以自然为基础的堤岸保护措施改善了农业主导流域溪流中的底栖大型无脊椎动物

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Wenwen Zhu , He Gai , Yuxin Liu , Min Zhang , Kun Li
{"title":"以自然为基础的堤岸保护措施改善了农业主导流域溪流中的底栖大型无脊椎动物","authors":"Wenwen Zhu ,&nbsp;He Gai ,&nbsp;Yuxin Liu ,&nbsp;Min Zhang ,&nbsp;Kun Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Increased bank erosion is one of the most significant threats to agricultural stream ecosystems. However, it is challenging to ascertain whether bank restoration measures positively affect in-stream habitats and aquatic communities. This study evaluated three nature-based bank protection measures' short-term (2-year) effects on aquatic physical habitat quality and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a headwater stream in agricultural areas. The results demonstrate that nature-based bank protection measures can significantly improve the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The TPRW (timber piles + riprap + willow cuttings) and WTRW (waste tires + riprap + willow cuttings) measures exhibited the most pronounced improvement in the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates was the highest in the TPRW reach, and the seasons significantly affected the density of benthic macroinvertebrates. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Margalef's richness index were the most consistent with the changing trend of physical habitat quality and are effective indicators of the ecological effects of stream restoration measures in our study area. In this study area, TPRW is the preferred measure for streambank restoration of agricultural streams, and WTRW is the alternative measure. However, the ecological effects of WTRW need to be monitored over a more extended period to identify whether there is potential ecotoxicity in the process of weathering and decomposition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"208 ","pages":"Article 107377"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nature-based bank protection measures improve benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream draining an agriculturally dominated watershed\",\"authors\":\"Wenwen Zhu ,&nbsp;He Gai ,&nbsp;Yuxin Liu ,&nbsp;Min Zhang ,&nbsp;Kun Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Increased bank erosion is one of the most significant threats to agricultural stream ecosystems. However, it is challenging to ascertain whether bank restoration measures positively affect in-stream habitats and aquatic communities. This study evaluated three nature-based bank protection measures' short-term (2-year) effects on aquatic physical habitat quality and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a headwater stream in agricultural areas. The results demonstrate that nature-based bank protection measures can significantly improve the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The TPRW (timber piles + riprap + willow cuttings) and WTRW (waste tires + riprap + willow cuttings) measures exhibited the most pronounced improvement in the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates was the highest in the TPRW reach, and the seasons significantly affected the density of benthic macroinvertebrates. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Margalef's richness index were the most consistent with the changing trend of physical habitat quality and are effective indicators of the ecological effects of stream restoration measures in our study area. In this study area, TPRW is the preferred measure for streambank restoration of agricultural streams, and WTRW is the alternative measure. However, the ecological effects of WTRW need to be monitored over a more extended period to identify whether there is potential ecotoxicity in the process of weathering and decomposition.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"volume\":\"208 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002027\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

河岸侵蚀加剧是农业溪流生态系统面临的最大威胁之一。然而,要确定河岸恢复措施是否会对溪流栖息地和水生群落产生积极影响却很困难。本研究评估了三种基于自然的河岸保护措施对农业区上游溪流的水生物理栖息地质量和底栖大型无脊椎动物群落的短期(2 年)影响。结果表明,基于自然的护岸措施可以显著改善溪流中水生物理生境的质量。TPRW(木桩+护坡+柳条切割)和WTRW(废轮胎+护坡+柳条切割)措施对溪流水生物理生境质量的改善最为明显。在 TPRW 河段,底栖大型无脊椎动物的多样性最高,季节对底栖大型无脊椎动物的密度有显著影响。Shannon-Wiener多样性指数和Margalef丰富度指数与物理生境质量的变化趋势最为一致,是反映本研究区溪流修复措施生态效果的有效指标。在本研究区域,TPRW 是农用溪流河岸修复的首选措施,WTRW 是替代措施。不过,需要对 WTRW 的生态效应进行更长时间的监测,以确定风化和分解过程中是否存在潜在的生态毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nature-based bank protection measures improve benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream draining an agriculturally dominated watershed

Increased bank erosion is one of the most significant threats to agricultural stream ecosystems. However, it is challenging to ascertain whether bank restoration measures positively affect in-stream habitats and aquatic communities. This study evaluated three nature-based bank protection measures' short-term (2-year) effects on aquatic physical habitat quality and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a headwater stream in agricultural areas. The results demonstrate that nature-based bank protection measures can significantly improve the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The TPRW (timber piles + riprap + willow cuttings) and WTRW (waste tires + riprap + willow cuttings) measures exhibited the most pronounced improvement in the quality of aquatic physical habitat in streams. The diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates was the highest in the TPRW reach, and the seasons significantly affected the density of benthic macroinvertebrates. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Margalef's richness index were the most consistent with the changing trend of physical habitat quality and are effective indicators of the ecological effects of stream restoration measures in our study area. In this study area, TPRW is the preferred measure for streambank restoration of agricultural streams, and WTRW is the alternative measure. However, the ecological effects of WTRW need to be monitored over a more extended period to identify whether there is potential ecotoxicity in the process of weathering and decomposition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信