Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 471–482 | Cite as

Harmonization is more important than experience—results of the first Nordic–Baltic diatom intercalibration exercise 2007 (stream monitoring)

  • Maria Kahlert
  • Raino-Lars Albert
  • Eeva-Leena Anttila
  • Roland Bengtsson
  • Christian Bigler
  • Tiina Eskola
  • Veronika Gälman
  • Steffi Gottschalk
  • Eva Herlitz
  • Amelie Jarlman
  • Jurate Kasperoviciene
  • Mikołaj Kokociński
  • Helen Luup
  • Juha Miettinen
  • Ieva Paunksnyte
  • Kai Piirsoo
  • Isabel Quintana
  • Janne Raunio
  • Bernt Sandell
  • Heikki Simola
  • Irene Sundberg
  • Sirje Vilbaste
  • Jan Weckström
Article

Abstract

The goal of this study was a harmonization of diatom identification and counting among diatomists from the Scandinavian and Baltic countries to improve the comparison of diatom studies in this geographical area. An analysis of the results of 25 diatomists following the European standard EN 14407 during an intercalibration exercise showed that a high similarity was achieved by harmonization and not because of a long experience with diatoms. Sources of error were wrong calibration scales, overlooking of small taxa, especially small Navicula s.l., misidentifications (Eunotia rhomboidea was mistaken for Eunotia incisa) and unclear separation between certain taxa in the identification literature. The latter was discussed during a workshop with focus on the Achnanthes minutissima group, the separation of Fragilaria capucina var. gracilis from F. capucina var. rumpens, and Nitzschia palea var. palea from N. palea var. debilis. The exercise showed also that the Swedish standard diatom method tested here worked fine with acceptable error for the indices IPS (Indice de Polluo-sensibilité Spécifique) and ACID (ACidity Index for Diatoms) when diatomists with a low similarity (Bray–Curtis <60%) with the auditor in at least one of the samples are excluded.

Keywords

Diatoms Monitoring Streams Intercalibration exercise Diatom index Nordic–Baltic region 

References

  1. Andrén C Jarlman (2008) Benthic diatoms as indicators of acidity in streams. Fundam Appl Limnol. Arch Hydrobiol (accepted)Google Scholar
  2. Cemagref (1982) Etude des méthodes biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux.: 218. Q.E. Lyon-A.F.Bassion Rhône-Méditeranée-CorseGoogle Scholar
  3. CEN (2003) Water quality—Guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. EN 13946: 2003. Comité European de Normalisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN (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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. Coring E (1996) Use of diatoms for monitoring acidification in small mountain rivers in Germany with special emphasis on ‘diatom assemblage type analysis’ (DATA). In: Whitton BA, Rott E (eds) Use of diatoms for monitoring rivers II. Volksbildungsheim Grillhof, Vill near Insbruck, Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  6. Engelberg K (1987) Die Diatomeen-Zönose in einem Mittelgebirgsbach und die Abgrenzung jahreszeitlicher Aspekte mit Hilfe der Dominanz-Identität. Arch Hydrobiol 110:217–236Google Scholar
  7. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432 doi:10.2307/1934352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelly MG (2001) Use of similarity measures for quality control of benthic diatom samples. Water Res 35(11):2784–2788 doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00554-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly MG, Jarlman A, Kennedy B, Bennett C, Mykrä H, Miettinen J, Vuori K-M, Kahlert M, Gönczi M (2007) Northern Rivers GIG Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise. N GIG Phytobenthos IC Report—Technical report, 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly M, Bennett C, Coste M, Delgado C, Delmas F, Denys L, Ector L, Fauville C, Ferréol M, Golub M, Jarlman A, Kahlert M, Lucey J, Ní Chatháin B, Pardo I, Pfister P, Picinska-Faltynowicz J, Rosebery J, Schranz C, Schaumburg J, van Dam H, Vilbaste S (2008) 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 doi:10.1007/s10750-008-9641-4
  11. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1986) Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1991a) Bacillariophyceae 4 Teil: Achnanthaceae Süss-wasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/4. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  13. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1991b) Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. 1991. Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1997) Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. (Ergänzter Nachdruck der 1. Auflage). Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavoie I, Somers KM, Paterson AM, Dillon PJ (2005) Assessing scales of variability in benthic diatom community structure. J Appl Phycol 17:509–513 doi:10.1007/s10811-005-9001-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lecointe C, Coste M, Prygiel J (1993) “OMNIDIA” software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270:509–513 doi:10.1007/BF00028048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Naturvårdsverket (2007) Handbok för miljöövervakning: Programområde: Sötvatten. (2007:4 edn): http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Arbete-med-naturvard/Vattenforvaltning/Handbok-20074 (in Swedish)
  18. Prygiel J, Carpentier P, Almeide S, Coste M, Druart J-C, Ector L, Guillard D, Honoré M-A, Iserentant R, Ledeganck P, Lalanne-Cassou C, Lesniak C, Mercier I, Moncaut P, Nazart M, Nouchet N, Peres F, Peeters V, Rimet F, Rumeau A, Sabater S, Straub F, Torrisi M, Tudesque L, Van de Vijver B, Vidal H, Vizinet J, Zydek N (2002) Determination of the biological diatom index (IBD NF T 90-354): results of an intercomparison exercise. J Appl Phycol 14:27–39 doi:10.1023/A:1015277207328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Trobajo R, Cox EJ (2004) Examination of the type material of Nitzschia frustulum, N. palea and N. palea var. debilis. In: Witkowski A (ed) Eighteenth International Diatom Symposium, Miedzyzdroje, Poland. Biopress, Bristol, pp 431–445Google Scholar
  20. Tuji A (2007) Type examination of Fragilaria gracilis (Østrup) (Bacillariophyceae). Bull Natl Mus Nat Sci Ser B 33(1):9–12Google Scholar
  21. Tuji A, Williams DM (2006) Examination of the type material of Synedra rumpens = Fragilaria rumpens. Bacillariophyceae. Phycol Res 54:99–103 doi:10.1111/j.1440-1835.2006.00414.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van de Vijver B, Kelly MG, Blanco S, Jarlman A, Ector L (2008) The unmasking of a sub-Antarctic endemic: Psammothidium abundans (Manguin) Bukhtiyarova et Round in European Rivers. Diatom Res 23(1):233–242Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Kahlert
    • 1
  • Raino-Lars Albert
    • 2
  • Eeva-Leena Anttila
    • 3
  • Roland Bengtsson
    • 4
  • Christian Bigler
    • 5
  • Tiina Eskola
    • 6
  • Veronika Gälman
    • 7
  • Steffi Gottschalk
    • 1
  • Eva Herlitz
    • 1
  • Amelie Jarlman
    • 8
  • Jurate Kasperoviciene
    • 9
  • Mikołaj Kokociński
    • 10
  • Helen Luup
    • 11
  • Juha Miettinen
    • 2
  • Ieva Paunksnyte
    • 12
  • Kai Piirsoo
    • 11
  • Isabel Quintana
    • 1
  • Janne Raunio
    • 13
  • Bernt Sandell
    • 14
  • Heikki Simola
    • 15
  • Irene Sundberg
    • 16
  • Sirje Vilbaste
    • 11
  • Jan Weckström
    • 17
  1. 1.Department of Aquatic Sciences and AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.EcomonitorJoensuuFinland
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  4. 4.MikroalgTorpsbrukSweden
  5. 5.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  6. 6.Institution of GeosciencesUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  7. 7.Environmental Change Assessment Group, Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  8. 8.JARLMAN HBLundSweden
  9. 9.Laboratory of Hydrobotany, Institute of BotanyVilniusLithuania
  10. 10.Adam Mickiewicz University, Collegium PolonicumSłubicePoland
  11. 11.Institute of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  12. 12.Hydrobiology and Ecotoxicology Division, Environmental Research Department, Environmental Protection AgencyVilniusLithuania
  13. 13.Water and Environment Association of the River KymiKouvolaFinland
  14. 14.BS SötvattenkonsultJönköpingSweden
  15. 15.Ecological Research Institute, Faculty of BiosciencesUniversity of JoensuuJoensuuFinland
  16. 16.Medins Biologi ABMölnlyckeSweden
  17. 17.Environmental Change Research Unit (ECRU), Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations