, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 179–196 | Cite as

Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversity

  • Annette Baattrup-Pedersen
  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
  • Rebi Nijboer
  • Mattie O’Hare
  • Teresa Ferreira


Macrophytes are an important component of aquatic ecosystems and are used widely within the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to establish ecological quality. In the present paper we investigated macrophyte community structure, i.e., composition, richness and diversity measures in 60 unimpacted stream and river sites throughout Europe. The objectives were to describe assemblage patterns in different types of streams and to assess the variability in various structural and ecological metrics within these types to provide a basis for an evaluation of their suitability in ecological quality assessment. Macrophyte assemblage patterns varied considerably among the main stream types. Moving from small-sized, shallow mountain streams to medium-sized, lowland streams there was a clear transition in species richness, diversity and community structure. There was especially a shift from a predominance of species-poor mosses and communities dominated by liverwort in the small-sized, shallow mountain streams to more species-rich communities dominated by vascular plants in the medium-sized, lowland streams. The macrophyte communities responded to most of the features underlying the typological framework defined in WFD. The present interpretation of the WFD typology may not, however, be adequate for an evaluation of stream quality based on macrophytes. First and most important, by using this typology we may overlook an important community type, which is characteristic of small-sized, relatively steep-gradient streams that are an intermediate type between the small-sized, shallow mountain streams and the medium-sized, lowland streams. Second, the variability in most of the calculated metrics was slightly higher when using the pre-defined typology. The consistency of these results should be investigated by analysing a larger number of sites. Particularly the need of re-defining the typology to improve the ability to detect impacts on streams and rivers from macrophyte assemblage patterns should be investigated.


WFD vegetation stream classification reference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

supp.doc (253 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Baggøe, J., Ravn, F. K. 1896Excursioner til jyske søer og vandløb i sommeren 1895 (in Danish)Botanisk Tidskrift20288236Google Scholar
  2. Barrat-Segretain, M. H. 1996Strategies of reproduction, dispersion and competition in river plants: a reviewVegetatio1231337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butcher, R. W. 1933Studies on the ecology of rivers I. On the vegetation distribution of macrophyte vegetation in the rivers of BritainJournal of Ecology215891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbiener, R., Tremolieres, M., Mercier, J. L., Ortscheit, A. 1990Aquatic macrophyte communities as bioindicators of eutrophication in calcareous oligosaprobe stream waters Upper Rhine plain, AlsaceVegetatio867188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, K. R., Green, R. H. 1988Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ studyMarine Ecology-Progress Series46213226Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, F. H., J. R. Newman, M. J. Gravelle, K. J. Rouen & P. Henville, 1999. Assessment of the Trophic Status of Rivers Using Macrophytes. Evaluation of the Mean Trophic Rank. R&D Technical Report E39, Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dufrene, M., Legendre, P. 1997Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approachEcological Monographs67345366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. French, T. D., Chambers, P. A. 1996Habitat partitioning in riverine macrophyte communitiesFreshwater Biology36509520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furse, M., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, J. Davy-Bowker, A. Lorenz, J., van der Molen & P. Scarlett, 2004. Standardisation f river classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive. 6th deliverable, due 31/07/04. Results of the sampling programme. Accessible at the STAR website (http://www.eu-star.at)Google Scholar
  11. Haslam, S. M. 1987River Plants of Western EuropeCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Haury, J., M. -C., Peltre, M., Tremolieres & J., Barbe, 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. Proceedings of 11th EWRS International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds: 247–250Google Scholar
  13. Hering, D., Buffagni, A., Moog, O., Sandin, L., Sommerhäuser, M., Stubauer, I., Feld, C., Johnson, R., Pinto, P., Skoulikidis, N., Verdonschot, P., Zahrádková, S. 2003The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates – design of the sampling programme within the AQEM projectInternational Review of Hydrobiology88345361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hering, D., Moog, O., Sandin, L., Verdonschot, P. F. M. 2004Overview and application of the AQEM assessment systemHydrobiologia516120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hering, D. & J. Strackbein, 2001. Standardisation of river classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive. 1st deliverable, due 30/06/02. STAR stream types and sampling sites. Accessible at the STAR website (http://www.eu-star.at)Google Scholar
  16. Holmes, N. T. H., Boon, P. J., Rowell, T. A. 1998A revised classification system for British rivers based on their aquatic plant communitiesAquatic Conservation8555578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes, N. T. H., J. R. Newman, S. Chadd, K. J. Rouen, L. Saint & F. H. Dawson, 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A Users Manual, R&D Technical Report E38, Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  18. Illies, J. 1978Limnofauna EuropaeaGustav Fisher VerlagStuttgart532Google Scholar
  19. Margalef, D. R. 1958Informatione theory in ecologyGeneral Systems33671Google Scholar
  20. Mesters, C. M. L. 1995Shifts in macrophyte species composition as a result of eutrophication and pollution in Dutch transboundary streams over the past decadesJournal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health4295305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCune, B., Mefford, M. J. 1999PC-ORD for Windows (4.01). Multivariate Analysis of Ecological DataGMjM Software, leneden BeachOregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Mountford, J. O. 1994Floristic change in English grazing marshes: the impact of 150 years of drainage and land-use changeWatsonia20324Google Scholar
  23. Nijboer, R. C., Johnson, R. K., Verdonschot, P. F. M., Sommerhauser, M., Buffagni, A. 2004Establishing reference conditions for European streamsHydrobiologia51691105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preston, C. D., 1995. Pondweeds of Great Britain and Ireland. Botanical Society of the British Isles, Handbook No. 8. LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Raunkiær, C., 1895–1999. De danske blomsterplanters naturhistorie. Enkimbladede (in Danish). Gyldendal, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  26. Riis, T., Sand-Jensen, K., Vestergaard, O. 2000Plant communities in lowland Danish streams: species composition and environmental factorsAquatic Botany66255272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riis, T., Sand-Jensen, K. 2001Historical changes of species composition and richness accompanying disturbance and eutrophication of lowland streams over 100 yearsFreshwater Biology46269280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riis, T., Sand-Jensen, K., Larsen, S. E. 2001Plant distribution and abundance in relation to physical conditions and location within Danish stream systemsHydrobiologia448217228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995Species Diversity in Space and TimeCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Scarlett, P., O’Hare, M. 2006Community structure of in-stream bryophytes in English and Welsh riversHydrobiologia553143152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Svenning, J. -C. 2002A review of natural vegetation openness in north-western EuropeBiological Conservation104133148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E. 1980The river continuum conceptCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences37130137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verdonschot, F. M., Nijboer, R. C. 2004Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebratesHydrobiologia5163554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, J. B. 1991Methods of fitting dominance/diversity curvesJournal of Vegetation Science23546CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Baattrup-Pedersen
    • 1
  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    • 2
  • Rebi Nijboer
    • 3
  • Mattie O’Hare
    • 4
  • Teresa Ferreira
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Freshwater EcologyNational Environmental Research InstituteSilkeborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionAgricultural University of August CieszkowskiPoznanPoland
  3. 3.Green World ResearchAlterraWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Winfrith Technology CentreCentre for Ecology and HydrologyDorchester, DorsetUK
  5. 5.Forestry Department, Agronomy InstituteTechnical University of LisbonLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations