholm et al, 1988).…”

An integrated assessment of the ecosystem health of a protected area: Fathom Five National Marine Park, Lake Huron

“…The multi-trophic evaluation of aquatic ecosystem health with a battery of biologically based structural and functional tests is now a well established procedure in integrated environmental assessments (Cairns, 1992;Munawar et al, , 1992Munawar et al, , 1993. This strategy of focusing on the state of the entire food web has been successfully applied in the environmental assessment of various Great Lakes habitats.…”

Initiating and promoting the aquatic ecosystem health concept: the Society and the Journal

“…Several timely publications have recently appeared dealing with the abuse, problems, and sensitivity associated with the aquatic ecosystem health (Schindler, 1987;Munawar et al 1989bMunawar et al , 1992Rapport, 1989Rapport, , 1992Calow, 1992;Cairns & Pratt, 1992;Minns, 1992;Regier, 1992. During the 1970's the management of lakes changed from routine limnological monitoring (1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) to a new and more holistic assessment, namely the ecosystem approach. The most dramatic impact of the new ecosystem approach was the revisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978 and 1987 (Canada & USA, 1987) which recognized all components of the ecosystem to be interdependent with a focus on drainage basins, incorporating the atmosphere, water, biota, and the watershed (Vallentyne & Beeton, 1986;Bertram & Reynoldson, 1992).…”