Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biodiversity: bridging the gap between condition and conservation

  • Chapter
Aquatic Biodiversity

Part of the book series: Developments in Hydrobiology ((DIHY,volume 171))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B., R. Hansell & J. Choi, 1998. Towards a simple indicator of biodiversity. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli, P., 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agrie. Ecosysl. Environ. 62: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI, 1998. Arc View (ed.), Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, B. & S. Beauchamp, 1998. Implications of atmospheric change for biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems in Canada. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellawell, J., 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamppinen, M. & M. Walls, 1999. Integrating biodiversity into decision making. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. & E. Chu, 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Better Biological Monitoring., Island Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke, S., R. C. Bailey & J. Schwindt, 1999. Including Temporal Variability in Stream Bioassessments using the Reference Condition approach. Freshwat. Biol. 42: 575–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, N. M. E., 1998. A systems approach to biodiversity conservation planning. Environ. Monit. Ass. 49: 123–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers, B. & A. N. James, 1999. An upgraded national biodiversity risk assessment index. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 1555–1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper-Lindsay, J., 2000. Addressing the effects of private land use on biodiversity in New Zealand. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 1: 163–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic invertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S., A. Aggarwal, J. Garson, C. R. Margules & J. Zeidler, 2002. Place prioritization for biodiversity content. J. Biosci. 27: 339–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F., 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystem stability and economic development. Ecol. Econ. 16: 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, D. S., 2002. The role of conservation in expanding biodiversity research. Oikos 98: 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCED, 1992. Conservation of Biodiversity, Chapter 15 of Agenda 21 (ed.), United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity (ed.). United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP, 2003. Convention on Biological Diversity (ed.), vol. 2003, United Nations Environment Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeide, B., 1997. Assessing biodiversity. Environ. Monil. Ass. 48: 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, 2601, Australia

    Simon Linke

Authors
  1. Simon Linke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Freshwater Biology, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium

    Koen Martens

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation