Efficacy and deficiencies of rapid biomonitoring in biodiversity conservation: a case study in South Africa

Rapid biomonitoring protocols, using biotic indices based on macroinvertebrate diversity to assess river ecosystem health, are widely used globally. Such quick assessment techniques are lauded for the rapid results obtained and the relatively easy protocol used to achieve an answer. However, do such quick assessments of water quality give enough information about ecosystems? Are important details being overlooked? When should a full faunal survey be used in preference? Important research programmes, including environmental impact studies, often misuse biomonitoring techniques, making influential management decisions using superficial, low-level data obtained using biomonitoring tools, inappropriate to address those management objectives. The value of using biomonitoring as a quick tool, versus a more detailed faunal assessment, is considered here. The assessment of teloganodid mayfly fauna occurring in South African rivers provides an example of the value of detailed studies versus superficial family level investigations, showing that a rapid biomonitoring approach should not be used as a shortcut when a more detailed survey is needed. Each situation should be assessed for its own merit in a given set of project circumstances. A checklist of criteria is presented, giving guidance on when rapid biomonitoring alone is valuable and when more detailed assessments would give a more relevant result.