Abstract
The aim of this study is to create a two-tiered assessment combining restoration and conservation, both needed for biodiversity management. The first tier of this approach assesses the condition of a site using a standard bioassessment method, AUSRIVAS, to determine whether significant loss of biodiversity has occurred because of human activity. The second tier assesses the conservation value of sites that were determined to be unimpacted in the first step against a reference database. This ensures maximum complementarity without having to set a priori target areas. Using the reference database, we assign site-specific and comparable coefficients for both restoration (Observed/Expected taxa with >50% probability of occurrence) and conservation values (O/E taxa with <50%, rare taxa). In, a trial on 75 sites on rivers around Sydney, NSW, Australia we were able to identify three regions: (1) an area that may need restoration; (2) an area that had a high conservation value and; (3) a region that was identified as having significant biodiversity loss but with high potential to respond to rehabilitation and become a biodiversity hotspot. These examples highlight the use of the new framework as a comprehensive system for biodiversity assessment.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. M. Pujante, 2000. Biological assessment of water quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Furse, M. T. (ed.), RIVPACS and Similar Techniques for Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, U.K., Ableside, Cumbria, U.K.: 207–216
Bailey, R. C, M. G. Kennedy, M. Z. Dervish & R. M. Taylor, 1998. Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference site approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwat. Biol. 39: 765–774.
Bailey, R. C, R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2001. Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 20: 280–286.
Barbour, M. T., J. L. Plafkin, B. P. Bradley, C. G. Graves & R. W. Wisseman, 1992. Evaluation of EPA’s rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 437–449.
Bass, B., R. Hansell & J. Choi, 1998. Towards a simple indicator of biodiversity. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 337–347.
Bengtsson, J., 1998. Which species? What kind of diversity? Which ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of relations between biodiversity and ecosystem function. Appl. Soil Ecol. 10: 191–199.
Cairns, J. J. & J. R. Pratt, 1995. The relationship between ecosystem health and delivery of ecosystem services. In Rapport, D., C. Gaudet & O. Calow (eds), Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg: 273–294.
Crist, P. J., T. W. Kohley & J. Oakleaf, 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecol. 15:47–62.
Danielsen, F, D. S. Balete, M. K. Poulsen, M. Enghoff, C. M. Nozawa & A. E. Jensen, 2000. A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiv. Conserv. 9: 1671–1705.
Desmet, P. G., R. M. Cowling, A. G. Ellis & R. L. Pressey, 2002. Integrating biosystematic data into conservation planning: Perspectives from Southern Africa’s Succulent Karoo. Syst. Biol. 51:317–330.
Duelli, P., 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agrie. Ecosysl. Environ. 62: 81–91.
ESRI, 1998. Arc View (ed.), Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
Faith, D. P. & P. A. Walker, 2002. The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: linking local management, regional planning and global conservation efforts. J. Biosci. 27: 393–407.
Freedman, B. & S. Beauchamp, 1998. Implications of atmospheric change for biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems in Canada. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 271–280.
Freitag, S. & A. S. Van Jaarsveld, 1998. Sensitivity of selection procedures for priority conservation areas to survey extent, survey intensity and taxonomic knowledge. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 265: 1475–1482.
Freitag, S., A. S. Van Jaarsveld & H. C. Biggs, 1997. Ranking priority biodiversity areas: An iterative conservation value-based approach. Biol. Conserv. 82: 263–272.
Gioia, P. & J. P. Pigott, 2000. Biodiversity assessment: a case study in predicting richness from the potential distributions of plant species in the forests of south-western Australia. J. Biogeogr. 27: 1065–1078.
Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. N. Hogue & J. W. Feminella, 2000. Development and use of predictive models for assessing the biological integrity of streams. Ecol. Appl. 10: 1456–1477.
Hellawell, J., 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier, London.
Hogg, I. D., J. M. Eadie & Y. De Lafontaine, 1996. Atmospheric change and the diversity of aquatic invertebrates: are we missing the boat? Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 291–301.
Kamppinen, M. & M. Walls, 1999. Integrating biodiversity into decision making. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 7–16.
Karr, J. R. & E. Chu, 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Better Biological Monitoring., Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Lenat, D. R. & V. H. Resh, 2001. Taxonomy and stream ecology-the benefits of genus-and species-level identifications. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 20: 287–298.
Linke, S., R. C. Bailey & J. Schwindt, 1999. Including Temporal Variability in Stream Bioassessments using the Reference Condition approach. Freshwat. Biol. 42: 575–584.
Lister, N. M. E., 1998. A systems approach to biodiversity conservation planning. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 123–155.
