Back

Global-scale quantification of responses to anthropogenic stressors in six riverine organism groups

Kaijser, W.; Schuerings, C.; Schneider, A.; Prati, S.; Musiol, M.; Wenskus, F.; Brauer, V. S.; Feldhaus, L.; Wagner, C. S.; Bayer, R.; Madge Pimentel, I.; Birk, S.; Mario, B.; Dunne, L.; Enss, J.; Farias, L.; Feld, C. K.; Gillmann, S. M.; Hupalo, K.; Osakpolor, S. E.; Olberg, S.; Schlautmann, C.; Schwelm, J.; Wells, N. E.; Sures, B.; Schaefer, R. B.; Hering, D.

2024-07-10 ecology
10.1101/2024.07.06.602319 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Rivers globally are impacted by numerous anthropogenic stressors, including water pollution, habitat degradation, and climate change, which collectively stress biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. This study systematically reviews and analyses published and unpublished data to understand how five aquatic organism groups (bacteria, algae, macrophytes, invertebrates, fish) respond to seven common stressors (salinization, oxygen depletion, fine sediment enrichment, temperature increase, flow modifications and nitrogen or phosphorus enrichment). Using an analytical framework that includes Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) and Robust Bayesian Meta Analysis (RoBMA), we extracted data from 143 relevant datasets out of 29,749 screened articles. Our results reveal a negative relationship between invertebrates and salinity, fine sediment enrichment, and temperature increase, while fish respond positively to increased oxygen levels and temperature. Bacteria and algae show variable responses, with algae positively associated with nitrogen. The findings highlight strong variability in stressor-response relations across organism groups and stressor types, and emphasize the need for more targeted studies on underrepresented groups like macrophytes and microorganisms. This analysis enhances the predictive understanding of stressor impacts on riverine biodiversity, informing future river ecosystem management and restoration efforts.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.