Abstract
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union requires all member countries to provide information on the level of confidence and precision of results in their river monitoring programmes to assess the ecological status class of river sites. As part of the European Union project STAR, the overall effects of sampling variation for a wide range of commonly used metrics and sampling methods were assessed. Replicate samples were taken in each of two seasons at 2–6 sites of varying ecological status class within each of 18 stream types spread over 12 countries, using both the STAR-AQEM method and a national sampling method or, where unavailable, the RIVPACS sampling protocol. The sampling precision of a combination of sampling method and metric was estimated by expressing the replicate sampling variance as a percentage Psamp of the total variance in metric values with a stream type; low values of Psamp indicate high precision. Most metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 20% for all or most stream types and methods. Most national methods including RIVPACS had sampling precisions at least as good as those for the STAR-AQEM method as used in their country at the same sites; the main exceptions were the national methods used in Latvia and Sweden. The national methods used in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Poland and the RIVPACS method used in the UK and Austria all had percentage sampling variances of less than 10% for the majority of metrics assessed. In contrast, none of the metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 10% when based on either the Italian (IBE) method, which used bank-side sorting, or the Latvian national method which identifies only a limited set of taxa. Psamp was lowest on average for the two stream types sampled in the Czech Republic using either the PERLA national method or the STAR-AQEM method. Averaged over all stream types and methods, the three Saprobic-based metrics had the lowest average percentage sampling variances (3–6%) amongst the 26 metrics assessed. These estimates of sampling standard deviation can be used to help assess the uncertainty in single or multi-metric systems for estimating site ecological status using the general STAR Bioassessment Guidance Software (STARBUGS) developed within the STAR project.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd edn. EPA/841-B-98-010. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Washington, DC
Bis, B. & P. Usseglio-Polatera, 2004. Species Traits Analysis. European Commission, STAR (Standardisation of river classifications), Deliverable N2, 134 pp
A. Buffagni S. Erba M. Cazzola J. Murray-Bligh H. Soszka P. Genoni (2006) ArticleTitleThe STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries Hydrobiologia 566 379–399
Clarke, R. T., 2000. Uncertainty in estimates of river quality based on RIVPACS. In: Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and similar techniques. Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside: 39–54
Clarke, R. T., 2004. 9th STAR deliverable. Error/uncertainty module software STARBUGS (STAR Bio Assessment Uncertainty Guidance Software) User Manual
R. T. Clarke M. T. Furse J. F. Wright D. Moss (1996) ArticleTitleDerivation of a biological quality index for river sites: comparison of the observed with the expected fauna Journal of Applied Statistics 23 311–332 Occurrence Handle10.1080/02664769624279
R. T. Clarke M. T. Furse R. J. M. Gunn J. M. Winder J. F. Wright (2002) ArticleTitleSampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indices Freshwater Biology 47 1735–1751 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00885.x
Clarke, R. T. & D. Hering, 2006. Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods – major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS. Hydrobiologia 566: 433–439
Clarke, R. T., A. Lorenz, L. Sandin, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, N. T. Kneebone & P. Haase, 2006. Effects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STAR-AQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 441–459
InstitutionalAuthorNameCouncil of the European Communities (2000) ArticleTitleDirective 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 IssueID43 1–72
C. A. Extence B. M. Balbi R. P. Chadd (1999) ArticleTitleRiver flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: a framework for setting hydroecological objectives Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15 543–574 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199911/12)15:6<545::AID-RRR561>3.0.CO;2-W
Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29
P. Haase J. Murray-Bligh S. Lohse S. Pauls A. Sundermann R. Gunn R. Clarke (2006) ArticleTitleAssessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples Hydrobiologia 566 505–521
D. Hering O. Moog L. Sandin P. Verdonschot (2004) ArticleTitleOverview and application of the AQEM assessment system Hydrobiologia 516 1–20 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025255.70009.a5
G. Hose E. Turak N. Wadell (2004) ArticleTitleReproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23 126–139 Occurrence Handle10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0126:ROARBU>2.0.CO;2
J. Illies (Eds) (1978) Limnofauna Europaea EditionNumber2 Gustav Fischer Verlag Stuttgart, New York; Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., Amsterdam 532
R.K. Johnson (1998) ArticleTitleSpatiotemporal variability of temperate lake macroinvertebrate communities: detection of impact Ecological Applications 81 61–70 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2641311
Murray-Bligh, J. A. D., M. T. Furse, F. H. Jones, R. J. M. Gunn, R. A. Dines & J. F. Wright, 1997. Procedure for collecting and analysing macroinvertebrate samples for RIVPACS. Joint publication by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and the Environment Agency, 162 pp
T. Ofenböck O. Moog J. Gerritsen M. Barbour (2004) ArticleTitleA stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates Hydrobiologia 516 251–268 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025269.74061.f9
J. D. Ostermiller C. P. Hawkins (2004) ArticleTitleEffects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23 363–382 Occurrence Handle10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0363:EOSEOB>2.0.CO;2
P. Pinto J. Rosado M. Morais I. Antunes (2004) ArticleTitleAssessing methodology for southern siliceous basins in Portugal Hydrobiologia 516 191–214 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXjtl2gu7c%3D Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025266.86493.a2
REFCOND, 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters. Final version, 30 April 2003, produced by WG 2.3
C. E. Shannon W. Weaver (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication The University of Illinois Press Urbana, IL
M. J. Smith W. R. Kay D. H. D. Edward P. J. Papas St. J. Richardson J. C. Simpson A. M. Pinder D. J. Cale P. H. J. Horwitz J. A. Davis F. H. Yung R. H. Norris S. A. Halse (1999) ArticleTitleAusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia Freshwater Biology 41 269–282 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00430.x
R. R. Sokal J. R. Rohlf (1995) Biometry EditionNumber3 Freeman and Company New York
L. R. Taylor (1961) ArticleTitleAggregation, variance and the mean Nature 189 732–735 Occurrence Handle10.1038/189732a0
Vlek, H. E., 2004. Comparison of (cost) effectiveness between various macroinvertebrate field and laboratory protocols. European Commssion, STAR (Standardisation of river classifications), Deliverable N1, 78 pp
Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 373 pp
M. Zelinka P. Marvan (1961) ArticleTitleZur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fließender Gewässer Arch. Hydrobiol. 57 389–407
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clarke, R.T., Davy-Bowker, J., Sandin, L. et al. Estimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using ‘national’ macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological status. Hydrobiologia 566, 477–503 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0076-5
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0076-5