The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and Intercalibration of Assessment Methods pp 33-37 | Cite as
Stream and river typologies — major results and conclusions from the STAR project
Abstract
The EU Water Framework Directive uses abiotic variables for classifying streams and rivers into types. For rivers, the EU Water Framework Directive fixed typology i.e. ‘System A’ typology are defined by ecoregions, size based on the catchment area, catchment geology and altitude. Within any given part of the WFD typology, it is assumed that biological communities at undisturbed sites will be broadly similar and will therefore constitute a type-specific biological target and a way to stratify the spatial variability in stream and river monitoring and assessment. The data collected for the STAR project cover 13 countries and include 22 stream types. A total of 233 sites were fully sampled for all biological quality elements (fish, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and diatoms) in the study. Analysing the STAR macroinvertebrate dataset in relation to environmental and biogeographical variables resulted in three major groups of stream types that correspond to three major landscape types in Europe: Mountains, Lowlands and Mediterranean. Similar results were found when analysing all four biological quality elements (fish, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and diatoms) sampled in the STAR project. The studies also showed that the stream types using the WFD ‘System A’ descriptors are probably less useful at finer scales and it is suggested that a stream typology should take three main parameters as a starting point, i.e., climate (temperature), slope (current velocity) and stream size. Existing site-specific multivariate RIVPACS-type predictive models were also compared to both null models and the WFD ‘System A’ physical typology as methods of predicting macroinvertebrate reference conditions. It was concluded that the multivariate models are more effective in predicting reference conditions primarily because they make use of continuous rather than categorical predictor variables and because the multivariate RIVPACS-type models are not constrained by the use of a limited number of variables.
Key words
environmental assessment river stream typology Europe water framework directivePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Davy-Bowker, J., R. T. Clarke, R. K. Johnson, J. Kokes, J. F. Murphy & S. Zahrádková, 2006. A comparison of the European Water Framework Directive physical typology and RIVPACS-type models as alternative methods of establishing reference conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 566: 91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/100 Rev 1, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heino, J., T. Muotka & R. Paavola, 2003. Determinants of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: regional and local influences. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Illies, J., 1978. Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
- Johnson, R. K., 1998. Spatiotemporal variability of temperate lake macroinvertebrate communities: detection of impact. Ecological Applications 8: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Omernik, J. M. & R. G. Bailey, 1997. Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 935–949.Google Scholar
- Pinto, P., M. Morais, M. Ilhéu & L. Sandin, 2006. Relationships among biological elements (macrophytes, macroinver-tebrates and ichthyofauna) for different core river types across Europe at two different spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 566: 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Sandin, L. & R. K. Johnson, 2000. Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verdonschot, P. F. M. & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. Testing the European stream typology of the water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 175: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verdonschot, P. F. M., 2006a. Evaluation of the use of Water Framework Directive typology descriptors, reference sites, and spatial scale in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verdonschot, P. F. M., 2006b. M. Data composition and taxonomic resolution in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wright, J. F., D. Moss, P. D. Armitage & M. T. Furse, 1984. A prelimnary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macroinvertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 14: 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 1999. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK. The RIVPACS International Workshop, 16–18 September 1997, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar