Cited by 113Fish Ecology and Management StudiesHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

From meta-system theory to the sustainable management of rivers in the Anthropocene

Open access
Cid, Núria, Erős, Tibor, Heino, Jani, Singer, Gabriel, Jähnig, Sonja C, Cañedo‐Argüelles, Miguel, Bonada, Núria, Sarremejane, Romain +5 more·2022·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

Regional‐scale ecological processes, such as the spatial flows of material, energy, and organisms, are fundamental for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in river networks. Yet these processes remain largely overlooked in most river management practices and underlying policies. Here, we propose adoption of a meta‐system approach, where regional processes acting at different levels of ecological organization – populations, communities, and ecosystems – are integrated into conventional river conservation, restoration, and biomonitoring. We also describe a series of measurements and indicators that could be assimilated into the implementation of relevant biodiversity and environmental policies. Finally, we highlight the need for alternative management strategies that can guide practitioners toward applying recent advances in ecology to preserve and restore river ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide, in the context of increasing alteration of river network connectivity worldwide.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fee.2417

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The response lag for biotic indices likely relates to dispersal and establishment limitations.

    “In contrast, the response lag for biotic indices likely relates to dispersal and establish­ ment limitations which are common, and several recent reviews of metacommunity theory and practice in freshwaters have therefore advocated for the potential reintroduction of aquatic assemblages (Cid et al., 2021; Patrick et al., 2021).”

    From A meta-analysis of environmental responses to freshwater ecosystem restoration in China (1987–2018) (2023) · cites this paper as Cid et al., 2021

    In “Integrating regional-scale processes in river conservation, restoration, and monitoring” (page unavailable), the paper says dispersal limitation can affect biomonitoring and that fragmentation can impede recolonization of restored sites. It does not specifically attribute a temporal lag in biotic indices to dispersal and establishment limitations, or advocate reintroducing aquatic assemblages. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Organisms with different niches are influenced by physicochemical and biological factors as well as dispersal success in more complex ways, leading to greater stochasticity.

    “organisms with different niches are influenced by physicochemical and biological factors as well as dispersal success in more complex ways, leading to greater stochasticity (Cid et al., 2021; Thompson and Town­ send, 2006).”

    From A meta-analysis of environmental responses to freshwater ecosystem restoration in China (1987–2018) (2023) · cites this paper as Cid et al., 2021

