Hydrobiologia

, Volume 589, Issue 1, pp 55–68 | Cite as

A predictive model for freshwater bioassessment (Mondego River, Portugal)

  • Maria João Feio
  • Trefor B. Reynoldson
  • Verónica Ferreira
  • Manuel Augusto S. Graça
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

We sampled macroinvertebrates at 75 locations in the Mondego river catchment, Central Portugal, and developed a predictive model for water quality assessment of this basin, based on the Reference Condition Approach. Sampling was done from June to September 2001. Fifty-five sites were identified as “Reference sites” and 20 sites were used as “Test sites” to test the model. At each site we also measured 40 habitat variables to characterize water physics and chemistry, habitat type, land use, stream hydrology and geographic location. Macroinvertebrates were generally identified to species or genus level; a total of 207 taxa were found. By Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean (UPGMA) clustering and analysis of species contribution to similarities percentage (SIMPER), two groups of reference sites were established. Using Discriminant Analysis (stepwise forward), four variables correctly predicted 78% of the reference sites to the appropriate group: stream order, pool quality, substrate quality and current velocity. Test sites’ environmental quality was established from their relative distance to reference sites, in MDS ordination space, using a series of bands (BEAST methodology). The model performed well at upstream sites, but at downstream sites it was compromised by the lack of reference sites. As with the English RIVPACS predictive model, the Mondego model should be continually improved with the addition of new reference sites. The adaptation of the Mondego model methodology to the Water Framework Directive is possible and would consist mainly of the integration of the WFD typology and increasing the number of ellipses that define quality bands.

Keywords

Reference condition Predictive model Water quality Macroinvertebrates Mondego catchment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Cláudia Mieiro, Elsa Rodrigues, and Filipe Martinho (IMAR-Coimbra); António Martins, and Leonor (DRAOT-Centro); Acadia Centre of Estuarine Research; Dr. Rufino Vieira-Lanero, University of Santiago de Compostela; “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia”, “Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior” (Praxis XXI/BD/21702/99), “Fundo Social Europeu”, and IMAR for the financial support; and finally to the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. APHA, 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. M. Pujante, 2000. Running-water biomonitoring in Spain: opportunities for a predictive approach. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 207–216.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, D. G., 1978. Plotting probability ellipses. Applied Statistics 27: 347–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T. & C. Yoder, 2000. The multimetric approach to bioassessment as used in the United States of America. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 281–292.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. EPA - Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in wadeable streams and rivers. Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd Edition. EPA. 841-B-99–002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, R. C., T. B. Reynoldson, A. G.Yates, J. Bailey & S. Linke. 2006. Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for landuse planning. Freshwater Biology (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1365–2427.2006.01685.x.Google Scholar
  7. Bates Prins, S. C. & E. P. Smith, 2007. Using biological metrics to score and evaluate sites. Freshwater Biology. Freshwater Biology 52: 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, K. R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, R., 2000. Uncertainty in estimates of biological quality based on RIVPACS. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 39–51.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. 2nd Edition. PRIMER-e Ltd, Plymouth Marine Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. Directive 2000/60/EC, 2000. Water Framework Directive of the European Parliament and the Council, of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327: 1–72.Google Scholar
  12. De Pauw, N. & G. Vanhooren, 1983. Method for biological quality assessment of water courses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia 100: 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feio, M. J., T. B. Reynoldson & M. A. S. Graça, 2006. Effect of Seasonal Changes on Predictive Model Assessments of Streams Water Quality with Macroinvertebrates. International Review of Hydrobiology 91: 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauch, H. G., 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge, University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham & W. C. Black, 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th edn. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., U.S.A.Google Scholar
  16. Hellawell, J. M., 1977. Change in natural and managed ecosystems - detection, measurement and assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 197: 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hemsley-Flint, B., 2000. Classification of the biological quality of rivers in England, Wales. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 55–69.Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey, C. L., A. W. Storey & L. Thurtell, 2000. AUSRIVAS: operator sample processing errors and temporal variability - implications for model sensitivity. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 144–163.Google Scholar
  19. Instituto do Ambiente, 2003. Atlas Digital do Ambiente. In: http://www.iambiente.pt/atlas/est/index.jsp.
  20. Instituto Geográfico do Exército, 1998a. Carta Militar de Portugal, 1:250 000, Coimbra.Google Scholar
  21. Instituto Geográfico do Exército, 1998b. Carta Militar de Portugal, 1:250 000, Viseu.Google Scholar
  22. Linke, S., R. H. Norris, D. P. Faith & D. Stockwell, 2005. ANNA: A new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshwater Biology 50: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marques, J. C., M. A. S. Graça & M. A. Pardal, 2002. Introducing the Mondego river basin. In Pardal, M. A., J. C. Marques & M. A. S. Graça (eds), Aquatic ecology of the Mondego river basin. Global importance of local experience. Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 7–12Google Scholar
  24. Moog, O., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, T. Ofenböck & J. Gerritsen, 2004. Does the ecoregion approach support the typological demands of the EU “Water Framework Directive”. Hydrobiologia 516: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owen, J. G. & M. A. Chmielewski, 1985. On canonical variates analysis and the construction of confidence ellipses in systematic studies. Systematic Zoology 34: 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pardal, M. A., J. C. Marques & M. A. S. Graça, 2002. Aquatic ecology of the Mondego river basin. Global importance of local experience. Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, M. & R. H. Norris, 1996. The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using predictive model. Freshwater Biology 36: 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollard, P. & M. Huxham, 1998. The European Water Framework Directive: a new era in the management of aquatic systems health? Aquatic Conservation 8: 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reece, P. F., T. B. Reynoldson, J. S. Richardson & D. M. Rosenberg, 2001. Implications of seasonal variation for biomonitoring with predictive models in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1411–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynoldson, T. B., R. C. Bailey, K. E. Day & R. H. Norris, 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on Benthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynoldson, T. B. & J. F. Wright, 2000. The reference condition: problems and solutions. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 293–303.Google Scholar
  33. Reynoldson, T. B., K. E. Day & T. Pascoe, 2000. The development of the BEAST: a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the North American Great Lakes. In Wright, J. F., D. W Stucliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 165–180.Google Scholar
  34. Reynoldson, T. B., D. M. Rosenberg & V. H. Resh, 2001. Comparisons of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1395–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. 1–9. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenberg, D. M., T. B. Reynoldson & V. H. Resh, 2000. Establishing reference conditions in the Fraser River catchment, Canada, using BEAST (Benthic Assessment of SedimenT) predictive model. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 181–194.Google Scholar
  37. Sandin, L. & D. Hering, 2004. Comparing macroinvertebrate indices to detect organic pollution across Europe: a contribution to the EC Water Framework Directive intercalibration. Hydrobiologica 516: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simpson, J. C. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 125–142.Google Scholar
  39. Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K. Johnson & R. H. Norris, 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16: 1267–1276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verdonschot, P. F. M. & R. C. Nijboer, 2000. Typology of macrofaunal assemblages applied to water and nature management: a Dutch approach. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 241–262.Google Scholar
  41. Verdonschot, P. F. M. & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright, J. F., D. Moss, P. D. Armitage & M. T. Furse, 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 14: 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, J. F., 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright, J. F., 2000. An introduction to RIVPACS. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), RIVPACS and similar techniques for assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, 1–24.Google Scholar
  45. Yoder, C. O. & E. T. Rankin, 1998. The role of biological indicators in a sate water quality management process. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zamora-Muñoz, C. & J. Alba-Tercedor, 1996. Bioassessment of organically polluted Spanish rivers, using a biotic index and multivariate methods. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zar, J. H., 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd edn,. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., U.S.A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria João Feio
    • 1
  • Trefor B. Reynoldson
    • 2
  • Verónica Ferreira
    • 1
  • Manuel Augusto S. Graça
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, and IMARUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.National Water Research Institute, Environment CanadaAcadia Centre for Estuarine ResearchWolfvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations