Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial water bodies are becoming more numerous, and their importance at both local and global scales is growing. As a result, understanding the changes in aquatic biodiversity across various spatial and temporal dimensions requires their consideration in any analysis. This study examines two cases that could potentially lead to a deeper comprehension of this. The first case. After gold mining, three dozen lakes formed along the Bol’shiye Koty River, which flows into Lake Baikal. The fauna of the river and artificial lakes was examined by the authors between 2022 and 2025. As a result, a total of 34 invertebrate species were found in the studied rivers, and 68 species in technogenic lakes. These lakes, as new habitats, have significantly boosted the local aquatic invertebrate richness. As the second case, the authors’ study on the North Crimean Canal plankton in 2022 was used. The canal was constructed to address the acute freshwater shortage in Crimea. It stretched 403 km, and its branches totaled over 10,000 km, significantly altering aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in Crimea. Its construction created a new migratory route for species from the Dnieper River basin to the peninsula, also creating new types of aquatic habitats for them. Many species from various taxa have thrived in Crimea, establishing robust populations. The influence of various types of artificial water bodies differs significantly. Biodiversity preservation can have both positive and negative effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anufriieva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: