Abstract
The assessment of river ecosystem health is crucial for improving river resilience, achieving ecological protection and rational utilization in the Yangtze Estuary region where there is high utilization of rivers and a high demand for quality rivers by Shanghai, the world's largest modern city. To assess the ecological health status of Yangtze Estuary rivers, this study established a river health assessment model consisting of five dimensions: water quality, river landscape, aquatic organisms, river hydrology, and human interference, and a total of ten indicators based on the ecological survey results in the summer and autumn of six river channels in Chongming Island in the Yangtze Estuary. The evaluation results reveal that the health status of rural rivers in the northwest and east of Chongming Island (S2, S3) is the best, reaching an excellent level, while the small river in the central part of Chongming Island (S6) is the worst, reaching a somewhat inferior level. Compared with rural rivers, the comprehensive evaluation results of urban rivers are good or ordinary level. The high proportion of building area on both sides of the river and the low vegetation cover are the main factors that restrict their scoring results. In contrast, rural rivers need to focus on the area of buffer zones such as forests and vegetation on both sides of the river, river connectivity, appropriate widening of narrow rivers, regular cleaning and dredging of rivers, as well as reducing human interference with the rivers. Regarding seasonal changes, the health assessment results of Chongming Island rivers in summer are better than those in autumn, and the differences between sites in summer are slightly greater than those in autumn. The seasonal differences between sites are mainly due to changes in indicators of the diversity of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and macrobenthos. To further improve the ecological health of rivers, measures of ecological restoration could be adjusted based on regular health assessment and health weakness analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Rivers provide human beings with various ecological services such as water sources, biological protection, and landscape, and promote the development of cities with their natural, social, economic, and environmental values. However, with the development of human society, the disturbance to rivers is increasing day by day. Dam construction, water intake, diversion, turning straight, blocking the Han River and the solidification of the river bank, and the destruction of the riparian vegetation zone have disturbed the river flow pattern and hydrological cycle process, and have synergistic effects with water pollution and excessive utilization of aquatic organisms, resulting in the degradation of the river ecosystem (Poff et al. 1997; Aguiar et al. 2010 ; Chovanec et al. 2015). The river’s ecological degradation has threatened public interests, which makes it increasingly urgent in social needs to improve the quality of the river’s ecological environment. The health of the river ecosystem has attracted the attention of governments and academia. A healthy river ecosystem has become an important management goal.
The connotation of "health" constitutes the focal point of the conceptual framework for ecosystem health assessment. Due to its ambiguous and abstract nature, the precise definition of ecosystem health has been a subject of controversy (Costanza et al. 1992; Rapport 1989; Peng et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2010). Over the past few decades, scholars have engaged in extensive theoretical discussions on the definition of "health" (Schaeffer et al. 1988; Meyer 1997; Boulton 1999). Previous research has defined ecosystem health from diverse disciplinary perspectives and case studies, which can be broadly categorized into biological ecology definitions and ecological economics definitions. The former underscores the natural ecological aspects of the ecosystem while disregarding socioeconomic and human health factors. The latter regards humans as integral parts of an ecosystem and accounts for the health of the ecosystem, as well as the extent to which it meets human needs and desires, namely, ecosystem services. In the early stages of research, the definition of river health was mainly focused on the natural properties of rivers. Karr defined river ecological integrity as health (Karr 1999), while Simpson defined river health as the main process of support and maintenance by the river ecosystem to restore its previous undisturbed capabilities (Simpson et al. 1999). The undisturbed state of rivers was considered as healthy. However, due to the severe impact of human activities on urban rivers during the process of urbanization and development, it is difficult to return to an undisturbed state even after the ecological restoration of urban rivers. Furthermore, urban rivers not only need to sustain their own ecosystem structure and functions but also need to provide corresponding ecological services for urban residents.
Currently, most scholars maintain that ecosystem health pertains to the ability of regional ecosystems to sustainably maintain spatial structure and ecological processes, self-regulation, restoration, and meet the reasonable needs of human society. Researchers have applied this concept to river health management and have scientifically evaluated the status of river ecosystems from the perspectives of water quality, biology, and ecology, with the aim of enhancing river management. The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and other countries have successively carried out research and practice on river health evaluation and formed a series of evaluation methods such as RIVPACS, AUSRIV AS, IBI, RCE, ISC, and RHP (Bain et al. 2000; Ladson et al. 1999; Karr 1999; Munné et al. 2003; Brizga et al. 2000).
As the concept of ecosystem health was applied to urban rivers, the assessment and research on urban river health achieved some development in China. Some Chinese experts learn from the advanced experience of foreign countries to screen different indicators, trying to establish a river health index system and apply it to river management. Such as Zhao and Yang built an index system based on five factors including water quantity, water quality, aquatic organisms, physical structure, and riparian zone, and used it to evaluate river health in the city of Ningbo (Zhao et al. 2005). Deng et al. established the indicator-based assessment system of urban river health and applied it to river management in Lijiang. The system was composed of three first-tier indexes, including natural biology, social economy, and landscape environment, as well as twenty-four second-tier indexes (Deng et al.2014). Peng constructed the ecological assessment system of rivers and lakes based on the five aspects of hydrology and water resources, the physical form of rivers and lakes, water quality, aquatic organisms, and the social service function of rivers and lakes (Peng 2018). Some scholars have considered the impact of human activities when assessing the health of natural ecosystems and incorporated such factors into their models (Liao et al. 2018; Sun et al. 2019), while there has been a lack of reported evaluation models that include the influence of human activities in river health assessments.
The Yangtze Estuary has a unique geographical location, which is affected by both rivers and offshore. The environmental factors are complex and changeable, and the biological communities are rich. There are both broad coastal wetlands and towns with high-density populations, which also makes river ecosystem health management in the region challenging.
Chongming Island is located in the Yangtze Estuary and is surrounded by water, and the island is full of ditches and rivers, and the water system is rich, including urban rivers and suburban rivers, and the river’s ecological environment is complex and changeable. With the development of the social economy, the river ecosystem of Chongming Island encountered some difficulties, And there are differences between different regions, for example, rivers near urban and rural areas are mainly affected by domestic sewage, and human activities, while suburbs are mainly affected by agricultural production (Sun et al. 2009; Qian et al. 2011; Shen et al. 2017). However, in recent years, the situation has developed in a good direction, and the Chongming district government pays more and more attention to river ecological environment protection and adheres to the priority of ecological protection, the green transformation of the industry, and has carried out a series of river ecological governance and restoration projects, the river ecological environment has changed (Zhang et al. 2013a, b; Tian 2021; Xin 2022), in order to better manage the river, as well as build a world-class ecological island, it is necessary to assess the river ecological health status of Chongming Island that research results can provide a reference for river health management.
There is a wide divergence between different regions in terms of urban river characteristics in China which leads to the fact that river health assessment indicators and criteria for a city are not applicable elsewhere. So a regional river ecological health assessment system needs to consider the local actual situation to select the appropriate indicators and standards to establish. Taking into account the aforementioned considerations and in accordance with the concept of ecological health, we propose a definition of river health that draws upon commonly utilized river health indicators both domestically and internationally, while also considering the actual circumstances of the Yangtze Estuary. This definition comprises the following criteria. (1) Healthy river water quality that conforms to the corresponding water function standards, devoid of eutrophication, and without the risk of pollutant discharge into the water. (2) Healthy riverbank environments characterized by a certain level of vegetation coverage, capable of fulfilling ecological buffer functions, providing biological habitats, and contributing to aesthetic beauty and recreation. (3) Healthy aquatic organisms characterized by relatively rich species composition and population size, with a certain level of biodiversity. (4) A physically healthy river possessing a diverse and meandering flow state, maintaining a certain longitudinal continuity, and capable of preserving hydraulic connections without disrupting flood control. (5) The last healthy river received moderate human disturbance.
2 Study area and methodology
2.1 Survey sites
Chongming Island is located in the Yangtze Estuary and is surrounded by water, and the island is full of ditches and rivers, and the water system is rich, urban rivers and rural rivers are interconnected and run through the entire island, but they have their own characteristics (Fig. 1). Urban rivers serve the city and are often densely populated along the banks. Their main functions include flood control, drainage, transportation, recreation and entertainment, environmental improvement, coordination of urban development, and adjustment of local microclimates. In contrast, rural rivers often run through farmland, forests, and wasteland, mainly serving flood control, drainage, irrigation, domestic water supply, aquaculture, ecosystem restoration, and recreation and entertainment needs. In order to establish a more suitable and comprehensive river health assessment system for the Yangtze Estuary, we selected 6 river sections with different significance in Chongming Island. The S1 river section is located in the south-central part of Chongming Island, east–west trending, close to the densely populated Bao town (Fig. 1). It belongs to the urban type of river. The S2 river section is located in the northwest of Chongming island, with both sides of the distribution of ecological farmland and wetland park. It belongs to the countryside suburban rivers, less disturbed by a human. The S3 section of the river is located at the eastern end of Chongming Island, close to the Chongming Dongtan National Bird Sanctuary, with many ecological farms and wetland parks nearby, and it belongs to the countryside suburban rivers, less disturbed by a human. The S4 river section is located at the western end of Chongming Island, near Chongming Xisha National Wetland Park and Mingzhu Lake. Towns and Villages are scattered on both sides of the river, and the impact of human activities is more obvious. The S5 river section also passes through the densely populated area, but the river is north–south, connecting the north branch and the south branch. It belongs to the urban type of river. The water level of the Chongming inland river is flexibly regulated by way of water diversion from the south sluice and drainage from the north sluice. The S6 river section is located in the middle of Chongming Island, which is a small section, but it is connected with Huabo Cultural Park, which makes us very interested (Fig. 1). We carry out satellite remote sensing observations on these river sections to obtain data on the vegetation coverage of the river bank, the proportion of farmland area, the proportion of road area, and the proportion of building area to analyze the impact of human activities. And hydrological surveys such as river width, connectivity, and curvature were conducted on these river sections. In addition, we also select a site in each section of the river water quality, macrobenthos, zooplankton, and algae survey.
2.2 Survey and analytical methods
Drawing on Wu and Wang's research, 12 alternate indicators were selected, and the final indicators were determined after screening through correlation analysis and principal component analysis (Wu et al. 2006; Xu et al. 2022). The data is obtained as follows.
Water quality indicators were monitored in accordance with the Technical Specifications for Monitoring Surface Water and Sewage (HJ/T91-2002) (Fig. 2a).
Plankton survey methods are carried out in accordance with the Code for the Survey of Fishery Resources in Reservoirs (SL 167–2014). Three indicators were selected for a comprehensive evaluation, including the number of algae taxa, the Shannon–Wiener diversity index of algae, and the Berger–Parker dominance index of algae. The indicators were standardized first, and then, the arithmetic means the sum of the three indicators was calculated. Finally, get the Comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity (Fig. 2b, 2c, 2d).
Macrobenthos are obtained by 1/16 Peterson mud miners (large). Samples are fixed on-site (if desired) and then refrigerated and brought back to the laboratory for identification, counting, and biomass determination. The index integration method was the same as that of phytoplankton (Fig. 2e, 2f, 2g).
The extent of vegetation cover and the impact of human activities on the banks is obtained by analyzing satellite remote sensing data.
The satisfaction degree of residents regarding the landscape close to the river and the degree and influence of river reconstruction were obtained by the method of questionnaire survey.
Data on vegetation coverage and human activities such as the proportion of coastal farmland area, the percentage of coastal hardened roads area, and the proportion of coastal buildings area are obtained from remote sensing imagery (Sentine-2 and SuperView-1).
The data of indicators in terms of the physical structure of rivers such as river width, connectivity, and river curvature obtained by field survey measurements.
2.3 Identification of index weight
There are many ways to determine the weight of river health assessment indicators (Geng et al. 2006; Gao et al. 2007; Wang et al 2007; Xia et al. 2007), While studying the quality evaluation of river habitats, Wang found that the evaluation system established by principal component analysis was more in line with the real situation (Wang et al. 2017). Therefore, this study uses the method of principal component analysis to determine the weight of the index. The specific methods are as follows. First, standardize the raw data. Standardization of raw data by minimum range standardization. Then, the correlation coefficient matrix and principal component model are established, the eigenvalues of the principal components of each index are obtained, and the weights of each index are derived. Of course, these calculations can be made with the statistical analysis software SPSS18.0.
2.4 River health assessment
The model of river health assessment is expressed as,
which \({I}_{CH}\) is the river health evaluation index; Bi is standardized for river health indicator; Wi is the weight of river health assessment indicator. River health standards are divided into five grades, 0.8–1 is excellent, 0.6–0.8 is good, 0.4–0.6 is ordinary, 0.2–0.4 is somewhat inferior, and 0–0.2 is inferior.