Mace, G. M., A. Balmford, L. Boitani, G. Cowlishaw, A. P. Dobson, D. P. Faith, K. J. Gaston, C. J. Humphries, R. I. Vane-Wright, P. H. Williams, J. H. Lawton, C. R. Margules, R. M. May, A. O. Nicholls, H. P. Possingham, C. Rahbek & A. S. van Jaarsveld, 2000. It’s time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts … Nature 405: 393–393.
Marchant, R., 1990. Robustness of classification and ordination techniques applied to macroinvertebrate communities from running waters in Victoria, Australia. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 41:493–504.
Margules, C. R., R. L. Pressey & P. H. Williams, 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J. Biosci. 27: 309–326.
Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, J. B. Thomsen, G. A. B. da Fonseca & S. Olivieri, 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: Approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv. Biol. 12: 516–520.
Moss, D., M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright & P. D. Armitage, 1987. The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwat. Biol. 17: 41–52.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca & J. Kent, 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Noss, R. F., 2000. High-risk ecosystems as foci for considering biodiversity and ecological integrity in ecological risk assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 3: 321–332.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1990. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Pressey, R. L., T. C. Hager, K. M. Ryan, J. Schwarz, S. Wall, S. Ferner & P. M. Creaser, 2000. Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions: quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 96: 55–82.
Pressey, R. L., C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Vane-Wright & P. H. Williams, 1993. Beyond opportunism: Key principles for reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 124–128.
Reyers, B. & A. N. James, 1999. An upgraded national biodiversity risk assessment index. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 1555–1560.
Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benfhic macroinvertebrates. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 16: 833–852.
Roper-Lindsay, J., 2000. Addressing the effects of private land use on biodiversity in New Zealand. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 1: 163–164.
Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic invertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York.
Sarkar, S., A. Aggarwal, J. Garson, C. R. Margules & J. Zeidler, 2002. Place prioritization for biodiversity content. J. Biosci. 27: 339–346.
Schwartz, M. W., C. A. Brigham, J. D. Hoeksema, K. G. Lyons, M. H. Mills & P. J. van Mantgem, 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122: 297–305.
Simonson, S. E., P. A. Opler, T. J. Stohlgren & G. W. Chong, 2001. Rapid assessment of butterfly diversity in a montane landscape. Biodiv. Conserv. 10: 1369–1386.
Simpson, J. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of water quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Furse, M. T. (ed.), RIVPACS and Similar Techniques for Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, U.K., Ableside, Cumbria, U.K.: 125–142
Smith, F., 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystem stability and economic development. Ecol. Econ. 16: 191–203.
Srivastava, D. S., 2002. The role of conservation in expanding biodiversity research. Oikos 98: 351–360.
Sudaryanti, S., Y. Trihadiningrum, B. T. Hart, P. E. Davies, C. L. Humphrey, R. H. Norris, J. Simpson & L. Thurtell, 2001. Assessment of the biological heath of the Bramas River, East Java, Indonesia using the Australian River Assessment (AUSRIVAS) methodology. Aquat. Ecol. 35: 135–146.
Thompson, R. M. & C. R. Townsend, 2000. Is resolution the solution?: the effect of taxonomic resolution on the calculated properties of three stream food webs. Freshwat. Biol. 44: 413–422.
Turak, E., L. K. Flack, R. H. Norris, J. Simpson & N. Waddell, 1999. Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models. Freshwat. Biol. Oxford 41: 283–298.
UNCED, 1992. Conservation of Biodiversity, Chapter 15 of Agenda 21 (ed.), United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
UNEP, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity (ed.). United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP, 2003. Convention on Biological Diversity (ed.), vol. 2003, United Nations Environment Programme.
Williams, J. E., 2000. The biodiversity crisis and adaptation to climate change: A case study from Australia’s forests. Environ. Monit. Ass. 61:65–74.
Wimmer, R., A. Chovanec, O. Moog, M. H. Fink & D. Gruber, 2000. Abiotic stream classification as a basis for a surveillance monitoring network in Austria in accordance with the EU Water Framework Directive. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 28: 177–184.
Wright, J. F, M. T. Furse & P. D. Armitage, 1993. RIVPACS — a technique for evaluating the biological quality of rivers in the U.K. Eur. Wat. Poll. Cont. 3: 15–25.
Zeide, B., 1997. Assessing biodiversity. Environ. Monil. Ass. 48: 249–260.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Linke, S., Norris, R. (2003). Biodiversity: bridging the gap between condition and conservation. In: Martens, K. (eds) Aquatic Biodiversity. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol 171. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1084-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1084-9_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3785-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1084-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive