, Volume 516, Issue 1–3, pp 161–172

Detection of organic pollution of streams in southern Sweden using benthic macroinvertebrates

  • Joakim Dahl
  • Richard K. Johnson
  • Leonard Sandin


Benthic macroinvertebrates samples were collected in spring and autumn 2000. Fifteen streams in southern Sweden were sampled twice both for chemical, physical, and biological parameters. Eighty-four macroinvertebrate `single' metrics were calculated and tested for their ability of detecting organic pollution of streams. A comparison of the `best' single metrics with two multimetric indices was also done. The Belgian Biotic Index (BBI), the Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT), the Saprobic Index (Zelinka & Marvan), the German Saprobic Index, percentage hypopotamal preferences, the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) and percentage pelal preferences were found to be good indicators of organic pollution. Both DSFI and ASPT are frequently used for detecting organic pollution in southern Sweden and could be recommended for further use. Although saprobic indices are not commonly used in Sweden, our results indicate that they may be appropriate. BBI, percentage hypopotamal preferences, and percentage pelal preferences are seldom used for detecting organic pollution of Swedish streams, but could maybe prove useful for future uses. Two multimetric indices recently developed for detecting the effects of organic pollution in southern Sweden, the AQEM Type S05 Index and the DJ Index, were compared to the `best' single metrics by determining their responses to total phosphorous concentration, conductivity, and percentage cropland. The comparison showed that the DJ Index proved to be a better indicator of the effects of organic pollution than the single metrics. The other multimetric index, the AQEM Type S05 Index, had slightly lower statistical power, but performed well in comparison to the other metrics.

benthic macroinvertebrates biotic indices multimetric index organic pollution southern Sweden streams 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. Sanchez-Ortega, 1988. Un metodo rapido y simple para evaluar la calidad biologica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell (1978). Limnetica 4: 51–56.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Wat. Res. 17: 333–347.Google Scholar
  3. AQEM consortium, 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM system. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0, February 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T. & C. O. 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), Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwat. Biol., Ambleside, UK: 281–292.Google Scholar
  5. Chandler, J. R., 1970. A biological approach to water quality management. Wat. Pollut. Contr. 69: 415–421.Google Scholar
  6. Dahl, J. & R. K. Johnson, 2003. A multimetric macroinvertebrate index for detecting organic pollution of streams in southern Sweden. Arch. Hydrobiol (submitted).Google Scholar
  7. De Pauw, N. & G. Vanhooren, 1983. Method for biological quality assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia 100: 153–168.Google 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 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr & R. W. Wisseman, 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: Evaluating alternative approaches. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 212–231.Google Scholar
  10. Friedrich, G., 1990. Eine Revision des Saprobiensystems. Zeitschrift für Wasser und Abwasser Forschung 23: 141–152.Google Scholar
  11. Ghetti, P. F., 1997. Indicie Biotico Esteso (I.B.E.). I macroinvertebrati nel controllo della qualità degli ambienti di acque correnti. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 222 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Hellawell, J., 1978. Biological surveillance of rivers, a biological monitoring handbook. Water Research Centre, Medmenham and Stevenage, UK, 331 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Hering, D., A. Buffagni, O. Moog, L. Sandin, M. Sommerhäuser, I. Stubauer, C. Feld, R. K. Johnson, P. Pinto, N. Skoulikidis, P. Verdonschot & S. Zahrádková, 2003. The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates-design of the sampling programme within the AQEM project. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, R. M., 1994. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In Davies, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl: 31–48.Google Scholar
  16. Illies, J. (ed.), 1978. Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  17. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), 1979. Assessment of the biological quality of rivers by a macroinvertebrate 'score'. ISO/TC 147/SC 5/WG 6 N 5, 18 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, R. K., 1995. The indicator concept in freshwater biomonitoring. Thienemann lecture. In Cranston, P. S. (ed.), Chironomids-from Genes to Ecosystems, Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium in Chironomidae, Canberra, Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne: 11–27.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, R. K., 1998. Benthic macroinvertebrates. In Wiederholm, T. (ed.), Bedömningsgrunder för miljökvalitet. Sjöar och vattendrag. Bakgrundsrapport 2. Biologiska parametrar. Report 4921, Naturvårdsverket, Uppsala: 85–166.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, R. K., T. Wiederholm & D. M. Rosenberg, 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring using individual organisms, populations and species assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York: 40–158.Google Scholar
  21. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.Google Scholar
  22. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1902. Grundsätse für die biologische Beurteiling des Wassers nach seiner Flora und Fauna. Mitt. Prüfungsanst. Wasserversorg. Abwasserreinig. 1: 33–72.Google Scholar
  23. Metcalfe, J. L., 1989. Biological water-quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities-history and present status in Europe. Envir. Pollut. 60: 101–139.Google Scholar
  24. Moog, O. (ed.), 1995. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca-A comprehensive species inventory of Austrian aquatic organisms with ecological notes, 1st edition. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Wien.Google Scholar
  25. Ofenböck, T., O. Moog, J. Gerritsen & M. Barbour, 2004. A stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 251–268.Google Scholar
  26. Polls, I., 1994. How people in the regulated community view biological integrity. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 13: 598–604.Google Scholar
  27. Resh, V. H., D. M. Rosenberg & T. B. Reynoldson, 2000. Selection of benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for monitoring water quality of the Frazer River, British Colombia: implications for both multimetric approaches and multivariate models. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwat. Biol., Ambleside, UK: 195–206.Google Scholar
  28. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York: 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. Sandin, L., J. Dahl & R. K. Johnson, 2004. Assessing acid stress in Swedish boreal and alpine streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 129–148.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt-Kloiber, A. & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. The effect of taxonomic resolution on the assessment of ecological water quality classes. Hybrobiologia 516: 269–283.Google Scholar
  31. Skoulikidis, N. Th., K. C. Gritzalis, T. Kouvarda & A. Buffagni, 2004. The development of an ecological quality assessment and classification system for Greek running waters based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 149–160.Google Scholar
  32. Skriver, J., N. Friberg & J. Kirkegaard, 2000. Biological assessment of running waters in Denmark: Introduction of the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI). Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 27: 1822–1830.Google Scholar
  33. Sladeček, V., H. A. Hawkes, J. S. Alabaster, I. Daubner, I. Nötlich, J. F. d. Solbé & D. Uhlman, 1982. Biological examination. In Suess, M. J. (ed.), Examination of Water for Pollution Control. A Reference Handbook, Vol. 3. Biological, Bacteriological and Virological Examination. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 531 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Stanner, D. & P. Bordeau, 1995. Europe's Environment: The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg, 712 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Suter, G. W., 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12: 1533–1539.Google Scholar
  36. ter Braak, C. J. F. & I. C. Prentice, 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Adv. Ecol. Res. 18: 271–317.Google Scholar
  37. Vlek H. E., P. F. M. Verdonschot & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 173–189.Google Scholar
  38. Whitton, B. A., 1979. Algae and higher plants as indicators of river pollution. In James, A. & L. Evison (eds), Biological Indicators of Water Quality. John Wiley, Chichester, 597 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Wiederholm, T., 1980. Use of benthos in lake monitoring. J. Wat. Pollut. Cont. Fed. 52: 537–547.Google Scholar
  40. Wiederholm, T. & R. K. Johnson, 1997. Monitoring and assessment of lakes and watercourses in Sweden. In Ottens, J. J., F. A. M. Claessen et al. (eds), Monitoring Tailor-made II. Information Strategies in Water Management. Proceedings from an international workshop, 1996, Nunspeet, The Netherlands: 317–329.Google Scholar
  41. Wilander, A., R. K. Johnson, W. Goedkoop & L. Lundin, 1998. Riksinventering 1995. En synoptisk studie av vattenkemi och bottenfauna i svenska sjöar och vattendrag. Report 4813, Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm, 191 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Wilander, A., R. K. Johnson & W. Goedkoop, 2003. Riksinventering 2000. En synoptisk studie av vattenkemi och bottenfauna i svenska sjöar och vattendrag. Report 2003:1, Department of Environmental Assessment, SLU, Uppsala, 181 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Woodiwiss, F., 1964. The biological system of stream classification used by the Trent River Board. Chem. Industry 14: 443–447.Google Scholar
  44. Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fließender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 389–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joakim Dahl
    • 1
  • Richard K. Johnson
    • 1
  • Leonard Sandin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations