3 results
Contributors
-
- By Mona Aboulghar, Mostafa Abuzeid, Valentine Akande, Carolyn J. Alexander, Gautam N. Allahbadia, Vicki Arguello, Nabil Aziz, Osama M. Azmy, Shawky Z. A. Badawy, Susan L. Baker, Tony Bazi, Nicole Brooks, Robin Brown, William W. Brown, Maria Cerrillo, Rebecca Chilvers, Angela Clough, Willie Cotten, Alan H. DeCherney, Aygul Demirol, Richard Palmer Dickey, Essam S. Dimitry, Maria Dimitry, Tiffany Driver, Alaa El-Ebrashy, Kareem El-Nahhas, Amr Etman, Aimee Eyvazzadeh, Juan A. Garcia-Velasco, Tarek A. Gelbaya, Seth Granberg, Timur Gurgan, Gurkan Levent, Suleyman Guven, Lars Hamberger, Andrew C. Harbin, Wayne J. G. Hellstrom, Micah J. Hill, James Hole, Yakoub Khalaf, John C. LaFleur, Deborah Levine, Iwan Lewis-Jones, Edward A. Lyons, Diana M. Marcus, Samuel F. Marcus, Mohamed F. M. Mitwally, Hany F. Moustafa, Manubai Nagamani, Luciano G. Nardo, Mary G. Nawar, Moshood Olatinwo, Lia Ornat, Sheri Owens, Kathy B. Porter, Jose M. Puente, Puscheck Elizabeth, Rizk Botros, Christine B. Rizk, Christopher B. Rizk, Hassan N. Sallam, Dimitrios Siassakos, Youssef Simaika, Stuart J. Singer, Brad Steffler, Annika Strandell, Sherri K. Taylor, Antoine Watrelot, Matts Wikland, Tony G. Zreik
- Edited by Botros R. M. B. Rizk, University of South Alabama
-
- Book:
- Ultrasonography in Reproductive Medicine and Infertility
- Published online:
- 07 September 2011
- Print publication:
- 25 March 2010, pp ix-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Ecological monitoring and assessment of pollution in rivers
-
- By J. Iwan Jones, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom, John Davy-Bowker, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom, John F. Murphy, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom, James L. Pretty, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom
- Edited by Lesley C. Batty, University of Birmingham, Kevin B. Hallberg, University of Wales, Bangor
-
- Book:
- Ecology of Industrial Pollution
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 18 February 2010, pp 126-146
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Many organisms respond to pollution in a predictable way, and it has long been realised that the biota can be used to determine the extent of pollution at a site, a technique termed biomonitoring. Much of the science of biomonitoring developed in aquatic systems, driven by concerns about the impact of industrial and domestic pollution on potable water resources. Over the past century, aquatic biomonitoring has travelled a long way from the early methodologies, and much about the pitfalls and benefits of using biota to assess pollution or other stressors has been discovered. Here we describe the history of biomonitoring and how our understanding has developed, with particular focus on RIVPACS (River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System). This system marked a major advance in biomonitoring techniques, introducing the reference condition approach, where the physical and geographical characteristics of the river were taken into account when determining what taxa would be expected to be present if the site were not polluted. Assessment of a site was then based on a comparison of the observed community and derived scores, to that expected if the site were not polluted. RIVPACS was also the first biomonitoring tool to incorporate a measure of uncertainty; any assessment is based on spatially and temporally variable samples and it is necessary to calculate the confidence associated with the quality class derived using these samples.
7 - Body size and trophic cascades in lakes
-
- By J. Iwan Jones, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK, Erik Jeppesen, National Environmental Research Institute; University of Aarhus Denmark
- Edited by Alan G. Hildrew, Queen Mary University of London, David G. Raffaelli, University of York, Ronni Edmonds-Brown, University of Hertfordshire
-
- Book:
- Body Size: The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems
- Published online:
- 02 December 2009
- Print publication:
- 12 July 2007, pp 118-139
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Since its first appearance (Hairston, Smith & Slobodkin, 1960), the hypothesis that predation can structure communities has courted controversy (Shapiro, Lamarra & Lynch, 1975; Strong, 1992; McCann, Hastings & Strong, 1998). Nearly 50 years later there is still ongoing debate over the importance of predation relative to other factors limiting the growth of populations (Pace et al., 1999; Holt, 2000; Polis et al., 2000; Power, 2000), and the conditions that cause the effect of predation to cascade through the community (Polis & Strong, 1996; Schmitz, Krivan & Ovadia, 2004; Borer et al., 2005; Vander Zanden, Essington & Vadeboncoeur, 2005). With the discovery of predator impacts on the structure and dynamics of a diversity of real communities (Paine, 1980; Power, Matthews & Stewart, 1985; Carpenter & Kitchell, 1993), it became apparent that higher trophic levels could affect the biomass and dynamics of not only their prey, but of their prey's prey and, hence, the whole community. Earlier it was assumed that communities were typically pyramidal in structure, with declining biomass in each successive trophic level, and the dynamics of each trophic level dependent upon those of their prey and ultimately the primary producers/basal resources (Whittaker, 1961). It is now clear from habitats as diverse as Californian islands (Roemer, Donlan & Courchamp, 2002), the forests of Yellowstone Park (Ripple & Beschta, 2004) and the cod banks of the North Atlantic (Worm & Myers, 2003; Frank et al. 2005) that this assumption is not correct, such that nowadays the predictions of the trophic cascade influence how we manage our natural environment (Scheffer, 1998).