Skip to main content

The Use of Diatoms to Assess the Ecological Status in Catalan Rivers: Application of the WFD and Lessons Learned from the European Intercalibration Exercise

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Experiences from Surface Water Quality Monitoring

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 42))

Abstract

The biological communities have been widely applied in the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies. In particular, diatom communities integrate the environmental effects of water chemistry, along with the physical and geomorphological characteristics of rivers and lakes. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) included for the first time in Europe the concept of ecological status of aquatic ecosystems in water quality evaluation, based on the use of biological quality elements (BQE) in a type-specific context. During the implementation of the WFD in Catalan rivers using diatoms, 152 stream and river sites were sampled, and the applicability of existing diatom indices to monitor water quality in Catalan rivers was tested. The correspondence between the already proposed typological classifications of rivers and the biological classification was also examined. Since the bioassessment methods using diatoms needed to be comparable amongst different fluvial ecosystems in Europe, several intercalibration (IC) exercises were done throughout Mediterranean areas in Europe. The Mediterranean IC exercise faced the inconsistency between the river types and the biotic classification, the lack of real pristine sites and the existence of taxonomic discrepancies. In spite of these constraints, the Intercalibration Common Metric (ICM) consistently related with the local-used indices (IPS) in all the countries tested. However, during this process, the need of revising the river typology as well as of revisiting the fine-tuning of taxonomic identifications was clear. Putting effort in these aspects would improve the water quality assessment at the national level and would also improve the subsequent comparability amongst countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stevenson RJ, Pan Y (1999) Assessing environmental conditions in rivers and streams using diatoms. In: Stoermer EF, Smol JP (eds) The diatoms: application for the environmental and earth sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–40

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sabater S, Admiraal W (2005) Biofilms as biological indicators in managed aquatic ecosystems. In: Azim ME, Verdegem MCJ, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (eds) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 159–177

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pan YD, Stevenson RJ, Hill BH, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT (1999) Spatial patterns and ecological determinants of benthic algal assemblages in Mid-Atlantic streams, USA. J Phycol 35:460–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sabater S, Sabater F, Armengol J (1988) Relationships between diatom assemblages and physico-chemical variables in the river Ter (NE Spain). Int Rev Gesamten Hydrobiol 73:171–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rott E (1991) Methodological aspects and perspectives in the use of periphyton for monitoring and protecting rivers. In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Botanik, Innsbruck, pp 9–16

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kelly MG, Cazaubon A, Coring E, Dell’Uomo A, Ector L, Goldsmith B, Guasch H, Hurlimann J, Jarlman A, Kawecka B, Kwandrans J, Laugaste R, Lindstrom EA, Leitao M, Marvan P, Padisak J, Pipp E, Prygiel J, Rott E, Sabater S, van Dam H, Vizinet J (1998) Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J Appl Phycol 10:215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prygiel J, Carpentier P, Almeida S, Coste M, Druart JC, Ector L, Guillard D, Honore MA, Iserentant R, Ledeganck P, Lalanne Cassou C, Lesniak C, Mercier I, Moncaut P, Nazart M, Nouchet N, Peres F, Peeters V, Rimet F, Rumeau A, Sabater S, Straub F, Torrisi M, Tudesque L, van de Vijver B, Vidal H, Vizinet J, Zydek N (2002) Determination of the biological diatom index (IBD NF T 90–354): results of an intercomparison exercise. J Appl Phycol 14:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Committee for Standardization (2003) European Standard EN 13946. Water quality—guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers for water quality assessment. CEN, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  9. European Committee for Standardization (2004) European Standard EN 14407. Water quality—guidance standard for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samples from running waters. CEN, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Communities L327:1–73

    Google Scholar 

  11. Almeida SF, Elias C, Ferreira J, Tornés E, Puccinelli C, Delmas F, Dörflinger G, Urbanič G, Marcheggiani S, Rosebery J, Mancini L, Sabater S (2014) Water quality assessment of rivers using diatom metrics across Mediterranean Europe: a methods intercalibration exercise. Sci Total Environ 476:768–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cemagref (1982) Étude des méthodes biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Cemagref Lyon. Agence de l’Eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coste M, Boutry S, Tison-Rosebery J, Delmas F (2009) Improvements of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI): description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006). Ecol Indic 9:621–650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Descy JP, Coste M (1990) Utilisation des diatomées benthiques pour l’évaluation de la qualité des eaux courantes. Rapport final. Université de Namur, Cemagref Bordeaux

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zelinka M, Marvan P (1961) Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Arch Hydrobiol 57:389–407

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lecointe C, Coste M, Prygiel J (1993) OMNIDIA: software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269:509–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nijboer RC, Johnson RK, Verdonschot PFM, Sommerhäuser M, Buffagni A (2004) Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Munné A, Prat N (2004) Defining river types in a Mediterranean area: a methodology for the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Environ Manag 34:711–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. ACA (2005) Caracterització de masses d’aigua i anàlisi del risc d’imcompliment dels objectius de la Directiva Marc de l’Aigua (2000/60/CE) a Catalunya (conques intra i intercomunitàries). Report of the Catalan Water Agency, Barcelona. Available from http://aca-web.gencat.cat/aca/appmanager/aca/aca?_nfpb = true&_pageLabel = P1206154461208200586461

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tornés E, Leira M, Sabater S (2012) Is the biological classification of benthic diatom communities concordant with ecotypes? Hydrobiologia 695:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cao Y, Hawkins CP (2011) The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:680–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kahlert M, Albert R-L, Anttila E-L, Bengtsson R, Bigler C, Eskola T, Gälman V, Gottschalk S, Herlitz E, Jarlman A, Kasperoviciene J, Kokociński M, Luup H, Miettinen J, Paunksnyte I, Piirso K, Quintana I, Raunio J, Sandell B, Simola H, Sundberg I, Vilbaste S, Weekström J (2009) Harmonization is more important than experience—results of the first Nordic-Baltic diatom intercalibration exercise 2007 (stream monitoring). J Appl Phycol 21:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Feio M, Aguiar F, Almeida S, Ferreira J, Ferreira M, Elias C, Serra S, Buffagni A, Cambra J, Chauvin C, Delmas F, Dörflinger G, Erba S, Flor N, Ferréol M, Germ M, Mancini L, Manolaki P, Marcheggiani S, Minciardi MR, Munné A, Papastergiadou E, Prat N, Puccinelli C, Rosebery J, Sabater S, Ciadamidaro S, Tornés E, Tziortzis I, Urbanič G, Vieira C (2014) Least disturbed condition for European Mediterranean rivers. Sci Total Environ 476:745–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly M, Bennett C, Coste M, Delgado C, Delmas F, Denys L, Ector L, Fauville C, Ferréol M, Golub M, Jarlman A, Kahlert M, Lucey J, Ní Chatháin B, Pardo I, Pfister P, Picinska-Faltynowicz J, Rosebery J, Schranz C, Schaumburg J, van Dam H, Vilbaste S (2009) A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European water framework directive: results of an intercalibration exercise. Hydrobiologia 621:169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. ECOSTAT (Working Group 2.A Ecological Status) (2004) Overview of common intercalibration types. Final version 5.1

    Google Scholar 

  27. van de Bund W (ed) (2009) Water Framework Directive Intercalibration technical report. Part 1: rivers. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hawkins CP, Vinson MR (2000) Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:501–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sánchez-Montoya MM, Puntí T, Suárez ML, Vidal-Abarca MR, Rieradevall M, Poquet JM, Zamora-Muñoz C, Robles S, Álvarez M, Alba-Tercedor J, Toro M, Pujante AM, Munné A, Prat N (2007) Concordance between ecotypes and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Mediterranean streams. Freshw Biol 52:2240–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rott E, Binder N, van Dam H, Ortler K, Pall K, Pfister P, Pipp E (1999) Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 2: Trophieindikation, geochemische Reaktion, toxikologische und taxonomische Anmerkungen. Publ. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, BMfLF:1–248

    Google Scholar 

  31. European Comission (2011) Technical report-2011–045. Guidance document on the intercalibration process 2008–2011. Guidance Document n° 14. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabet Tornés .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tornés, E., Sabater, S. (2015). The Use of Diatoms to Assess the Ecological Status in Catalan Rivers: Application of the WFD and Lessons Learned from the European Intercalibration Exercise. In: Munné, A., Ginebreda, A., Prat, N. (eds) Experiences from Surface Water Quality Monitoring. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2015_344

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics