Content uploaded by Daniel De Paiva Silva
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel De Paiva Silva on Jun 16, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity in
tropical regions
S. Sundar
1
| Jani Heino
2
| Fabio de Oliveira Roque
3,4
| John P. Simaika
5,6
|
Adriano S. Melo
7
| Jonathan D. Tonkin
8
| Davidson Gomes Nogueira
3
|
Daniel Paiva Silva
9
1
Division of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences, S. S. Research Foundation, Tamil
Nadu, India
2
Finnish Environment Institute, Freshwater
Centre, Oulu, Finland
3
Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal
de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brazil
4
Centre for Tropical Environmental and
Sustainability Science and College of Science
and Engineering, James Cook University,
Cairns, Australia
5
Department of Water Resources and
Ecosystems, IHE Delft Institute for Water
Education, The Netherlands
6
Department of Soil Science, University of
Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Matieland,
South Africa
7
Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
8
School of Biological Sciences, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
9
Conservation Biogeography and
Macroecology Lab, Departamento de Ciências
Biológicas, Instituto Federal Goiano, Urutaí,
Goiás, Brazil
Correspondence
S. Sundar, Division of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences,
S. S. Research Foundation, 130/123,
Veerappapuram Street, Kallidaikurichi,
Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu, 627416, India.
Email: sundarstreco@gmail.com
Abstract
1. Motivated by recent global initiatives for biodiversity conservation and restora-
tion, this article reviews the gaps in our understanding of, and the challenges fac-
ing, freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation in tropical
regions.
2. This study revealed a lack of adequate taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological
information for most macroinvertebrate groups, and consequently there are large-
scale knowledge gaps regarding the response of macroinvertebrate diversity to
potential climate change and other human impacts in tropical regions.
3. We propose ideas to reduce the impact of key drivers of declines in
macroinvertebrate biodiversity, including habitat degradation and loss, hydrologi-
cal alteration, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and the multiple
impacts of climate change.
4. The review also provides recommendations to enhance conservation planning in
these systems (as well as providing clear management plans at local, regional, and
national levels), integrated catchment management, the formulation of regulatory
measures, the understanding of the determinants of macroinvertebrate diversity
across multiple scales and taxonomic groups, and the collaboration between
researchers and conservation professionals.
5. It is suggested that the integrated use of macroinvertebrate biodiversity informa-
tion in biomonitoring can improve ecosystem management. This goal can be facili-
tated in part by conservation psychology, marketing, and the use of the media
and the Internet.
KEYWORDS
Anthropocene, biodiversity, extinction, freshwater ecosystems, invertebrates
1|INTRODUCTION
Owing to increasing human impacts worldwide, current species
extinction rates may be 1000 times faster than background extinction
rates, and are as high as those of past mass extinction events
(Barnosky et al., 2011; Ceballos, Ehrlich, & Dirzo, 2017; Intergovern-
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES), 2019). Such pressures are increasingly threatening
freshwater ecosystems with the potential extinctions of tens of thou-
sands of aquatic species (Dudgeon, 2014; IUCN, 2010, 2016, 2017;
Received: 21 May 2019 Revised: 4 December 2019 Accepted: 21 February 2020
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3326
Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aqc © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
Strayer, 2006; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Vörösmarty et al., 2010).
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2018)) reported that since
1970, approximately 83% of global freshwater species have declined,
and the maximum biodiversity loss has been observed in the Neotrop-
ics, Indo-Pacific, and Afrotropics. In particular, aquatic insects are
likely to be experiencing similar declines to those of freshwater spe-
cies in general, and the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment found that 15% of dragonflies and
damselflies (Odonata) were under threat of extinction (Collen, Böhm,
Kemp, & Baillie, 2012; IUCN, 2012). Despite this trend, freshwater
biodiversity continues to receive less attention than its terrestrial and
marine counterparts, particularly in tropical regions (Boyero, Ramirez,
Dudgeon, & Pearson, 2009; Godet & Devictor, 2018). This lack of
attention is surprising given the urgency to protect freshwater ecosys-
tems and the services that they provide in the face of numerous
stressors threatening biodiversity (Dudgeon et al., 2006; Heino,
Virkkala, & Toivonen, 2009; Poff, Olden, & Strayer, 2012; Woodward,
Perkins, & Brown, 2010).
Research biases considerably affect decisions on biodiversity con-
servation. The initiatives of biodiversity conservation require ade-
quate knowledge of different taxonomic groups and ecological
systems to achieve global goals (e.g. the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Convention on Biological Diversity ‘Aichi
Targets’in 2020). In tropical regions, in particular, previous studies
have highlighted the limited scope of conservation research and
implementation of policies on invertebrate species and freshwater
ecosystems (Darwall et al., 2011; Di Marco, Watson, Venter, &
Possingham, 2016). Acknowledging that a large body of knowledge
has been gathered on macroinvertebrates and freshwater conserva-
tion after the groundbreaking papers of Dudgeon et al. (2006) and
Strayer (2006), this article provides a thorough and critical review of
the scientific literature and examples of macroinvertebrate conserva-
tion in tropical regions. It first provides an overview of the overall
importance of macroinvertebrate diversity in tropical regions. Second,
it covers the threats and causes of macroinvertebrate biodiversity
decline in tropical regions, emphasizing the potential impacts of cli-
mate change. Third, it sheds light on the main research topics, gaps,
and regions studied in recent years involving macroinvertebrate con-
servation through a bibliometric analysis of the literature. Finally,
building on these results, the review identifies key research gaps and
proposed improvements for the use and integration of freshwater
macroinvertebrate information in regional and global initiatives for
biodiversity conservation in tropical regions.
2|BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
MULTIPLE VALUES OF FRESHWATER
MACROINVERTEBRATES
Freshwater ecosystems harbour considerable numbers and types of
macroinvertebrates, despite their small spatial coverage of the planet.
Despite possibly representing around 80% of the Earth's freshwater
macroinvertebrate fauna (Dudgeon, 2003, 2006), tropical
macroinvertebrates are poorly documented. The number of freshwa-
ter invertebrate species has been estimated to be approximately
107,295, with insects representing the dominant group (60.4%),
followed by crustaceans (10%), molluscs (4%), and annelids (1.4%)
(Balian, Segers, Lévèque, & Martens, 2008). Dudgeon (2008) reported
that for six tropical regions the average percentage of individual insect
order diversity was dominated by caddisflies (Trichoptera, 25.1%),
followed by true flies (Diptera, 21.2%), beetles (Coleoptera, 16.3%),
mayflies (Ephemeroptera, 13.4%), dragonflies and damselflies
(Odonata, 11.5%), true bugs (Heteroptera, 5.2%), stoneflies
(Plecoptera, 2.8%), moths (Lepidoptera, 2.7%), and alderflies and dob-
sonflies (Megaloptera, 1.8%).
The conservation of aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity is an
urgent task because of its material and non-material values, including
intrinsic, ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational,
cultural, recreational, and aesthetic values (Table 1).
Macroinvertebrates perform a variety of functions in freshwater eco-
systems, including the decomposition of organic matter and nutrient
cycling (shredders) (Wallace & Webster, 1996), the processing of
organic matter (collectors) (Hershey, 1987), the consumption of algal
producer biomass (scrapers) (Feminella & Hawkins, 1995), the cellular
fluid consumption of individual cells of algae (piercers) (Merritt &
Cummins, 1978; Swanson, Hrinda, & Keiper, 2007), and energy trans-
fer to higher trophic levels (predators) (Cooper, Walde, &
Peckarsky, 1990; Drysdale, 1998) (Table 1). Aquatic
macroinvertebrates that have an emergent adult stage are also a key
food source for terrestrial consumers (e.g. spiders, birds, lizards, and
turtles) (Recalde, Postali, & Romero, 2016). Their diverse functions
and abiotic tolerances also make macroinvertebrates good bio-
indicators of human impacts (Rosenberg & Resh, 1993).
3|THREATS AND CAUSES OF
MACROINVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY
DECLINE IN TROPICAL REGIONS,
EMPHASIZING THE ROLE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE
Tropical fresh waters are among the most threatened ecosystems,
experiencing biodiversity loss at alarming rates (Allan &
Castillo, 2007; Antunes et al., 2016; Boyero et al., 2009; Boyero &
Bailey, 2001). Threats to these systems include deforestation, habitat
fragmentation, habitat degradation, overexploitation, pollution, eutro-
phication, siltation, channel impoundment, flood control, exotic spe-
cies invasions, fisheries, increasing salinity, and climate change
(Figure 1; Dudgeon et al., 2006). Habitat loss and degradation, cau-
sed by an array of interacting factors, including the intensive mining
of river sand, deforestation for intensive agriculture (e.g. sugarcane,
soybean, and palm oil), alien plant invasion, and urbanization are
more severe in tropical than in temperate areas (Al-Shami
et al., 2017; Che Salmah, Al-Shami, Madrus, & Abu, 2013;
Dudgeon, 2008; Miettinen, Shi, & Liew, 2011). Agricultural expan-
sion for growing sugar cane, soybean, oil palm, and cattle raising is
2SUNDAR ET AL.
rapidly increasing in tropical regions (Curtis, Slay, Harris, Tyukavina, &
Hansen, 2018; Foley et al., 2011; Gibbs et al., 2010), and is
increasingly threatening macroinvertebrate biodiversity (Cuke &
Srivastava, 2016; Kleine, Trivinho-Strixino, & Corbi, 2011; Luiza-
Andrade et al., 2017; Svensson, Bellamy, Van den Brink,
Tedengren, & Gunnarsson, 2018). The large-scale conversion of for-
ests into agriculture and illegal gold mining also adversely affect
macroinvertebrate biodiversity (Chula, Rutebuka, & Yáñez, 2013; van
TABLE 1 Examples of ecosystem goods and services provided by freshwater macroinvertebrates
Service type
Examples of goods or services provided
by biodiversity in general
Examples of goods or services provided by macroinvertebrates in
tropical regions
Provisioning Production (food); therapeutic uses;
resources (e.g. genetic, ornamental)
Freshwater crustaceans, molluscs, and insects are important sources of
protein, vitamins, minerals, and income for humans and livestock
(Chakravorty, Ghosh, & Meyer-Rochow, 2013; Shantibalaa, Lokeshwari,
& Debaraj, 2014; Van Huis et al., 2013; Williams & Williams, 2017).
Dragonflies are used in traditional medicine, have ornamental value (e.g.
displayed in museums), and are eaten in some traditional societies
(Simaika & Samways, 2008). Water striders (Gerridae: Hemiptera) are
used for dog bites, and other hemipterans are used in the treatment of
mental illness (Srivastava, Babu, & Pandey, 2009; Tango, 1981)
Regulation and
maintenance
Disease control and suppression of
pathogens; water purification and
regulation; nutrient cycling regulation;
decomposition regulation
Aquatic macroinvertebrates such as bugs, beetles, and dragonfly and
damselfly larvae control the abundance of pests and disease-vector
mosquitoes (Benbow et al., 2014; Mandal, Ghosh, Bhattacharjee, &
Chandra, 2008; Ohba et al., 2011; Saha, Aditya, Banerjee, & Saha, 2012;
Tupinambás, Cortes, Hughes, Varandas, & Callisto, 2016). Dragonflies
are hosts to parasites and are vectors of disease to humans and
livestock (Simaika & Samways, 2008). Aquatic macroinvertebrates play a
key role in nutrient cycling (Granados-Martínez, Zúñiga-Céspedes, &
Acuña-Vargas, 2016; Yuen & Dudgeon, 2016), with some species being
widely dispersed top predators
Cultural Aesthetics; cultural heritage and sense of
place; educational; recreational; spiritual
and religious
The high abundance and diversity of forms make macroinvertebrates
suitable for use in science education programmes for children or citizen
science programmes (Fore, Paulsen, & O'Laughlin, 2001; Silvertown,
2009; Suter & Cormier, 2015). Dragonflies are significant in numerous
cultures, as evidenced by dragonfly parks and trails, games for children,
and field guides. In Japan, dragonflies also have religious significance
(Simaika & Samways, 2008)
FIGURE 1 Factors driving declines of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity in tropical regions
SUNDAR ET AL.3
Biervliet, Wi
sniewski, Daniels, & Vonesh, 2009) in high-elevation
rainforest streams by affecting the water quality and physical habitat
of river ecosystems (Kasangaki, Chapman, & Balirwa, 2008).
Invasive species are among the main threats to freshwater biodi-
versity. They are likely to be the most important driver of biodiversity
loss in aquatic ecosystems after land use and climate change by the
year 2100 (Sala et al., 2000). For example, the long-term consumption
of leaves of invasive Eucalyptus negatively affects the growth and
existence of shredding insects in Brazilian Atlantic Forest streams
(Kiffer, Mendes, Casotti, Costa, & Moretti, 2018).
Predicting the consequences of climate change on biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning is an urgent challenge (Dudgeon, 2014).
Modelling studies may provide useful conservation information, corre-
lating known species occurrences and climatic variables for future sce-
narios, in order to evaluate the effects of climate change on the
distribution of aquatic macroinvertebrates (Bálint et al., 2011; Bellard,
Bertelsmeie, Leadley, Thuiller, & Courchamp, 2012; Domisch
et al., 2013; Silva, Dias, Lecci, & Simi~
ao-Ferreira, 2018; Tierno de
Figueroa et al., 2010), and thereby estimate their impacts on geo-
graphical distributions and support practical conservation actions
(Guisan et al., 2013). Mechanistic models based on various processes,
however, including the physiological processes of individual species,
may be more precise in predicting population and community changes
under a rapidly changing climate, where river flow regimes are moving
beyond their historical envelopes (McMullen, Leenheer, Tonkin, &
Lytle, 2017; Tonkin et al., 2019; Urban et al., 2016). Studies using
microcosms or mesocosms to run temperature experiments with
aquatic animals (Petchey, McPhearson, Casey, & Morin, 1999; Vasseur
et al., 2014) and historical analyses of biological communities
(e.g. Luoto & Nevalainen, 2013) may also help to understand the
effects of climate change on aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Despite considerable increases in research over recent decades
(Al-Shami et al., 2013; Al-Shami, Che Salmah, Abu Hassan, &
Madrus, 2013; Al-Shami, Che Salmah, Abu Hassan, Madrus, & Al-
Mutairi, 2014; Che Salmah et al., 2013; Che Salmah, Al-Shami,
Madrus, & Abu, 2014), clear knowledge gaps remain on the effects of
climate change on freshwater biodiversity in tropical regions. Climate
change is likely to have damaging effects on tropical freshwater
macroinvertebrate biodiversity through altering natural hydrological
and physicochemical regimes (Clausnitzer et al., 2009; Dolný, Harabiš,
Bárta, Lhota, & Drozd, 2012; Gutiérrez-Fonseca, Ramírez, &
Pringle, 2018; Pearson, 2014; Taniwaki, Piggott, Ferraz, &
Matthaei, 2017; Tonkin, Bogan, Bonada, Rios-Touma, & Lytle, 2017).
Few studies have evaluated the effects of climate change on
macroinvertebrate distribution and survival in tropical regions
(Jourdan et al., 2018; Simaika et al., 2013; Simaika & Samways, 2015).
Some studies have predicted increases in disease transmission with
climate change, such as for snails hosting schistosomes and other
trematodes (Manyangadze, Chimbari, Gebreslasie, Ceccato, &
Mukaratirwa, 2016; Pederson et al., 2014). By altering the seasonality
and predictability of flow regimes and physicochemical water parame-
ters, climate change may directly alter the physiology, phenology,
abundance, and distribution of species, thereby indirectly affecting
species interactions within communities (Parmesan, 2006; Pecl
et al., 2017; Ruhi, Dong, McDaniel, Batzer, & Sabo, 2018;
Tonkin et al., 2017).
In the long term, species may adapt to such changes, but in situ
adaptation to the changing climate and environmental characteristics
is by no means guaranteed, potentially compromising species survival.
Species will only persist in areas allowing their normal physiological
performance; consequently, climate change may lead to shifts in spe-
cies ranges towards higher latitudes or higher elevations (Haase
et al., 2017; Simaika & Samways, 2015), resulting in extinctions via
the ‘summit-trap’effect (i.e. preventing the migration of species
towards climatically suitable areas in higher mountains and restricting
them to the summits of lower mountains) (Sauer, Domisch, Nowak, &
Haase, 2011). Climate change is also expected to homogenize regional
aquatic biodiversity, resulting in the persistence of generalist species
only, given their broad physiological tolerances (Hughes, 2000; Pecl
et al., 2017). The effects of climate change on freshwater faunas are
alarming because water availability throughout the tropics is expected
to change considerably (Rodell et al., 2018), as is already apparent in
the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Dobrovolski & Rattis, 2015). These areas
are facing severe droughts, causing rivers to dry completely, thereby
affecting the habitats available for aquatic species (Coutinho,
Kraenkel, & Prado, 2015; Dobrovolski & Rattis, 2015; Escobar, 2015;
Loyola & Bini, 2015).
Climate change affects the geographical location of the best cli-
matic isotherms that regulate the physiological functions of species.
Climatically suitable areas where species are expected to maintain via-
ble populations under current conditions may become unsuitable,
causing species to become extinct regionally. In the future, such
changes in climatic suitability for species may decrease the effective-
ness of established protected area networks significantly (Hannah
et al., 2007). In a theoretical example, a species believed to have many
of its populations connected to one another under current climatic
conditions (Figure 2a) may become threatened in the future once a
significant portion of its populations become disconnected from other
climatically suitable areas within the species’range (Figure 2b). In this
example, under the current climatic conditions the target species does
not occur in half of region 1 and in region 2. In future climatic condi-
tions, region 2 may become unsuitable for this species for many rea-
sons (e.g. through agricultural intensification, road construction,
habitat change, and fragmentation), interacting with climate change.
Northern populations from region 3 will no longer disperse south-
wards, which may cause regional extinctions of the species. A system-
atic conservation planning solution that considers landscape
connectivity in both scenarios is necessary in order to increase the
effectiveness of protection from one scenario to the other. To assure
the future protection of a species, dispersal among protected areas
must be accounted for (Thompson & Gonzalez, 2017). In the current
scenario, the species populations are connected throughout the land-
scape; however, in future scenarios, the populations from region 3 are
no longer connected to those in regions 1 and 2. There was also a sig-
nificant decrease in the area of suitable habitat available for the spe-
cies in region 2. In order to avoid local extinctions in both regions 2
4SUNDAR ET AL.
and 3 for the theoretical species considered, a systematic conserva-
tion planning approach that accounts for landscape connectivity in
different climatic scenarios is necessary.
Recent research has demonstrated that it is possible to design
protected area networks that are robust to divergent connectivity, for
the conservation of multiple species under uncertain future climate
change and land use (Albert, Rayfield, Dumitru, & Gonzalez, 2017);
however, such an approach has yet to be applied in freshwater sys-
tems (Azevedo-Santos et al., 2019). If the various potential connectiv-
ity needs of multiple species are not considered concomitantly,
populations of these species may face local or regional extinction
(Sauer et al., 2011), particularly if dispersal is restricted along the river
network (Bush & Hoskins, 2017; Tonkin et al., 2018).
4|GAPS, CHALLENGES, AND STRATEGIES
FOR CONSERVING MACROINVERTEBRATE
BIODIVERSITY
The basic biological and ecological data available for
macroinvertebrates are affected by both Linnean (lack of proper
description of species by science) and Wallacean (lack of knowledge
on the geographical distribution of species) shortfalls (Hortal
et al., 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016), but other data shortfalls are also
important. For instance, fundamental information on the phylogenetic
relationships (e.g. no knowledge on evolutionary models connecting
macroinvertebrate phylogenies to relevant ecological traits and life-
history variation) of different aquatic insect groups (the so-called
‘Darwinian shortfall’; Diniz-Filho, Loyola, Raia, Mooers, & Bini, 2013;
Assis, 2018) is generally missing. There are also gaps in our knowledge
of the ecological interactions that aquatic macroinvertebrates main-
tain with other species (the ‘Eltonian shortfall’; Hortal et al., 2015), of
their local abundances (the ‘Prestonian shortfall’; Hortal et al., 2015),
of their ecological and functional traits (the ‘Raunkiaeran shortfall’;
Hortal et al., 2015), and of their abiotic tolerances, limiting the under-
standing of their ecological roles in the environment.
To exemplify the literature trends and gaps, the Web of Science
Core collection for literature on macroinvertebrate conservation was
searched, using the following keyword combinations: tropical conser-
vation AND (freshwater OR aquatic) AND (*invertebrate* OR insect*).
The timeline for the appearance of the different terms and the key-
word co-occurrence patterns (Figure 3) and the countries of affiliation
of the authors (Figure 4) were both identified using VOSviewer
(van Eck & Waltman, 2010).
The results indicated that the literature on macroinvertebrate
conservation covers a variety of those topics. The results of the
analyses show that the focus of the literature is moving from stud-
ies that address basic aspects of the ecology, seasonality, diet, and
distribution of macroinvertebrates towards studies about the
effects of human impacts on biodiversity, represented by keywords
such as ‘land use’,‘indicator’,and‘water quality’. It is important to
note that topics such as climate change and habitat restoration
have seen an increase in representation in recent publications,
which suggests that macroinvertebrate literature has been aligning
with global demands to influence decision making. Dragonflies
(Odonata), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and
caddisflies (Trichoptera) are the most cited groups in the literature
and include the species most sensitive to human impacts, which
are used as bioindicators of water condition. They also comprise
the taxonomically and ecologically best-known aquatic insect
groups.
Most papers were published by authors from developed nations,
such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and European countries (e.g. the
UK, France, Germany, and Spain); however, we also noted an
increased number of studies being carried out in tropical countries
that were historically under-represented, including Brazil, Colombia,
Mexico, and Malaysia. South Africa, which includes a range of climatic
zones from subtropical to temperate, stands out from the analysis
because it has a long history in studies about insect conservation.
Large geographical areas in tropical regions remain overlooked,
particularly in highly speciose regions, such as Papua New Guinea,
Indonesia, India, and Congo.
FIGURE 2 A theoretical
example of how climate change
may affect the geographical range
of an aquatic macroinvertebrate
species when comparing both
(a) current and (b) future climate
scenarios. The grey areas
represent grid cells with suitable
climatic conditions for a
theoretical species in both
scenarios
SUNDAR ET AL.5
To overcome some of the knowledge gaps on very speciose
groups (e.g. aquatic macroinvertebrates in tropical fresh waters) in
the context of systematic conservation planning, Diniz-Filho, De
Marco, and Hawkins (2010) proposed the use of macroecological
tools, such as species distribution modelling. Other authors have
suggested possible ecological modelling tools for assessing various
macroinvertebrate taxa for conservation in tropical regions. These
include, for example, the development of ecological models for
pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa that can be more easily
adapted to any river basins with similar environmental conditions
(Forio et al., 2016; Nieto et al., 2017).
