River Ecosystem Health Assessment in Rapid Urbanization Regions (Shenzhen, China) under the Guidance of Bioremediation Objectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Collection and Analysis
2.2.1. Sampling Points
2.2.2. Sample Collection
2.2.3. Sample Analysis and Identification
2.3. Construction of Assessment System
2.3.1. Principles of Evaluation Index Selection
2.3.2. Index System Construction
Hydrographic Features
River Morphology
Riparian Zone Index
Physical and Chemical Indicators
Aquatic Biological Indicators
Interference Intensity
2.3.3. Determination of Weight
2.3.4. Assessment Standards
3. Results
3.1. Water Quality and Aquatic Organism Community
3.2. Results of Water Ecological Health Assessment
3.2.1. Evaluation of Criterion Level
3.2.2. Comprehensive Evaluation Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Heterogeneity Analysis of River Ecological Health
4.2. Correlation between Water Environment Quality and Water Ecological Health
4.3. Bioremediation Suggestions
5. Conclusions
- A comprehensive survey of the river ecosystem in Shenzhen was carried out by setting up 47 sampling points. The results show that the proportion of heavily polluted water body sections was extremely high, with 39 sampling points inferior to Class V water quality, accounting for 86.7%. There are 99 species (genera) of planktonic algae, 92 species (genera) of epiphytic algae, and 53 taxa of macrobenthos in the whole river basin.
- The river ecosystem health assessment in Shenzhen showed that there was one sample point of “health” level and six “sub-health” sample points, accounting for 15%. A total of forty “poor” and “extremely poor” were sample points, accounting for 85%. In general, except for the Dapeng Bay and Daya Bay basins in the east, the water ecosystems in other basins are seriously degraded, and it is urgent to improve ecological functions and restore aquatic communities.
- The integrity of the water ecosystem of the Shenzhen River is seriously damaged, and the water ecosystem management system needs to be improved and strengthened. It is suggested to vigorously carry out the urban river water ecological restoration technology and strengthen the application of bioremediation technology with the goal of restoring aquatic communities.
- It is crucial to adopt the importance of shared international policy protocols (e.g., WFD) for investigating the state of river ecosystems. As future scope for research, long-term monitoring to evaluate the influence of urbanization on river ecological health is necessary. Additionally, more biological indicators (e.g., fish or macroaquatic plants) could be possible assessment indicators.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Criterion Layer (Weight) | Indicator Layer (Weight) | Evaluation Description | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Hydrographic features (0.05) | Flow rate and depth (0.030) | There are three or more type cases: “slow deep”, “slow shallow”, “fast deep”, and “fast shallow” | 3 |
There are only two cases | 2 | ||
There is only one case | 1 | ||
Almost no flow rate | 0 | ||
Water volume (0.020) | The water volume is large, and the river submerges about 75% of the riverbank | 2 | |
The water volume is relatively large, and the river submerges about 50% of the riverbank | 1.5 | ||
The water volume is average, and the river submerges 25–50% of the riverbank | 1 | ||
The water is small and the river is dry | 0.5 | ||
River morphology (0.07) | Substratum (0.041) | More than 50% are gravels, cobbles, boulders, and the rest are fine sand and other sediments | 3 |
30–50% are gravels, cobbles and boulders, and the rest are fine sand and other sediments | 2 | ||
10–30% are gravels, cobbles, boulders, and the rest are fine sand and other sediments | 1 | ||
Fine sand or hard substrate | 0 | ||
Channel curvature (0.003) | The number of significant river bends in the field of vision ≥3 | 1 | |
The number of significant river bends in the field of vision is 2 | 0.75 | ||
The number of significant river bends in the field of vision is 1 | 0.5 | ||
The river course is straight | 0.25 | ||
Channel change degree (0.013) | Channelization does not occur or rarely occurs, and the river channel maintains normal mode | 2 | |
There is less channelization, usually around the pier, which has little impact on aquatic organisms | 1.5 | ||
The channelization is relatively extensive. Embankments or bridge pillars appear on both banks, which has an impact on aquatic organisms | 1 | ||
Three sides hardened channel | 0.25 | ||
Bank stability (0.013) | The riverbank is stable, with erosion in a few areas (<25%) | 1 | |
The riverbank is relatively unstable and moderately eroded (25~50%) | 0.75 | ||
The riverbank is unstable, with serious erosion (50~75%), and there is risk of flood | 0.5 | ||
The riverbank is extremely unstable, and most areas are eroded (>75%) | 0.25 | ||
Riparian zone (0.12) | Habitat complexity (0.030) | There are aquatic vegetation, pools, sunken embankments, boulders, and other small habitats | 3 |
The above 2–3 niches | 2 | ||
The above 1–2 niches | 1 | ||
Single river habitat without change | 0 | ||
Width of riparian buffer zone (0.030) | >20 m | 3 | |
10–20 m | 2 | ||
5–10 m | 1 | ||
<5 m | 0 | ||
Land use type around riparian zone (0.030) | Forest, wetland, or park green space | 3 | |
farmland | 2 | ||
Municipal roads | 1 | ||
Residential areas or factories | 0 | ||
Vegetation of riparian zone (0.030) | More than 50% of embankments are covered with vegetation | 3 | |
50~25% of the embankment is covered with vegetation | 2 | ||
Below 25% of the embankment is covered with vegetation | 1 | ||
There is hardly any vegetation around the riverbank | 0 | ||
Physical and chemical indicators (0.24) | Dissolved oxygen (0.060) | >6 | 6 |
5–6 | 4 | ||
4–5 | 2 | ||
<4 | 0 | ||
Total nitrogen (0.060) | <0.1 | 6 | |
0.1–0.2 | 4 | ||
0.2–0.3 | 2 | ||
>0.3 | 0 | ||
Ammonia nitrogen (0.060) | <0.5 | 6 | |
0.5–1 | 4 | ||
1–1.5 | 2 | ||
>1.5 | 0 | ||
Total phosphorus (0.060) | <0.1 | 6 | |
0.1–0.2 | 4 | ||
0.2–0.3 | 2 | ||
>0.3 | 0 | ||
Aquatic biological indicators (0.32) | Algae diversity index (0.096) | 0.75–1 | 10 |
0.5~0.75 | 7 | ||
0.25~0.5 | 4 | ||
<0.25 | 1 | ||
Shannon Wiener diversity index of macrobenthos (0.064) | >3 | 6 | |
2–3 | 4 | ||
1–2 | 2 | ||
<1 | 0 | ||
Number of EPT classification units (0.080) | >4 | 8 | |
3–4 | 5 | ||
1-2 | 3 | ||
No EPT type | 1 | ||
Proportion of Oligochaeta (0.080) | <10% | 8 | |
10–30% | 5 | ||
30–50% | 3 | ||
>50% | 1 | ||
Interference intensity (0.20) | Biological invasion interference (0.080) | No invasive organisms | 7 |
The coverage area of invasive species in river channel and riparian zone is about 0~30% | 5 | ||
The coverage area of invasive species in river channel and riparian zone is about 30–60% | 3 | ||
The coverage area of invasive species in river and riparian zone exceeds 60% | 1 | ||
River interference intensity (0.120) | No obvious human interference | 7 | |
Play with water, fishing, boating, etc. | 5 | ||
Garbage, sewage outlet, or shipping channel | 3 | ||
River dredging or river sand mining | 1 |
Appendix B
Phylum | Taxa | Phylum | Taxa | Phylum | Taxa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyanophyta | Pseudoanabaena sp. | Chlorophyta | Coelastrum sp. | Bacillariophyta | Navicula graciloides |
Microcystis sp. | Westella sp. | Navicula dicephala | |||
Spirulina sp. | Closterium sp. | Navicula verecunda | |||
Oscillatoria sp. | Chlamydomonas sp. | Cymbella ventricosa | |||
Anabeana sp. | Polyedriopsis sp. | Cymbella delicatula | |||
Chroococcus sp. | Selenastrum sp. | Gomphonema sp. | |||
Sanvageau sp. | Pandorina sp. | Gomphonema parvulum | |||
Aphanothece sp. | Actinastrum | Pinnularia interrupte | |||
Gomphosphaeria sp. | Eudorina sp. | Achnanthes sp. | |||
Merismopedia sp. | Coelastrum reticulatum | Achnanthes exigua | |||
Raphidiopsis sp. | Micractinium sp. | Achnanthes biasolettiana | |||
Phormidium sp. | Schroederia nitzschioides | Nitzschia palea | |||
Aphanizomenon sp. | Chodatella quadriseta | Nitzschia stagnorum | |||
Chlorophyta | Scenedesmus quadricauda | Crucigenia tetrapedia | Nitzschia sigmoidea | ||
Scenedesmus dimorphus | Crucigenia quadrata | Surirella robusta | |||
Scenedesmus armatus | Crucigenia apiculata | Pyrrophyta | Glenodinium gymnodinium | ||
Scenedesmus denticulatus | Tetraedron minimum | Cryptophyta | Komma caudata | ||
Scenedesmus arcuatus | Tetraedron caudatum | Cryptomonas obovata | |||
Scenedesmus ecornis | Tetraedron trilobulatum | Cryptomonas erosa | |||
Pediastrum tetras | Dictyosphaerium ehrenbergianum | Cryptomonas marssonii | |||
Dicloster acuatus | Bacillariophyta | Cyclotella sp. | Campylomonas reflexa | ||
Ulothrix sp. | Tabellaria fenestrata | Aphanocapsa sp. | |||
Kirchneriella sp. | Melosira granulata | Euglenophyta | Trachelomonas sp. | ||
Kirchneriellacontorta | Melosira granulata var. angustissima | Trachelomonas allia | |||
Ankistrodesmus falcatus | Melosira varians | Phacus acuminatus | |||
Ankistrodesmus spiralis | Cocconeis placentula | Phacus granum | |||
Gomphosphaeria sp. | Diatoma vulgare | Euglena deses | |||
Oocystis sp. | Fragilaria brevistriata | Euglena acus | |||
Golenkinia sp. | Synedra acus | Euglena viridis | |||
Schroederia setigera | Synedra ulna | Lepocinclis sp. | |||
Nephrocytium agardhianum | Gyrosigma sp. | Chrysophyta | Dinobryon sp. | ||
Chlorella sp. | Cymatopleura sp. | Kephyrion littorale | |||
Cosmarium bioculatum | Stauroneis anceps | Xanthophyceae | Gonyostomun sp. |
Appendix C
Phylum | Taxa | Phylum | Taxa | Phylum | Taxa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyanophyta | Pseudoanabaena sp. | Chlorophyta | Closterium acerosum | Bacillariophyta | Cymbella parva |
Spirulina sp. | Characium sp. | Cymbella delicatula | |||
Anabeana sp. | Stigsoclonium sp. | Gomphonema sp. | |||
Microcystis sp. | Hyalotheca dissiliens | Gomphonema angustatum | |||
Schizothrix sp. | Hyalotheca swartzii | Gomphonema parvulum | |||
Lyngbya sp. | Actinotaenium sp. | Gomphonema parvulum | |||
Leptoiyngbya sp. | Gonatozygon sp. | Gomphonema gracile | |||
Lyngbya perelegans | Bacillariophyta | Cyclotella sp. | Gomphonema intricatum | ||
Calothrir sp. | Tabellaria flocculosa | Gomphonema abbreviatum | |||
Phormidium sp. | Melosira granulata | Gomphonema olivaceum | |||
Chlorophyta | Scenedesmus quadricauda | Melosira granulata var. angustissima f. spiralis | Pinnularia nobilis | ||
Scenedesmus dimorphus | Melosira varians | Pinnularia microstauron | |||
Scenedesmus obliquus | Cocconeis placentula | Pinnularia interrupte | |||
Scenedesmus denticulatus | Diatoma vulgare | Achnanthes sp. | |||
Scenedesmus perforatus | Fragilaria capucina | Achnanthes linearis | |||
Spirogyra sp. | Fragilaria brevistriata | Achnanthes biasolettiana | |||
Ulothrix zonata | Synedra amphicephala | Achnanthes exigua | |||
Ulothrix variabilis | Synedra ulna | Nitzschia palea | |||
Mougeotia sp. | Synedra ulna var.biceps | Nitzschia stagnorum | |||
Ankistrodesmus falcatus | Gyrosigma sp. | Nitzschia linearis | |||
Ankistrodesmus spiralis | Cymatopleura ellptice | Nitzschia amphibia | |||
Schizomeris sp. | Cymatopleura solea | Nitzschia sigmoidea | |||
Gongrosira sp. | Navicula viridula | Surirella linearis | |||
Sphaerocystis schroetri | Navicula graciloides | Surirella robusta | |||
Schroederia setigera | Navicula dicephala | Diploneis purlla | |||
Crucigenia quadrata | Navicula verecunda | Hantzschia amphioxys | |||
Klebsormidium scopulinum | Navicula oblonga | Coscinodiscus lacustris | |||
Klebsormidium fluitans | Navicula pupula | Eunotia arcus | |||
Chlamydomonas braunii | Cymbella sp. | Pyrrophyta | Cryptomonas obovata | ||
Chlamydomonas globosa | Cymbella perpusilla | Euglenophyta | Euglena viridis | ||
Golenkinia sp. | Cymbella ventricosa |
Appendix D
Phylum | Class | Family | Taxa |
---|---|---|---|
Annelida | Oligochaeta | Tubificidae | Branchiura sowerbyi |
Spirosperma nikolskyi | |||
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri | |||
Limnodrilus claparedeianus | |||
Limnodrilus udekemianus | |||
Aulodrilus limnobius | |||
Aulodrilus pluriseta | |||
Naididae | Nais variabilis | ||
Nephtyidae | Nephtys oligobranchia | ||
Hirudinea | Glossiphoniidae | Glossiphonia complanata | |
Erpobdellidae | Erpobdella octoculata | ||
Hirudinidae | Hirudo nipponia | ||
Whitmania pigra | |||
Mollusca | Gastropoda | Hydrobiidae | Oncomelania hupensis |
Aillpullaridae | Pomacea canaliculata | ||
Viviparidae | Bellamya purificata | ||
Bellamya aeruginosa | |||
Planorbidae | Gyraulus convexiusulus | ||
Hippeutis umbilicalis | |||
Melaniidae | Simisulcospira cancellata | ||
Physidae | Physa foncinalis | ||
Physa acuta | |||
Lymnaeidae | Radix ovata | ||
Radix swinhoei | |||
Neritidae | Nerita yoldi | ||
Bivalvia | Corbiculidae | Corbicula fluminea | |
Arthropoda | Crustacea | Palaemonidae | Palaemonetes sinensis |
Macrobrachium sp. | |||
Macrobrachium nipponense | |||
Atyoidae | Neocaridina denticulata | ||
Gammaridae | Gammarus sp. | ||
Insecta | Ephemeroptera | Baetidae | Baetis sp. |
Trichoptera | Hydropsychidae | Hydropsyche sp. | |
Polycentropidae | Neureclipsis sp. | ||
Rhyacophilidae | Rhyacophilia sp. | ||
Leptoceridae | Leptocerus sp. | ||
Odonata | Libellulidae | Aeschna | |
Coenagrionidae | Agriocnemis femina | ||
Corduliidae | Epitheca marginata | ||
Comphidae | Comphidae sp. | ||
Coleoptera | Elmididae | Elmididae sp. | |
Megalogtera | Corydalidae | Neochauliodes sp. | |
Diptera | Tipulidae | Antocha sp. | |
Chironominae | Polypedilum sp. | ||
Chironomus sp. | |||
Orthoclade | Orthocladius sp. | ||
Cricotopus sp. | |||
Eukiefferiella sp. | |||
Parakiefferilla sp. | |||
Tanypodinae | Tanypus sp. | ||
Paramerina cingulata | |||
Arctopelopia sp. | |||
Ceratopogonidae | Psychoda sp. |
References
- Sun, R.H.; Wei, L.R.; Zhang, H.P.; Chen, L.D. Current study and prospect of the river ecosystem health research- based on bibliometric research. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 3526–3536. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; Pang, X.; Wang, Z.J.; Yuan, X.Z.; Zhang, Y.G. Advances in research on the influence of urbanization on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 6275–6288. [Google Scholar]
- LIU, Q.; JIANG, Y.; Tian, Y.L.; Hou, Z.J.; He, K.J.; Fu, L.; Xu, H. Impact of land use on the DOM composition in different seasons in a subtropical river flowing through a region undergoing rapid urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1224–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, Y.R.; Wu, C.H.; Lv, Y.P.; Xiao, K.X.; Zhao, J.; Qian, G.R. Impact of rapid urbanization on the threshold effect in the relationship between impervious surfaces and water quality in shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Q.Y.; Zhang, Y.X.; Marrs, R.; Sekar, R.; Luo, X.; Wu, N.C. Evaluating ecosystem functioning following river restoration: The role of hydromorphology, bacteria, and macroinvertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanavelu, A.; Shrivastava, S.; Naganna, S.R. Streambed pollution: A comprehensive review of its sources, eco-hydro-geo-chemical impacts, assessment, and mitigation strategies. Chemosphere 2022, 300, 134589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, M.J.; Kay, W.R.; Edward, D.H.D.; Papas, P.J.; Richardson, K.S.T.J.; Simpom, J.C.; Pinder, A.M.; Cale, D.J.; Horitz, P.H.J.; Davis, J.A. AusRivAS: Using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, J.F.; Sutcliffe, D.W.; Furse, M.T. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques; The Freshwater Biological Association: Ambleside, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Barbour, M.T.; Gerritsen, J.; Snyder, B.D.; Stribling, J.B. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd ed.; U.S. EPA, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing Aframework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Voulvoulis, N.; Arpon, K.D.; Giakoumis, T.; Giakoumis, T. The EU water framework directive: From great expectations to problem with implementation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Lee, S.W.; Park, S.R.; Shin, Y.; An, K. Socioeconomic risks and their impacts on ecological river health in south korea: An application of the analytic hierarchy process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Y.L.; Tian, B.; Zhang, Y.; Qu, K.Y.; Qian, J.P. River health assessment in Xiong’an New Area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 5988–5997. [Google Scholar]
- El-Anwar, E.A.; Salman, S.A.; Asmoay, A.; Ahmed, E. Geochemical, mineralogical and pollution assessment of River Nile sediments at Assiut Governorate, Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2021, 180, 104227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Wang, Y.G.; Wang, X.; Wu, D.Y.; Wang, Y.Y. Establishment and Application of the Assessment System on Ecosystem Health for Restored Urban Rivers in North China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, X.Y.; Wang, Y.D.; Xiong, X.Y.; Cheng, C.Y.; Du, Y.C. Study on the variation and influence factors on river water quality in Shenzhen over the last forty years. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 44, 259–263. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, W.Q.; Lu, Y.; Qu, X.; Liu, H.; Xin, W.; Yu, W.J.; Zhou, W.Q.; Wang, W.M.; Chen, Y.S. River habitat assessment under urbanization: A case study in Shenzhen. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 8783–8793. [Google Scholar]
- Technical Code for Freshwater Biological Resources Survey (DB43/T 432-2009), China. 2009. Available online: https://max.book118.com/html/2020/0620/5102313021002310.shtm, (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Hu, H.J.; Wei, Y.X. Freshwater Algae in China: System, Ecology and Classification; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Editorial Board of Aquatic Biological Monitoring Manual of the State Environmental Protection Administration. Aquatic Biological Monitoring Manual; Southeast University Press: Nanjing, China, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Thorp, J.H.; Covich, A.P. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Morse, J.C.; Yang, L.F.; Tian, L.X. ; Aquatic Insects of China Useful for Monitoring Water Quality; Hohai University Press: Nanjing, China, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, K.J.; Ma, J.; Wu, L.P.; He, Y.J.; Jiang, X.F. Establishment of an urban river ecological health evaluation system. Water Resour. Prot. 2008, 24, 50–52+60. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C. Study on Construction and Assessment of Health River Index System of Chongqiong. Master’s Thesis, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhao, S.; Sun, M.D.; Lv, X.B.; Cai, W.Q.; Xu, X.Q.; Ge, H.X.; Lei, K. Assessment of river ecosystem health in Tianjin City, China: Index of ecological integrity and water comprehensive pollution approach. Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 15, 936–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ding, J.; Liu, Q.; Peng, Q.Z.; Kang, M.Y. Impacts of Land Use and Environmental Factors on Macroinvertebrate Functional Feeding Groups in the Dongjiang River Basin, Southeast China. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2016, 31, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ding, J.; Liu, Q.; Peng, Q.Z.; Kang, M.Y.; Wang, L.Z. Spatial variation of macroinvertebrate community structure and associated environmental conditions in a subtropical river system of south-eastern China. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2015, 416, 2015013. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, B.X.; Yang, L.F. Bioassessment of Qinhuai River using a river biological index. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2003, 23, 2082–2091. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, S.B.; Yuan, X.Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Y.W.; Ren, H.Q. River health assessment based on different biological indicators: A review. Chin. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 2211–2219. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Hou, Z.J. Eco-health assessment of Dongjiang RiverBasin based on index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) of macroinvertebrates. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2018, 27, 1502–1511. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.Y.; Ayi, Q.L.; Zhang, S.R.; Wu, X.R.; Wan, B.N.; Zhang, X.P.; Zeng, B. Comparative study on the suitability of periphytic algae and phytoplankton in river health assessment. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 3833–3843. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Zheng, B.H.; Liu, H.L.; Wang, X.Q. Health indicators and assessment of typical river ecosystems in Shenzhen. Water Resour. Prot. 2006, 5, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
- He, J.Y.; Wen, Z.P. Analysis of Water Environment Problems in Shenzhen Rivers and Discussion on Countermeasures. Environ. Prot. 2009, 6, 53–55. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Wu, J.C.; Song, L.X.; Li, B.; Ji, D.B.; Ran, Z.; He, J.Y.; Xu, Y.; Shi, H.Y.; Li, H. Health Assessment of River Ecosystem in the Shenzhen Maozhou River. J. Chin. Three Gorges Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2021, 43, 1–5+64. [Google Scholar]
- Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.J. Research Progress of River Restoration Research at Home and Abroad. J. Hydroecology 2012, 33, 142–146. [Google Scholar]
- Mazur, K. River Re-naturalization—A Nature-based Solution for Climate Change in Urban Areas. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1203, 022044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.L.; Xia, J.; Yang, F.; Yang, L.; Xu, F. Current situation, framework, problems and prospect of water ecological restoration in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 5054–5065. [Google Scholar]
- Warfe, D.M.; Barmuta, L.A. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 2004, 141, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Favas, P.J.C.; Pratas, J.; Rodrigues, N.; D’Souza, R.; Varun, M.; Paul, M.S. Metal (loid) accumulation in aquatic plants of a mining area: Potential for water quality biomonitoring and biogeochemical prospecting. Chemosphere 2018, 194, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiao, H.; Jia, J.; Chu, Q.; Liu, L. Effect of river ecological restoration by symbiotic system of aquatic plants. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 621, 012086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, P.D.; Wijnhoven, S.; Van, D.V.G. Macrophyte presence and growth form influence macroinvertebrate community structure. Aquat. Bot. 2021, 104, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecke, F.; Hellsten, S.; Jan, K.; Armin, W.L.; Jaana, R.; Sabine, S.; Joel, S.; Annette, B. The response of hydrophyte growth forms and plant strategies to river restoration. Hydrobiologia 2016, 769, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritz, K.M.; Feminella, J.W. Substratum stability associated with the riverine macrophyte Justicia americana. Freshw. Biol. 2003, 48, 1630–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- do Nascimento Filho, S.L.; Gama, W.A.; Ariadne, D.N.M. Effect of the structural complexity of aquatic macrophytes on epiphytic algal, macroinvertebrates, and their interspecific relationships. Aquat. Sci. 2021, 83, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Health Level | Score Range | Degeneration Degree | Characteristic Description |
---|---|---|---|
healthy | 80.1~100 | Undegraded | The river ecosystem is in a natural state, with stable structure and function, clean water, many kinds of aquatic organisms, high diversity, and good landscape value. |
sub-health | 60.1~80 | Mild degradation | The river ecosystem has been damaged to a certain extent, the water level has dropped, the water body is slightly polluted, the biological habitat environment has degraded, the biodiversity has decreased, and the function has declined, but it can still be restored naturally after the elimination of external stress. |
poor | 40.1~60 | Moderate degradation | The river ecosystem has been damaged to a certain extent, but the structure is still complete, water pollution and eutrophication are aggravated, biodiversity is low, some functions are lost, self-repair ability is reduced, and manual repair is required. |
extremely poor | 0~40 | Severe degradation | The river ecosystem is seriously damaged, the structure is out of balance, the function is seriously declining, and the water environment is seriously polluted. The river ecosystem is difficult to maintain and cannot be restored by natural means, so ecological engineering measures must be taken to promote its gradual restoration. |
Index | Water Quality | Diversity Index of Algae | Diversity Index of Macrobenthos | EPT | Oligochaeta % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Longgang River | Inferior V | 0.601 ± 0.203 | 0.938 ± 0.409 | 0.200 ± 0.632 | 0.395 ± 0.397 |
Guanlan River | Inferior V | 0.572 ± 0.163 | 1.107 ± 0.378 | 0.200 ± 0.447 | 0.162 ± 0.236 |
Daya Bay | Ⅲ~Inferior Ⅴ | 0.658 ± 0.085 | 1.643 ± 0.555 | 2.000 ± 1.414 | 0.009 ± 0.018 |
Dapeng Bay | Ⅳ~inferior Ⅴ | 0.685 ± 0.132 | 0.886 ± 0.334 | 1.000 ± 1.000 | 0 |
Shenzhen River | Inferior V | 0.644 ± 0.232 | 0.392 ± 0.349 | 0 | 0.183 ± 0.276 |
Pingshan River | Inferior V | 0.652 ± 0.331 | 0.892 ± 0.710 | 0.333 ± 0.578 | 0.118 ± 0.204 |
Shenzhen Bay | Inferior V | 0.535 ± 0.092 | 0.908 ± 0.280 | 0 | 0 |
Maozhou River | Inferior V | 0.758 ± 0.262 | 0.344 ± 0.378 | 0 | 0.494 ± 0.432 |
Pearl River Estuary | Inferior V | 0.551 ± 0.323 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Index | River Hydrology | River Morphology | Riparian Zone | Physical and Chemical Indicators | Aquatic Organism | Interference Intensity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
River hydrology | 1 | |||||
River morphology | 0.597 | 1 | ||||
Riparian zone | −0.052 | 0.119 | 1 | |||
Physicochemical indicators | 0.228 | 0.482 | 0.282 | 1 | ||
Aquatic organism | 0.548 | 0.667 * | 0.485 | 0.730 * | 1 | |
Interference intensity | 0.678 * | 0.827 ** | 0.337 | 0.590 | 0.863 ** | 1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fu, L.; Dong, X.; Shen, H.; Zhu, T.; Sun, F. River Ecosystem Health Assessment in Rapid Urbanization Regions (Shenzhen, China) under the Guidance of Bioremediation Objectives. Water 2023, 15, 3859. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15213859
Fu L, Dong X, Shen H, Zhu T, Sun F. River Ecosystem Health Assessment in Rapid Urbanization Regions (Shenzhen, China) under the Guidance of Bioremediation Objectives. Water. 2023; 15(21):3859. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15213859
Chicago/Turabian StyleFu, Lan, Xiaoyu Dong, Henglun Shen, Tianshun Zhu, and Fangfang Sun. 2023. "River Ecosystem Health Assessment in Rapid Urbanization Regions (Shenzhen, China) under the Guidance of Bioremediation Objectives" Water 15, no. 21: 3859. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15213859