Marden Seabra Linares , Diego Rodrigues Macedo , Gilberto Nepomuceno Salvador , Carlos Bernardo Mascarenhas Alves , Paulo Santos Pompeu , Marcos Callisto
{"title":"How do exergy-based indicators respond to physical habitat changes?","authors":"Marden Seabra Linares , Diego Rodrigues Macedo , Gilberto Nepomuceno Salvador , Carlos Bernardo Mascarenhas Alves , Paulo Santos Pompeu , Marcos Callisto","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy are thermodynamic indicators widely used in recent decades to monitor the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems. However, there is still a gap in the knowledge of how these indicators respond to variations in stream physical habitat resulting from natural variation or anthropogenic disturbances. Our objective was to determine what instream physical habitat metrics are related to the variation of eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy from benthic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages in southeastern Brazil. For benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, eco-exergy positively correlated with Catchment Disturbance Index scores, whereas specific eco-exergy was positively correlated with Mean Depth. For fish assemblages, eco-exergy was positively correlated with Mean Dead Wood Fish Cover. In contrast, specific eco-exergy was positively correlated with Local Disturbance Index scores and was negatively associated with Mean Depth, Mean Percentage of Riffle, and Mean Undergrowth Proportion. Our results show that exergy-based indicators respond well to natural and human changes in various aspects of instream physical habitat. Whereas their capacity to respond directly to anthropogenic disturbances differ by the assemblage used to calculate eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy, both indices may be useful tools for environmental managers and decision-makers to respond to multiple aspects of lotic ecosystem physical habitat conditions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11459,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Indicators","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 113499"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25004297","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy are thermodynamic indicators widely used in recent decades to monitor the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems. However, there is still a gap in the knowledge of how these indicators respond to variations in stream physical habitat resulting from natural variation or anthropogenic disturbances. Our objective was to determine what instream physical habitat metrics are related to the variation of eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy from benthic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages in southeastern Brazil. For benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, eco-exergy positively correlated with Catchment Disturbance Index scores, whereas specific eco-exergy was positively correlated with Mean Depth. For fish assemblages, eco-exergy was positively correlated with Mean Dead Wood Fish Cover. In contrast, specific eco-exergy was positively correlated with Local Disturbance Index scores and was negatively associated with Mean Depth, Mean Percentage of Riffle, and Mean Undergrowth Proportion. Our results show that exergy-based indicators respond well to natural and human changes in various aspects of instream physical habitat. Whereas their capacity to respond directly to anthropogenic disturbances differ by the assemblage used to calculate eco-exergy and specific eco-exergy, both indices may be useful tools for environmental managers and decision-makers to respond to multiple aspects of lotic ecosystem physical habitat conditions.
期刊介绍:
The ultimate aim of Ecological Indicators is to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. The journal provides a forum for the discussion of the applied scientific development and review of traditional indicator approaches as well as for theoretical, modelling and quantitative applications such as index development. Research into the following areas will be published.
• All aspects of ecological and environmental indicators and indices.
• New indicators, and new approaches and methods for indicator development, testing and use.
• Development and modelling of indices, e.g. application of indicator suites across multiple scales and resources.
• Analysis and research of resource, system- and scale-specific indicators.
• Methods for integration of social and other valuation metrics for the production of scientifically rigorous and politically-relevant assessments using indicator-based monitoring and assessment programs.
• How research indicators can be transformed into direct application for management purposes.
• Broader assessment objectives and methods, e.g. biodiversity, biological integrity, and sustainability, through the use of indicators.
• Resource-specific indicators such as landscape, agroecosystems, forests, wetlands, etc.