Five-wheel framework for system-based monitoring of heavy metal pollution in rivers

Sectorial approach for monitoring heavy metal pollution in rivers has failed to report realistic pollution status and associated ecological and human health risks. The increasing spread of heavy metals from different sources and emerging risks to human and environmental health call for reexamining heavy metal pollution monitoring frameworks. Also, the sources, spread, and load of heavy metals in the environment have changed significantly over time, requiring consequent modification in the monitoring frameworks. Therefore, studies on heavy metal monitoring in rivers conducted in the last decade were evaluated for experimental designs, research frameworks, and data presentations. Most studies (∼99%) (i) lacked inclusiveness of all environmental compartments; (ii) focused on “one pollutant – one/two compartment” or sometimes “one pollutant – one compartment – one effect” approach; and (iii) remained “data-rich but information poor.” An ecological approach with integrative system thinking is proposed to develop a holistic approach for monitoring river pollution. It is visualized that heavy metal monitoring, risk analyses, and water management must incorporate tracking pollutants in different environmental compartments of a river (water, sediment, and floodplain/bank soil) and consider correlating it with riverbank land use. The systems-based pollution monitoring and assessment studies will reveal the critical factors that drive heavy metals pollutant movement in ecosystems and associated potential risks to the environment, wildlife, and humans. Also, water quality and pollution indexing tools would help better communicate complex pollution data and associated risks among all stakeholders. Therefore, integrating systems approaches in scientific- and policy-based tools would help sustainably manage the health of rivers, wildlife, and humans.     

Alarming decline of freshwater trigger species in western Mediterranean key biodiversity areas

Theidentification of key biodiversity areas (KBA) was initiated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2004 to overcome taxonomic biases in the selection of important areas for conservation, including freshwater ecosystems. Since then, several KBAs have been identified mainly based on the presence of trigger species (i.e., species that trigger either the vulnerability and or the irreplaceability criterion and thus identify a site as a KBA). However, to our knowledge, many of these KBAs have not been validated. Therefore, classical surveys of the taxa used to identify freshwater KBAs (fishes, molluscs, odonates, and aquatic plants) were conducted in Douro (Iberian Peninsula) and Sebou (Morocco) River basins in the Mediterranean Biodiversity Hotspot. Environmental DNA analyses were undertaken in the Moroccan KBAs. There was a mismatch between the supposed and actual presence of trigger species. None of the trigger species were found in 43% and 50% of all KBAs surveyed in the Douro and Sebou basins, respectively. Shortcomings of freshwater KBA identification relate to flawed or lack of distribution data for trigger species. This situation results from a misleading initial identification of KBAs based on poor (or even inaccurate) ecological information or due to increased human disturbance between initial KBA identification and the present. To improve identification of future freshwater KBAs, we suggest selecting trigger species with a more conservative approach; use of local expert knowledge and digital data (to assess habitat quality, species distribution, and potential threats); consideration of the subcatchment when delineating KBAs boundaries; thoughtful consideration of terrestrial special areas for conservation limits; and periodic field validation.