Time series of freshwater macroinvertebrate abundances and site characteristics of European streams and rivers.

Freshwater macroinvertebrates are a diverse group and play key ecological roles, including accelerating nutrient cycling, filtering water, controlling primary producers, and providing food for predators. Their differences in tolerances and short generation times manifest in rapid community responses to change. Macroinvertebrate community composition is an indicator of water quality. In Europe, efforts to improve water quality following environmental legislation, primarily starting in the 1980s, may have driven a recovery of macroinvertebrate communities. Towards understanding temporal and spatial variation of these organisms, we compiled the TREAM dataset (Time seRies of European freshwAter Macroinvertebrates), consisting of macroinvertebrate community time series from 1,816 river and stream sites (mean length of 19.2 years and 14.9 sampling years) of 22 European countries sampled between 1968 and 2020. In total, the data include >93 million sampled individuals of 2,648 taxa from 959 genera and 212 families. These data can be used to test questions ranging from identifying drivers of the population dynamics of specific taxa to assessing the success of legislative and management restoration efforts.

The recovery of European freshwater biodiversity has come to a halt.

Owing to a long history of anthropogenic pressures, freshwater ecosystems are among the most vulnerable to biodiversity loss1. Mitigation measures, including wastewater treatment and hydromorphological restoration, have aimed to improve environmental quality and foster the recovery of freshwater biodiversity2. Here, using 1,816 time series of freshwater invertebrate communities collected across 22 European countries between 1968 and 2020, we quantified temporal trends in taxonomic and functional diversity and their responses to environmental pressures and gradients. We observed overall increases in taxon richness (0.73% per year), functional richness (2.4% per year) and abundance (1.17% per year). However, these increases primarily occurred before the 2010s, and have since plateaued. Freshwater communities downstream of dams, urban areas and cropland were less likely to experience recovery. Communities at sites with faster rates of warming had fewer gains in taxon richness, functional richness and abundance. Although biodiversity gains in the 1990s and 2000s probably reflect the effectiveness of water-quality improvements and restoration projects, the decelerating trajectory in the 2010s suggests that the current measures offer diminishing returns. Given new and persistent pressures on freshwater ecosystems, including emerging pollutants, climate change and the spread of invasive species, we call for additional mitigation to revive the recovery of freshwater biodiversity.

Components of uncertainty in species distribution analysis: a case study of the Great Grey Shrike.

Sophisticated statistical analyses are common in ecological research, particularly in species distribution modeling. The effects of sometimes arbitrary decisions during the modeling procedure on the final outcome are difficult to assess, and to date are largely unexplored. We conducted an analysis quantifying the contribution of uncertainty in each step during the model-building sequence to variation in model validity and climate change projection uncertainty. Our study system was the distribution of the Great Grey Shrike in the German federal state of Saxony. For each of four steps (data quality, collinearity method, model type, and variable selection), we ran three different options in a factorial experiment, leading to 81 different model approaches. Each was subjected to a fivefold cross-validation, measuring area under curve (AUC) to assess model quality. Next, we used three climate change scenarios times three precipitation realizations to project future distributions from each model, yielding 729 projections. Again, we analyzed which step introduced most variability (the four model-building steps plus the two scenario steps) into predicted species prevalences by the year 2050. Predicted prevalences ranged from a factor of 0.2 to a factor of 10 of present prevalence, with the majority of predictions between 1.1 and 4.2 (inter-quartile range). We found that model type and data quality dominated this analysis. In particular, artificial neural networks yielded low cross-validation robustness and gave very conservative climate change predictions. Generalized linear and additive models were very similar in quality and predictions, and superior to neural networks. Variations in scenarios and realizations had very little effect, due to the small spatial extent of the study region and its relatively small range of climatic conditions. We conclude that, for climate projections, model type and data quality were the most influential factors. Since comparison of model types has received good coverage in the ecological literature, effects of data quality should now come under more scrutiny.