3 Results and analysis
3.1 Assessment indicators
In order to avoid overlapping between indicators, the indexes under assessment were further analyzed and selected based on applied correlation analysis and principal component analysis. According to the Pearson correlation coefficient of all indicators, most indicators did not have a significant correlation. Only a few indicators, such as the proportion of hardened roads are significantly negatively correlated with the satisfaction rate of citizens, and there is a significant positive correlation between vegetation coverage and citizen satisfaction, so the indexes of citizen satisfaction were deleted. Besides the proportion of farmland land has a significant positive correlation with water quality and the proportion of coastal buildings. In order to avoid overlapping, the index of the proportion of farmland and cultivated land is deleted.
From the weights of the indicators, we can see that indicators such as water quality, aquatic organisms, river connectivity, and river width play a major role in the comprehensive assessment of rivers (weight > 0.2) (Table 1), while indicators such as vegetation coverage and human impact play a lesser role (wight < 0.05). Furthermore, the indicators such as the index of macrobenthos diversity and the proportion of building area along the coast are negative indicators, that is, the larger their values, the smaller the comprehensive evaluation result of the river.
3.2 Comprehensive health index
We can see that there are two sites in summer, namely S2 and S3, the comprehensive health index is greater than 80, reaching a very excellent level, only the S6 site is somewhat inferior level (Fig. 3). In the autumn, the comprehensive health index of most sites is in the good and ordinary level, and no site reaches the excellent level, so the overall comprehensive health evaluation results in summer are better than those in autumn. In summer, the comprehensive results of each site are quite different, while the difference in autumn is reduced, which is more similar to the results of the site.
In addition, we can also see that, regardless of summer or autumn, the comprehensive health evaluation results of S2 and S3 are the best, while S6 is the worst.
Comparing the comprehensive evaluation results in summer and autumn, it can be found that there are large changes between S1 and S2. By analyzing the radar map of S1, we can find that the increase in phytoplankton diversity and zooplankton diversity leads to an increase in comprehensive results in autumn than in summer (Fig. 4, Fig. 5). By analyzing the radar map of S1, we can find that the increase in negative indicators of macrobenthos diversity, and the reduction of zooplankton diversity lead to an increase in comprehensive results in autumn than in summer (Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
4 Discussion
In river health evaluation, the determination of weight is one of the important links. Once the weight deviates, it will directly lead to incorrect evaluation results and cannot match the actual situation. In the past river health evaluation, single-factor evaluation was performed on different indicators or a simple summation of multiple factors was performed, resulting in inaccurate results (Kleynhans 1996; Hao 2014). As a reliable weight determination method, principal component analysis is widely used in various evaluations (Yang et al. 2015; Shen et al. 2020; Zou et al. 2021), and Wang’s study found that the results calculated by the principal component analysis method are more scientific and more reasonable than the entropy weight method (Wang et al. 2017). Therefore, in this study, principal component analysis was used to calculate the weights. Through this method, ten indicators related to the comprehensive health evaluation of Chongming River were screened out (Table 1), and their respective weights were calculated. These weight of indicators are consistent with the research results of Su (2019) and Wu (2006). The assessment system can be successfully applied to the Chongming Island river health assessment, indicating that the assessment system is applicable to the river system in the Yangtze Estuary. In addition, a total of ten secondary indicators were selected in the evaluation system in this study. Compared with 17 indicators in Wu's study and 17 indicators in Xu's study, it is simpler and more convenient in practical application (Wu et al. 2006; Xu et al. 2022).
The evaluation model of this study not only screened out the indicators such as water quality, aquatic organisms, river connectivity, and river width that have an important impact on the overall health of the river but also comprehensively considered the impact of vegetation coverage and human impact. Because Chongming Island not only has relatively concentrated urbanized townships but also many farmland and countryside which is also a characteristic of the river ecosystem in the Yangtze Estuary, the general urban river health assessment model or mountain river model is not applicable here. So adding indicators such as human activities can better reflect the real situation and are more conducive to the later ecological management of rivers.
In addition, the weights of benthic biodiversity indicators and the proportion of building area in this model are negative, which is rare in other models. First of all, the construction area along the coast is negatively correlated with the health of the river, which is easy to understand. The larger the proportion of building area, the denser the population in this area, and the greater the negative impact of human activities such as water abstraction and sewage discharge on the river. According to the research findings of Ge et al. (2022) the degree of land use is the main factor affecting ecosystem health and the impact of the proportion of construction land on ecosystem health increases over time. The layout used in urban land use planning has a significant impact on ecosystem health. While the negative correlation between benthic indicators and river health is mainly because the benthic organisms in this study area are mainly fouling-tolerant benthic organisms. The more fouling-resistant benthic organisms, the worse the health of the river (Deng et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2012a, 2012b, Hooper et al. 2013). Negative weights rarely appear in the research of other scholars, because they have especially standardized these negative indicators in advance (Wang et al. 2017). However, this will reduce the differences between sites and the results are not so intuitive. In order to ensure accuracy and scientific research, this study does not make special treatment for these negative indicators. To enhance the ecological health of rivers, it is essential to develop a rational riparian land use plan that regulates coastal construction and minimizes disturbances. Additionally, strict control measures should be enforced to prevent sewage discharge and domestic waste dumping into the river. Regular dredging of the river should also be conducted to mitigate sludge deposition.
In addition, the weights of the comprehensive water quality index, river connectivity, river width, comprehensive index of zooplankton diversity, the composite index of macrobenthos diversity, and comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity are relatively high, which indicates that these indexes play an important role in river health assessment of the Yangtze Estuary. Therefore, more attention should be paid to these indexes.
Analysis of different research sites shows that the integrated assessment results of rural rivers S3 and S2 are the best (Fig. 3), which contradicts Jiang's research—the conclusion that the eutrophication of the northern water body of Chongming Island is more serious. The reason is that Jiang's research only takes the single dimension of nutrients as the starting point of the research (Jiang et al. 2019). In the comprehensive assessment of river health, a single indicator cannot be used. For example, if only considering the impact of human activities, the southern part of Chongming Island's result will be the worst with urbanization, the existence of more garbage floating objects, the high proportion of building areas, and the evaluation of a high degree of river bank solidification (Xu et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2021). However, this is not the case, river health assessment needs to consider multi-dimensional indicators (Peng et al. 2014), for example, S2 has higher vegetation coverage, river curvature, river width, and diversity of zooplankton and phytoplankton, so the comprehensive S2 evaluation result will be high, and the comparison is in line with the actual situation (Fig. 4, Fig. 5). When studying the seasonal differences at these two sites, it was found that the water quality assessment score of S3 in autumn was lower (Fig. 4, Fig. 5), which may be due to the influence of autumn agricultural harvesting activities. After the autumn harvest, there is a large amount of straw in the farmland, and returning the straw to the soil will increase the content of nitrate nitrogen in the soil. This will be washed into the river by rainwater, thereby affecting the water quality (Zhao et al. 2010). Although S2 also belongs to rural rivers, the S2 river is not directly connected to farmland but is separated by forest, vegetation, etc. The low score of the benthic biota index in S2 indicates that the sediment pollution in this river is more severe. In response to this situation, regular cleaning and dredging of the river should be carried out. Similarly, the comprehensive score of S6, which is also a rural river, is the worst. This is because the river is narrow, with poor connectivity and sediment accumulation. In addition, it is connected to the HuaBo Cultural Park, and the construction of HuaBo Cultural Park and a large number of tourists will have a negative impact on the health of the river. Therefore, it can be seen that when carrying out rural river management, it is necessary to retain buffer zones such as trees and vegetation on both sides of the river, improve connectivity, appropriately widen narrow rivers, regularly clean and dredge rivers, and reduce human activities that interfere with river health. Compared to rural rivers, urban rivers (S1, S4, and S5) show a generally average performance in a comprehensive evaluation. The high proportion of building area on both sides of the river and the low coverage of vegetation are the main factors limiting the evaluation results. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the health of urban rivers by rational planning of urban riverbank buildings and increasing vegetation coverage.
As for the seasonal differences of each site, the diversity of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and macrobenthos. For example, the autumn assessment results of S1 have improved compared with summer, mainly due to the increase in the diversity of zooplankton and phytoplankton, The assessment result of S2 in autumn is lower than that in summer, mainly because the diversity of macrobenthos is increased, which is a negative indicator, so the results of S2 in autumn are lower. The difference between the stations decreased in autumn, and the main reason may be related to the regulation system of "absorbing water in spring and draining in autumn" in the river channel of Chongming Island (Zhang et al. 2013a, b; Pang et al. 2016) because the rivers of Chongming Island are connected to each other, the large-scale drainage and water exchange in autumn reduces the difference between the stations. The evaluation results of S6 were the worst, mainly because the diversity of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and benthic organisms were all low, which shows that the diversity of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and benthic organisms is particularly important in river health assessment. When monitoring and ecological restoration should focus on these indicators.
5 Conclusions
This study constructed an ecological health assessment method for the Yangtze Estuary and applied it to the Chongming Island river network. The main conclusions are as follows.a) According to the characteristics of the rivers in the Yangtze River estuary, an ecological health assessment system suitable for the rivers in the Yangtze River estuary was constructed with five dimensions including water quality, river landscape, aquatic organisms, river hydrology, and human interference, and ten indexes including comprehensive water quality index, vegetation coverage, the proportion of building area along the coast, comprehensive index of zooplankton diversity, the composite index of macrobenthos diversity, comprehensive index of phytoplankton diversity, river connectivity, river winding rate, river width, the proportion of hardened area along the coast.b) The ecological health assessment system is applied to quantify the river health on Chongming Island. The evaluation results showed that the health of rural rivers in the northwest and east of Chongming Island (S2, S3) was the best, reaching an excellent level, while the central rural river (S6) was the worst, ranging somewhat inferior level. The assessment of urban rivers reached the good or ordinary level. Overall, the summer river health assessment results were better than those in autumn on Chongming Island, with slightly greater differences between locations in summer than in autumn. The seasonal differences at different locations were mainly due to changes in the diversity of plankton, phytoplankton, and benthic fauna indicators. These indicators should be given special attention in monitoring and ecological restoration.c) Based on the results of this study, it is recommended to adopt different measures for managing and restoring urban and rural rivers, taking into account their respective characteristics. In urban rivers, it is required to improve their health by rationalizing the planning of buildings along the river and increasing vegetation coverage. For rural rivers, it is better to preserve buffer zones such as forests and vegetation along the riverbanks, improve the connectivity of the river, widen narrow river sections as appropriate, and carry out regular dredging to reduce human interference on the health of the river.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Aguiar FC, Ferreira MT, Moreira I (2010) Exotic and native vegetation establishment following channelization of a western Iberian river. River research and applications & Management 17(4–5):509–526
Bain MB, Harig AL, Loucks DP, Goforth RR, Mills KE (2000) Aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration: advances in methods for assessment and evaluation. Environ Sci Policy 3:89–98
Boulton AJ (1999) An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshwater biology 41(2):469–479
Brizga S, Finlayson B (2000) River Management: The Australasian Experience. Geomorphology 41(4):V391-392
Chovanec A, Schiemer F, Waidbacher H, Spolwind R (2015) Rehabilitation of a Heavily Modified River Section of the Danube in Vienna (Austria): Biological Assessment of Landscape Linkages on Different Scales. Int Rev Hydrobiol 87(2–3):183–195
Costanza R, Norton B, Haskell B (1992) Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management. Island Press, Washington, pp 1–25
Deng DG, Li HY, Hu WM, Zhou Q, Guo LG (2005) Effects of eutrophication on distribution and population density of Corbicula fluminea and Bellamya sp in Chaohu Lake. Chin J Appl Ecol 16(1):142–149
Deng XJ, Xu YP, Zhai LX, Liu Y, Li Y (2014) Establishment and application of the index system for urban river health assessment. Acta Ecol Sin 34:993–1001
Gao YS, Wang H, Wang F (2007) Construction of evaluation index system for river’s healthy life. Advances in Water Science 18(2):252–257
Zou X, Yang RH, Yang Z, Zheng ZW, Shi F, Chi SY, Zhu AM, Shao K, Yuan YJ, Wan CY (2021) Habitat health assessment of typical tributaries of the Yangtze River. Journal of Hydroecology 42(5):29–39
Ge FJ, Tang GL, Zhong MX, Zhang Y, Xiao J, Li JF, Ge FY (2022) Assessment of Ecosystem Health and Its Key Determinants in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration, China. International Journal of environmental research and public health 19(2):771
Geng LH, Liu H, Zhong HP (2006) Indicators and criteria for evaluation of healthy rivers. J Hydraul Eng 37(3):253–258
Hao LX, Sun RH, Chen LD (2014) Health assessment of river ecosystem in Haihe river basin. China Environ Sci 13(2):147–163
Hooper HL, Sibly RM, Hutchinson TH, Maund SJ (2013) The influence of larval density, food availability and habitat longevity on the life history and population growth rate of the midge Chironomus riparius. Oikos 102(3):515–524
Jiang DG, Li JH, Xu JY, Zhang LT (2019) Three-dimensional fluorescence spectra of dissolved organic matter in a eutrophic river on Chongming Island. Journal of Hydroecology 40(3):33–40
Karr JR (1999) Defining and measuring river health. Freshw Biol 41(2):221–234
Kleynhans CJ (1996) A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status of the Luvuvhu river (Limpopo system, South Africa). J Aquat Ecosyst Health 5(1):41–54
Ladson AR, White LJ, Doolan JA, Finlayson BL, Hart BT, Lake PS, Tilleard JW (1999) Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshw Biol 41(2):453–468
Liao C, Yue Y, Wang K, Fensholt R, Tong X, Brandt M (2018) Ecological restoration enhances ecosystem health in the karst regions of southwest China. Ecol Indic 90:416–425
Liu J, Zhang Z, Xu X, Kuang W, Zhou W, Zhang S, Li R, Yan C, Yu D, Wu S, Jiang N (2010) Spatial patterns and driving forces of land-use change in China during the early 21st century. J Geogr Sci 20:483–494
Meyer JL (1997) Stream health: incorporating the human dimension to advance stream ecology. J N Am Benthol Soc 16(2):439–447
Munné A, Prat N, Solà C, Bonada N (2003) A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 13(2):147–163
Pang CH, Tao J, Wu XH (2016) Comprehensive assessment of ecological harnessing project in strong tide river net. Yangtze River 47(1):15–22
Peng B, Wang HR, Wang RL, Han YL, Huang WH, Zhu YF (2014) Development of a River Health Assessment System for the Lower Yellow River. Journal of Hydroecology 35(6):81–87
Peng J, Wang Y, Wu J, Zhang Y (2007) Evaluation for regional ecosystem health: methodology and research progress. Acta Ecol Sin 27(11):4877–4885
Peng WQ (2018) Research on river and lake health assessment indicators standards and methods. Journal of China institute of water resources and hydropower research 16(5):394–404 (+416)
Poff LR, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The Natural Flow Regime. Bioscience 47(11):769–784
Qian XY, Shen G, Guo CX, Gu HR, Zhu Y, Wang ZQ (2011) Source apportionment and spatial heterogeneity of agricultural non-point source pollution based on water environmental function zoning. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 27(2):103–108
Rapport DJ (1989) What constitutes ecosystem health? Perspect. Biol Med 33:120–132
Schaeffer DJ, Herricks EE, Kerster HW (1988) Ecosystem health: I Measuring ecosystem health. Environ Manag 12:445–455
Shen Z, Kong L, Li JP, Gu YN, Yang L, Zhang W, Wang LC, Zhang YL (2017) Characteristics of variation trend of nitrogen nutrient in rivers of Chongming island. J Anhui Agric Sci 45(18):58–62
Sheng Q, Wei J, Wu We W, Shen CC, Wang TY, Wang L (2020) Correlation between ecosystem health conditions and land use in Dawen River basin. Chin J Ecol 39(1):224–233
Simpson J, Norris R, Bannuta L (1999) AusRivAS- National River Health Program: User Manual Website Version. Canberra, Australia, Environment Australia
Su HD, Jia YW, Niu CW, Tong WJ (2019) Statistical analysis of river health assessment indicators and weight distribution. Water Resources Protection 35(6):138–144
Sun B, Tang J, Yu D, Song Z, Wang P (2019) Ecosystem health assessment: a PSR analysis combining AHP and FCE methods for Jiaozhou Bay, China. Ocean Coast Manag 168:41–50
