AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2576

Editorial

Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation

JUERGEN GEIST*
Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Technische Universität München, Germany

INTRODUCTION considered to be in unfavourable conservation status

Among the students at my university there are
biologists, landscape architects, agricultural and forest
scientists, sustainable resource managers, as well as
engineers who all have very different ideas of how we
should approach freshwater conservation. This leads
to a need for some general guidelines understandable
for experts and practitioners in all of those fields. The
aim of this article is to discuss current directions in
freshwater conservation and their problems in order
to arrive at some general guidelines that may help
improve aquatic conservation.
DIRECTIONS IN FRESHWATER
CONSERVATION
The value of freshwater biodiversity and the need for
its conservation are increasingly being recognized,
including the diversity of ecosystems and habitats,
communities and species, intraspecific and genetic
diversity, as well as functional diversity (Dudgeon
et al., 2006; Geist, 2011). Globally, habitats
associated with 65% of continental water discharge
are classified as moderately to highly threatened
(Vörösmarty et al., 2010) and challenges facing
freshwater ecosystems are immense (Boon and
Pringle, 2009). In Europe, an average of 60% of
protected species and 77% of habitat types are
*Correspondence to: Juergen Geist, Chair of Aquatic Systems Biology,
Technische Universität München, Mühlenweg 22, D-85354 Freising,
Germany. E-mail: geist@wzw.tum.de
with an even higher proportion in rivers, lakes and
wetlands, and deteriorating trends in freshwater
biodiversity dominate recent outlooks (EEA, 2015).
The awareness of the need for freshwater
conservation was originally driven strongly by
studies that emphasized this loss of biodiversity,
often at rates exceeding those in terrestrial
or marine ecosystems (reviewed in Strayer and
Dudgeon, 2010). However, as recently addressed
by Dudgeon (2014), there is no consensus
on whether freshwater conservation should
emphasize the value of biodiversity irrespective of
its value to mankind, as proposed by Soulé (1985)
in his original definition of ‘conservation biology’,
or the conservation of ecosystem functions and
services (Omerod, 2014) as originally proposed by
Moss (2000), which Kareiva and Marvier (2012)
define as ‘conservation science’. At first glance, the
difference between these two approaches may
appear marginal, but it can greatly affect the
direction and possible outcomes of conservation
action.
Another distinction that can be made concerning
conservation approaches is whether the action is
focused on improving a single target such as a
highly valued fish species, or restoration of
functional processes such as the natural river flow
regime or the removal of bank stabilization to allow
natural erosion processes to occur. Irrespective of
the specific objectives in restoration, conservation
planning should follow a systematic approach

Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

448 EDITORIAL
(Linke et al., 2011) with the success of the
conservation action fully evaluated (Pander and
Geist, 2013; Palmer et al., 2014), both of which
rarely happen (Pander and Geist, 2013).
In this paper, I ask why many of the current
efforts in freshwater biodiversity conservation
and restoration have not been as successful as
expected, using examples of fish and mussels from
stream ecosystems. I will then suggest a step-wise
approach that may help improve conservation in
the future.
PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT
CONSERVATION APPROACHES
There are often pronounced differences between
conservation theory and practice. Although most
freshwater conservation scientists suggest that
natural processes should be given priority, the
greatest effort is typically spent on a few target
species: flagships, indicators, umbrellas and
keystones (Geist, 2010). Most often, target species
are so-called flagship species, i.e. iconic and
charismatic species that appeal to the public but
that are – in contrast to keystone species – not
usually of overwhelming importance for ecosystem
resilience or functioning. Marine examples are the
coelacanths (Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria
menadoensis) which are undoubtedly among the
most charismatic, well-known and most threatened
fish species on the globe, but whose occurrence
in small numbers probably does not greatly affect
the functioning of the oceans. Sometimes species
can also simultaneously fulfill the criteria of
flagships, keystones, umbrellas and indicators.
Salmonids provide a classic example, with species
that are flagships because of their importance for
recreational or commercial fisheries such as the
European huchen (Hucho hucho), Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) or Pacific salmonids (Onchorhynchus
spp.), but which are at the same time indicators of
river connectivity, water and substrate quality, as
well as keystones due to their importance in nutrient
input and food webs (e.g. Pacific salmon) or
regulatory functions as top predators (e.g. huchen).
Since diadromous salmonid species at the same time
depend on large home ranges for migration as well
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
as on intact catchments, they also fall within the
category of umbrella species, i.e. species that have
large home ranges whose protection automatically
includes species with smaller home ranges.
Unfortunately, many of the conservation efforts
for flagship species fail to take account of other
species. For instance, rotenone treatments are
frequently used in parasite control and conservation
management of Atlantic salmon in Scandinavia,
often eradicating entire communities except for the
desired target species. Also, ex situ conservation,
artificial breeding and restocking of flagship
salmonids or another flagship, the freshwater pearl
mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), may improve
their population status and may be essential in some
cases, but only help a single species rather than
addressing the habitat-related problems that also
affect other species at the same location. Moreover,
such ‘ark conservation’ is not sustainable without
continuous human intervention. Consequently, even if
short-term remediation is needed to secure time,
restoring functional natural habitats and self-sustaining
populations must be the ultimate goal that is followed
in parallel with the short-term action.
Several international and national laws relating to
the ecological status of freshwater systems (e.g.
the European Water Framework Directive – WFD,
Council of the European Communities, 2000; or
the Habitats Directive, Council of the European
Communities, 1992) imply a strong need for
effective freshwater conservation, yet also have
serious limitations such as the focus on the structure
and identity of communities rather than on
restoring processes (Boon and Lee, 2005; Omerod,
2014). At the same time, challenges related to
a growing world population, global climate change,
increased hydropower production, as well as species
introductions and invasions demonstrate that
pressures on freshwater biodiversity have increased.
In many cases, financial resources devoted to
conservation are spent on monitoring which, by
definition, is only a means of surveillance but which
does not improve habitats or species. In addition,
there are still large gaps in knowledge of what
constitutes successful conservation and restoration,
often resulting in action that may even be
counterproductive. Quite often, scientists are
blamed for describing only what does not work
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)
 EDITORIAL
instead of suggesting how to improve the situation.
Thus, I want to propose an approach comprising
seven steps that may help to improve the success of
freshwater conservation.
SEVEN STEPS TO IMPROVE FRESHWATER
CONSERVATION
Step 1: Decisions on conservation objectives
In the first and most crucial step, decisions need to be
made on conservation targets, including deciding
priorities when targets conflict. Targets can be
based on single species or biological communities,
or on the physical or chemical habitat quality, as
well as on a combination of those. In any case,
targets need to be realistic both in terms of feasibility
as well as timescales. The setting of targets should
also include specific and detailed sub-objectives that
can be subsequently used as a benchmark for
evaluation. In the context of the WFD the original
but unrealistic target is the achievement of good
ecological status or good ecological potential based
on the respective reference conditions by 2015, or
by 2027 at the latest (Council of the European
Communities, 2000). However, invasions by non-native
species in many aquatic ecosystems, which are only
considered as a pressure in WFD assessments, result in
novel communities that are unlikely ever to return to
the original state (Keller et al., 2011; Geist, 2014).
Consequently, conservation targets have to be flexible
enough to include also novel communities and their
ecosystem functions. For instance, the invasion of
alien gobies and amphipods in the Danube River
has resulted in a novel community and food web
structure that cannot be reversed (Brandner et al.,
2013a, b). However, the Danube is still an
important habitat for endemic and endangered
species and conservation management needs to
consider both sustaining these target species as well
as the new food web reality created by the alien
species.
In the context of the Habitats Directive (Council
of the European Communities, 1992), the target is
for listed habitats and species to achieve favourable
conservation status. However, species-specific
conservation projects often face the challenge that
targets are set only at a regional level instead
of more comprehensively, and that it is often
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
449
easier but less sustainable to bridge insufficient
recruitment by artificial breeding and stocking than
by mitigating the deficiencies that would allow
natural reproduction in the wild. Consequently, a
more holistic view that extends beyond single
population considerations is desirable.
Step 2: Determination of status quo
Based on the targets set in step 1, step 2 involves an
assessment of the present status of ecosystems,
communities, populations and their genetic
properties. Depending on the conservation and
restoration targets, the determination of the status
quo also comprises analyses of physical or chemical
properties of habitats, including contaminant stressors
(Connon et al., 2012). Ideally, the determination of the
status quo should cover more than a few regional
populations or habitat subsets and should be carried
out in a standardized and thus comparable way.
Moreover, sampling designs that avoid autocorrelated
data are desirable (Braun et al., 2012). There is an
increasing number of international standards that
provide guidelines on monitoring which are useful for
comparisons between different areas. Also, within
each area, data have to be generated in a reproducible
and representative way to ensure a valid comparison
of pre- and post-restoration stages and thus a
sound evaluation of the success of conservation action
(before-after-control-impact design, BACI). Therefore,
the inclusion of reference sites where no conservation
action is being planned is also necessary. In the case of
restoring and connecting a large floodplain habitat
with the upper Danube, the response of biota could
only be linked to habitat change owing to an
integrative monitoring scheme that was able to
distinguish seasonal effects from restoration effects
(Stammel et al., 2012; Pander et al., 2015a).
Step 3: Identification of bottlenecks and problems
Based on the data generated from systematic
monitoring, the key bottlenecks and problems
related to the conservation targets should be
identified. In species-specific conservation projects
this needs to include the entire life cycle of a
species. For instance, in the case of the endangered
European freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera
margaritifera, it was only through standardized
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)
450 EDITORIAL
monitoring of population demography, host fish
assessments, stream substrate measurements and
genetic analyses carried out in several countries
that the main bottleneck, namely the deficient
substrate conditions affecting the post-parasitic
stage, could be identified (Geist, 2010). The same
problem, in addition to migration barriers, seems
to be one of the main bottlenecks in the
restoration of gravel-spawning fish in Europe
(Sternecker et al., 2013). Most important of all,
systemic problems (i.e. problems that need to be
mitigated at source, such as acidification resulting
from airborne pollution) have to be separated
from aggregated problems (i.e. problems such as
the clogging of interstices in stream beds by fine
sediments that may appear in large areas but can
only be addressed at the regional catchment scale).
Beyond single species, multivariate assessments
of all key components of the ecosystem should
be conducted, ideally comprising their functional
roles (Mueller et al., 2014a). The more detailed
the consideration of ecological requirements of
all components and species, the more complex
but also more powerful the identification of
bottlenecks and problems.
Step 4: Setting priorities and making decisions on
conservation action
After identifying bottlenecks and problems, balanced
decisions on suitable conservation actions need to be
taken, ideally involving stakeholders and sponsors.
Quite often this process fails because of over-ambitious
approaches that lack focus or a choice of unsuitable
restoration options. Unrealistic timelines are also a
common pitfall. In the case of the endangered
freshwater pearl mussel, with its long reproductive
cycle and late maturation, projects that last only a
few years are unlikely to result in the establishment
of functional populations. In most cases, it is easiest
and most effective to make the first priority those
areas or populations that require least action to
bring them into the optimal state, rather than first
addressing the most problematic ones and bringing
them into a moderate state. Setting priorities should
focus not only on natural scientific data such as
genetic information, but must equally consider
socioeconomic aspects of where and how local
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
communities will support conservation projects or
where the first steps have been made in the past (i.e.
it should follow a conservation science instead of a
mere conservation biology approach). In many
cases, a combination of immediate and long-term
action is necessary. For example, restoring
catchments with freshwater pearl mussel to reduce
the input of fine sediment and nutrients is essential,
but owing to the long lag times until this action
results in improvements within the streams,
important populations facing rapid extinction need
to be secured by supportive breeding (Gum et al.,
2011). Similar action is required also in populations
below a critical minimum viable population size
that would not allow natural recovery (Allee effects;
Courchamp et al., 2008).
Step 5: Conservation action
Ultimately, conservation action itself is the focus of
most projects, often involving the greatest cost.
Typically, it is also this step that receives greatest
public attention, including the danger that certain
techniques of habitat improvement or supportive
breeding are already promoted before any scientific
assessment of their success is available. The
acceptance of conservation action can greatly benefit
from a transdisciplinary approach that includes the
perspectives of natural science, engineering, economics
and the humanities, as well as from communicating
the action to the public. In the case of the Isar river
restoration within the city boundaries of Munich,
Germany, the approach was simultaneously to
improve the habitat for aquatic species, as well as to
improve public access and recreation in parts of the
river (Binder, 2010). This effort required collaboration
among natural scientists, engineers and urban
planners, public consultation, and the regional
differentiation of priorities. Although the different
targets such as conservation and recreation can be
conflicting, the ultimate advantage of their integration
is a greater public acceptance of the measures.
Unfortunately, a vast majority of conservation and
restoration projects still end at the step of the
conservation or restoration action, or they exclusively
consider this single step. Instead of realizing one
specific means of conservation action in a large area,
it is more promising to try different options in
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)
 EDITORIAL
smaller representative areas and only later expand
them to larger areas if they show the desired effects
and minimal undesired side effects.
Step 6: Evaluation and adaptive management
Several scientists have called for systematic and
scientific assessments of conservation action to be
carried out, as well as for the inclusion of such
information in adaptive management (Pander and
Geist, 2013; Palmer et al., 2014), yet many
assessments are either not carried out or are based
on subjective judgement rather than on scientific
evidence. For example, one of the most popular
techniques used to restore functional stream beds
for gravel-spawning fishes or substrate-dependent
mussels (and even advertised in practical
restoration guidelines) is loosening substrate by
excavators. However, if carried out in streams with
high loads of fine sediment, the effect at the restored
sites can be marginal and short term, accompanied
by adverse consequences on aquatic communities
in the downstream areas (Mueller et al., 2014b).
