, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 211–234 | Cite as

European river plant communities: the importance of organic pollution and the usefulness of existing macrophyte metrics

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
  • Teresa Ferreira
  • Thomas Korte
  • Annette Baattrup-Pedersen
  • John Davy-Bowker
  • Mattie O’Hare


The macrophyte surveys undertaken as part of the EU-funded STAR project are a unique resource allowing aquatic plant communities to be studied at a Pan-European scale (211 stream sites with macrophytes in 14 countries). Using this dataset, we examined the influence of organic pollution in relation to other environmental correlates of river plant community variation across Europe. We examined the relationships between several existing macrophyte metrics and nutrient enrichment, and we also explored the possibility of developing a pan-European macrophyte-based assessment system. We showed that trophic (nutrient) status is an important driver of aquatic plant communities in European rivers. We found that while most existing macrophyte metrics are useful, none can be applied at a pan-European scale in their current form. Our attempt to redesign the Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) index by the addition of further species, and the re-scoring of existing species, resulted in a considerable improvement in the relationship between MTR scores and nutrient variables. We conclude that an enlarged core group of macrophyte species can form part of an improved pan-European macrophyte-based bioassessment system, although regional modifications may be required to adequately describe the nutrient status of certain stream types.


Water Framework Directive macrophytes river trophy MTR IBMR biological indicators STAR 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

supp.doc (62 kb)


  1. Allan, J. D. 1995Stream Ecology. Structure and Function of Running WatersChapman and HallLondon388Google Scholar
  2. Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Riis, T. 1999Macrophyte diversity and composition in relation to substratum characteristics in regulated and unregulated Danish streamsFreshwater Biology42375385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Szoszkiewicz, K., Nijboer, R., O’Hare, M., Ferreira, T. 2006Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversityHydrobiologia566179196Google Scholar
  4. Butcher, R. W. 1933Studies on ecology of rivers. I. On the distribution of macrophytic vegetation in the rivers of BritainJournal of Ecology215891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawson, F. H., Kern-Hansen, U. 1979The effect of natural and Artificial Shade on Macrophytes of Lowland Streams and the Use of Shade as Management TechniqueInternationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie64437455Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, F. H. 1988Water flow and the vegetation of running watersSymoens, J. J. eds. Vegetation of Inland WatersKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht283309Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, F. H., 2002. Guidance for the field assessment of macrophytes of rivers within the STAR Project.
  8. Dawson, F. H., Newman, J. R., Gravelle, M. J., Rouen, K. J., Henville, P. 1999Assessment of the Trophic Status of Rivers using Macrophytes: Evaluation of the Mean Trophic Rank. R&D Technical Report E39Environment Agency of England & WalesBristol108Google Scholar
  9. Demars, B. O. L., Harper, D. H. 1998The aquatic macrophytes of an English lowland river system: assessing response to nutrient enrichmentHydrobiologia3847588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellenberg, H., Weber, H. E., Dull, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W., Baulissen, D. 1992Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in MitteleuropaScripta Geobotanica181257Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Brussels, Belgium, 23 October 2000Google Scholar
  12. Fennessy, M. S., Cronk, J. K., Mitsch, W. J. 1994Macrophytes productivity and community development in created freshwater wetlands under experimental hydrological conditionsEcological Engineering3469484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferreira, M. T., Albuquerque, A., Aguiar, F. C., Sidorkewicz, N. 2002Assessing reference sites and ecological quality of river plant assemblages from an Iberian basin using a multivariate approachArchive für Hydrobiologie155121145Google Scholar
  14. Ferreira, M. T., P. Rodríguez-González, F. C. Aguiar & A. Albuquerque, 2005. Assessing biotic integrity in Iberian rivers: Development of a multimetric plant indice. Ecological Indicators 5: 137--149Google Scholar
  15. Haslam, S. 1978River Plants: The Macrophytic Vegetation of WatercoursesCambridge University PressCambridge396Google Scholar
  16. Haslam, S. 1987River Plants of Western EuropeCambridge University PressCambridge512Google Scholar
  17. Haury, J., Peltre, M. C., Muller, S., Trémolières, M., Barbe, J., Dutartre, A., Guerlesquin, M. 1996Des indices macrophytiques pour estimer la qualité des cours d’eau français: premières propositionsEcologie27233244Google Scholar
  18. Haury, J., M. C. Peltre, M. Tremolieres, J. Barbe, G. Thiebaut, I. Berne, H. Daniel, P. Chatenet, S. Muller, A. Dutartre, C. Laplace-Treyture, A. Cazaubon & E. Lambert-Servien, 2002. A method involving macrophytes to assess water trophy and organic pollution: the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR) – application to different types of rivers and pollutions. Proc. 11th EWRS International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, Moliets Et Maa, France, eds. A. Dutartre & M.-H. Montel, 247–250Google Scholar
  19. Holmes, N. T. H., Newman, J. R., Chadd, S., Rouen, K. J., Saint, L., Dawson, F. H. 1999Mean Trophic Rank: A Users Manual. R&D Technical Report E38Environment Agency of England & WalesBristol134Google Scholar
  20. Jalas, J. 1955Hemorobe und hemerokore PflanzenartenEin terminologischer Reformversuch. Acta Societas pro Fauna et Flora. Fennica72115Google Scholar
  21. Kohler, A. 1982Wasserpanzen als BelastungsindikatorenDescheniana-Beihefte263142Google Scholar
  22. Kohler, A., Schiele, S. 1985Veränderungen von Flora und Vegetation in den kalkreichen Fließgewässern der Friedberger Au (bei Augsburg) von 1972 bis 1982 unter veränderten BelastungsbedingungenArchive für Hydrobiologie103137199Google Scholar
  23. McNaughton, S. J. 1967Relationships among functional properties of Californian GrasslandsNature216168169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Passauer, B., Meilinger, P., Melzer, A., Schneider, S. 2002Does the structural quality of running waters affect the occurrence of macrophytes?Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica30197206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pielou, E. C. 1966The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collectionsJournal of Theoretical Biology13131144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pott, R., Remy, D. 2000Gewässer des BinnenlandesEugen Ulmer VerlagStuttgart255Google Scholar
  27. Remy, D. 1993Pflanzensoziologische und standortkundliche Untersuchungen an Fließgewässern NordwestdeutschlandsAbhandlungen aus dem Westfälischen Museum für Naturkunde55117Google Scholar
  28. Robach, F., Thiébaut, G., Trémolières, M., Muller, S. 1996A reference system for continental running waters: plant communities as bioindicators of increasing eutrophication in alkaline and acidic waters in north-east FranceHydrobiologia3406776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schaumburg, J., Schranz, C., Foerster, J., Gutowski, A., Hofmann, G., Meilinger, P., Schneider, S., Schmedtje, U. 2004Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework DirectiveLimnologica34283301Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, S., Krumpholz, T., Melzer, A. 2000Trophäeindikation in Fliessgewässern mit Hilfe des TIM (Trophäe-Index Macrophyten) – Erprobung eines neu entwickelten Index im Inniger BachActa Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica28241249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. 1949The Mathematical Theory of CommunicationUniversity of Illinois PressUrbana117Google Scholar
  32. Simpson, E. H. 1949Measurement of diversityNature163688Google Scholar
  33. Sipos, V., Kohler, A., Björg, S. 2000Makrophyten-Vegetation und Standorte im eutrophen Björka-Fluss (Südschweden)Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik12293152Google Scholar
  34. StatSoft, Inc., 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.comGoogle Scholar
  35. Svendsen, L. & A. Rebsdorf, 1994. Kvalitetssikring af Overvågningsdata. Retningslinier for Kvalitetssikring af Ferskvandskemiske Data i Vandmiljøplanenes Overvågningsprogram. (Quality Assurance of Monitoring Data). Teknisk Anvisning fra DMU, 7: 87 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Szoszkiewicz, K., Karolewicz, K., Lawniczak, A., Dawson, F. H. 2002An assessment of the MTR aquatic plant bioindication system for determining the trophic status of Polish riversPolish Journal of Environmental Studies11421427Google Scholar
  37. ter Braak, C. J. F., Prentice, I. C. 1988A theory of gradient analysisAdvances in Ecological Research.18271317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thiebaut, G., Muller, S. 1998Aquatic macrophyte communities as water quality indicators: example of the river Moder (North-East France) Annales de limnologieInternational Journal of Limnology34141153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tremp, H., Kohler, A. 1995The usefulness of macrophyte monitoring-systems, exemplified on eutrophication and acidification of running watersActa Botanica Gallica142541550Google Scholar
  40. Van de Weyer, K., 1997. Untersuchungen zur Biologie und Ökologie von Potamogeton polygonifolius im Niederrheinischen Tiefland. Dissertationes Botanicae 278: 178 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Van De Weyer, K., 2003. Kartieranleitung zur Erfassung und Bewertung der aquatischen Makrophyten der Fließgewässer in NRW gemäß den Vorgaben der EU-Wasser-Rahmenrichtlinie. Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen (LUA). Merkblätter 39: 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Veit, U., K. Penksza & A. Kohler, 2003. Beurteilung von Fließgewässern am Beispiel einer Langzeituntersuchung der Makrophyten-Vegetation in der Friedberger Au (bei Augsburg). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie Tagungsbericht 2002 (Braunschweig), 263–268Google Scholar
  43. Werle, W. 1982Eignung von submersen Makrophyten als Bioindikatoren in FließgewässernMitteilungen der Pollichia70125168Google Scholar
  44. Westlake, D. F. 1975MacrophytesWhitton, B.A. eds. River EcologyUniversity of California PressBerkeley, California106128Google Scholar
  45. Wiegleb, G. 1988Analysis of flora and vegetation in rivers: concepts and applicationsSymoens, J. eds. Vegetation of Inland Waters. Handbook of Vegetation Science 15Kluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht311340Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    • 1
  • Teresa Ferreira
    • 2
  • Thomas Korte
    • 3
  • Annette Baattrup-Pedersen
    • 4
  • John Davy-Bowker
    • 5
  • Mattie O’Hare
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionAgricultural University of August CieszkowskiPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Forestry Department, Agronomy InstituteTechnical University of LisbonLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Freshwater BiologyNational Environmental Research InstituteSilkeborgDenmark
  5. 5.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWinfrith Technology CentreDorchester, DorsetUK

Personalised recommendations