Advances in taxonomy, improvements in the understanding of
nomenclature, and changes in classification will be important for con-
servation efforts and the mitigation of macroinvertebrate biodiversity
loss (Thomson et al., 2018). The use of the flagship species concept
(popular species that work as symbols or icons, and inspire people to
provide money or support for their conservation) can assist in
conserving macroinvertebrates (Jepson & Barua, 2015; Veríssimo,
MacMillan, & Smith, 2011). Also, studies should focus on increasing
landscape heterogeneity and spatial connectivity in order to maintain
and conserve different hydrological regimes, water quality, and basic
ecological patterns and processes at various spatial and temporal
scales, and to conserve remnants of macroinvertebrate habitat
(Brainwood & Burgin, 2009; Heino et al., 2015; Schindler &
Hilborn, 2015; Sim et al., 2013; Tonkin, Heino, & Altermatt, 2018).
The prioritization of areas for conservation is a challenging task
that involves serious resource constraints and trade-offs. There are
few examples of tropical protected areas created primarily to con-
serve macacroinvertebrates, although the Refúgio Estadual de Vida
Silvestre Libélulas da Serra de S~
ao José, a Brazilian protected area in
the Atlantic Forest created to conserve dragonflies, is notable. Creat-
ing new protected areas and improving those that already exist should
be the cornerstone of any strategy for conserving freshwater
macroinvertebrates in tropical regions. Therefore, we recommend
FIGURE 3 Graphical analysis representing the distance-based map of the most frequent terms used in 1880 papers across title, abstract, and
keywords, searched for on the Web of Science by entering the following keyword combination: tropical conservation AND (freshwater OR
aquatic) AND (*invertebrate* OR insect*). The analysis was carried out using VOSVIEWER (van Eck & Waltman, 2010). The figure highlights
53 terms appearing at least 100 times across the papers, separated in four clusters and with 1374 links between them. The most widely occurring
term is ‘stream’, with 1361 occurrences and 52 links. Each circle represents one term, and its size corresponds to the relative frequency at which
it occurs. The lines represent a link between two terms, and the thickness shows the relative frequency with which the two terms occur together
(the 1000 strongest connections are shown). The colours represent the year in which the term was most recurrent according to the gradient
given in the bottom-right corner
6SUNDAR ET AL.
using modern and objective systematic conservation planning tools
(Margules & Pressey, 2000) to account for cost-effective strategies to
preserve subsets of the regional macroinvertebrate biodiversity under
clear quantitative conservation targets. Such theoretical frameworks
have been used to design networks of protected areas for protecting
different values of biodiversity around the world, including priority
conservation areas in tropical regions for aquatic macroinvertebrates
(e.g. Nieto et al., 2017; Simaika et al., 2013).
We provide recommendations (Figure 5) that could enhance the
conservation planning of tropical macroinvertebrate biodiversity,
including: (i) clear management plans at local, regional, and national
levels that must be used as rehabilitation and adaptation strategies
(Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2016); (ii) increased protection of riparian veg-
etation in order to prevent soil erosion and siltation; (iii) integrated
catchment management; (iv) formulation of regulatory measures,
such as landscape and policy (Flitcroft, Cooperman, Harrison,
Juffe-Bignoli, & Boon, 2019); (v) strict action against human encroach-
ments of waterways; and (vi) increased awareness of the flood pulse
concept, an ecologically significant phenomenon particularly relevant
to tropical river systems, of lateral and longitudinal hydrological
connectivity along river basins (Junk & Wantzen, 2006; Tockner,
Malard, & Ward, 2000). In addition, other points should be considered,
such as: (vii) understanding the determinants of macroinvertebrate
diversity across multiple scales and taxonomic groups (Heino, Melo, &
Bini, 2015; Heino, Muotka, & Paavola, 2003); (viii) collaboration
among conservation professionals, including scientists, and non-
governmental and government agencies at the local, regional, and
global levels; and (ix) documentation of threatened and
endangered aquatic macroinvertebrate species. The classification of
macroinvertebrates on the basis of their extinction risk and IUCN Red
FIGURE 4 Analysis of the country affiliations of all the authors of the 1880 papers found on the Web of Science with the keyword
combination: tropical conservation AND (freshwater OR aquatic) AND (*invertebrate* OR insect*). The analysis was carried out using VOSVIEWER
(van Eck & Waltman, 2010). There are 107 countries with at least one author affiliation across the 1880 papers, all separated into 17 clusters and
with 798 links between them. Each circle represents one country and its size indicates the relative frequency of papers affiliated to this country.
The country with most participants in these publications is the USA, which is affiliated to 523 papers and has 66 links with other countries. The
lines represent a link between two countries, and their thickness shows the relative frequency with which the two countries published together.
The colours represent the year in which the country published the most according to the gradient given in the bottom-right corner. Some
countries do not appear on the image as they did not have connections with any other countries: Malta, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Egypt, Iceland, and
Pakistan
SUNDAR ET AL.7
List assessments (Cardoso, Borges, Triantis, Ferrández, &
Martín, 2011) are important for mapping areas of interest in
macroinvertebrate conservation (Cardoso, Rigal, Fattorini,
Terzopoulou, & Borges, 2013; Simaika & Samways, 2009, 2011).
A significant step towards conserving aquatic macroinvertebrate
biodiversity is to create public awareness (Arlettaz et al., 2010;
Knight et al., 2008; Laurance et al., 2012) to rekindle personal con-
tact with nature (Samways, 2007) and raise a biophilic ethic: a socie-
tal change in attitude and behaviour through education and focused
nature experience (Simaika & Samways, 2010). This can be achieved
through conducting many specialized programmes, such as educa-
tional, incentive, and volunteer monitoring of freshwater ecosystems
and macroinvertebrates, especially for children. For instance, bringing
the field of ecosystem conservation into schools and imbuing chil-
dren with the importance of conserving freshwater ecosystems is of
great importance for the future fate of these ecosystems
(Pinho, 2018). The new field of conservation psychology, established
through the realization by conservationists that awareness and
values alone are not enough to drive conservation-minded decisions
in individuals, aims to close the intention–behaviour gap
exhibited by people (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Simaika &
Samways, 2010, 2018). Conservation psychology and marketing are
essential tools, as conservationists cannot rely only on the good
intention of people alone but need to effectively advertise for spe-
cies conservation through positive reinforcement. Particularly in the
tropics, where rates of urbanization are high, there is a great risk
that personal connections to nature, and consequently larger societal
values, do not include conservation-minded thinking.
Improvements in the conservation of aquatic macroinvertebrates
can also be achieved through remediation approaches. Recent results
have shown that degraded habitats may be restored to some extent,
but that they rarely return to their original condition: for instance,
sites that were restored recovered their capacity to store water and
sequester carbon, and important ecosystem services of societal value,
but remained poor in supporting biodiversity (Bakker, Pagès, Arthur, &
Alcoverro, 2016; Moss, 2015). Typically, habitat degradation gets
worse before it gets better, and restoration actions are needed to
reverse the trend. Habitat restoration is possible on a local basis, but
materials (reservoirs of local species) and expertise (knowledge on the
biota) are critical (Stoll, Breyer, Tonkin, Früh, & Haase, 2016; Tonkin,
Stoll, Sundermann, & Haase, 2014). Habitat restoration, however, pro-
vides an opportunity to put research findings into practice in partially
degraded freshwater environments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SS and FOR thank CAPES-PRINT Internationalization Project (number
41/2017) for supporting the collaboration between the Universidade
Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil) and the S.S. Research Founda-
tion (India).
ORCID
S. Sundar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6456-1147
John P. Simaika https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8073-2804
Jonathan D. Tonkin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6053-291X
Davidson Gomes Nogueira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9180-4500
Daniel Paiva Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2457-6245
REFERENCES
Albert, C. H., Rayfield, B., Dumitru, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2017). Applying
network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are
robust to climate and land-use change. Conservation Biology,31,
1383–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12943
Allan, J. D., & Castillo, M. M. (2007). Stream ecology: Structure and function
of running waters (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Al-Shami, S. A., Che Salmah, M. R., Abu Hassan, A., & Madrus, M. R.
(2013). Biodiversity of stream insects in the Malaysian Peninsula: Spa-
tial patterns and environmental constraints. Ecological Entomology,38,
238–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12013
Al-Shami, S. A., Che Salmah, M. R., Abu Hassan, A., Madrus, M. R., & Al-
Mutairi, K. A. (2014). Importance of regional diversity and environmen-
tal conditions on local species richness of aquatic macro-invertebrates
in tropical forested streams. Journal of Tropical Ecology,3, 335–346.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467414000200
Al-Shami, S. A., Che Salmah, M. R., Abu Hassan, A., Madrus, M. R.,
Suhaila, A. H., Abdul Ghani, W. M. H. W., …Al-Mutairi, K. A. (2017).
Biodiversity patterns of aquatic macroinvertebrates in tropical forests
streams as a response to logging activities and deforestation. Acta
Ecologica Sinica,37, 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2017.
03.004
FIGURE 5 Possible conservation approaches to decrease the impact of the key causes of macroinvertebrate biodiversity declines
8SUNDAR ET AL.
Al-Shami, S. A., Heino, J., Che Salmah, M. R., Abu Hassan, A.,
Suhaila, A. H., & Madrus, M. R. (2013). Drivers of beta diversity of
macroinvertebrate communities in tropical forest streams. Freshwater
Biology,58, 1126–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12113
Antunes, A. P., Fewster, R. M., Venticinque, E. M., Peres, C. A., Levi, T.,
Rohe, F., & Shepard, G. H. (2016). Empty forest or empty rivers? A
century of commercial hunting in Amazonia. Science Advances,2,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600936
Arlettaz, R., Schaub, M., Fournier, J., Reichlin, T. S., Sierro, A.,
Watson, J. E. M., & Braunisch, V. (2010). From publications to public
actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap between
research and implementation. Bioscience,60, 835–842. https://doi.
org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10
Assis, L. C. S. (2018). Revisiting the Darwinian shortfall in biodiversity con-
servation. Biodiversity and Conservation,27, 2859-2875. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-018-1573-3
Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Frederico, R. G., Fagundes, C. K., Pompeu, P. S.,
Pelicice, F. M., Padial, A. A., …Henry, R. (2019). Protected areas: A
focus on Brazilian freshwater biodiversity. Diversity and Distributions,
25, 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12871
Bakker, E. S., Pagès, J. F., Arthur, R., & Alcoverro, T. (2016). Assessing the
role of large herbivores in the structuring and functioning of freshwa-
ter and marine angiosperm ecosystems. Ecography (Cop.),39,
162–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01651
Balian, E. V., Segers, H., Lévèque, C., & Martens, K. (2008). The Freshwater
Animal Diversity Assessment: An overview of the results. Hydrobiologia,
595,627–637. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10750-007-9246-3
Bálint, M., Domisch, S., Engelhardt, C. H. M., Haase, P., Lehrian, S.,
Sauer, J., …Nowak, C. (2011). Cryptic biodiversity loss linked to global
climate change. Nature Climate Change,1, 313–318. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nclimate1191
Barnosky, A., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G., Swartz, B.,
Quental, T., …Ferrer, E. (2011). Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction
already arrived? Nature,471(7336), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature09678
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeie, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F.
(2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology
Letters,15,365–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x
Benbow, E. M., Kimbirauskas, R., McIntosh, M. D., Williamson, H.,
Quaye, C., Boakye, D., …Merritt, R. W. (2014). Aquatic
macroinvertebrate assemblages of Ghana, West Africa: Understanding
the ecology of a neglected tropical disease. EcoHealth,11, 168–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-013-0886-7
van Biervliet, O., Wi
sniewski, K., Daniels, J., & Vonesh, J. (2009). Effects of
tea plantations on stream invertebrates in a global biodiversity hotspot
in Africa. Biotropica,41, 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
7429.2009.00504.x
Boyero, L., & Bailey, R. C. (2001). Organization of macroinvertebrate
communities at a hierarchy of spatial scales in a tropical
stream. Hydrobiologia,464, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1013922307096
Boyero, L., Ramirez, A., Dudgeon, D., & Pearson, R. G. (2009). Are
tropical streams really different? Journal of the North American
Benthological Society,28, 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-146.1
Brainwood, M., & Burgin, S. (2009). Hotspots of biodiversity or homoge-
neous landscapes? Farm dams as biodiversity reserves in Australia.
Biodiversity and Conservation,18, 3043–3052. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10531-009-9623-5
Bush, A., & Hoskins, A. J. (2017). Does dispersal capacity matter for fresh-
water biodiversity under climate change? Freshwater Biology,62,
382–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12874
Cardoso, P., Borges, P. A. V., Triantis, K. A., Ferrández, M. A., &
Martín, J. L. (2011). Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for inverte-
brates. Biological Conservation,144, 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biocon.2011.06.020
Cardoso, P., Rigal, F., Fattorini, S., Terzopoulou, S., & Borges, P. A. V.
(2013). Integrating landscape disturbance and indicator species in con-
servation studies. PLoS ONE,8, e63294. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0063294
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via
the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population
losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA,114(30), E6089–E6096. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1704949114
Chakravorty, J., Ghosh, S., & Meyer-Rochow, V. B. (2013). Comparative
survey of entomophagy and entomotherapy practices in six tribes of
Eastern Arunachal Pradesh (India). Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine,9, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-50
Che Salmah, M. R., Al-Shami, S. A., Madrus, M. R., & Abu, H. A. (2013).
Local effects of forest fragmentation on biodiversity of aquatic insects
in tropical forest streams: Implications for biological conservation.
Aquatic Ecology,47,75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-012-
9426-8
Che Salmah, M. R., Al-Shami, S. A., Madrus, M. R., & Abu, H. A. (2014). Bio-
logical and ecological diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates in
response to hydrological and physicochemical parameters in tropical
forest streams of Gunung Tebu, Malaysia: Implications for eco-
hydrological assessment. Ecohydrology,7, 496–507. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eco.1368
Chula, P. M., Rutebuka, E., & Yáñez, P. L. S. (2013). The effect of illegal
small-scale gold mining on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in the
east Usambara Mountains. Tanzania: Tropical Biology Association.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1617.5124
Clausnitzer, V., Kalkman, V. J., Ram, M., Collen, B., Baillie, J. E. M.,
Bedjanicˇ, M., …Hawking, J. (2009). Odonata enter the biodiversity cri-
sis debate: The first global assessment of an insect group. Biological
Conservation,142, 1864–1869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.
2009.03.028
Collen, B., Böhm, M., Kemp, R., Baillie, J.E.M., 2012. Spineless: Status and
trends of the World's invertebrates; Zoological Society of London:
London, UK.
Cooper, S. D., Walde, S. J., & Peckarsky, B. L. (1990). Prey exchange rates
and the impact of predators on prey population in streams. Ecology,
71, 1503–1514.
Coutinho, R. M., Kraenkel, R. A., & Prado, P. I. (2015). Catastrophic regime
shift in water reservoirs and S~
ao Paulo water supply crisis. PLoS ONE,
10, e0138278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138278
Cuke, M., & Srivastava, D. S. (2016). Divergent effects of tropical forest
fragmentation and conversion on leaf litter decomposition. Landscape
Ecology,31,1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0316-z
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C.
