ReviewEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Use of ecosystem health indicators for assessing anthropogenic impacts on freshwaters in Argentina: a review.
Review in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Indicators of ecosystem health are effective tools to assess freshwater ecosystem impairment. However, they are scarcely used as a monitoring tool by local environmental agencies in Argentina. Here, we review the literature to analyze the use of ecosystem health indicators in freshwaters from Argentina. We found 91 scientific articles relating to the use of ecological indices to assess the impact of different environmental stressors in aquatic environments published between 1996 and 2019. We generated Google Earth map where we deployed the sampling sites and type of indices reported by each article. As biological indices were the most used, we also surveyed bioindication experts to gather information on their application. We found that most studies were concentrated mainly in Pampas (34%), Dry Chaco (20%), Espinal (12%), and Patagonian Steppe (10%) ecoregions. Biological indices (mainly with invertebrates) were more used than geomorphological or physico-chemical indices. Indices resulted useful to evaluate the impact of stressors in 63% of cases, being land use the most studied stressor. However, sampling design varied greatly among studies, making their comparison difficult. The information compiled here could help to the design of monitoring protocols, the adoption of regional indices, and the creation of a national inventory of ecosystem health status, which are mandatory to propose well-grounded conservation and management policies for freshwaters in Argentina.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32870472What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.