Hydrobiologia

, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 267–280 | Cite as

Occurrence and variability of River Habitat Survey features across Europe and the consequences for data collection and evaluation

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
  • Andrea Buffagni
  • John Davy-Bowker
  • Jacek Lesny
  • Bogdan H. Chojnicki
  • Janina Zbierska
  • Ryszard Staniszewski
  • Tomasz Zgola
Article

Abstract

River Habitat Survey (RHS) data collected for the EU-funded STAR project was used to identify hydromorphological characteristic features of rivers in four European regions namely: lowlands; mountain; the Alps; and the Mediterranean. Using RHS attributes, Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA) – a measure of natural habitat diversity, and Habitat Modification Score (HMS) – a measure of anthropogenic modification, we identified considerable differences in frequency, diversity and evenness of features between the regions. A relatively small subset of features clearly distinguish the hydromorphological characters of lowland, Alpine and southern European rivers. It was more difficult to distinguish mountain rivers from Alpine rivers. The highest statistical differences are observed between Lowland and Mountain region. Within the four regions studied the RHS attributes that most strongly influence the HQA and HMS indices were identified. We conclude that specific effort should be made to ensure these are recorded properly as part of the quality control of RHS data.

Keywords

River Habitat Survey hydromorphology variability data quality river assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

supp.doc (232 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse, 1996. Outil d’évaluation de la qualité du milieu physique – synthèse. MetzGoogle Scholar
  2. Balestrini, R., M. Cazzola & A. Buffagni, 2004. Riparian ecotones and hydromorphological features of selected Italian rivers: a comparative application of environmental indices. In Hering, D., P.F.M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 365–379Google Scholar
  3. Buffagni, A. & S. Erba, 2002. Guidance for the assessment of Hydromorphological features of rivers within the STAR Project. June 2002, 20+18 pp (Available at STAR web site, www.eu-star.at)Google Scholar
  4. Buffagni, A., Kemp, J. L. 2002Looking beyond the shores of the United Kingdom: addenda for the application of River Habitat Survey in South-European riversJournal of Limnology61199214Google Scholar
  5. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, D. Armanini, D. De Martini & S. Somaré, 2004a. Aspetti idromorfologici e carattere Lentico-lotico dei fiumi mediterranei: River Habitat Survey e descrittore LRD. In: ‘Classificazione ecologica e carattere lentico-lotico in fiumi mediterranei’. Quad. Ist. Ricerca Acque, Roma 122: 41–63Google Scholar
  6. Buffagni, A., S. Erba & R. Pagnotta, 2004b. Carattere Lenticolotico dei fiumi mediterranei e classificazione biologica di qualità. In: `Classificazione ecologica e carattere lentico-lotico in fiumi Mediterranei. Quad. Ist Ricerca Acque, Roma 122: 157–178Google Scholar
  7. Buffagni, A., S. Erba & M. Ciampittiello, 2005. Il rilevamento idromorfologico e degli habitat fluviali nel contesto della Direttiva Europea sulle Acque (WFD): principi e schede di applicazione del metodo CARAVAGGIO. Notiziario dei Metodi Analitici Ist. Ric. Acque, Dicembre 2005 (2): 27–42Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, R., J. Strackbein, this issue. Estimation of the values of uncertainty in individual indices and in a multi-metric system for assessing status. HydrobiologiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Directive 2000/60/EC. Water Framework Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000Google Scholar
  10. Environment Agency, 1997. River Habitat Survey – Field Guidance Manual, BristolGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Agency2003River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey Guidance ManualEnvironmental AgencyBristolGoogle Scholar
  12. Hering, D. & J. Strackbein, 2002. STAR stream types and sampling sites. http://www.eu-star.at/pdf/FirstDeliverable.pdf
  13. Raven, P. J., Fox, P. J. A., Everard, M., Holmes, N. T. H., Dawson, F. D. 1997

    River Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality

    Boon, P. J.Howell, D. L. eds. Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable?The Stationery OfficeEdinburgh215234
    Google Scholar
  14. Raven, P. J., Holmes, N. T. H., Dawson, F. D., Fox, P. J. A., Everard,  M., Fozzard, I. R., Rouen, K. J. 1998aRiver Habitat Quality: the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of ManEnvironment AgencyBristolGoogle Scholar
  15. Raven, P. J., Holmes, N. T. H., Dawson, F. H., Everard, M. 1998bQuality assessment using River Habitat Survey dataAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems8477499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raven, P. J., Holmes, N. T. H., Charrier, P., Dawson, F. H., Naura,  M., Boon, P. J. 2002Towards a harmonised approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative comparison of three survey methodsAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems12405424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schneider, P. J., Neitzel, M., Schaffrath, M., Schlumprecht, H. 2003Physico-chemical assessment of the reference status in German surface waters: A contribution to the establishment of the EC Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EG in GermanyActa Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica314963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Szoszkiewicz K., Zbierska J., Staniszewski R., Jusik S., Zgoła T., Kupiec J., 2005. Errors and variation associated with field protocols for the collection and application of macrophyte and hydro-morphological data. STAR Deliverable N4Google Scholar
  19. ter Braak, C. J. F. 1995

    Ordination

    Jongman, R. H. G.ter Braak, C. J. F.Tongeren, O. F. R. eds. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape EcologyCambridge University PressCambridge109115
    Google Scholar
  20. ter Braak, C. J. F., Smilauer, P. 1998CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4)Microcomputer PowerIthaca, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Zbierska, J., S. Murat-Bazejewska, K. Szoszkiewicz & A. Lawniczak, 2002. Bilans biogenow w agroekosystemach Wielkopolski w aspekcie ochrony jakosci wod na przykladzie zlewni Samicy Steszewskiej. Wyd. AR PoznanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    • 1
  • Andrea Buffagni
    • 2
  • John Davy-Bowker
    • 3
  • Jacek Lesny
    • 4
  • Bogdan H. Chojnicki
    • 4
  • Janina Zbierska
    • 1
  • Ryszard Staniszewski
    • 1
  • Tomasz Zgola
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionAugust Cieszkowski Agricultural UniversityPoznanPoland
  2. 2.CNR-IRSA Water Research InstituteBrugherio (Milan)Italy
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWinfrith Technology CentreDorchester, DorsetUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Department of AgrometeorologyAugust Cieszkowski Agricultural UniversityPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations