| 1 | Assemblage-based biomonitoring of freshwater ecosystem health via multimetric indices:A critical review and suggestions for improving their applicability显示文摘Freshwater biota are more comprehensive and direct indicators of biological impacts,and more meaningful to the public than water quality or physical habitat surrogates.Freshwater biotic data and the multiple biological indicators developed from them offer a much richer array of data for assessing the impacts of pollution controls than a limited set of physical or chemical measures.In recent decades,assemblage-based assessments by ecologists,environmental scientists,and water quality agencies have been employed globally for determining the condition of,and threats to,freshwater ecosystems.A key step in this advance has been the development of multimetric indices(MMIs)or indices of biotic integrity(IBIs)based on quantitative assessments of algae,macrophyte,macroinvertebrate,fish or riparian bird assemblages.In Europe,where biological assemblages are mandated for assessing freshwater ecosystem health,many indices are multimetric.However,the proliferation of MMIs globally has not always occurred through the application of rigorous study designs and monitoring protocols,nor have they always effectively incorporated functional metrics,stressor assessments,and statistical analyses.Therefore,in this review,we discuss eleven major concerns with the development and application(including logistical limitations)of multimetric indicators based on freshwater biota to encourage more rigorous and widely applicable(transferable)MMI use and implementation.Specifically,our concerns focus on reference conditions;sampling effort,methods,and season;trophic guild definition;metric comprehensiveness,options,screening and scoring;and MMI validation.MMIs could also benefit from increased attention to ecological mechanisms and metric development,to further improve our understanding of anthropogenic impacts as well as rehabilitation effects on freshwater ecosystems globally.Paying closer attention to study designs,ecological mechanisms and metric development should further improve our understanding of anthropogenic impacts and better facilitate rehabilitation of degraded freshwater ecosystems,as well as aiding in the conservation of healthy freshwater ecosystems globally. | Robert L.Vadas Jr. Robert M.Hughes Yeon Jae Bae Min Jeong Baek Orestes Carlos Bello Gonzáles Marcos Callisto Débora ReisdeCarvalho Kai Chen Maria T.Ferreira Pablo Fierro Jon S.Harding Dana M.Infante C.J.Kleynhans Diego R.Macedo Isabela Martins Norman Mercado Silva Nabor Moya Susan J.Nichols Paulo S.Pompeu Renata Ruaro Deborah R.O.Silva R.Jan Stevenson Bianca de Freitas Terra Christa Thirion Douglas Ticiani Lizhu Wang Chris O.Yoder | 2022 | Water Biology and Security2022，1，3： | 1 |
| 2 | Global concerns related to water biology and security:The need for language and policies that safeguard living resources versus those that dilute scientific knowledge显示文摘Increasingly,scientists and non-scientists,especially employees of government agencies,tend to use weak or equivocal language when making statements related to science policy and governmental regulation.We use recent publications to provide examples of vague language versus examples of strong language when authors write about regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.Lifeless language is common in agency reports,policy documents,and even scientific papers published by academics.Such language limits success in regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.This challenge must be recognized and countered as a driver of the condition of water and associated resources.We also list sources of vague wording,provide global examples of how ambiguous language and political influences have contributed to water resource degradation,discuss the recent history of science censorship,and offer possible solutions for more direct scientific discourse.We found that:(1)equivocal language was especially common in concluding statements and not only by government employees;(2)authors discussed confusing language concerns in an agency publication;and(3)agency employees sometimes used active,strong language.Key drivers of weak language include:(1)holding on to old paradigms and resisting new knowledge;(2)scientific uncertainty;(3)institutional manuscript review policies;(4)employment and funding insecurity;and(5)avoiding the appearance of advocacy.Examples associated with euphemistic language included climate change,flow and physical habitat alteration,dams,agriculture,mining,forestry,and fisheries,as well as resistance towards monitoring,assessing,and reporting ecological conditions.Suggestions for mitigating equivocal language involve employment protections and greater focus on scientific ethics.We conclude that natural resource scientists should resist calls to employ imprecise language.Instead,they should be strong advocates for prescriptive and protective natural resource actions—based on their science—to halt and reverse the systemic degradation of those resources. | Robert M.Hughes James R.Karr Robert L.Vadas Dominick A.DellaSala Marcos Callisto Maria Joao Feio Teresa Ferreira Neels Kleynhans Renata Ruaro Chris O.Yoder J.Hal Michael | 2023 | Water Biology and Security2023，2，4： | 0 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员