Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 253–264

Using aquatic macrophyte community indices to define the ecological status of European lakes

  • W. Ellis Penning
  • Bernard Dudley
  • Marit Mjelde
  • Seppo Hellsten
  • Jenica Hanganu
  • Agnieszka Kolada
  • Marcel van den Berg
  • Sandra Poikane
  • Geoff Phillips
  • Nigel Willby
  • Frauke Ecke
Article

Abstract

Defining the overall ecological status of lakes according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to be partially based on the species composition of the aquatic macrophyte community. We tested three assessment methods to define the ecological status of the macrophyte community in response to a eutrophication pressure as reflected by total phosphorus concentrations in lake water. An absolute species richness, a trophic index (TI) and a lake trophic ranking (LTR) method were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scales as well as by alkalinity category, using data from 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. Total phosphorus data were used to represent the trophic status of individual samples and were plotted against the calculated TI and LTR values. Additionally, the LTR method was tested in some individual lakes with a relatively long time series of monitoring data. The TI correlated well with total P in the Northern European lake types, whereas the relationship in the Central European lake types was less clear. The relationship between total P and light extinction is often very good in the Northern European lake types compared to the Central European lake types. This can be one of the reasons for a better agreement between the indices and eutrophication pressure in the Northern European lake types. The response of individual lakes to changes in the abiotic environment was sometimes represented incorrectly by the indices used, which is a cause of concern for the use of single indices in status assessments in practice.

Keywords

Aquatic vegetation Ecological quality EU Water Framework Directive Intercalibration REBECCA Status assessment 

References

  1. Barko JW, Gunnison D, Carpenter R (1991) Sediment interactions with submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquat Bot 41:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birk S, Korte T, Hering D (2006) Intercalibration of assessment methods for macrophytes in lowland streams: direct comparison and analysis of common metrics. Hydrobiologia 566:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ecke F (2007) Bedömningsgrunder för makrofyter i sjöar – Bakgrundsrapport (in Swedish). Luleå University of Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering and Geosciences, Research Report 2007:17, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. European Union (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Communities in the field of water policy, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 327/1, 22.12.2000Google Scholar
  5. Free G, Little R, Tierney D, Donnelly K, Caroni R (2006) A reference based typology and ecological assessment system for Irish lakes—preliminary investigations. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford. www.epa.ie
  6. Genkai-Kato M, Carpenter SR (2005) Eutrophication due to phosphorus recycling in relation to lake morphometry, temperature and macrophytes. Ecology 86:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Håkanson L (2005) The importance of lake morphometry and catchment characteristics in limnology––ranking based on statistical analysis. Hydrobiologia 541:117–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heiskanen AS, Van der Bund WJ, Cardoso AC, Noges P (2004) Towards good ecological status of surface waters in Europe—interpretation and harmonisation of the concept. Water Sci Technol 49(7):169–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hindar A, Moy F, Bækken T, Mjelde M, Nilsen JP, Kroglund T (2005) Forvaltning av mindre vassdrag i lys av Vannrammedirektivet – Gjevingevassdraget i Tvedestrand. NIVA-rapport lnr. 5041-2005Google Scholar
  11. Ibelings BW, Portielje R, Lammens EHHR, Noordhuis R, Van den Berg MS, Joosse W, Meijer ML (2007) Resilience of alternative stable states during the recovery of shallow lakes from eutrophication: Lake Veluwe as a case study. Ecosystems 10(1):4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeppesen E, Søndergaard M, Jensen JP, Havens KE et al (2005) Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading—an analysis of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies. Freshw Biol 50:1747–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lammens EHRR, Van Nes EH, Meijer ML, Van den Berg MS (2004) Effects of commercial fishery on the bream population and the expansion of Chara aspera in Lake Veluwe. Ecol Modell 177:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leka J, Toivonen H, Leikola N, Hellsten S (2007) Makrofyytit Suomen järvien ekologisen tilan ilmentäjinä. Valtakunnallisen makrofyyttiaineiston käyttö ekologisen tila-luokittelun kehittämisessä. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 2007. 42 p. + appGoogle Scholar
  15. Leyssen A, Adriaens P, Denys L, Packet J, Schneiders A, Van Looy K, Vanhecke L (2005) Toepassing van verschillende biologische beoordelingssystemen op Vlaamse potentiele interkalibratielocaties overeenkomstig de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water – Partim ‘Macrofyten’. Rapport van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud IN.R. 2005.05 in opdracht van VMM, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyche Solheim A (ed) (2006) Dose–response relationships between biological and chemical elements in different lake types. REBECCA report D11. (www.rbm-toolbox.net/docstore/docs/3.1713.D11.pdf)
  17. Middleboe AL, Markager S (1997) Depth limits and minimum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshw Biol 37:553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mjelde M (1997) Virkninger av forurensning på biologisk mangfold: Vann og vassdrag i by- og tettstedsnære områder. Vannvegetasjon i innsjøer - effekter av eutrofiering. En kunnskapsstatus. Norsk institutt forvannforskning. NIVA-rapport 3755-97 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  19. Mjelde M (2005a) Vansjø-Hobøl-vassdraget. Økologisk status for vannvegetasjon i 2004. NIVA-rapport lnr. 5036-2005 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  20. Mjelde M (2005b) EU Water Framework Directive: ecological status assessment. Aquatic Macrophytes. NIVA Project Facts. September 2005Google Scholar
  21. Mjelde M (2007) Macrophytes and eutrophication in lakes (unpublished document)Google Scholar
  22. Moe SJ, Dudley B, Ptacnik R (2008) REBECCA databases: experiences from compilation and analyses of monitoring data from 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries. Aquat Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10452-008-9190-y Google Scholar
  23. Moss B, Stephen D, Alvarez C, Becares E, Van der Bund W, Collings SE et al (2003) The determination of ecological status in shallow lakes––a tested system (ECOFRAME) for implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:507–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy KJ (2002) Plant communities and plant diversity in softwater lakes of northern Europe. Aquat Bot 73(4):287–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Hare MT, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Nijboer R, Szoszkiewicz K, Teresa Ferreira T (2006) Macrophyte communities of European streams with altered physical habitat. Hydrobiologia 566:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Penning WE, Mjelde M, Dudley B, Hellsten S, Hanganu J, Kolada A, Van den Berg M, Poikane S, Phillips G, Willby N, Ecke F (2008) Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquat Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y
  27. Phillips G, Van den Berg M (2007) CGIG Milestone 6 reportGoogle Scholar
  28. Rip WJ, Ouboter M, van Nes EH, Beltman B (2005) Oscillation of a shallow lake ecosystem upon reduction in external phosphorus load. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 164:387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rørslett B (1991) Principal determinants of aquatic macrophyte richness in northern European lakes. Aquat Bot 39:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaumburg J, Schranz C, Hofmann G, Stelzer D, Schneider S, Schmedtje U (2004) Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in German lakes—a contribution to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34:302–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simons J, Ohm M, Daalder R, Boers P, Rip W (1994) Restoration of Botshol (The Netherlands) by reduction of external nutrient load: recovery of a characean community, dominated by Chara connivens. Hydrobiologia 275/276:243–253Google Scholar
  32. Søndergaard M, Jeppesen E, Peder JJ, Lildal SA (2005) Water Framework Directive: ecological classification of Danish lakes. J Appl Ecol 42(4):616–629 AugCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stelzer D, Schneider S, Melzer A (2005) Macrophyte based assessment of lakes—a contribution to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Germany. Int Rev Hydrobiol 90(2):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van den Berg MS (2004) Achtergrondrapportage referenties en maatlatten waterflora. Rapportage van de expertgroepen macrofyten en fytoplankton. STOWA reportGoogle Scholar
  35. Van den Berg MS, Coops H, Meijer ML, Scheffer M, Simons J (1997) Clear water associated with a dense Chara vegetation in the shallow and turbid Lake Veluwemeer. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. Van der Molen DT, Latour P, Stronkhorst J, Van der Wal B (2004) Ecologische referenties en maatlatten voor de Kaderrichtlijn Water. H2O 6:10–12Google Scholar
  37. Willby N, Pitt J, Phillips G (2006) Summary of approach used in LEAFPACS for defining ecological quality of rivers and lakes using macrophyte composition. Draft Report January 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Ellis Penning
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bernard Dudley
    • 3
  • Marit Mjelde
    • 4
  • Seppo Hellsten
    • 5
  • Jenica Hanganu
    • 6
  • Agnieszka Kolada
    • 7
  • Marcel van den Berg
    • 8
  • Sandra Poikane
    • 9
  • Geoff Phillips
    • 10
  • Nigel Willby
    • 11
  • Frauke Ecke
    • 12
  1. 1.DeltaresDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.NIOO-CL MaarssenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CEH, EdinburghPenicuikUK
  4. 4.NIVAOsloNorway
  5. 5.SYKE, University of OuluOulu Finland
  6. 6.DDNITulceaRomania
  7. 7.Institute for Environmental ProtectionWarszawaPoland
  8. 8.Rijkswaterstaat RIZALelystadThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Joint Research CentreIspraItaly
  10. 10.Environment Agency for England and WalesReadingUK
  11. 11.University of StirlingStirlingUK
  12. 12.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations