"泉城"地下水补给区脆弱性评价研究

享有"泉城"美誉的济南市以丰沛优质的地下水闻名于世,构成了以"泉"为中心的城市风貌,旧城区2.6 km2范围内分布着136处名泉.     

A Comparison of Single and Multiple Habitat Protocols for Collecting Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams1

Abstract: In 2003, we compared two benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods that are used for rapid biological assessment of wadeable streams. A single habitat method using kick sampling in riffles and runs was compared to a multiple habitat method that sampled all available habitats in proportion of occurrence. Both methods were performed side‐by‐side at 41 sites in lower gradient streams of the Piedmont and Northern Piedmont ecoregions of the United States, where riffle habitat is less abundant. Differences in sampling methods were examined using similarity indices, two multimetric indices [the family‐level Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) and the species‐level Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII)], their component metrics, and bioassessment endpoints based on each index. Index scores were highly correlated between single and multiple habitat field methods, and sampling method comparability, based on comparison of similarities between and within sampling methods, was particularly high for species level data. The VSCI scores and values of most of its component metrics were not significantly higher for one particular method, but relationships between single and multiple habitat values were highly variable for percent Ephemeroptera, percent chironomids, and percent Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Hydropsychidae excluded). A similar level of variability in the relationship was observed for the MBII and most of its metrics, but Ephemeroptera richness, percent individuals in the dominant five taxa, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores all exhibited differences in values between single and multiple habitat field methods. When applied to multiple habitat samples, the MBII exhibited greater precision, higher index scores, and higher assessment categories than when applied to single habitat samples at the same sites. In streams with limited or no riffle habitats, the multiple habitat method should provide an adequate sample for biological assessment, and at sites with abundant riffle habitat, little difference would be expected between the single and multiple habitat field methods. Thus, in geographic areas with a wide variety of stream types, the multiple habitat method may be more desirable. Even so, the variability in the relationship between single and multiple habitat methods indicates that the data are not interchangeable, and we suggest that any change in sampling method should be accompanied by a recalibration of any existing assessment tool (e.g., multimetric index) with data collected using the new method, regardless of taxonomic level.     

Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorized by a crisis-responsive time frame and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with death. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer time frames and broader metapopulation- and ecosystem-level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations without adequate post hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. A total of 59 mitigation translocations were reviewed for their adherence to the adaptive scientific approach expected of other conservation translocations and for the testing of management options to continue improving techniques for the future. We found that mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science. Most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment- and persistence-level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less on metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes. Questions regarding the long-term impacts to the recipient ecosystem (12% of articles) and the carrying capacity of translocation sites (24% of articles) were addressed least often, despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Less than half (47%) of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise, and resources in the future.