Literature DB >> 24526613

The potential and limitations of linking biological monitoring data and restoration needs of urbanized waterways: a case study.

Stanley Kemp1.   

Abstract

The implementation of effective strategies to mitigate the impacts of urbanization on waterways represents a major global challenge. Monitoring data plays an important role in the formulation of these strategies. Using monitoring and historical data compiled from around an urban area (Baltimore, USA), this paper is an assessment of the potential and limitations of the use of fish assemblage monitoring data in watershed restoration. A discriminant analysis between assemblages from urban and reference sites was used to determine faunal components which have been reduced or eliminated from Baltimore area waterways. This analysis produced a strong discrimination between fish assemblages from urban and reference sites. Species primarily associated with reference sites varied taxonomically and ecologically, were generally classified as pollution intolerant, and were native. Species associated with urbanized sites were also native, varied taxonomically and ecologically, and were mixed in pollution tolerance. One factor linking most species associated with reference sites was spawning mode (lithophilic). Spawning habitat limitations may be the mechanism through which these species have been reduced in the urbanized faunas. While this presents a strong general hypothesis, information regarding the specific habitat requirements and responses to urbanization of these species is limited. This represents a limitation to producing effective restoration strategies based on exact goals and targets. Without these, determining the type and number of restoration activities required to restore ecological communities remains problematic.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24526613     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-3663-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  9 in total

1.  Application of the target fish community model to an urban river system.

Authors:  Marcia S Meixler
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 6.789

2.  Applying a large, statewide database to the assessment, stressor diagnosis, and restoration of stream fish communities.

Authors:  Scott A Stranko; Martin K Hurd; Ronald J Klauda
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems.

Authors:  Christy R Violin; Peter Cada; Elizabeth B Sudduth; Brooke A Hassett; David L Penrose; Emily S Bernhardt
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.657

4.  River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation.

Authors:  Emily S Bernhardt; Margaret A Palmer
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.657

5.  Testing the field of dreams hypothesis: functional responses to urbanization and restoration in stream ecosystems.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Sudduth; Brooke A Hassett; Peter Cada; Emily S Bernhardt
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.657

6.  Biological Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic Environment

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Functional constraints on nest characteristics of pebble mounds of breeding male hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus.

Authors:  B D Wisenden; A Unruh; A Morantes; S Bury; B Curry; R Driscoll; M Hussein; S Markegard
Journal:  J Fish Biol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.051

8.  How effective has the Clean Water Act been at reducing pollutant mass emissions to the Southern California Bight over the past 35 years?

Authors:  Greg S Lyon; Eric D Stein
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2008-06-21       Impact factor: 2.513

9.  Forecasting the combined effects of urbanization and climate change on stream ecosystems: from impacts to management options.

Authors:  Kären C Nelson; Margaret A Palmer; James E Pizzuto; Glenn E Moglen; Paul L Angermeier; Robert H Hilderbrand; Michael Dettinger; Katharine Hayhoe
Journal:  J Appl Ecol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 6.528

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.