Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Series Preface -- Volume Preface -- Contents -- Managing an International River Basin Towards Water Quality Protection: The Danube Case -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Major Pressures to Water Quality in the Danube River Basin -- 2.1 Organic Pollution -- 2.2 Nutrient Pollution -- 2.3 Hazardous Substances -- 2.4 Hydromorphological Alterations -- 2.5 Sediment Management -- 2.6 Invasive Alien Species -- 2.7 Flood Protection -- 2.8 Navigation -- 2.9 Hydropower -- 2.10 Groundwater Management -- 3 Major Achievements in Protecting and Improving the Water Quality -- 3.1 Cooperation in Implementing WFD in the Danube River Basin -- 3.2 Joint Programme of Measures -- 3.3 Basin-Wide Monitoring and Assessment of the Water Status -- 3.4 The Danube Accident Emergency Warning System -- 3.5 Flood Protection -- 3.6 Navigation -- 3.7 Hydropower -- 4 Conclusions -- References -- Part I: Chemical Pollution -- Nutrient Management in the Danube River Basin -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Need for Nutrient Management in the Danube River Basin -- 1.2 Policy Context -- 2 Nutrient Pollution in the DRB -- 2.1 Identification of Point Nutrient Sources -- 2.2 Diffuse Sources of Nutrients -- 3 Actions to Manage Nutrients in the DRB -- 3.1 Implementation of Nutrient Management Legislation -- 3.2 Implementing Authorities, Funding Opportunities and Monitoring of Implementation -- 4 Conclusions -- References -- Pollution by Nutrients in the Danube Basin -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Relevancy of Nutrients in the Danube Basin -- 1.2 Relevancy of Nutrients in the Water Framework Directive -- 2 Methods -- 2.1 Data Collection and Processing -- 2.2 Monitoring Stations -- 2.3 Sampling and Analysis -- 3 Results and Discussion -- 3.1 Spatial Distribution -- 3.2 Comparison of the Long-Term Data (TNMN) with the Investigative Measurements (JDS).

Aquatic biomonitoring has become an essential task in Europe and many other regions as a consequence of strong anthropogenic pressures affecting the health of lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. A typical assessment of the environmental quality status, such as it is required by European but also North American and other legislation, relies on matching the composition of assemblages of organisms identified using morphological criteria present in aquatic ecosystems to those expected in the absence of anthropogenic pressures. Through decade-long and difficult intercalibration exercises among networks of regulators and scientists in European countries, a pragmatic biomonitoring approach was developed and adopted, which now produces invaluable information. Nonetheless, this approach is based on several hundred different protocols, making it susceptible to issues with comparability, scale and resolution. Furthermore, data acquisition is often slow due to a lack of taxonomic experts for many taxa and regions and time-consuming morphological identification of organisms. High-throughput genetic screening methods such as (e)DNA metabarcoding have been proposed as a possible solution to these shortcomings. Such "next-generation biomonitoring", also termed "biomonitoring 2.0", has many advantages over the traditional approach in terms of speed, comparability and costs. It also creates the potential to include new bioindicators and thereby further improves the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health. However, several major conceptual and technological challenges still hinder its implementation into legal and regulatory frameworks. Academic scientists sometimes tend to overlook legal or socioeconomic constraints, which regulators have to consider on a regular basis. Moreover, quantification of species abundance or biomass remains a significant bottleneck to releasing the full potential of these approaches. Here, we highlight the main challenges for next-generation aquatic biomonitoring and outline principles and good ...