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says that local niche selection and biotic interactions interact with regional dispersal to shape populations and communities. The meta-system theory section (page unavailable) likewise discusses abiotic conditions, other species, and constraints on dispersal. Neither passage says these interactions lead to greater stochasticity, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]Acreman M, Hughes KA, Arthington AH, et al. 2020. Protected areas and freshwater biodiversity: a novel systematic review distils eight lessons for effective conservation. Conserv Lett 13: e12684.
  2. [2]Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, and Gonzalez A. 2017. Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land‐use change. Conserv Biol 31: 1383– 96. 28383758
  3. [3]Bellmore JR, Pess GR, Duda JJ, et al. 2019. Conceptualizing ecological responses to dam removal: if you remove it, what’s to come? BioScience 69: 26– 39. 30647476 PMC6327834
  4. [6]Chen W and Olden JD. 2017. Designing flows to resolve human and environmental water needs in a dam‐regulated river. Nat Commun 8: 1– 10. 29255194 PMC5735146
  5. [7]Cid N, Bonada N, Heino J, et al. 2020. A metacommunity approach to improve biological assessments in highly dynamic freshwater ecosystems. BioScience 70: 427– 38. 32440024 PMC7231578
  6. [9]Datry T, Boulton AJ, Bonada N, et al. 2017. Flow intermittence and ecosystem services in rivers of the Anthropocene. J Appl Ecol 55: 353– 64. PMC5907507 29681651
  7. [13]Dudgeon D. 2019. Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr Biol 29: R960– 67. 31593677
  8. [15]Erős T and Bányai Z. 2020. Sparing and sharing land for maintaining the multifunctionality of large floodplain rivers. Sci Total Environ 728: 138441. 32361357
  9. [19]Fitzpatrick SW and Reid BN. 2019. Does gene flow aggravate or alleviate maladaptation to environmental stress in small populations? Evol Appl 12: 1402– 16. 31417623 PMC6691220
  10. [20]Fuller MR, Doyle MW, and Strayer DL. 2015. Causes and consequences of habitat fragmentation in river networks. Ann NY Acad Sci 1355: 31– 51. 26267672
  11. [21]Fullerton AH, Anzalone S, Moran P, et al. 2016. Setting spatial conservation priorities despite incomplete data for characterizing metapopulations. Ecol Appl 26: 2558– 78. 27865061
  12. [22]Gounand I, Harvey E, Little CJ, and Altermatt F. 2018. Meta‐ecosystems 2.0: rooting the theory into the field. Trends Ecol Evol 33: 36– 46. 29102408
  13. [24]Hagen M, Kissling WD, Rasmussen C, et al. 2012. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. In: Jacob U and Woodward G (Eds). Advances in ecological research: global changes in multispecies systems, part 1. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  14. [26]Heino J. 2013. The importance of metacommunity ecology for environmental assessment research in the freshwater realm. Biol Rev 88: 166– 78. 22937892
  15. [30]Jaeger KL, Olden JD, and Pelland NA. 2014. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 13894– 99. PMC4183275 25136090
  16. [35]Markovic D, Carrizo SF, Kärcher O, et al. 2017. Vulnerability of European freshwater catchments to climate change. Glob Change Biol 23: 3567– 80. 28186382
  17. [39]Paz‐Viñas I, Loot G, Hermoso V, et al. 2018. Systematic conservation planning for intraspecific genetic diversity. P Roy Soc B‐Biol Sci 285: 20172746. PMC5936726 29695444
  18. [41]Rahel FJ and McLaughlin RL. 2018. Selective fragmentation and the management of fish movement across anthropogenic barriers. Ecol Appl 28: 2066– 81. 30168645
  19. [43]Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, et al. 2019. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev 94: 849– 73. 30467930
  20. [44]Ruhí A, Catford JA, Cross WF, et al. 2019. Understanding the nexus between hydrological alteration and biological invasions. In: Sabater S, Elosegi A, and Ludwig R (Eds). Multiple stressors in river ecosystems. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
  21. [45]Ruhí A, Datry T, and Sabo JL. 2017. Interpreting beta‐diversity components over time to conserve metacommunities in highly dynamic ecosystems. Conserv Biol 31: 1459– 68. 28188969
  22. [47]Simons AL, Mazor R, Stein ED, and Nuzhdin S. 2019. Using alpha, beta, and zeta diversity in describing the health of stream‐based benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol Appl 29: e01896. 31051052
  23. [51]Swan CM and Brown BL. 2017. Metacommunity theory meets restoration: isolation may mediate how ecological communities respond to stream restoration. Ecol Appl 27: 2209– 19. 28718193

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cid, N., Erős, T., Heino, J., Singer, G., Jähnig, S. C., Cañedo‐Argüelles, M., Bonada, N., Sarremejane, R., Mykrä, H., Sandin, L., Paloniemi, R., Varumo, L., & Datry, T.
Affiliations
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • HUN-REN Balaton Limnological Research Institute (HU)
  • Finnish Environment Institute (FI)
  • Universität Innsbruck (AT)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • Freshwater Ecology, Hydrology and Management Research Group Departament de Biologia Evolutiva Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals Facultat de Biologia Universitat de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
  • Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NO)
Corresponding author
Cid, Núria
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-10-05
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
49-57
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
OpenAlex
W3202447693
Cited by
113
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 2
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • EcoEvoRxiv (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • EcoEvoRxiv (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01LN1320A)
  • Academy of Finland
  • European Regional Development Fund
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (N°869226)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
river management, river networks, river connectivity, ecosystem services, river restoration, river conservation, biomonitoring, biodiversity indicators, environmental policy, Anthropocene, ecosystem functioning, material and energy flows

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review