Although this is only one example that cannot
necessarily be generalized, it is essential to recognize
that conservation action needs to become more
evidence-based (Sutherland et al., 2004). Conservation
and restoration should be evaluated objectively based
on pre- and post-assessment, using objective criteria
set beforehand as a marker. It is advisable to
include multiple evaluation steps along a timeline in
order to adjust conservation action according to
the outcomes of the previous action. Adaptive
management based on this type of iterative learning
process does not only improve the understanding
of the system, but also reduces uncertainty in
decision-taking and can improve long-term
management outcomes.
Step 7: Exchange and publication of results
In the limited number of conservation and restoration
projects in which systematic monitoring has been
conducted before and after the work and where
the effects can be determined, there are many
where the expected success was not evident. This is
not necessarily due to the choice of unsuitable
techniques, it may be simply the result of the choice
of a wrong time for assessment (e.g. too early),
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
451
the exclusion of accessory species that showed a
response, or simply that the desired species failed to
colonize because the restored sites were disconnected
from potential source habitats. Many projects never
get published because success and observed positive
effects are generally valued more than failure,
negative or no effects. The drawback is that I
have seen the same mistakes made in different places
and on different occasions, simply because of
unawareness of related projects. For instance, trying
to solve the problem of increased loads of fine
sediments in stream ecosystems without addressing
catchment management has been demonstrated to
be unsuccessful in many case studies, yet is still
being practised. One reason may be that several
stream substrate restoration projects have been
carried out at a regional level with results only
published in the regional press, whereas systematic
scientific articles on this topic have only recently
emerged (Mueller et al., 2014b, and references
therein; Denic and Geist, 2015; Pander et al.,
2015b). At least for projects funded by public
money, it is essential to publish both positive and
negative results, ideally in the peer-reviewed
literature as well as in accessible databases.
CAN WE BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF FRESHWATER
CONSERVATION?
After lectures on stressors and pressures on aquatic
ecosystems and fisheries, my students often ask me
why I am still optimistic about the future of
freshwater conservation. My answer is that we
have already achieved much compared with the
situation a few decades ago, demonstrating that if
there is a societal and political will to put
conservation, including biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services, high on the agenda, then
there are realistic chances of success. For example,
in many industrialized countries such as Germany
where I live and work, the loads of phosphate
have been greatly reduced in less than 30 years
owing to its replacement in laundry detergents as
well as improved sewage collection and treatment
systems. In Lake Constance, one of Europe´s largest
lakes, levels of total phosphorus have decreased by
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)
452 EDITORIAL
90% since the 1970s. Similarly, the systemic problem
of acidification by airborne pollutants was much
reduced in Europe by introducing effective filters in
power plants combusting fossil fuels as well as by the
introduction of ‘sulphur-free’ petrol. From a political
and administrative perspective, several advances
towards the more holistic management of freshwater
ecosystems have been made. For instance, despite
justified criticism of the WFD (Hering et al., 2010;
Omerod, 2014), the approach of managing entire
catchments is novel and has resulted in greater
harmonization and intercalibration across Member
States, as well as more active involvement of
stakeholders and the public (Geist, 2014). It is true
that there is still no observable positive trend towards
a recovery of freshwater biodiversity (EEA, 2015),
and that there are many challenges and increasing
pressures ahead, but we also need to emphasize that
success is possible. Tasks of aquatic scientists are not
limited to diagnosing threats to aquatic ecosystems
from global to local scales, but also include providing
and following evidence-based guidelines on how
conservation can be realized and improved. Such
guidelines need to be transdisciplinary and should be
useful for scientists and practitioners alike.
REFERENCES
Binder W. 2010. The restoration of the Isar south of Munich.
Wasserwirtschaft 100: 15–19.
Boon P, Lee A. 2005. Falling through the cracks: are
European directives and international conventions the
panacea for freshwater nature conservation? Freshwater
Forum 24: 24–37.
Boon PJ, Pringle CM. 2009. Assessing the Conservation Value
of Fresh Waters: An International Perspective, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Brandner J, Auerswald K, Cerwenka AF, Schliewen U, Geist J.
2013a. Comparative feeding ecology of invasive Ponto-Caspian
gobies. Hydrobiologia 703: 113–131.
Brandner J, Cerwenka AF, Schliewen UK, Geist J. 2013b.
Bigger is better: characteristics of round gobies forming an
invasion front in the Danube River. PLoS ONE 8: e7303.
Braun A, Auerswald K, Geist J. 2012. Drivers and spatio-temporal
extent of hyporheic patch variation: implications for sampling.
PLoS ONE 7: e42046: 1–10.
Connon R, Geist J, Werner I. 2012. Effect-based tools for
monitoring and predicting the ecotoxicological effects of
chemicals in the aquatic environment. Sensors 12: 12741–12771.
Council of the European Communities. 1992. Directive 92/43/
EEC. On the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities
L 206: 7–50.
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Council of the European Communities. 2000. Directive
2000/60/EC. Establishing a framework for community
action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the
European Communities L 327: 1–73.
Courchamp F, Berec J, Gascoigne J. 2008. Allee Effects in
Ecology and Conservation, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Denic M, Geist J. 2015. Linking stream sediment deposition and
aquatic habitat quality in pearl mussel streams: implications for
conservation. River Research and Applications; online early;
DOI: 10.1002/rra.2794.
Dudgeon D. 2014. Accept no substitute: biodiversity matters.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
24: 435–440.
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI,
Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH,
Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA. 2006. Freshwater
biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation
challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.
EEA. 2015. The European Environment – State and Outlook
2015: Synthesis Report. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen.
Geist J. 2010. Strategies for the conservation of endangered
freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a
synthesis of conservation genetics and ecology. Hydrobiologia
644: 69–88.
Geist J. 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity
conservation. Ecological Indicators 11: 1507–1516.
Geist J. 2014. Trends and directions in water quality and
habitat management in the context of the European Water
Framework Directive. Fisheries 39: 219–220.
Gum B, Lange M, Geist J. 2011. A critical reflection on the
success of rearing and culturing juvenile freshwater mussels
with a focus on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel
(Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: 743–751.
Hering D, Borja A, Carstensen J, Carvalho L, Elliott M, Feld
CK, Heiskanen AS, Johnson RK, Moe J, Pont D, et al.
2010. The European Water Framework Directive at the
age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with
recommendations for the future. Science of the Total
Environment 408: 4007–4019.
Kareiva P, Marvier M. 2012. What is conservation science?
BioScience 62: 962–969.
Keller RP, Geist J, Jeschke JM, Kühn I. 2011. Invasive species
in Europe: ecology, status and policy. Environmental Sciences
Europe 23: 1–17.
Linke S, Turak E, Nel J. 2011. Freshwater conservation
planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshwater
Biology 56: 6–20.
Moss B. 2000. Biodiversity in fresh waters: an issue of species
preservation or system functioning? Environmental Conservation
27: 1–4.
Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J. 2014a. A new tool for assessment
and monitoring of community and ecosystem change based
on multivariate abundance data integration from different
taxonomic groups. Environmental Systems Research 3: 12.
Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J. 2014b. The ecological value of
stream restoration measures: an evaluation on ecosystem and
target species scale. Ecological Engineering 62: 129–139.
Omerod SJ. 2014. Rebalancing the philosophy of river
conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 24: 147–152.
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)
 EDITORIAL
Palmer MY, Filoso S, Fanelli RM. 2014. From ecosystems to
ecosystem services: stream restoration as ecological
engineering. Ecological Engineering 65: 62–70.
Pander J, Geist J. 2013. Ecological indicators for stream
restoration success. Ecological Indicators 30: 106–118.
Pander J, Mueller M, Geist J. 2015a. Succession of fish
diversity after reconnecting a large floodplain to the upper
Danube river. Ecological Engineering 75: 41–50.
Pander J, Mueller M, Geist J. 2015b. A comparison of
four stream substratum restoration techniques concerning
interstitial conditions and downstream effects. River Research
and Applications 31: 239–255.
Soulé ME. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:
727–734.
Stammel B, Cyffka B, Geist J, Mueller M, Pander J, Blasch G,
Fischer P, Gruppe A, Haas F, Kilg M, et al. 2012. Floodplain
Copyright # 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
453
restoration on the upper Danube (Germany) by re-establishing
water and sediment dynamics: a scientific monitoring as part of
the implementation. River Systems 20: 55–70.
Sternecker K, Cowley DE, Geist J. 2013. Factors influencing the
success of salmonid egg development in river substratum.
Ecology of Freshwater Fish 22: 322–333.
Strayer DL, Dudgeon D. 2010. Freshwater biodiversity
conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal
of the North American Benthological Society 29: 344–358.
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The
need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 19: 305–308.
Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D,
Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA,
Liermann CR, Davies PM. 2010. Global threats to human
water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561.
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25: 447–453 (2015)