Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dspace.azti.es/handle/24689/1075
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPoikane, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorHerrero, Fuensanta Salas
dc.contributor.authorKelly, Martyn G. and Borja, Angel
dc.contributor.authorBirk, Sebastian
dc.contributor.authorvan de Bund, Wouter
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-02T08:12:04Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-02T08:12:04Z-
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifierISI:000564000200014
dc.identifier.issn0048-9697
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.azti.es/handle/24689/1075-
dc.description.abstractThe European Union has embarked on a policy which aims to achieve good ecological status in all surface waters (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional and coastalwaters). In theory, ecological status assessmentmethods should address the effects of all relevant human pressures. In this study, we analyze the degree to which methods European countries use to assess ecological status tackle various pressures affecting European waters. Nutrient pollution is by far the best-covered pressure for all four water categories. Out of total of 423 assessment methods, 370 assess eutrophication and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for 212 of these. ``General degradation�� is addressed by 238 methods, mostly validated by relationships to combined pressure indices. Othermajor pressures have received significantly less effort: hydromorphological degradation is assessed by 160 methods and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just 40 of these. Hydromorphological pressures are addressed (at least by one BQE) only by 25\% countries for coastal waters and 70-80\% for lakes and transitional waters. Specific diagnostic tools (i.e. single-pressure relationships) for hydromorphology have only been developed by a fewcountries: only 20\% countries have suchmethods for lakes, coastal and transitional waters and less than half for rivers. Toxic contamination is addressed by 90 methods; however, pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just eight of these. Only two countries have demonstrated pressure-specific acidification methods for rivers, and three for lakes. In summary, methods currently in use mostly address eutrophication and/or general degradation, but there is not much evidence that they reliably pick up the effects of other significant pressures such as hydromorphology or toxic contamination. Therefore, we recommend that countries re-examine: (1) those pressures which affect different water categories in the country; (2) relevant assessment methods to tackle those pressures; (3) whether pressure-response relationships have been developed for each of these. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.publisherELSEVIER
dc.subjectBioassessment
dc.subjectEcological status
dc.subjectBiological metrics
dc.subjectAquatic ecosystems
dc.subjectWater framework directive
dc.subjectAnthropogenic pressures
dc.subjectFISH-BASED INDEX
dc.subjectMULTIMETRIC INDEX
dc.subjectCOASTAL WATERS
dc.subjectFRAMEWORK
dc.subjectQUALITY
dc.subjectLAKES
dc.subjectESTUARINE
dc.subjectIMPACT
dc.subjectINTERCALIBRATION
dc.subjectPHYTOPLANKTON
dc.titleEuropean aquatic ecological assessment methods: A critical review of their sensitivity to key pressures
dc.typeReview
dc.identifier.journalSCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
dc.format.volume740
dc.identifier.e-issn1879-1026
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140075
Appears in Publication types:Artículos científicos



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.