Suchergebnisse

DNA-based methods are at the edge of being implemented into routine monitoring systems. WG5 aimed to develop implementation options for DNA-based methods under a range of environmental directives and legal frameworks, in particular the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the UN SDGs, the Global Biodiversity Assessment under the IPBES, the CBD Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, the digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI), the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, and the Essential Biodiversity Variables. It further aimed at starting the standardisation process for DNA-based methods.In the talk, we will give an overview of all WG5 activities, with a focus on the options to use DNA-based methods for the implementation of the WFD. Overall, suitability of DNA-based identification is particularly high for fish, as eDNA is a well-suited sampling approach which can replace expensive and potentially harmful methods. For invertebrates and phytobenthos, the main challenges include the modification of indices and completing barcode libraries. For phytoplankton, the barcode libraries are even more problematic, due to the high taxonomic diversity in plankton samples. If current assessment concepts are kept, DNA-based identification is least appropriate for macrophytes (rivers, lakes) and angiosperms/macroalgae (transitional and coastal waters), which are surveyed rather than sampled. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of implementing DNA-based identification into standard ecological assessment, in particular considering any adaptations to existing legislation that may be required to facilitate the transition to using molecular data.

DNA-based methods are at the edge of being implemented into routine monitoring systems. WG5 aimed to develop implementation options for DNA-based methods under a range of environmental directives and legal frameworks, in particular the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the UN SDGs, the Global Biodiversity Assessment under the IPBES, the CBD Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, the digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI), the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, and the Essential Biodiversity Variables. It further aimed at starting the standardisation process for DNA-based methods.In the talk, we will give an overview of all WG5 activities, with a focus on the options to use DNA-based methods for the implementation of the WFD. Overall, suitability of DNA-based identification is particularly high for fish, as eDNA is a well-suited sampling approach which can replace expensive and potentially harmful methods. For invertebrates and phytobenthos, the main challenges include the modification of indices and completing barcode libraries. For phytoplankton, the barcode libraries are even more problematic, due to the high taxonomic diversity in plankton samples. If current assessment concepts are kept, DNA-based identification is least appropriate for macrophytes (rivers, lakes) and angiosperms/macroalgae (transitional and coastal waters), which are surveyed rather than sampled. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of implementing DNA-based identification into standard ecological assessment, in particular considering any adaptations to existing legislation that may be required to facilitate the transition to using molecular data.

AbstractBackgroundUrban streams are characterised by species-poor and frequently disturbed communities. The recovery of heavily polluted urban streams is challenging but the simple community structure makes recolonisation patterns more transparent. Therefore, they are generally applicable model systems for recolonisation of restored streams. Principal questions of stream restoration concern the drivers and patterns of recolonisation processes. Rarely, recolonisation of restored streams is recorded for a sufficient time to observe patterns of habitat and community development in detail. Over 10 years, we monitored benthic habitat changes and macroinvertebrate communities of eight restored sites in an urban stream network that was formerly used as an open sewer and thus, almost uninhabitable for macroinvertebrates prior to restoration. We analysed changes in environmental variables and communities with a selection of multi-variate analyses and identified indicator species in successional stages.ResultsProportions of stony substrate and conductivity decreased over time since restoration, while the riparian vegetation cover increased along with the amount of sandy substrate. The communities fluctuated strongly after restoration but began to stabilise after around eight years. TITAN analysis identified 9 species, (e.g. the mayflyCloeon dipterumand the beetleAgabus didymus), whose abundances decreased with time since restoration, and 19 species with an increasing abundance trend (e.g. several Trichopteran species, which colonised once specific habitats developed). Woody riparian vegetation cover and related variables were identified as major driver for changes in species abundance. In the last phase of the observation period, a dry episode resulted in complete dewatering of some sites. These temporarily dried sections were recolonised much more rapidly compared to the recolonisation following restoration.ConclusionsOur results underline that community changes following urban stream restoration are closely linked to the evolving environmental conditions of restored streams, in particular habitat availability initialised by riparian vegetation. It takes about a decade for the development of a rich and stable community. Even in streams that were almost completely lacking benthic invertebrates before restoration, the establishment of a diverse macroinvertebrate community is possible, underlining the potential for habitat restoration in formerly heavily polluted urban areas.

AbstractAgriculture, the world's most dominant land use type, burdens freshwater biodiversity with a multitude of stressors such as diffuse pollution and hydromorphological alteration. However, it is difficult to directly link agricultural land use with biota response as agricultural stressors can also originate from other causes. Also, there is evidence for positive and negative effects of agriculture on organisms, agricultural impact differs strongly with the biological metric and study region considered and agricultural impact differs among practice and type, which in turn affects different organism groups with varying severity. Against this background, our study aimed at assessing, if agricultural land use has a consistent effect on river biota. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, which yielded 43 studies and 76 relationships between agriculture and aquatic organism groups. The relationships were subjected to a meta-analysis using Hedge's g to calculate the standardized mean difference of effects. Overall, we detected a medium to strong effectg = − 0.74 of agricultural land use on freshwater biota, only marginally influenced by study design, river type and region. Strong differences in biota response could be observed depending on the biological metric assessed, with ecological quality indices of agricultural impairment performing best. Sensitive taxa declined with agricultural impact, while tolerant taxa tended to benefit. In addition, the biota response differed among agricultural types and practices and organism group, with macroinvertebrates showing the strongest effect. Our results quantify the effects of agriculture on riverine biota and suggest biological metric types for assessing agricultural impact. Further research is needed to discriminate between agricultural types and account for intensity.

Several national and international environmental laws require countries to meet clearly defined targets with respect to the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems. In Europe, the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) represents such a detailed piece of legislation. The WFD that requires the European member countries to achieve an at least 'good' ecological status of all surface waters at latest by the year 2027. In order to assess the ecological status of a given water body under the WFD, data on its aquatic biodiversity are obtained and compared to reference status. The mismatch between these two metrics then is used to derive the respective ecological status class. While the workflow to carry out the assessment is well established, it relies only on few biological groups (typically fish, macroinvertebrates and a few algal taxa such as diatoms), is time consuming and remains at a lower taxonomic resolution, so that the identifications can be done routinely by non-experts with an acceptable learning curve. Here, novel genetic and genomic tools provide new solutions to speed up the process and allow to include a much greater proportion of biodiversity in the assessment process. further, results are easily comparable through the genetic 'barcodes' used to identify organisms. The aim of the large international COST Action DNAqua-Net (http://dnaqua.net/) is to develop strategies on how to include novel genetic tools in bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems in Europe and beyond and how to standardize these among the participating countries. It is the ambition of the network to have these new genetic tools accepted in future legal frameworks such as the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). However, a prerequisite is that various aspects that start from the validation and completion of DNA Barcode reference databases, to the lab and field protocols, to the analysis processes as well as the subsequently derived biotic indices and metrics are ...

Several national and international environmental laws require countries to meet clearly defined targets with respect to the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems. In Europe, the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) represents such a detailed piece of legislation. The WFD that requires the European member countries to achieve an at least 'good' ecological status of all surface waters at latest by the year 2027. In order to assess the ecological status of a given water body under the WFD, data on its aquatic biodiversity are obtained and compared to reference status. The mismatch between these two metrics then is used to derive the respective ecological status class. While the workflow to carry out the assessment is well established, it relies only on few biological groups (typically fish, macroinvertebrates and a few algal taxa such as diatoms), is time consuming and remains at a lower taxonomic resolution, so that the identifications can be done routinely by non-experts with an acceptable learning curve. Here, novel genetic and genomic tools provide new solutions to speed up the process and allow to include a much greater proportion of biodiversity in the assessment process. further, results are easily comparable through the genetic 'barcodes' used to identify organisms. The aim of the large international COST Action DNAqua-Net (http://dnaqua.net/) is to develop strategies on how to include novel genetic tools in bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems in Europe and beyond and how to standardize these among the participating countries. It is the ambition of the network to have these new genetic tools accepted in future legal frameworks such as the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). However, a prerequisite is that various aspects that start from the validation and completion of DNA Barcode reference databases, to the lab and field protocols, to the analysis processes as well as the subsequently derived biotic indices and metrics are dealt with and commonly agreed upon. Furthermore, many pragmatic questions such as adequate short and long-term storage of samples or specimens for further processing or to serve as an accessible reference need also be addressed. In Europe the conformity and backward compatibility of the new methods with the existing legislation and workflows are further of high importance. Without rigorous harmonization and inter-calibration concepts, the implementation of the powerful new genetic tools will be substantially delayed in real-world legal framework applications. After a short introduction on the structure and vision of DNAqua-Net, we discuss how the DNAqua-Net community considers possibilities to include novel DNA-based approaches into current bioassessment and how formal standardization e.g. through the framework of CEN (The European Committee for Standardization) may aid in that process (Hering et al. 2018, Leese et al. 2016, Leese et al. 2018. Further we explore how TDWG data standards can further facilitate swift adoption of the genetic methods in routine use. We further present potential impacts of the legislative requirements of the Nagoya Protocol on the exchange of genetic resources and their implications for biomonitoring. Last but not least, we will touch upon the rather unexpected influence that the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may have on the bioassessment work in practice.