BIOINDICATION OF THE STATE OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
Abstract
Purpose. To determine the role of bioindication of the state of aquatic ecosystems in the context of environmental toxicology. Methods. The study was designed as a narrative analytical review. The literature search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and on the platforms of major academic publishers. Fifteen sources were selected, covering current directions in aquatic bioindication and the key methodological works on integrated biomarker assessment. Bibliosemantic analysis, comparison, systematization, problem-oriented interpretation and critical cross-reading of approaches operating at different levels of biological organization were applied. Results. The analysis showed that contemporary bioindication is no longer limited to descriptive taxonomy and increasingly relies on the integration of taxonomic, functional, physiological, biochemical and molecular evidence. Diatoms remain among the most sensitive indicators for trophic gradients, mineralization and complex chemical pressure, whereas macrophytes better integrate the consequences of chronic exposure across space and time. Zooplankton models, especially Daphnia, provide highly reproducible toxicity testing and reveal reproductive, behavioural and metabolic alterations. Ciliates and aquatic microorganisms are emerging as sensitive indicators of early stress responses, particularly under shortterm and sublethal exposure scenarios. Multibiomarker batteries and integrated indices such as IBR substantially improve the interpretability of suborganismal responses, although their use requires strict normalization and methodological discipline. Omics technologies, eDNA metabarcoding and next-generation sequencing further enhance taxonomic resolution and detect community shifts that may remain hidden when only morphology-based approaches are used. Conclusions. The highest scientific and practical value belongs to an integrated bioindication model combining classical indicator assemblages, multibiomarker assessment and molecular methods. Such a framework increases monitoring sensitivity, improves causal interpretation of ecological change and brings toxic risk assessment closer to the real processes occurring in aquatic ecosystems.
References
2. Chen, H., Li, Y., & Chen, Q. (2026). Methodologies for assessing chemical toxicity to aquatic microorganisms: A comparative review. Molecules, 31(3), 485. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31030485
3. El-SiKaily, A., & Shabaka, S. (2024). Biomarkers in aquatic systems: Advancements, applications and future directions. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 50(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2024.05.002
4. Serafim, A., Company, R., Lopes, B., Fonseca, V. F., França, S., Vasconcelos, R. P., Bebianno, M. J., & Cabral, H. N. (2012). Application of an integrated biomarker response index (IBR) to assess temporal variation of environmental quality in two Portuguese aquatic systems. Ecological Indicators, 19, 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.08.009
5. Rosner, A., Ballarin, L., Barnay-Verdier, S., Borisenko, I., Drago, L., Drobne, D., et al. (2024). A broad-taxa approach as an important concept in ecotoxicological studies and pollution monitoring. Biological Reviews, 99(1), 131-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13015
6. Leung, A., Rowan, E., Melati Chiappara, F., & Grintzalis, K. (2025). Water Monitoring Practices 2.0-Water Fleas as Key Species in Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment. Limnological Review, 25(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/limnolrev25030030
7. Taurozzi, D., Cesarini, G., & Scalici, M. (2024). Diatoms as bioindicators for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater ecosystems: A comprehensive review. Ecological Indicators, 166, 112309. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112309
8. Machuca-Sepúlveda, J., Miranda, J., Lefin, N., Pedroso, A., Beltrán, J. F., & Farias, J. G. (2023). Current status of omics in biological quality elements for freshwater biomonitoring. Biology, 12(7), 923. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12070923
9. Beliaeff, B., & Burgeot, T. (2002). Integrated biomarker response: A useful tool for ecological risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(6), 1316-1322. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210629
10. Devin, S., Burgeot, T., Giambérini, L., Minguez, L., & Pain- Devin, S. (2014). The integrated biomarker response revisited: Optimization to avoid misuse. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(4), 2448-2454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2169-9
11. Ceschin, S., Bellini, A., & Scalici, M. (2021). Aquatic plants and ecotoxicological assessment in freshwater ecosystems: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(5), 4975-4988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11496-3
12. Antil, S., Varatharajan, G. R., Ndayishimiye, J. C., Nyirabuhoro, P., Saldaev, D., Kumar, S., Toteja, R., Makhija, S., La Terza, A., & Mazei, Y. A. (2026). Ciliates as next-generation bioindicators in pollution-impacted freshwaters: Integrating community signatures with stress-response endpoints. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 242, 107412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mimet.2026.107412
13. Múrria, C., Wangensteen, O. S., Somma, S., Väisänen, L., Fortuño, P., Arnedo, M. A., & Prat, N. (2024). Taxonomic accuracy and complementarity between bulk and eDNA metabarcoding provides an alternative to morphology for biological assessment of freshwater macroinvertebrates. Science of the Total Environment, 935, 173243.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173243
14. Chen, X., Yan, Z., Li, S., Zhou, W., Xu, S., Feng, Y., Yang, C., Ma, J., Hu, Z., & Yang, J. (2025). Advancing aquatic biodiversity assessments of invertebrates using eDNA metabarcoding: A systematic evaluation of primers for marine and freshwater communities. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 16(10), 2408-2430. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.70152
15. Esser, M., Brinkmann, M., & Hecker, M. (2024). Solving freshwater conservation challenges through next-generation sequencing approaches. Environmental Science: Advances, 3(9), 1181-1196. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4VA00112E
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
