Meet the team: Christian Feld
In our latest addition to our meet the team series, Christian Feld took some time out from his usual work assessing the health of rivers a to tell us about his work and inspirations. Christian is an aquatic biologist at the University of Duisberg-Essen and has expertise in river assessment, multivariate statistics, hydromorphology, and the analysis of biodiversity patterns.
1. What is the focus of your work for BioFresh, and why?
In BioFresh, me and my workpackage partners are interested in the effects of human ecosystem alteration on aquatic biodiversity. The team consists of experts in the realm of river, lake, wetland and groundwater biodiversity, which is why we are able to compare the response patterns of biodiversity among these different systems. With response patterns, we refer to changes in species richness or the dominance structure of species within a community. For example, plant or insect species richness are supposed to decline under human impacts from agricultural or urban land uses. That is why we use a tremendous amount of data from different freshwater ecosystems to seek for the relationship between species richness on the one hand and intensive human land uses on the other. But it is not only land use we are interested in. Human alteration (often referred to as “stress“) is manifold and may include pollution, habitat degradation or even temperature effects due to climate change.
2. How is your work relevant to policy makers, conservationists and/or the general public?
As the aim is to identify response patterns of biodiversity to human impact on rivers, lakes, wetlands and groundwaters, the outcome of our studies can inform policy makers and conservationists about the threat that these “stressors“ impose on aquatic diversity. We know that biodiversity continues to decline rapidly, worldwide and particularly in freshwater ecosystems. Thus, we need to urge, but also help decision makers halt the loss of diversity. If we can inform them about the main threats of biodiversity, they shall be able to initiate measures that can mitigate biodiversity loss. Our results show, for instance, that intensive agriculture is linked to the loss of river fish and insect diversity. Consequently, we suggest that such intensive forms of land use be buffered by riparian vegetation – trees, shrubs and grassland. Such buffers reduce the adverse effects of agriculture on the river ecosystem and can help improve the riverine organisms diversity.
3. Why is the BioFresh project important?
BioFresh is an excellent initiative that brings together the key experts in European freshwater science and beyond. But more importantly, our team involves the applied sector, that is organisations such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). I think that our project is a strong example of how scientists and practitioners can collaborate from the very beginning. Another strength of BioFresh is the data portal, which offers a great opportunity for scientists around the world to access and analyse global biodiversity data. This data will also be visualised through the BioFresh Atlas, so that our website has potential to become a future hot spot of freshwater biodiversity information.
4. What inspired you to become a scientist? 
This is a good question. And a difficult one. I’ve never thought about before., but probably it was my mentor during the diploma phase at the end of my studies at the University of Marburg in Germany. He is retired now, but used to be one of the “old-school“ limnologists. He was a brilliant teacher and showed me how we can make use of the tiny organisms in streams and rivers to let them tell us about their living conditions. In other words, he taught me river assessment using biological indicators. This was linked to my Diploma thesis and later on became the focus of my dissertation at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany. I’m still working on bioassessment systems and I love it.
5. What are your plans and ambitions for your future scientific work?
I think my most ambitious plan is to fully understand my research. I’m not kidding. During the many projects and studies I was involved in during the past thirteen years, I generated data, analysed data and published the outcome. But with each publication, there were new questions raised. With each analysis, new ideas arose. This, of course, is important as it is what drives science forward. But every once in a while, we scientists need to step back and think for a while. Think about how the bits and pieces may come together. Think about how our results could help practitioners doing their job more effectively. This is my ambition for the future.
A tour of EU-commissioned research on ecosystem services
In the second part of her guest video post, Dr Paula Harrison takes us on a brief and highly informative tour of the landscape of EU-commissioned biodiversity and ecosystem research.
