1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 2. River and Coastal Environmental Research Center, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
Previous studies on river health evaluation mainly focused on characterizations at a river-corridor scale and ignored the complex interactions between the river ecosystem and other components of the river basin. Based on the consideration of the interactions among rivers, associated river basin and habitats, an assessment framework with multi-scale indicators was developed. An index system divided among these three scales to characterize the health of river ecosystems in China’s Liao River Basin was established. Set pair analysis was applied to integrate the multi-scale indicators and determine the health classes. The evaluation results indicated that the rivers in the western and eastern zones of the Liao River were classified as sick, and rivers in the main stream of the Liao and Huntai rivers were classified as unhealthy. An excessive level of disturbances, such as large pollution loads and dense construction of water conservation projects within the river basin, were the main causes of the river health deterioration.
. Multi-scale evaluation of river health in Liao River Basin, China[J]. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2011, 5(2): 227-235.
Fei XU, Yanwei ZHAO, Zhifeng YANG, Yuan ZHANG. Multi-scale evaluation of river health in Liao River Basin, China. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2011, 5(2): 227-235.
discharge of industrial and household wastewater divided by the basin's area, reflecting the impact of point-source pollution loads on rivers
intensity of fertilizer application
kg/m2
fertilizer application rate divided by the agricultural area, reflecting the impact of agricultural non-point source pollution loads on rivers
percentage of built-up land area
%
the land area used for urbanization, mining, and rural residents, expressed as a percentage of the basin's area, reflecting the detrimental impact of impervious surfaces on rivers
water consumption per unit GDP
m3 per 104 yuan
water consumption divided by gross domestic product (GDP), which reflects the utilization efficiency of water resources to sustain socioeconomic activities in the basin
soil and water loss rate
%
the percentage of the total basin area in which soil and water loss occurs, which reflects the comprehensive impact of land exploitation and natural conditions on rivers
NDVI
/
the normalized-difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is based on the near-infrared and visible red spectral reflectance: NDVI=NIR-RNIR+R, where NIR is the near-infrared spectral reflectance and R is the visible red spectral reflectance. NDVI reflects the state of the vegetation cover in the basin, which can be calculated from remote-sensing image data using the ENVI 4.4 software
river corridor
proportion of water quality that meets the legal standard for various water function zones
%
the proportion of the river’s length that meets the standards required by the water function zones defined for each part of the river, as a percentage of the total river length being evaluated, which reflects the river's water quality condition from the perspective of how the water will be used
exploitation rate of river water resources
%
the percentage of the river’s mean annual surface water resource that is exploited to supply water for human uses, which reflects the intensity of exploitation of the river's water resources
proportion of the ecological water requirements of the river that are met
%
the percentage of the ecological water requirement supplied by the river, which reflects the service potential for the river's ecosystem from the standpoint of water quantity
Shannon-Weaver diversity index for benthonic organisms
dimensionless index
the formula is H=-∑i=1s(ni/N)log?2(ni/N), where H is the diversity index; ni is the number of individuals of the i-th species in the sample; and N is the total number of all kinds of benthonic organisms. This index reflects the cumulative effect of habitat disturbance on these organisms
longitudinal connectivity index
individual per 100 km
the number of dams and other barriers to water flow per 100 km of river length, which reflects the disturbance of river continuity by such structures
vegetation cover in the riparian zone
%
the percentage vegetation cover in the riparian zone area, which reflects the current condition of riparian zone management
habitat
proportion of the ecological water requirements of habitats that are met
%
the percentage of the ecological water requirement supplied by the river, which reflects the state of ecological water supply to the habitats
proportion of habitats with water eutrophication
%
the percentage of the total number of habitats evaluated that are eutrophic, which reflects the water quality state of the habitats
area degradation rate of habitats
%
the percentage of the habitat area classified as degraded during the past 50 years, which reflects the degree of disturbance that habitats have sustained
habitat fragmentation index (FN)
dimensionless index
FN = MPS (Nf - 1) / Nc, where MPS is the mean area of all habitats; Nf is the total number of habitats; and Nc is the ratio of the total area of all habitats to the minimum habitat area. This reflects the degree of habitat fragmentation as a result of human disturbances
habitat patch cohesion index (PCI)
dimensionless index
PCI=[1-∑i=1m∑j=1npij∑i=1m∑j=1npijaij]×[1-1A]-1×100, where i and j represent habitat type and number, respectively; pij is the perimeter of the habitat; aij is the habitat area; and A is the total habitat area. PCI therefore reflects the spatial connectivity between the river and the habitats it sustains
Tab.1
Fig.2
scale
index
health class
weight (wj)
sick
unhealthy
sub-healthy
healthy
very healthy
basin
pollution load per unit area
>8.9
4.6 to 8.9
2.5 to 4.6
1.1 to 2.5
<1.1
0.03869
intensity of fertilizer application
>0.14
0.1 to 0.14
0.06 to 0.1
0.02 to 0.06
<0.02
0.03854
percentage of built-up land area
>15
10 to 15
5 to 10
1 to 5
<1
0.04916
water consumption per unit GDP
>220
190 to 220
160 to 190
80 to 160
<80
0.03862
soil and water loss rate
>60
40 to 60
20 to 40
10 to 20
<10
0.03870
NDVI
<0.1
0.1 to 0.3
0.3 to 0.5
0.5 to 0.7
>0.7
0.03866
river corridor
proportion of water quality that meets the legal standard for various water function zones
<40
40 to 70
70 to 95
95 to 100
100
0.07862
exploitation rate of river water resources
>55
45 to 55
35 to 45
20 to 35
<20
0.07794
proportion of the ecological water requirement of the river
<40
40 to 55
55 to 90
90 to 100
100
0.07833
Shannon-Weaver diversity index for benthonic organisms
<1.5
1.5 to 2.5
2.5 to 3.5
3.5 to 4.5
>4.5
0.08940
longitudinal connectivity index
>1.2
0.9 to 1.2
0.6 to 0.9
0.3 to 0.6
<0.3
0.04862
vegetation cover in the riparian zone
<40
40 to 60
60 to 80
80 to 100
100
0.04125
habitat
proportion of the ecological water requirements of habitats that are met
<40
40 to 60
60 to 90
90 to 100
100
0.08752
proportion of habitats with water eutrophication
>40
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
<10
0.07937
area degradation rate of habitats
>65
35 to 65
15 to 35
5 to 15
<5
0.07882
habitat fragmentation index (FN)
>0.7
0.5 to 0.7
0.3 to 0.5
0.1 to 0.3
<0.1
0.04911
habitat patch cohesion index (PCI)
<45
45 to 60
60 to 75
75 to 90
>90
0.04868
Tab.2
evaluation zone
ak
ck
rk
West Liao River
0.124
0.341
0.267
East Liao River
0.163
0.426
0.276
main stream of the Liao River
0.255
0.383
0.400
Huntai River
0.261
0.474
0.354
SI
0.302
0.083
0.783
SII
0.268
0.283
0.486
SIII
0.274
0.348
0.440
SIV
0.247
0.535
0.316
Tab.3
scale
overall health class
evaluation zone
basin
river corridor
habitat
West Liao River
sick
unhealthy
sick
sick
East Liao River
healthy
sick
sick
sick
main stream of the Liao River
sub-healthy
unhealthy
unhealthy
unhealthy
Huntai River
unhealthy
unhealthy
unhealthy
unhealthy
Tab.4
Fig.3
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
1
Townsend C R. Concepts in river ecology: pattern and progress in the catchment hierarchy. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie (Suppl. 113). Large Rivers , 1996, 10: 3–12
2
Chang Q, Zhang Y F. Theory and practice of aquatic ecosystem Restoration. In: Li H Y, Ju M T, eds. Theory and Practice of Ecological Restoration . Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2005, 90–91 (in Chinese)
3
Zhao Y W, Yang Z F. River health: concept, assessment method and direction. Scientia Geographica Sinica , 2005, 25(1): 119–124 (in Chinese)
4
Maddock I. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 373–391 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00437.x
5
Gao Y S, Wang H, Wang F. Construction of evaluation index system for river's healthy life. Advances in Water Science , 2007, 18(2): 252–257 (in Chinese)
6
Liu C M, Liu X Y. Healthy river and its indication, criteria and standards. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 2009, 19(1): 3–11 doi: 10.1007/s11442-009-0003-6
7
Boulton A J. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 469–479 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00443.x
8
Wu A N, Yang K, Che Y, Yuan W. Characterization of rivers health status and its assessment. Advances in Water Science , 2005, 16(4): 602–607 (in Chinese)
9
Huang Y, Wen H, Cai J L. Research progress on river health assessment based on environmental management. Ecology and Environmental Sciences , 2010, 19(4): 967–973 (in Chinese)
10
Karr J K. Assessments of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries (Bethesda) , 1981, 6: 21–27
11
Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B, Porcher J P. Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of ‘river health’ in France. Freshwater Biology , 2002, 47(9): 1720–1734 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00884.x
12
Silveira M P, Baptista D F, Buss D F, Nessimian J L, Egler M. Application of biological measures for stream integrity assessment in south-east Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2005, 101(1-3): 117–128 pmid:15736880
13
Zhang Y, Xu C B, Ma X P, Zhang Z, Wang J C. Biotic integrity index and criteria of benthic organisms in Liao River Basin. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae , 2007, 27(6): 919–927 (in Chinese)
14
Robert C, Petersen J R. The RCE: a Riparian, Channel, and Environmental Inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology , 1992, 27(2): 295–306 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1992.tb00541.x
15
Ladson A R, White L J, Doolan J A, Finlayson B L, Hart B T, Lake P S, Tilleard J W. Development and testing of an index of stream condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 453–468 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00442.x
16
Zhao Y W, Yang Z F, Yao C Q. Basic frameworks of health assessment and restoration of Yellow River. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation , 2005, 19(5): 131–134 (in Chinese)
17
Meng W, Zhang N, Zhang Y, Zheng B H. Integrated assessment of river health based on water quality, aquatic life and physical habitat. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China) , 2009, 21(8): 1017–1027 doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62377-3 pmid:19862913
18
Zhang F L, Liu J L, Yang Z F, Li Y L. Ecosystem health assessment of urban rivers and lakes —Case study of “the six lakes” in Beijing, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China , 2008, 2(2): 209–217 doi: 10.1007/s11783-008-0007-y
19
Zhao Y W, Yang Z F. Integrative fuzzy hierarchical model for river health assessment: A case study of Yong River in Ningbo City, China. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , 2009, 14(4): 1729–1736 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2007.09.019
20
Zheng B H, Zhang Y, Li Y B. Study of indicators and methods for river habitat assessment of Liao River Basin. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae , 2007, 27(6): 928–936 (in Chinese)
21
Su M R, Yang Z F, Chen B, Ulgiati S. Urban ecosystem health assessment based on emergy and set pair analysis—A comparative study of typical Chinese cities. Ecological Modelling , 2009, 220(18): 2341–2348 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.010
22
Zou Z H, Sun J N, Ren G P. Study and application on the entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae , 2005, 25(4): 552–556 (in Chinese)
23
Simpson J, Norris R, Barmuta L. AusRivAS-National River Health Program. User Manual Website version , 1999
24
Beijing Normal University. Water Ecological Protection and Restoration Plan in Liao River Basin. School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing , 2008 (in Chinese)
25
Zhang Y. Aquatic ecosystem zone and river health assessment in Liao River Basin, China. Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences , 2006 (in Chinese)
