Hydrobiologia

, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 433–439 | Cite as

Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods – major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS

Article

Abstract

The STAR project’s extensive replicated sampling programmes have provided the first ever quantitative comparative studies of the susceptibility of a wide range of national macroinvertebrate sampling methods and taxonomic metrics to uncertainty resulting from the effects of field sampling variability and subsequent sub-sampling and laboratory (or bank-side) procedures and protocols. We summarise six STAR project papers examining various aspects of the potential sources of uncertainty in the observed fauna and observed metric values. The use of new simulation software STARBUGS (STAR Bioassessment Uncertainty Software System) to incorporate the effects of these potential errors into quantitative assessments of the uncertainty in assigning water bodies to WFD ecological status classes is discussed.

Keywords

replicate sampling variation sub-sampling macroinvertebrates multi-metric uncertainty STARBUGS simulations software audit quality assurance sample coherence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Buffagni, A., Erba, S., Cazzola, M., Murray-Bligh, J., Soszka, H., Genoni, P. 2006The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countriesHydrobiologia566379399Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, R. T., 2004. 9th STAR Deliverable. Error/Uncertainty Module Software STARBUGS (STAR Bio Assessment Uncertainty Guidance Software) User Manual. www.eu-star.atGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. T., Furse, M. T., Wright, J. F., Moss, D. 1996Derivation of a biological quality index for river sites: comparison of the observed with the expected faunaJournal of Applied Statistics23311332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. T., Furse, M. T., Gunn, R. J. M., Winder, J. M., Wright, J. F. 2002Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indicesFreshwater Biology4717351751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. T., Wright, J. F., Furse, M. T. 2003RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of riversEcological Modelling160219233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, R. T., Davy-Bowker, J., Sandin, L., Friberg, N., Johnson, R. K., Bis, B. 2006aEstimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using ‘national’ macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological statusHydrobiologia566477503Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, R. T., Lorenz, A., Sandin, L., Schmidt-Kloiber, A., Strackbein, J., Kneebone, N. T., Haase, P. 2006bEffects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STAR-AQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metricsHydrobiologia566441459Google Scholar
  8. Dines, R. A. & J. A. D. Murray-Bligh, 2000. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, pp. 71–78Google Scholar
  9. European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/100 Rev 1, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  10. Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29Google Scholar
  11. Haase, P., Murray-Bligh, J., Lohse, S., Pauls, S., Sundermann, A., Gunn, R., Clarke, R. 2006Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samplesHydrobiologia566505521Google Scholar
  12. Lorenz, A., Clarke, R. T. 2006Sample coherence – a field study approach to assess similarity of macroinvertebrate samplesHydrobiologia566461476Google Scholar
  13. Šporka, F., Vlek, H. E., Bulánková, E., Krno, I. 2006Influence of seasonal variation on bioassessment of streams using macroinvertebratesHydrobiologia566543555Google Scholar
  14. Vlek, H. E., 2004. Comparison of cost effectiveness between various macroinvertebrate field and laboratory protocols. European Commission, STAR (Standardisation of river classifications), Deliverable, N1, 78 pp, www.eu-star.atGoogle Scholar
  15. Vlek, H. E., Šporka, F., Krno, I. 2006Influence of macroinvertebrate sample size on bioassessment of streamsHydrobiologia566523542Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWinfrith Technology CentreDorchester, DorsetUK
  2. 2.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations