The potential and limitations of linking biological monitoring data and restoration needs of urbanized waterways: a case study.

Stanley Kemp
Author Information
  1. Stanley Kemp: Division of Science, Information Arts and Technology, University of Baltimore, 1420 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA, skemp@ubalt.edu.

Abstract

The implementation of effective strategies to mitigate the impacts of urbanization on waterways represents a major global challenge. Monitoring data plays an important role in the formulation of these strategies. Using monitoring and historical data compiled from around an urban area (Baltimore, USA), this paper is an assessment of the potential and limitations of the use of fish assemblage monitoring data in watershed restoration. A discriminant analysis between assemblages from urban and reference sites was used to determine faunal components which have been reduced or eliminated from Baltimore area waterways. This analysis produced a strong discrimination between fish assemblages from urban and reference sites. Species primarily associated with reference sites varied taxonomically and ecologically, were generally classified as pollution intolerant, and were native. Species associated with urbanized sites were also native, varied taxonomically and ecologically, and were mixed in pollution tolerance. One factor linking most species associated with reference sites was spawning mode (lithophilic). Spawning habitat limitations may be the mechanism through which these species have been reduced in the urbanized faunas. While this presents a strong general hypothesis, information regarding the specific habitat requirements and responses to urbanization of these species is limited. This represents a limitation to producing effective restoration strategies based on exact goals and targets. Without these, determining the type and number of restoration activities required to restore ecological communities remains problematic.

References

  1. J Fish Biol. 2009 Nov;75(7):1577-85 [PMID: 20738634]
  2. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1972-88 [PMID: 21939038]
  3. Environ Monit Assess. 2005 Sep;108(1-3):99-121 [PMID: 16160781]
  4. J Environ Manage. 2011 Apr;92(4):1138-47 [PMID: 21216519]
  5. Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Jul;154(1-4):413-26 [PMID: 18568406]
  6. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1932-49 [PMID: 21939035]
  7. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1926-31 [PMID: 21939034]
  8. J Appl Ecol. 2009 Feb;46(1):154-163 [PMID: 19536343]
  9. Environ Manage. 1997 Mar;21(2):203-17 [PMID: 9008071]

MeSH Term

Animals
Biodiversity
Cities
Ecosystem
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental Restoration and Remediation
Fishes
Urbanization

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sitesdatarestorationreferencestrategiesmonitoringurbanlimitationsassociatedurbanizedspecieseffectiveurbanizationwaterwaysrepresentsareaBaltimorepotentialfishanalysisassemblagesreducedstrongSpeciesvariedtaxonomicallyecologicallypollutionnativelinkinghabitatimplementationmitigateimpactsmajorglobalchallengeMonitoringplaysimportantroleformulationUsinghistoricalcompiledaroundUSApaperassessmentuseassemblagewatersheddiscriminantuseddeterminefaunalcomponentseliminatedproduceddiscriminationprimarilygenerallyclassifiedintolerantalsomixedtoleranceOnefactorspawningmodelithophilicSpawningmaymechanismfaunaspresentsgeneralhypothesisinformationregardingspecificrequirementsresponseslimitedlimitationproducingbasedexactgoalstargetsWithoutdeterminingtypenumberactivitiesrequiredrestoreecologicalcommunitiesremainsproblematicbiologicalneedswaterways:casestudy

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)