Here are links to the projects mentioned by Paula
OpenNESS -Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services
OPERAs -Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications
RUBICODE – Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems
BESAFE – Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Arguments for our Future Environment
SPIRAL- Science Policy Interfaces for Biodiversity Research, Action and Learning
KNEU – Developing a Knowledge Network for European Expertise on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to Inform Policy Making in Economic Sectors
PRESS – PEER Research on EcoSystem Services
CLIMSAVE – Climate Change Integrated Assessment Methodology for Cross-sectoral Adaption and Vulnerability in Europe
LIASE – an Interdisciplinary Community of IA Researchers and Practitioners
STEP – Status and Trends of European Pollinators
Motive – Models for Adaptive Forest Management
ALARM – Assessing Large Scale Risks for Biodiversity with Tested Methods
Ecochange- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Changes in Europe
Read other articles in our Special Feature on Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Operationalising the ecosystem services concept: Dr Paula Harrison introduces two major new EU projects
Dr Paula Harrison has been involved in EU-commissioned biodiversity research for over twenty years. In this short video interview she outlines the aims and activities of two major new projects – OpenNESS and OPERAs – that aim to operationalise the concept of ecosystems services by applying it to a range of management problems. Together these two projects involve researchers from over 60 institutions across Europe and represent a five-year, Euro 18 million investment in ecosystem services research.
In the second part of this interview Paula will take us on a tour of EU-commission biodiversity and ecosystem research projects.
Read other articles in our Special Feature on Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
In this guest post Martin Sharman opens up a rich area of debate by arguing that as a policy concept, ecosystem services puts human wants first and foremost and undermines moral-aesthetic value arguments for conservation that are widely held in society.
A “resource” is something that is useful to someone. A “natural resource” is something in the natural environment that a human can use to satisfy want or increase wellbeing.
To adopt this vocabulary is to adopt a forthright utilitarian view of the natural environment, and implicitly to accept that human benefit is the only good. Not only is human benefit the only good, but it is quantifiable – for if not, then we can never agree on what constitutes a resource, or who has the greater right to it. Thus someone who speaks of natural resources accepts, again implicitly, that happiness and wellbeing can be quantified. The vocabulary also requires that this quantified human benefit remains, if not constant, then comparable over cultures and generations.
More than this: the wellbeing of the “resource” is insignificant. It is only by setting concern for the wellbeing of the resource to zero that one can regard it as merely something to satisfy human want. Human benefit is the only good. This is the First Commandment; in the limpid words of the King James version of the bible, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
In this observation lies much of the moral argument against the concept of ecosystem services: just as oranges are not the only fruit, so humans are not the only species.
The concept of ecosystem services is one thing; the premise of its proponents is another. It is, in short, that conservation based on intrinsic value of biodiversity has failed to stop the loss of species, ecosystems, and the complex web of interactions between them. Since an ethical argument has failed, then we should try self-interest. By demonstrating that human wellbeing is increased by the services rendered by ecosystems, we can motivate people to protect the source of the service – biodiversity.
We know that conservation is not working because we continue to lose biodiversity. Oh yeah? This is the equivalent of me deciding that my accelerator is not working because my car is losing speed. Why is such a daft non-sequitur accepted by otherwise intelligent people? You immediately thought of many reasons my car might be losing speed – I have the brakes on, I’m going up a hill, I’ve run out of fuel, I’ve run into sand, I’ve hit an oncoming truck. The obvious reason that we are losing biodiversity is the memento mori that stares at us from our looking glass – biodiversity loss is the inevitable result of our debt-based economic system and our swelling population’s unsustainable demands on nature. We all know that. Why do we mutely accept the dangerously diversionary nonsense that “biodiversity is being lost because conservation is not working”?
Ecosystem services takes the utilitarian logic of natural resources one important step further. A “service” by definition benefits humans. If we are to protect services only if they benefit humans, then what happens to the useless ecosystems? Are they simply to be cemented over?
I recently heard a discussion in which one person said “most people are useless”, meaning that they are surplus to requirement. The outrage that this provoked was spearheaded by someone saying that you can never prove that anyone is useless, because you can never know enough about their contribution to their social fabric. So does this mean that you can never show that an ecosystem is useless? If so that leaves the ecosystem services argument saying that because some ecosystems benefit humans, we have to protect every ecosystem.
Which may be the right answer, but why reach it by such objectionable means?
For those of us with a reverence of nature, the ecosystem services rhetoric and mindset are abhorrent, being fundamentally immoral and unethical. They take the most ecologically damaging invasive species in the history of life, and place it above all other species on Earth. They cast all other – voiceless – species in the role of consumables. This mindset might have worked for Homo habilis. It will not work for Homo sapiens.
