Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 734, Issue 1, pp 125–141 | Cite as

Comparing aspirations: intercalibration of ecological status concepts across European lakes for littoral diatoms

  • Martyn Kelly
  • Gorazd Urbanic
  • Eva Acs
  • Helen Bennion
  • Vincent Bertrin
  • Amy Burgess
  • Luc Denys
  • Steffi Gottschalk
  • Maria Kahlert
  • Satu Maaria Karjalainen
  • Bryan Kennedy
  • Gorazd Kosi
  • Aldo Marchetto
  • Soizic Morin
  • Joanna Picinska-Fałtynowicz
  • Sandra Poikane
  • Juliette Rosebery
  • Ilka Schoenfelder
  • Joerg Schoenfelder
  • Gabor Varbiro
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Eleven European countries participated in an exercise to harmonise diatom-based methods used for status assessment in lakes. Lakes were divided into low, medium and high alkalinity types for this exercise. However, it was not possible to perform a full intercalibration on low alkalinity lakes due to the short gradient and confounding factors. Values of the Trophie Index were computed for all samples in order that national datasets could all be expressed on a common scale. Not all participants had reference sites against which national methods could be standardised and, therefore, a Generalised Linear Modelling approach was used to control the effect of national differences in datasets. This enabled the high/good and good/moderate status boundaries to be expressed on a common scale and for deviations beyond ±0.25 class widths to be identified. Those countries which had relaxed boundaries were required to adjust these to within ±0.25 class widths whilst the intercalibration rules allowed those countries with more stringent boundaries to retain these. Despite biogeographical and typological differences between countries, there was broad agreement on the characteristics of high, good and moderate status diatom assemblages, and the exercise has ensured consistent application of Water Framework Directive assessments around Europe.

Keywords

Water Framework Directive Lake Phytobenthos Diatoms Intercalibration Ecological status 

References

  1. Acs, E., N. M. Reskone, K. Szabo, G. Taba & K. T. Kiss, 2005. Application of benthic diatoms in water quality monitoring of Lake Velence: recommendations and assignments. Acta Botanica Hungarica 47: 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battarbee, R. W., D. F. Charles, S. S. Dixit & I. Renberg, 1999. Diatoms as indicators of surface water acidity. In Stoermer, E. F & J. P. Smol (eds), The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences, Cambridge University Press, 85–127.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, C., R. Owen, S. Birk, A. Buffagni, S. Erba, N. Mengin, J. Murray-Bligh, G. Ofenböck, I. Pardo, W. van de Bund, F. Wagner & J.-G. Wasson, 2011. Bringing European river quality into line: an exercise to intercalibrate macro-invertebrate classification methods. Hydrobiologia 667: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennion, H., J. Fluin & G. L. Simpson, 2004. Assessing eutrophication and reference conditions for Scottish freshwater lochs using subfossil diatoms. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennion, H., M. G. Kelly, S. Juggins, M. L. Yallop, A. Burgess, B. J. Jamieson & J. Krokowski, 2014. Assessment of ecological status in UK lakes using benthic diatoms. Freshwater Science. doi: 10.1086/675447.Google Scholar
  6. Birk, S., W. Bonne, A. Borja, S. Brucet, A. Courrat, S. Poikane, A. Solimini, W. van de Bund, N. Zampoukas & D. Hering, 2012a. Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birk, S., L. van Kouwen & N. Willby, 2012b. Harmonising the bioassessment of large rivers in the absence of near-natural reference conditions: a case study of the Danube River. Freshwater Biology 57: 1716–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birk, S., N. J. Willby, M. Kelly, W. Bonne, A. Borja, S. Poikane & W. van de Bund, 2013. Intercalibrating classifications of ecological status: Europe's quest for common management objectives for aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 454–455: 490–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanco, S., L. Ector & E. Becares, 2004. Epiphytic diatoms as water quality indicators in Spanish shallow lakes. Vie Et Milieu: Life and Environment 54: 71–79.Google Scholar
  10. Blanco, S., C. Cejudo-Figueiras, I. Álvarez-Blanco, E. van Donk, E. M. Gross, L.-A. Hansson, K. Irvine, E. Jeppesen, T. Kairesalo, B. Moss, T. Nõges & E. Bécares, 2013. Epiphytic diatoms along environmental gradients in western European shallow lakes. Clean Soil, Air, Water 41: 1–7.Google Scholar
  11. Bolla, B., G. Borics, K. T. Kiss, N. M. Reskóné, G. Várbíró & E. Ács, 2010. Recommendations for ecological status assessment of Lake Balaton (largest shallow lake of Central Europe), based on benthic diatom communities. Vie et Milieu: Life and Environment 60: 197–208.Google Scholar
  12. Broberg, O. & G. Persson, 1988. Particulate and dissolved phosphorus forms in freshwater: composition and analysis. Hydrobiologia 170: 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantonati, M. & R. L. Lowe, 2014. Lake benthic algae: toward an understanding of their ecology. Freshwater Science. doi: 10.1086/676140.
  14. Carvalho, L., A. Solimini, G. Phillips, M. van de Berg, O.-P. Pietiläinen, A. Lyche Solheim, S. Poikane & U. Mischke, 2008. Chlorophyll reference conditions for European lake types used for intercalibration of ecological status. Aquatic Ecology 42: 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cejudo-Figueiras, C., I. Álvarez-Blanco, E. Bécares & S. Blanco, 2011. Epiphytic diatoms and water quality in shallow lakes: the neutral substrate hypothesis revisited. Marine and Freshwater Research 61: 1457–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cellamare, M., S. Morin, M. Coste & J. Haury, 2012. Ecological assessment of French Atlantic lakes based on phytoplankton, phytobenthos and macrophytes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 184: 4685–4708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CEMAGREF, 1982. Etude des méthodes biologiques d´appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux. Q.E. Lyon-A.F.Bassin Rhône-Méditeranée-Corse.Google Scholar
  18. CEN (Comité European de Normalisation), 2003. Water Quality: Guidance Standard for the Routine Sampling and Pretreatment of Benthic Diatoms from Rivers. EN 13946:2003. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  19. CEN (Comité European de Normalisation), 2004. Water Quality: Guidance Standard for the Identification, Enumeration and Interpretation of Benthic Diatom Samples from Running Waters. EN 14407:2004. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  20. DeNicola, D. M. & M. G. Kelly, 2014. Role of periphyton in ecological assessment of lakes. Freshwater Science. doi: 10.1086/676117.Google Scholar
  21. Descy, J.-P. & M. Coste, 1991. A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 24: 2112–2116.Google Scholar
  22. Dufrêne, M. & P. Legendre, 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission, 2008. Commission Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise 2008/915/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities L332: 20–44.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission, 2013. Commission Decision of 20 September 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities L266: 1.Google Scholar
  25. Ekholm, P. & K. Krogerus, 2003. Determining algal-available phosphorus of differing origin: routine phosphorus analyses versus algal assays. Hydrobiologia 492: 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of 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: 1–73.Google Scholar
  27. Flower, R., G. Simpson, A. Kreiser, H. Yang, E. Shilland & Battarbee, 2010. Epilithic diatoms. In Kernan, M., R. W. Battarbee, C. J. Curtis, D. T. Monteith & E. M. Shilland (eds), Recovery of Lakes and Streams in the UK from the Effects of Acid Rain. Report to DEFRA. Environmental Change Research Centre, UCL, London: 82–96.Google Scholar
  28. Hustedt, F., 1930. Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae). In Pascher, A. (ed.), Die Süsswasser-Flora Mitteleuropas, Vol. 10. Gustav Fischer, Jena: 1–466.Google Scholar
  29. Juggins, S., 2013. Quantitative reconstructions in palaeolimnology: new paradigms or sick science? Quaternary Science Reviews 64: 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahlert, M. & S. Gottschalk, 2014. Benthic diatom assemblages in streams and lakes: differences and consequences for biomonitoring. Freshwater Science (in press).Google Scholar
  31. Kahlert, M., R.-L. Albert, E. L. Antilla, R. Bengtsson, C. Bigler, T. Eskola, V. Gälman, S. Gottschalk, E. Herlitz, A. Jarlman, J. Kasperoviciene, M. Kokocinski, H. Luup, J. Miettinen, I. Paunksnyte, K. Piirsoo, I. Quintana, J. Raunio, B. Sandell, H. Simola, H. Sundberg, S. Vilbaste & J. Weckström, 2009. Harmonization is more important than experience—results of the first Nordic–Baltic diatom intercalibration exercise 2007 (stream monitoring). Journal of Applied Phycology 21: 471–482.Google Scholar
  32. Kahlert, M., M. G. Kelly, R.-L. Albert, S. Almeida, T. Bešta, S. Blanco, L. Denys, L. Ector, M. Fránková, D. Hlúbiková, P. Ivanov, B. Kennedy, P. Marvan, A. Mertens, J. Miettinen, J. Picinska-Faltynowicz, J. Rosebery, E. Tornés, H. van Dam, S. Vilbaste & A. Vogel, 2012. Identification is a minor source of uncertainty in diatom-based ecological status assessments on a continent-wide scale: results of a European ring-test. Hydrobiologia 695: 109–124. Google Scholar
  33. Kelly, M. G., 2013. Data rich, information poor? Phytobenthos assessment and the Water Framework Directive. European Journal of Phycology 48: 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelly, M. G. & L. Ector, 2012. Effect of streamlining taxa lists on diatom-based indices: implications for intercalibrating ecological status. Hydrobiologia 695: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly, M., C. Bennett, M. Coste, C. Delgado, F. Delmas, L. Denys, L. Ector, C. Fauville, M. Ferreol, M. Golub, A. Jarlman, M. Kahlert, J. Lucey, B. ni Chathain, I. Pardo, P. Pfister, J. Picinska-Faltynowicz, J. Rosebery, C. Schranz, J. Schaumburg, H. van Dam & S. Vilbaste, 2009. A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise. Hydrobiologia 621: 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly, M. G., C. Gómez-Rodríguez, M. Kahlert, S. F. P. Almeida, C. Bennett, M. Bottin, F. Delmas, J.-P. Descy, G. Dörflinger, B. Kennedy, P. Marvan, L. Opatrilova, I. Pardo, P. Pfister, J. Rosebery, S. Schneider & S. Vilbaste, 2012. Establishing expectations for pan-European diatom based ecological status assessments. Ecological Indicators 20: 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King, L., G. Clarke, H. Bennion, M. Kelly & M. Yallop, 2006. Recommendations for sampling littoral diatoms in lakes for ecological status assesssments. Journal of Applied Phycology 18: 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitner, M. & A. Poulickova, 2003. Littoral diatoms as indicators for the eutrophication of shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506: 519–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986–1991. Bacillariophyceae. 1–4 Teil. Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Gustav Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  40. Maberley, S. C., L. King, C. E. Gibson, L. May, R. I. Jones, M. M. Dent & C. Jordan, 2003. Linking nutrient limitation and water chemistry in upland lakes to catchment characteristics. Hydrobiologia 506–509: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mann, D. G., S. J. Thomas & Evans, 2008. Revision of the diatom genus Sellaphora: a first account of the larger species in the British Isles. Fottea 8: 15–78.Google Scholar
  42. McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 5.0. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach.Google Scholar
  43. Marchetto, A., A. Boggero, M. Ciampittiello, G. Morabito, A. Oggioni & P. Volta, 2013. Indici per la valutazione della qualità ecologica dei laghi. Report CNR-ISE 02.13. CNR Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi.Google Scholar
  44. Monteith, D. T., J. L. Stoddard, C. D. Evans, H. A. de Wit, M. Forsius, T. Høgåsen, A. Wilander, B. L. Skjelkvåle, D. S. Jeffries, J. Vuorenmaa, B. Keller, J. Kopácek & J. Vesely, 2007. Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature 450: 537–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pardo, I., C. Gómez-Rodríguez, J.-G. Wasson, R. Owen, W. van de Bund, M. Kelly, C. Bennett, S. Birk, A. Buffagni, S. Erba, N. Mengin, J. Murray-Bligh & G. Ofenböeck, 2012. The European reference condition concept: a scientific and technical approach to identify minimally impacted river ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 420: 33–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poikane, S., 2013. Intercalibration of Biological Elements for Lake Water Bodies. Contributions to the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. JRC scientific and policy reports, European Commission, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  47. Poikane, S., M. H. Alves, C. Argiller, M. van den Berg, F. Buzzi, E. Hoehn, C. de Hoyos, I. Karottki, C. Laplace-Treyture, A. Lyche Solheim, J. Ortiz-Casas, I. Ott, G. Phillips, A. Pilke, J. Pádua, S. Remee-Rekar, U. Riedmüller, J. Schaumburg, M. L. Serrano, H. Soszka, D. Tierney, G. Urbanič & G. Wolfram, 2010. Defining chlorophyll-a reference conditions in European lakes. Environmental Managment 45: 1286–1298.Google Scholar
  48. Poulíčková, A., J. Špačková, M. G. Kelly, M. Duchoslav & D. G. Mann, 2008. Ecological variation within Sellaphora species complexes (Bacillariophyceae): specialists or generalists? Hydrobiologia 614: 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rott, E., E. Pipp, P. Pfister, H. van Dam, K. Ortler, N. Binder & K. Pall, 1999. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen in Österreichischen Fliessgewassern. Teil 2: Trophieindikation. Bundesministerium fuer Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  50. Round, E. E., 1981. The Ecology of Algae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  51. Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, G. Hofmann, D. Stelzer, S. Schneider & U. Schmedtje, 2004. Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in German lakes: a contribution to the implementation of the water framework directive. Limnologica 34: 302–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider, S. C., M. Kahlert & M. G. Kelly, 2013. Interactions between pH and nutrients on benthic algae in streams and consequences for ecological status assessment and species richness patterns. Science of the Total Environment 444: 73–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schoenfelder, I., J. Gelbrecht, J. Schoenfelder & C. E. W. Steinberg, 2002. Relationships between littoral diatoms and their chemical environment in northeastern German lakes and rivers. Journal of Phycology 38: 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SPSS Inc., 2008. SPSS for Windows Version 17.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  55. Trobajo, R., E. Clavero, V. A. Chepurnov, K. Sabbe, D. G. Mann, S. Ishihara & E. J. Cox, 2009. Morphological, genetic and mating diversity within the widespread bioindicator Nitzschia palea (Bacillariophyceae). Phycologia 48: 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. VMM, 2009. Biological Assessment of the Natural, Heavily Modified and Artificial Surface Water Bodies in Flanders According to the European Water Framework Directive. Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, Erembodegem, Brussels.Google Scholar
  57. Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 57: 389–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martyn Kelly
    • 1
  • Gorazd Urbanic
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eva Acs
    • 4
  • Helen Bennion
    • 5
  • Vincent Bertrin
    • 6
  • Amy Burgess
    • 5
  • Luc Denys
    • 7
  • Steffi Gottschalk
    • 8
  • Maria Kahlert
    • 8
  • Satu Maaria Karjalainen
    • 9
  • Bryan Kennedy
    • 10
  • Gorazd Kosi
    • 11
  • Aldo Marchetto
    • 12
  • Soizic Morin
    • 6
  • Joanna Picinska-Fałtynowicz
    • 13
  • Sandra Poikane
    • 14
  • Juliette Rosebery
    • 6
  • Ilka Schoenfelder
    • 15
  • Joerg Schoenfelder
    • 16
  • Gabor Varbiro
    • 4
  1. 1.Bowburn ConsultancyDurhamUK
  2. 2.Institute for Water of the Republic of SloveniaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  4. 4.Danube Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Ecological ResearchGödHungary
  5. 5.Department of Geography, Environmental Change Research CentreUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  6. 6.Irstea, UR REBXCestasFrance
  7. 7.Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  8. 8.Department of Aquatic Sciences and AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  9. 9.Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)University of OuluOuluFinland
  10. 10.EPACastlebarIreland
  11. 11.National Institute of BiologyLjubljanaSlovenia
  12. 12.CNR Institute of Ecosystem StudyVerbania PallanzaItaly
  13. 13.Wrocław Branch, Department of EcologyInstitute of Meteorology and Water ManagementWrocławPoland
  14. 14.European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and SustainabilityIspraItaly
  15. 15.Bureau for Diatom AnalysisNeuenhagenGermany
  16. 16.Brandenburg State Office of Environment, Health and Consumer ProtectionPotsdam, OT Groß GlienickeGermany

Personalised recommendations