Hydrobiologia

, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 247–260 | Cite as

Uncertainty in Diatom Assessment: Sampling, Identification and Counting Variation

  • Anna Besse-Lototskaya
  • Piet F. M. Verdonschot
  • Jos A. Sinkeldam
Article

Abstract

Despite the widespread application of periphytic diatoms to water quality assessment at a regional level, there is no standard European sampling protocol or associated assessment metrics. Furthermore, relatively little is known about the uncertainty in the results of such assessments. One of the objectives of the European project for the Standardisation of River Classifications (STAR) is to improve and standardise diatom assessment methods. An extensive diatom ring test, together with an audit of the project results, provided a better understanding and quantification of the uncertainty in quality assessment of running waters using diatoms. The variation in multimetric analysis shows that the choice of site and substrate for sampling, the inter-operator differences in diatom taxonomy and the counting techniques are the primary sources of uncertainty. To some extent, this variation also reveals the robustness of specific metrics in relation to the sources of uncertainty. Of the three most common substrate types tested (stone, macrophyte and sediment), macrophytes emerge as the most preferred substrate for diatom sampling when performing multimetric water quality assessment.

Keywords

diatoms multimetric index standardisation ecological assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battarbee, R. W., Flower, R. J., Juggins, S., Patrick, S. T., Stevenson, A. C. 1997The relationship between diatoms and surface water quality in the Hoylandet area of Nord-Trondelag, NorwayHydrobiologia3486980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cazoubon, A., 1996. Algal epiphytes, a methodological problem in river monitoring. In Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Innsbruck, Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, 47–50Google Scholar
  3. Coring, E., 1999. Situation and developments of algal (diatom)-based techniques for monitoring rivers in Germany. In Prygiel, J., B.A. Whitton & J. Bukowska (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III. Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai, 122–127Google Scholar
  4. Coste, M., 1987. Etude des méthods biologique quantitatives d’appréciation de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Lyon. Agence de l’Eau Rhône, 28Google Scholar
  5. Dell’Uomo, A., 1996. Assessment of water quality of an Appanine river as a pilot study for diatom-based monitoring of Italian water courses. In Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Innsbruck, Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, 64–72Google Scholar
  6. Denys, L., 1991a. A check-list of the diatoms in the holocene deposits of the Western Belgian coastal plain with a survey of their apparent ecological requirements. I. Introduction, ecological code and complete list. Ministère des Affaires Economiques – Service Géologique de BelgiqueGoogle Scholar
  7. Denys, L., 1991b. A check-list of the diatoms in the holocene deposits of the Western Belgian coastal plain with a survey of their apparent ecological requirements. II. Centrales. Ministère des Affaires Economiques – Service Géologique de BelgiqueGoogle Scholar
  8. Descy, J.-P. 1979A new approach to water quality estimation using diatomsNova Hedwigia64305323Google Scholar
  9. Descy, J.-P., Coste, M. 1991A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatomsVerhandlung Internationale Vereingung de Limnologie2421122116Google Scholar
  10. Ector, L. & F. Rimet, 2005. Using bioindicators to assess rivers in Europe: an overview. In Lek, S., M. Scardi, P. F. M. Verdonschot, J. -P. Descy & Y. -S. Park (eds), Modelling Community Structure in Freshwater Ecosystems. Springer: 7–19Google Scholar
  11. Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Barbec, 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
  12. Gomez, N. 1998Use of epipelic diatoms for evaluation of water quality in the Matanza-Riachuelo (Argentina), a pampean plain riverWater Research3220292034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gomez, N., Licursi, M. 2001The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in ArgentinaAquatic Ecology35173181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly, M. G. 1998Use of the trophic diatom index to monitor eutrophication in riversWater Research32236242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly, M. G., Cazaubon, A., Coring, E., Dell’Uomo, A., Ector, L., Goldsmith, B., Guasch, H., Hürlimann, J., Jarlman, A., Kawecka, B., Kwandrans, J., Laugaste, R., Lindstrøm, E.-A., Leitao, M., Zarvan, P., Padisák, J., Pipp, E., Prygiel, J., Rott, E., Sabater, S., Dam, H., Vizinet, J. 1998Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in EuropeJournal of Applied Phycology10215224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelly, M. G., Whitton, B. A. 1995The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in riversJournal of Applied Phycology7433444Google Scholar
  17. Leclercq, L., Maquet, B. 1987Deux noveaux metrics diatomique et the qualite chimique des eaux courantes. Comparison avec differents metrics existantsCahiers de Biologie Marine28303310Google Scholar
  18. Lecointe, C., M. Coste & J. Prygiel, 2003. Omnidia 3.2. Diatom Index Software Including Diatom Database with Taxonomic Names, References and Codes of 11645 Diatom TaxaGoogle Scholar
  19. MVSP: Multi-Variate Statistical Package, 1986–2001. Kovach Computing Services, Pentraeth, Wales, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Patterson, H. D., Thompson, R. 1971Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequalBiometrika58545554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prygiel, J. & M. Coste, 1999. Progress in the use of diatoms for monitoring rivers in France. In Prygiel, J., B. A. Whitton & J. Bukowska (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III. Douai, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie: 165–179Google Scholar
  22. Rolland, T., Fayolle, S., Cazaubon, A., Pagnetti, S. 1997Methodical approach to distribution of epilithic and drifting algae communities in a French subalpine river: inferences on water quality assessmentAquatic Sciences595773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rott, E., Duthie, H. C., Pipp, E. 1998Monitoring organic pollution and eutrophication in the Grand River, Ontario, by means of diatomsCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5514431453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rott, E., P. Pfister, H. Van Dam, E. Pipp, K. Pall, N. Binder & K. Ortler, 1999. Indikationslisten für aufwuchsalgen. Wien. Bundesministerium für Land - und Forstwirtschaft 248Google Scholar
  25. Sládeček, V. 1986Diatoms as indicators of organic pollutionActa Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica14555566Google Scholar
  26. Snoeijs, P. J. M. 1991Monitoring pollution effects by diatom community composition: a comparison of sampling methodsArchiv für Hydrobiologie121497510Google Scholar
  27. Steinberg, C., Schiefele, S. 1988Biological indication of trophy and pollution of running watersZeitschrift für Wasser- und Abwasser-Forschung21227234Google Scholar
  28. Stevenson, R. J., Hashim, S. 1989Variation in diatom community structure among habitats in sandy streamsJournal of Phycology25678686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ter Braak, C. J. F., 1988. CANOCO – A FORTRAN Program for canonical community ordination by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] correspondence analysis, principal component analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). Report LWA-88-02. Agricultural Mathematics Group, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  30. Ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Ŝmilauer, 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and Users Guide to Canoco for Windows. Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  31. Dam, H. 1997Partial recovery of moorland pools from acidification: indications by chemistry and diatomsNetherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology30203218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Verdonschot, P. F. M., Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1994An experimental manipulation of oligochaete communities in mesocosms treated with chlorpyrifos or nutrient additions: multivariate analyses with Monte Carlo permutation testsHydrobiologia278251266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winter, J. G., Duthie, H. C. 2000Stream epilithic, epipelic and epiphytic diatoms: habitat fidelity and use in biomonitoringAquatic Ecology34345353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Besse-Lototskaya
    • 1
  • Piet F. M. Verdonschot
    • 1
  • Jos A. Sinkeldam
    • 1
  1. 1.Freshwater BiologyAlterra, Wageningen University and ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations