Biomonitoring of Human Impacts in Freshwater Ecosystems: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

By N. Friberg, N. Bonada, D. Bradley, M. Dunbar, François K. Edwards, J. Grey, R. Hayes, A. Hildrew, N. Lamouroux, M. Trimmer and 1 more. 2011

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Environmental Chemistry, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2005eae252fd96fbab60dc269fc5569e81ce7101

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Environmental Chemistry

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities (2017, background): “Most biomonitoring programmes take community composition and often abundance of taxa into account and calculate what is known as a biotic index (Friberg et al., 2011).”
The adaptive capacity of lake food webs: from individuals to ecosystems (2016, background): “However, researchers are arguing for more theoretically based biomonitoring approaches that mechanistically assess the multilevel responses of aquatic systems to perturbations (Woodward et al. 2010 b , Friberg et al. 2011 , Gray et al. 2014 ).”
More than just fish food: ecosystem services provided by freshwater insects (2015, background): “As biological indicators, their response to changing conditions is integrated overtime and space, potentially lowering sampling effort and cost compared with the high intensity of sampling often required when relying on chemical variables to detect certain impacts (Friberg et al., 2011).”
Freshwater food webs: towards a more fundamental understanding of biodiversity and community dynamics (2012, background): “routinely sampled in many monitoring programmes, we could rapidly generate new food-web data that span large environmental gradients at interannual-to-decadal scales (Woodward et al., 2010a; Friberg et al., 2011).”
Delivering on a promise: integrating species traits to transform descriptive community ecology into a predictive science (2013, unknown): “Understanding causality is a prerequisite for any biomonitoring or decision-support tool (Kearney and Porter 2009, Friberg et al. 2011).”
Integrating dispersal proxies in ecological and environmental research in the freshwater realm (2017, background): “For example, current bioassessment approaches infer effects 509 of environmental changes using the responses of bioindicators to environmental factors 510 (Hawkins et al. 2000a; Friberg et al. 2011).”
Biomanipulation as a restoration tool to combat eutrophication : recent advances and future challenges (2012, background): “, 2010, 2011), which have led to the development of numerous bioassessement, biomonitoring and restoration schemes to mitigate or, even reverse, these human impacts, that have had varying degrees of success (Feld et al., 2011; Friberg et al., 2011).”
Did you say reference conditions? Ecological and socio-economic perspectives on the European Water Framework Directive (2015, methodology): “As the reference condition concept, these biomonitoring tools rely mainly to the long obsolete concept of climax (see before) and do not consider the modern idea of species turnover and continua of community structure along environmental gradient (Friberg et al., 2011).”
Mesocosm Experiments as a Tool for Ecological Climate-Change Research (2013, background): “There is huge potential for climate change to generate dangerous synergies with other anthropogenic stressors because running waters have already been exposed to decades of pollution, introductions of exotic species, and habitat modification, which could have compromised their overall resilience (Fr”