Sun C, Chen ZL, Bi CJ, Liu YL, Zhang C, Wang DQ, Shi GT, Ye MW (2009) Evaluation on Environmental Quality of Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soils of Chongming Island. Shanghai Acta Geographica Sinica 64(5):619–628
Tian H (2021) Research and evaluation of agricultural non-point source pollution remediation and recycling with aquaculture tail water as core—Take a modern agricultural area as an example. East China normal university, Diss (In Chinese) pp2-13
Wang B, Liu D, Liu S, Zhang Y, Lu DQ, Wang LZ (2012) Impacts of urbanization on stream habitats and macroinvertebrate communities in the tributaries of Qiangtang River. China Hydrobiologia 680(1):39–51
Wang Q, Lu C, Li FY, Fan ZP (2017) River habitat quality assessment based on principal component analysis and entropy weight in Qinghe river. Ecological Science 36(4):185–193
Wang T, Tong CF, Wu FR, Cong TT, Zhao JC, Chen ZT (2021) Community composition and distribution characteristics of the benthic macroinvertebrates in the inland rivers of Chongming. Haiyang Xuebao 43(9):71–80
Wang Yu, Huang Q, Liu CM (2007) Method of evaluating river health based on system order entropy. Journal of China Hydrology 27(1):1–3
Wang Z, Zhang ZY, Zhang JQ, Zhang YY, Yan SH (2012) The fauna structure of benthic macro-invertebrates for environmental restoration in a eutrophic lake using water hyacinths. China Environ Sci 32(1):142–149
Wu AN, Yang K, Che Y, Yuan W (2006) Application of river health assessment for urban river management. China Environ Sci 26(3):359–363
Xia T, Zhu W, Jiang MY, Zhao LF (2007) Assessment of urban river habitats: application and methodology. Acta Sci Circum 27(12):2095–2104
Xin LX (2022) Overview of the current status of wetland water bodies and restoration and enhancement measures in Chongming eco-island. Shanghai Water Resources Planning and Design 5:9–13
Xu D (2005) Talking on the integrative regulation for diversion channel of Chongmingnanheng. Jilin Water Resources 2:34–35
Xu F, Wang YG, Wnag X, Wu DY, Wang YY (2022) Establishment and application of the assessment system on ecosystem health for restored urban rivers in North China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(9):5619
Yang S, Sun LP, Zhong Y, Du JS, Hu X (2015) The water quality assessment and eutrophication evaluation of Jinhe River. Ecological Science 34(5):105–110
Zhao P, Chen F, Li L (2010) Effects of straw mulching on inorganic nitrogen and soil urease in winter wheat field. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica 25(3):165–169
Zhang YC, Jiang DG, Li JH (2013) Characteristics of eutrophication and its affecting factors in gate-controlled river network system of Chongming Island. Journal of Lake Sciences 25(3):366–372
Zhang ZS, Cheng GF, Chen X, Zhu H, Wu ZF, Liu XG (2013) Purification of micro-polluted water in aquaculture pond by integrated oxidation pond and constructed wetland system. China Water & Wastewater 29(19):22–25
Zhao YW, Yang ZF (2005) Preliminary study on assessment of urban river ecosystem health. Adv Water Sci 16:349–355
Acknowledgements
We thank Haifei Yang for his assistance in collecting field data and doing laboratory analysis. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their critical and constructive comments on the original manuscript.
Funding
This study was financially supported by the Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (2019–01-07–00-05-E00027), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2240220), the Open Research Fund of Key Laboratory of Ocean Space Resource Management Technology (KF-2022–105), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M691023).
Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission,2019-01-07-00-05-E00027,Ya Ping Wang,National Natural Science Foundation of China,U2240220,Ya Ping Wang,Key Laboratory of Ocean Space Resource Management Technology,MNR,KF-2022-105,Benwei Shi
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study conception and design were conducted by Lei Mo, Anglu Shen, and Yifan Ding. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Mo, Anglu Shen, Yifan Ding, Biaobiao Peng, Jingjing Li, Xinmiao Zhang and Xiaoyu Liu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Biaobiao Peng, Benwei Shi and Ya Ping Wang, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Peng, B., Shi, B., Wang, Y.P. et al. Establishment and application of ecological health evaluation system for urban and rural rivers in Yangtze Estuary. Anthropocene Coasts 6, 9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44218-023-00024-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44218-023-00024-8