Martin was the policy offer responsible for biodiversity and ecosystems in the European Commission’s DG Research & Innovation up until his retirement last November. During his career he made an enormous contribution to biodiversity research and policy, including the initiation of the BioFresh project. The opinions expressed in this post are, of course, his own and are not intended to represent a position of either the Commission or BioFresh.
Read other articles in our Special Feature on Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Five things to do on Danube Day
Today is International Danube Day – a day to celebrate this great trans-European river and the achievements of 18 years of international collaboration that has lead to a cleaner and safer river.
If you live within reach of the Danube or one of its tributaries there is really only one thing to do – turn off your PC or put away your mobile device and head out to spend the afternoon with the flow of the Danube. Once there you’ll easily find five things to do. Before you do log-off you may want to check out if there is a celebration happening near you.
The Schloegen double bend of the Danube river in Upper Austria. Source Wikimedia Commons: Author Techcollector
If, like me, the Danube is out of reach physically why not spend of few minutes engaging with the river though the wonderful networks of cyberspace. You might like to:
- Fire up Google Earth and follow the Danube along its 2,872 km journey from Donaueschingen in Germany’s Black Forest to the Black Sea where it’s delta forms the boundary between Romania and Ukraine.
- Open up Flickr, type ‘River Danube’ into the search box and browse through the myriad photos of the river uploaded by the community.
- Google ‘Sturgeon’ and brief yourself on the ecology, plight and cultural history of these fantastic but endangered life forms. “Get active for the sturgeons” is the slogan of today’s Danube Day.
- Explore the web-site of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. Brief yourself on what’s going on and what needs to be done to better conserve the biodiversity, traditions and economies that the river supports. Watch the video message from EU Commissioner for Regional Development Johannes Hahn.
- Lastly, and perhaps mostly importantly, do something however small to contribute to efforts to conserve and restore this special river. This might be as simple as tweeting a reflection (don’t forget to #Danube) or posting a comment on this or another blog or something, or something a little more substantive such as emailing your MEP expressing your support for activities to protect the Danube. Nowadays, most countries have web-portals that make it easy to write to MEPs such as this one for the UK.
Today, find some time to be with the Danube where-ever you are!
Paul Jepson
In this latest addition to our ecosystem services special feature, we highlight the LIVING RIVERS Foundation, an organisation that is working to protect and promote the amazing array of ecosystem services that our rivers provide.
Fishing boats on the Niger River Delta. Photo: Living Earth.
Rivers are a key part of our landscape. In their natural form they are a source of beauty. They provide us with places of recreation and they host a great variety of fascinating freshwater plants and animals. However, natural river landscapes are under threat from pollution and changes in land use. In addition, all over the world rivers are straightened, embanked and backed-up. As a result diverse river systems become homogeneous, wetlands disappear and water birds, fish, amphibians and other water depending organisms become fewer or even extinct.
The LIVING RIVERS Foundation is a small and young non-governmental organisation that is working protect our natural river landscapes and help rehabilitate degraded rivers. They do so by gathering, developing and exchanging information around river ecology and management. The intention is to network and bring experts, professionals and all those who feel committed to healthy river ecosystems together. They conduct event that bring people together, develop online educational material, and produce policy papers to influence the political discussion on river ecosystem conservation.
The LIVING RIVERS Foundation are currently focusing on the topic of ecosystem services of rivers. Lisa Schülting from the foundation told BioFresh that ‘as a small NGO we want to bring those experts together to address crucial scientific and political questions about [the ecosystem services of rivers].” “Which are the actual benefits of a natural ecosystem? Which services of a river may be monetised? What are the costs for the society if natural river processes and functions are altered? And can the concept be used to measure sustainability of a river? And, finally, which benefits are gained by river restorations and how can the concept be helpful regarding the Water Framework Directive, where might be conflicts?” asks Ms. Schülting.
Lisa Schülting from the LIVING RIVERS Foundation
Earlier this year, the LIVING RIVERS Foundation hosted a workshop discussing these and other questions with researchers and experts from governmental and non-governmental organisations working in this field. According to Schülting, the main findings of the workshop were that “the [ecosystem services] concept can help people to understand the importance of river protection. It won’t substitute other concepts, but will serve as an additional communication instrument. The concept can be helpful to show how valuable natural river ecosystems are and what costs society has to carry if they get destroyed.” In addition, Schülting believes that in the context of the Water Framework Directive, the ecosystem services concept “might offer the option to better understand the services lost if there is a deterioration from a good status. However, a lot of open questions have to be answered.”
Based on the outcomes of the workshop the Foundation will host a symposium on ecosystem services of rivers on October 23-24 with approximately 100 researchers and professionals to participate. You can find out more about the LIVING RIVERS Foundation and their work on their website and for any questions or suggestions you can contact them at info@living-rivers.org.
Read other articles in our Special Feature on Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
What is the ‘ecosystem services’ concept?
Within the past three decades, ecosystem services have risen to prominence within policy and academic circles. In this guest post, James Thomas Erbaugh from the University of Oxford talks about what ecosystem services are and introduces some of the tensions between an ecosystem services framework and biodiversity conservation.
The progression of ecosystem services within policy and academic writing has resulted in many redefinitions of what ecosystem services are. However, the current understanding of the ecosystem services concept is based on some common themes. As the UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guide to ecosystem services notes:
“There is no single way of [sic] categorising ecosystem services, but they can be described in simple terms as providing:
- Natural resources for basic survival, such as clean air and water
- A contribution to good physical and mental health, for example, through access to green spaces, both urban and rural, and genetic resources for medicines
- Natural processes, such as climate regulation and crop pollination
- Support for a strong and healthy economy, through raw materials for industry and agriculture or through tourism and recreation
- Social, cultural and educational benefits, and welling and inspiration from interaction with nature”
Thus, ecosystem services provide anthropogenic value, for example: pollination, fiber production, and water filtration. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), one of the most important projects to the proliferation of the ecosystem services concept, uses four categories when defining specific ecosystem services:
MEA categories of ecosystem services
Provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services help categorise what various ecosystem functions or components do that is of value to people. The conceptual definition and the categorisation of ecosystem services illustrate the primary function of the entire ecosystem services concept: translating ecosystem functions and components into commodities using economic or market-based logics. It is this translation that both confounds and permits the connection between ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.
Biodiversity is considered necessary for providing ecosystem services while biodiversity is also an ecosystem service itself. Maintaining a level of biodiversity is required for a functioning ecosystem to provide economically valuable services (provisional service). This was the original reason for advancing the ecosystem service concept; ecosystem services were introduced as an educational tool to raise awareness for biodiversity conservation. In this portrayal, biodiversity is a component of ecosystems that must be considered and protected if we wish to benefit from all other ecosystem services. The role of biodiversity is still important in the framework, but ecosystem services are seen as more than just an educational tool to promote biodiversity conservation.
Currently, those who use the ecosystem services framework seek to highlight how ecosystems contribute to commodities, markets, and how land should be valued. Ecological economist Robert Constanza and others, by demonstrating the economic value of ecosystem services, have been influential in promoting the concept. See here and here for key papers that introduce economic value to nature. These papers, and those related, sought to promote ecosystem services or payment for ecosystem services as a tool for economic valuation, policy-making, and conservation. Thus, in terms of biodiversity conservation the species diversity and richness of a particular area, or the existence of a charismatic species in a particular area, becomes a service that ecosystems provide, and can be valued within the market. Biodiversity is no longer a foundational cause for the ecosystem services concept, but one of the many anthropogenic benefits ecosystems provide. The problem is, if biodiversity is a functional component of all ecosystems, and if biodiversity is not conserved, then those ecosystems which provide a multitude of services could cease to function.
The difficulty of classifying biodiversity conservation within the ecosystem services agenda establishes the basic tension between these two concepts. This tension is philosophical: should biodiversity conservation be for its own sake, or is the utilitarian valuation of payment for ecosystem services the only important consideration? It is practical: how does biodiversity fit in the policy arena if ecosystem services is the dominant language? And it is personal: how should scientists, policy-makers, economists, or citizens best account for biodiversity conservation? And, for those of us compelled to promote biodiversity conservation throughout freshwater landscapes, determining how to navigate within the ecosystem services agenda is, above all, essential.
Works Cited:
Cardindale et al. 2012: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59-67.
Costanza, R., and Daly, H., 1992: Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology, 6, 1, 37-46.
Costanza, R. et al., 1997: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-60.
DEFRA, 2007: An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. London, Crown Copyright. Found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181882/pb12852-eco-valuing.pdf. [Accessed on: 29 April 2013]
Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P., and Montes, C., 2010: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209-18.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Found at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org [Accessed on 29 April 2013]
Petchey, O. L. and K. J. Gaston (2006): Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecology Letters, 9(6): 741-758.
Tilman et al. 1997: The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277:1300-1302.
Read other articles in our Special Feature on Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Fisherman on Inle Lake, Myanmar (Burma). The harvesting and consumption of freshwater species is just one of the many services that freshwater ecosystems provide. Photo: Shannon Holman
Over the last decade the notion of ecosystem services has transformed from metaphor into a mainstream policy framework. The concept of nature as a stock of capital that sustains flows of ecosystem services, which underpin and support economies and human well-being, nowadays has considerable currency. It was a central pillar of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and was reinforced in policy circles with the influential TEEB reports (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). The ecosystem services concept is actively being embraced by European Commission directorates responsible for regulatory frameworks and policy in the areas biodiversity, ecosystem restoration, sustainable land and water use, climate change mitigation, and the design of green infrastructure.
For biodiversity scientists the ecosystem services policy frame poses a straight forward but challenging question, namely “what is the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem processes, functions and services?” In these worrying economic and human-centric times this question can easily be re-framed as simply “how much biodiversity do we need? When faced with such questions, it is easy for people working on freshwater biodiversity to feel out of their depth (excuse the pun).
We can’t hope to answer questions of this magnitude in a blog special feature. However, the summer is a time to kick-back a little and to contemplate on the bigger questions. Whatever your view on the ecosystem services concept it is here to stay, for the time being at least, and it will change biodiversity science and policy. We all need to engage with it at some level so as to assure that freshwater biodiversity is not over-looked. This special feature aims to support such engagement though a series of posts that we hope will provide an accessible and interesting briefing on the underlying concepts, the state of the science-policy interface and some of the interesting issues and trade-offs that the ecosystem services concept generates. The articles included feature guest authors from inside and outside the BioFresh project, interviews with key actors, as well as pieces from the BioFresh blog editorial team.
Below is the list of posts we currently have in mind. If you think there is something missing and/or would like to contribute a post please get in touch. More importantly please extend and critique these posts by adding your comments. This is a complex and dynamic topic and the more voices the better!
Paul Jepson & Will Bibby
Feature articles:
What is the ‘ecosystem services’ concept? by James Erbaugh
The LIVING RIVERS Foundation: protecting and promoting the ecosystem services of rivers
Perspective: Martin Sharman on ethics and the ecosystem services paradigm
A tour of EU-commissioned research on ecosystem services by Dr Paula Harrison
What rivers do for us by Dr Christian Feld
Professor Victoria Strang: Thinking with water
Does ecosystem services need a radical critique? In conversation with Professor Victoria Strang
Perspective: Should the wildlife media pay for ecosystem services?
Water Funds an ideal ‘PES’ project – or better?
Highlighting an ecosystem services project in action: The DURESS Project
An update on the work that BioFresh is doing on ecosystem services
Biodiversity, ecosystem services and EU policy
Photo essay of the freshwater biodiversity present in a Thai food market
Bringing biodiversity in to the ‘food, energy and water security nexus’
Crayfish harvesting in the Thames – tackling a problem with a solution
This week the remarkable story of a one of the rarest frog in the world got even more incredible. Thought to be extinct, but rediscovered two years ago, the hula painted frog has now been declared a ‘living fossil’.
The elusive hula painted frog now turns out be a ‘living fossil’. Photo: Frank Glaw.
Last year, as part of our amphibian special feature the BioFresh blog reported on a campaign called the ‘Search for the Lost Frogs‘, which aims to find 100 species of frogs and other amphibian species that have been deemed ‘lost’. The hula painted frog was among them, and when it was rediscovered in 2011 it was one of the most highly prized finds of the whole campaign.
The frog, which has a distinctive dark belly with white spots, had only been seen 3 times and the last time had been nearly 60 years ago in 1955. Scientists had feared the worst for the species when it’s only known habitat, the Lake Hula marshes in Israel, was drained in the 1950’s. But, during a routine patrol in 2011, the frog hopped back into existence into the path of a stunned park ranger. There have since been another 10 sightings.
Now, scientists have added another layer to the story of this elusive amphibian: it is a ‘living fossil’. A living fossil is a term given to a species that has largely stayed the same over millions of years and that has few or no living relatives. This frog hasn’t just survived, hidden for 60 years in a swampy marsh in Israel. It has survived 15,000 years longer than its closest relative! The hula painted frog was originally thought to be a member of the genus Discoglossus. Scientists have now realised that the Hula painted frog is actually a member of the genus Latonia, previously only known through the fossil record and once widespread throughout Europe.
Female Hula painted frog (top left) and the typical habitat in the Hula reserve. Photo: Biten et al.
The revelation was made after scientists at Israel’s Ruppin Academic Centre performed DNA tests on tissue samples of the frog and the findings were published in the journal Nature Communications. “Nobody ever had a chance to see a Latonia because it went extinct in Europe. The only way anyone could see it was through looking at fossils,” said Professor Sarig Gafny, co-author of the study. “But then with every characteristic that you look at in the current Hula painted frogs, it matches that of the fossils of Latonia and not that of the Discoglossus… So this is a living fossil.”
Other amazing amphibians that have been rediscovered are the Rio Pescado stubfoot toad, the Chalazodes bubble-nest frog, last seen in 1874 and the Silent Valley tropical frog, which was incredibly found sitting in the bottom of a rubbish bin!
While this is a huge win for conservation, there are still over 200 species of amphibians that remain ‘lost’, perhaps forever. Amphibians the world over are facing an extinction crisis with the main threats coming from habitat loss, climate change and a deadly fungal disease. The rediscovery of the hula painted frog is a reminder not only of the resilience of nature, but also of what we stand to lose. It is at once a sign of hope, and a call to further action.
Freshwater biodiversity ranges from the giant Mekong catfish to the myriad microscopic aquatic lifeforms. But these tiny examples of freshwater life seldom receive attention. In this guest post, Katja Lehmann, a microbial ecologist with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, joins BioFresh to discuss a new campaign called River Sampling Day to help us learn more about these important microbial freshwater organisms. 
River microbes are at the heart of many essential ecosystem services, playing important roles in the cycling of nutrients and carbon, maintaining water quality and the clean-up of pollution in our waterways. Despite the importance of microbial diversity in rivers, these microscopic bacterial communities are greatly under-researched. The lack of comprehensive data prevents us from fully understanding even basic processes.
Katja Lehmann in the lab.
What, for example, are the main actors influencing microbial communities in rivers? Do river microbial communities differ from river to river or are there clear patterns? Can we determine the nature of the river by looking at its biofilm? How do pollutants in run-off and sewage effluent change river bacterial communities? And, does pollution damage riverine communities – and ourselves – by breeding riverine ‘superbacteria’?
To help address this gap in knowledge and pose answers to some of these question, we are launching River Sampling Day (RSD), a simultaneous sampling campaign of the world’s rivers. River Sampling Day will be held on the solstices with the first ever pilot event to be held on June 21, 2013. River Sampling Day is a sister initiative to Ocean Sampling Day, the global marine sampling campaign which is part of the EU-funded Micro B3.
The River Sampling Day event aims to build a network of collaborators which we hope will form the core of an international freshwater Genomic Observatories Network. We aim to use the data generated to develop an index of ‘indigenous’ to ‘transient’ bacteria to serve as a potential predictor of river health, as well as to develop an Ecological Niche Modelling approach in collaboration with BioVEL, a virtual e-laboratory that supports biodiversity research.
A sampling site in Oxford.
For the June solstice water and sediment samples will be collected from various locations to analyse for microbial diversity and function. We currently have a list of 45 locations from Oxfordshire to Australia – and counting – and we would like to invite external researchers to join the River Sampling Day.
River sampling in action.
Ideally, all the samples should be taken between 10.00 and 14.00 GMT on the solstices. If this is not possible, researchers should contact us for alternative arrangements. The sampling itself should take approximately 20 minutes per sampling location. We supply the sampling protocol and also have a limited number of sampling kits available for sites that do not have any microbial sampling expertise.
If you are associated with a river research site or other regular river research activity and would like to participate in the River Sampling Day pilot study please register by clicking here.
For any questions please email riversamplingday@gmail.com.
The Freshwater Blog 