(2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science,361,
1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
Darwall, W. R. T., Holland, R. A., Smith, K. G., Allen, D., Brooks, E. G. E.,
Katarya, V., & Vié, J.-C. (2011). Implications of bias in conservation
research and investment for freshwater species. Conservation
Letters,4, 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.
00202.x
Di Marco, M., Watson, J. E. M., Venter, O., & Possingham, H. P. (2016).
Global biodiversity targets require both sufficiency and
efficiency. Conservation Letters,9, 395–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12299
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., De Marco, P., & Hawkins, B. A. (2010). Defying
the curse of ignorance: Perspectives in insect macroecology and
conservation biogeography. Insect Conservation and Diversity,3,
172–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00091.x
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Loyola, R. D., Raia, P., Mooers, A. O., & Bini, L. M.
(2013). Darwinian shortfalls in biodiversity conservation. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution,28, 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.
2013.09.003
SUNDAR ET AL.9
Dobrovolski, R., & Rattis, L. (2015). Water collapse in Brazil: The danger of
relying on what you neglect. Natureza & Conservaç~
ao,13,80–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.03.006
Dolný, A., Harabiš, F., Bárta, D., Lhota, S., & Drozd, P. (2012). Aquatic
insects indicate terrestrial habitat degradation: Changes in taxonomical
structure and functional diversity of dragonflies in tropical rainforest
of East Kalimantan. Tropical Zoology,25, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03946975.2012.717480
Domisch, S., Araújo, M. B., Bonada, N., Pauls, S. U., Jähnig, S. C., &
Haase, P. (2013). Modelling distribution in European stream
macroinvertebrates under future climates. Global Change Biology,19,
752–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12107
Drysdale, R. N. (1998). Aquatic insect larvae as geomorphic agents in
travertine-building: A case study from the Barkly Karst, Australia.
Supplement Geografia Fisica Dinamica Quaternaria,4,53–59.
Dudgeon, D. (2003). The contribution of scientific information to the
conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity in
tropical Asia. Hydrobiologia,500, 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1024666627070
Dudgeon, D. (2006). The impacts of human disturbance on stream benthic
invertebrates and their drift in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Freshwater
Biology,51, 1710–1729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.
01596.x
Dudgeon, D. (2008). Preface. In: D. Dudgeon (Ed.), Aquatic ecosystems:
Tropical stream ecology (pp. XV–XVII). London, UK: Elsevier science.
Dudgeon, D. (2014). Threats to freshwater biodiversity in a changing
world. In: B. Freedman (Ed.), Global Environmental Change
(pp. 243–253). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z.-I.,
Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., …Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodi-
versity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges.
Biological Reviews,81, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1464793105006950
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a com-
puter program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics,84, 523–538.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Escobar, H. (2015). Drought triggers alarms in Brazil's biggest
metropolis. Science,347, 812. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.
6224.812
Feminella, J. W., & Hawkins, C. P. (1995). Interactions between stream
herbivores and periphyton: A quantitative analysis of past experi-
ments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society,14,
465–509. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467536
Flitcroft, R., Cooperman, M. S., Harrison, I. J., Juffe-Bignoli, D., &
Boon, P. J. (2019). Theory and practice to conserve freshwater biodi-
versity in the Anthropocene. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems,29, 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.
3187
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S.,
Johnston, M., …Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature,478, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O'Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance
of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology,46, 109–123.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x
Forio, M. A. E., Van Echelpoel, W., Dominguez-Granda, L., Mereta, S. T.,
Ambelu, A., Hoang, T. H., …Goethals, P. L. (2016). Analysing the
effects of water quality on the occurrence of freshwater
macroinvertebrate taxa among tropical river basins from different con-
tinents. AI Communications,29, 665–685. https://doi.org/10.3233/
AIC-160712
Gibbs, H. K., Ruesch, A. S., Achard, F., Clayton, M. K., Holmgren, P.,
Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2010). Tropical forests were the pri-
mary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107, 16732–16737.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107
Godet, L., & Devictor, V. (2018). What conservation does. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution,33, 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.
07.004
Granados-Martínez, C., Zúñiga-Céspedes, B., & Acuña-Vargas, J. (2016).
Diets and trophic guilds of aquatic insects in Molino River, La Guajira,
Colombia. Journal of Limnology,75, 144–150. https://doi.org/10.
4081/jlimnol.2016.1396
Guisan, A., Tingley, R., Baumgartner, J. B., Naujokaitis-Lewis, I.,
Sutcliffe, P. R., Tulloch, A. I. T. T., …Schwartz, M. W. (2013). Predicting
species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters,16,
1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12189
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. E., Ramírez, A., & Pringle, C. M. (2018). Large-scale
climatic phenomena drive fluctuations in macroinvertebrate assem-
blages in lowland tropical streams, Costa Rica: The importance of
ENSO events in determining long-term (15y) patterns. PLoS ONE,13,
e0191781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191781
Haase, P., Li, F., Sundermann, A., Lorenz, A., Tonkin, J., & Stoll, S. (2017).
Three-dimensional range shifts in biodiversity driven by recent global
warming. PeerJ Preprints,5, e1034v2. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.
preprints.1034v2
Hannah, L., Midgley, G., Andelman, S., Araújo, M., Hughes, G., Martínez-
Meyer, E., …Williams, P. (2007). Protected area needs in a changing
climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,5, 131–138. https://
doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[131:PANIAC]2.0.CO;2
Heino, J., Melo, A. S., & Bini, L. M. (2015). Reconceptualising the beta
diversity-environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water
systems. Freshwater Biology,60, 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/
fwb.12502
Heino, J., Melo, A. S., Siqueira, T., Soininen, J., Valanko, S., & Bini, L. M.
(2015). Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal
in aquatic systems: Patterns, processes and prospects. Freshwater
Biology,60, 845–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12533
Heino, J., Muotka, T., & Paavola, R. (2003). Determinants of
macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: Regional and local
influences. Journal of Animal Ecology,72, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.
1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00711.x
Heino, J., Virkkala, R., & Toivonen, H. (2009). Climate change and freshwa-
ter biodiversity: Detected patterns, future trends and adaptations in
northern regions. Biological Reviews,84,39–54. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00060.x
Hershey, A. E. (1987). Tubes and foraging behavior in larval Chironomidae:
Implications for predator avoidance. Oecologia,73, 236–241. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF00377513
Hortal, J., de Bello, F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Lewinsohnet, T. M.,
Lobo, J. M., & Ladle, R. J. (2015). Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale
knowledge of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics,46, 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-
112414-054400
Hughes, L. (2000). Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal
already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution,15,56–61. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00200.x
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Summary for policymakers of the
global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem
services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M.,
Agard, J., …Zayas, C. (Eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany https://
sdg.iisd.org/news/ipbes-previews-2019-global-assessment-report-on-
biodiversity/.
IUCN. (2010). An analysis of the status and distribution of freshwater bio-
diversity in Continental Africa on the IUCN Red List www.iucnredlist.
org/freshwater
IUCN. (2012). IUCN red list categories and criteria. Version 3.1, 2nd ed.;
IUCN Species Survival Commission: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge,
MA, USA.
10 SUNDAR ET AL.
IUCN. (2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3.
www.iucnredlist.org.
IUCN. (2017). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3.
www.iucnredlist.org
Jepson, P., & Barua, M. (2015). A theory of flagship species action.
Conservation and Society,13,95–104. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-
4923.161228
Jourdan, J., O'Hara, R. B., Bottarin, R., Huttunen, K. L., Kuemmerlen, M.,
Monteith, D., …Haase, P. (2018). Effects of changing climate on
European stream invertebrate communities: A long-term data analysis.
Science of the Total Environment,621, 588–599. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.242
Junk, W. J., & Wantzen, K. M. (2006). Flood pulsing, and the development
and maintenance of biodiversity in floodplains. In: D. P. Batzer, &
R. R. Sharitz (Eds.), Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands
(pp. 407–435). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kasangaki, A., Chapman, L. J., & Balirwa, J. (2008). Land use and the ecol-
ogy of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of high-altitude
rainforest streams in Uganda. Freshwater Biology,53, 681–697.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01925.x
Kiffer, W. P., Mendes, F., Casotti, C. G., Costa, L. C., & Moretti, M. S.
(2018). Exotic Eucalyptus leaves are preferred over tougher native
species but affect the growth and survival of shredders in an Atlantic
Forest stream (Brazil). PLoS ONE,13, e0190743. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0190743
Kleine, P., Trivinho-Strixino, S., & Corbi, J. J. (2011). Relationship between
banana plant cultivation and stream macroinvertebrate communities.
Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia,23, 344–352. https://dx.doi.org/10.
1590/S2179-975X2012005000012
Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., &
Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority con-
servation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation
Biology,22, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.
00914.x
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act envi-
ronmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research,8, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504620220145401
Laurance, W. F., Koster, H., Grooten, M., Anderson, A. B., Zuidema, P. A.,
Zwick, S., …Anten, N. P. R. (2012). Making conservation research
more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation,
153, 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.012
Loyola, R., & Bini, L. M. (2015). Water shortage: A glimpse into the future.
Natureza & Conservaç ~
ao,13,1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.
2015.05.004
Luiza-Andrade, A., Brasil, L. S., Benone, N. L., Shimano, Y., Farias, A. P. J.,
Montag, L. F., …Juen, L. (2017). Influence of oil palm monoculture on
the taxonomic and functional composition of aquatic insect communi-
ties in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Ecological Indicators,82, 478–483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.006
Luoto, T. P., & Nevalainen, L. (2013). Climate-driven limnological changes
determine ecological thresholds in an alpine lake. Aquatic Biology,18,
47–58. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00487
Mandal, S. K., Ghosh, A., Bhattacharjee, I., & Chandra, G. (2008). Biocontrol
efficiency of odonate nymphs against larvae of the mosquito, Culex
quinquefasciatus Say, 1823. Acta Tropica,106, 109–114. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.02.002
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Martin, T. G., Moffatte, D. B., Udy, J., Olley, J.,
Saxton, N., …Rhode, J. R. (2016). Prioritizing management actions for
the conservation of freshwater biodiversity under changing climate
and land-cover. Biological Conservation,197,80–89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.033
Manyangadze, T., Chimbari, M. J., Gebreslasie, M., Ceccato, P., &
Mukaratirwa, S. (2016). Modelling the spatial and seasonal distribution
of suitable habitats of schistosomiasis intermediate host snails using
Maxent in Ndumo area, KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa.
Parasites & Vectors,9(1), 572. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-
1834-5
Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning.
Nature,405, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
McMullen, L. E., Leenheer, P. D., Tonkin, J. D., & Lytle, D. A. (2017). High
mortality and enhanced recovery: Modelling the countervailing effects
of disturbance on population dynamics. Ecology Letters,20,
1566–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12866
Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (1978). An introduction to the aquatic
insects of North America. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2011). Deforestation rates in insular
Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology,17,
2261–2270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02398.x
Moss, B. (2015). Mammals, freshwater reference states, and the mitigation
of climate change. Freshwater Biology,60, 1964–1976. https://doi.org/
10.1111/fwb.12614
Nieto, C., Ovando, X. M. C., Loyola, R., Izquierdo, A., Romero, F.,
Molineri, C., …Miranda, M. J. (2017). The role of macroinvertebrates
for conservation of freshwater systems. Ecology and Evolution,7,
5502–5513. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3101
Ohba, S.-y., Huynh, T. T. T., Kawada, H., Le, L. L., Ngoc, H. T.,
Hoang, S. L., & Takagi, M. (2011). Heteropteran insects as mosquito
predators in water jars in southern Vietnam. Journal of Vector Ecology,
36, 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7134.2011.00154.x
Oliveira, U., Paglia, A. P., Brescovit, A. D., Carvalho, C. B., Silva, D. P.,
Rezende, D. T., …Santos, A. J. (2016). The strong influence of collec-
tion bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial
biodiversity. Diversity and Distributions,22, 1232–1244. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ddi.12489
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent
climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
37, 637–669. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.
110100
Pearson, R. G. (2014). Dynamics of invertebrate diversity in a tropical
stream. Diversity,6, 771–791. https://doi.org/10.3390/d6040771
Pecl, G. T., Araujo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C.,
Chen, I.-C., …Williams, S. E. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under
climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science,
355, eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214
Pederson, N., D'Amato, A. W., Dyer, J. M., Foster, D. R., Goldblum, D.,
Hart, J. L., & Williams, J. W. (2014). Climate remains an important
driver of post-European vegetation change in the eastern United
States. Global Change Biology,21, 2105–2110. https://doi.org/10.
1111/gcb.12779
Petchey, O. L., McPhearson, P. T., Casey, T. M., & Morin, P. J. (1999). Envi-
ronmental warming alters food-web structure and ecosystem function.
Nature,402,69–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/47023
Pinho, L. C. (2018). Bringing taxonomy to school kids: Aedokritus adotivae
sp. n. from Amazon (Diptera: Chironomidae). Zootaxa,4399, 586–590.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4399.4.9
Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., & Strayer, D. (2012). Climate change and freshwa-
ter fauna extinction risk. In: L. Hannah (Ed.), Saving a million species:
Extinction risk from climate change (pp. 309–336). Washington: Island
Press.
Recalde, F. C., Postali, T. C., & Romero, G. Q. (2016). Unravelling the role
of allochthonous aquatic resources to food web structure in a tropical
riparian forest. Journal of Animal Ecology,85, 525–536. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2656.12475
Rodell, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Wiese, D. N., Reager, J. T., Beaudoing, H. K.,
Landerer, F. W., & Lo, M.-H. (2018). Emerging trends in global fresh-
water availability. Nature,557(7707), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41586-018-0123-1
Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (1993). Introduction to freshwater bio-
monitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. In: D. M. Rosenberg, &
SUNDAR ET AL.11
V. H. Resh (Eds.), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates (pp. 1–9). New York: Chapman & Hall.
Ruhi, A., Dong, X., McDaniel, C. H., Batzer, D. P., & Sabo, J. L. (2018). Det-
rimental effects of a novel flow regime on the functional trajectory of
an aquatic invertebrate metacommunity. Global Change Biology,24,
3749–3765. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14133
Saha, N., Aditya, G., Banerjee, S., & Saha, G. K. (2012). Predatory potential
of odonates on mosquitoes larvae: Implications for biological control.
Biological Control,63,1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.
05.004
Sala, O. E., Chapin, F. S., Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R.,
…Wall, D. H. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.
Science,287, 1770–1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.
1770
Samways, M. J. (2007). Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodiversity
and Conservation,16, 1995–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
006-9144-4
Sauer, J., Domisch, S., Nowak, C., & Haase, P. (2011). Low mountain
ranges: Summit traps for montane freshwater species under climate
change. Biodiversity and Conservation,20, 3133–3146. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10531-011-0140-y
Schindler, D. E., & Hilborn, R. (2015). Prediction, precaution, and policy
under global change. Science,347(6225), 953–954. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1261824
Shantibalaa, T., Lokeshwari, R. K., & Debaraj, H. (2014). Nutritional and
antinutritional composition of the five species of aquatic edible insects
consumed in Manipur, India. Journal of Insect Science,14, 14. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jis/14.1.14
Silva, D. P., Dias, A. C., Lecci, L. S., & Simi~
ao-Ferreira, J. (2018). Potential
effects of future climate changes on Brazilian cool-adapted stoneflies
(Insecta: Plecoptera). Neotropical Entomology,48,57–70. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13744-018-0621-8
Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution,24, 467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
Sim, L. L., Davis, J. A., Strehlow, K., McGuire, M., Trayler, K. M., Wild, S., …
O'Connor, J. (2013). The influence of changing hydroregime on the
invertebrate communities of temporary seasonal wetlands. Freshwater
Science,32, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1899/12-024.1
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2008). Valuing dragonflies as service pro-
viders. In: A. Córdoba-Aguilar (Ed.), Dragonflies and damselflies, model
organisms for ecological and evolutionary research (pp. 109–124).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780199230693.003.0009
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2009). Reserve selection using Red Listed
taxa in three global biodiversity hotspots: Dragonflies in South Africa.
Biological Conservation,142, 638–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2008.11.012
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for
conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology,24, 903–906. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01485.x
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2011). Comparative assessment of indices
of freshwater habitat conditions using different invertebrate taxon
sets. Ecological Indicators,11, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2010.06.005
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2015). Predicted range shifts of
dragonflies over a wide elevation gradient in the southern
hemisphere. Freshwater Science,34, 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.
1086/682686
Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2018). Insect conservation psychology.
Journal of Insect Conservation,22, 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10841-018-0047-y
Simaika, J. P., Samways, M. J., Kipping, J., Suhling, F., Dijkstra, K.-D. B.,
Clausnitzer, V., …Domisch, S. (2013). Continental-scale conservation
prioritization of dragonflies. Biological Conservation,157, 245–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.039
Srivastava, S. K., Babu, N., & Pandey, H. (2009). Traditional insect
bioprospecting –as human food and medicine. Indian Journal of
Traditional Knowledge,8, 485–494. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/
bitstream/123456789/6263/1/IJTK8(4)485-494.pdf
Stoll, S., Breyer, P., Tonkin, J. D., Früh, D., & Haase, P. (2016). Scale-
dependent effects of river habitat quality on benthic invertebrate
communities —Implications for stream restoration practice. Science of
the Total Environment,553, 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.02.126
Strayer, D. L. (2006). Challenges for freshwater invertebrate con-
servation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society,25,
271–287. https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2006)25[271:CFFIC]2.
0.CO;2
Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation:
Recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society,29, 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1899/
08-171.1
Suter, G. W., & Cormier, S. M. (2015). Why care about aquatic insects:
Uses, benefits, and services. Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management,11, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1600
Svensson, O., Bellamy, A. S., Van den Brink, P. J., Tedengren, M., &
Gunnarsson, J. S. (2018). Assessing the ecological impact of banana
farms on water quality using aquatic macroinvertebrate community
composition. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,25,
13373–13381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8248-y
Swanson, A. K., Hrinda, S., & Keiper, J. B. (2007). Laboratory assessment of
altered atmospheric carbon dioxide on filamentous green algae pheno-
lic content and caddisfly growth and survival. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology,22,49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2007.
9664145
Tango, M. (1981). Les insectes comme aliments de l'homme. CEEBA
Publications Série II, Vol. 69. Zaire: CEEBA.
Taniwaki, R. H., Piggott, J. J., Ferraz, S. F. B., & Matthaei, C. D. (2017).
Climate change and multiple stressors in small tropical streams.
Hydrobiologia,793,41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2907-3
Thompson, P. L., & Gonzalez, A. (2017). Dispersal governs the reorganiza-
tion of ecological networks under environmental change. Nature Ecol-
ogy & Evolution,1, 0162. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0162
Thomson, S. A., Pyle, R. L., Ahyong, S. T., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.,
Ammirati, J., Araya, J. F., …Zhou, H.-Z. (2018). Taxonomy based on sci-
ence is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biology,16, e2005075.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
Tierno de Figueroa, J. M., López-Rodríguez, M. J., Lorez, A., Graf, W.,
Schimidt-Kloiber, A., Hering, D., & Hering, D. (2010). Vulnerable taxa
of European Plecoptera (Insecta) in the context of climate change.
Biodiversity and Conservation,19, 1269–1277. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10531-009-9753-9
Tockner, K., Malard, F., & Ward, J. V. (2000). An extension of the flood pulse
concept. Hydrological Processes,14, 2861–2883. https://doi.org/10.
1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17<2861::AID-HYP124>3.0.CO;2-F
Tonkin, J. D., Altermatt, F., Finn, D. S., Heino, J., Olden, J. D., Pauls, S. U., &
Lytle, D. A. (2018). The role of dispersal in river network meta-
communities: Patterns, processes, and pathways. Freshwater Biology,
63, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13037
Tonkin, J. D., Bogan, M. T., Bonada, N., Rios-Touma, B., & Lytle, D. A.
(2017). Seasonality and predictability shape temporal species diversity.
Ecology,98, 1201–1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1761
Tonkin, J. D., Heino, J., & Altermatt, F. (2018). Metacommunities in river
networks: The importance of network structure and connectivity on
patterns and processes. Freshwater Biology,63,1–5. https://doi.org/
10.1111/fwb.13045
Tonkin, J. D., Poff, N. L., Bond, N. R., Horne, A., Merritt, D. M.,
Reynolds, L. V., & Lytle, D. A. (2019). Prepare river ecosystems for an
uncertain future. Nature,570(7761), 301–303. http://doi.org/10.
1038/d41586-019-01877-1
12 SUNDAR ET AL.
Tonkin, J. D., Stoll, S., Sundermann, A., & Haase, P. (2014). Dispersal dis-
tance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation
of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology,
59, 1843–1855. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12387
Tupinambás, T. H., Cortes, R. M. V., Hughes, S. J., Varandas, S. G., &
Callisto, M. (2016). Macroinvertebrate responses to distinct hydrologi-
cal patterns in a tropical regulated river. Ecohydrology,9, 460–471.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1649
Urban, M. C., Bocedi, G., Hendry, A. P., Mihoub, J. B., Peer, G.,
Singer, A., & Travis, J. M. (2016). Improving the forecast for biodiver-
sity under climate change. Science,353(6304), 8466. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.aad8466
Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A.,
Muir, G., & Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for
food and feed security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), Rome and Wageningen University and
Research Centre, Wageningen: FAO Forestry Paper 171. http://
edepot.wur.nl/258042
Vasseur, D. A., DeLong, J. P., Gilbert, B., Greig, H. S., Harley, C. D. G.,
McCann, K. S., …O'Connor, M. I. (2014). Increased temperature varia-
tion poses a greater risk to species than climate warming (p. 281). Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2612
Veríssimo, D., MacMillan, D. C., & Smith, R. J. (2011). Toward a systematic
approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conservation Letters,4,
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00151.x
Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D.,
Prusevich, A., Green, P., …Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to
human water security and river biodiversity. Nature,467, 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
Wallace, J. B., & Webster, J. R. (1996). The role of macroinvertebrates in
stream ecosystem function. Annual Review of Entomology,41,
115–139. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.000555
Williams, D. D., & Williams, S. S. (2017). Aquatic insects and their potential
to contribute to the diet of the globally expanding human population.
Insects,8, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects8030072
Woodward, G., Perkins, D. M., & Brown, L. E. (2010). Climate change
and freshwater ecosystems: Impacts across multiple levels of
organization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,365,
2093–2106. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0055
WWF. (2018). In: M. Grooten, & R. E. A. Almond (Eds.), Living planet report
2018: Aiming higher. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
Yuen, E. Y. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2016). Dietary dependence of predatory
arthropods on volant aquatic insects in tropical stream riparia.
Biotropica,48, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12271
How to cite this article: Sundar S, Heino J, Roque FO, et al.
Conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity in
tropical regions. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3326
SUNDAR ET AL.13
