Direct comparison of assessment methods using benthic macroinvertebrates: a contribution to the EU Water Framework Directive intercalibration exercise

  • Sebastian Birk
  • Daniel Hering
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 188)

Abstract

The aim of the intercalibration exercise presently performed by the EU is to identify and resolve significant inconsistencies between the ecological quality classifications of EU Member States and the normative definitions of the EU Water Framework Directive. Based on benthic macroinvertebrate data of two European stream types (small siliceous mountain streams and medium-sized lowland streams in Central and Western Europe) we correlated the indices of 10 river quality assessment methods (ASPT, BMWP, DSFI, German Multimetric Index, Saprobic Indices) applied in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom. National class boundaries were compared via regression analysis. Assessment methods of the same type (Saprobic Indices, BMWP/ASPT scores) showed best correlation results (R 2 > 0.7). The good quality status boundaries of the national methods deviated up to 25%; thus indicating the necessity to harmonize the national classification schemes. Prerequisites of the presented intercalibration approach are (1) a sufficiently large and consistent dataset representative of the respective common intercalibration types and (2) agreement on common type specific reference conditions.

Key words

ecological quality classification biological assessment index macroinvertebrates common intercalibration type STAR project EU Water Framework Directive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. M. Pujante, 2000. Running-water bio-monitoring in Spain: opportunities for a predictive approach. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters — RIVPACS and Other Techniques. FBA, Ambleside, 207–216.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. Water Research 17: 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., A. Corfield, D. Walker, M. Whitfield & P. Williams, 1996. A preliminary comparison of European methods of biological river water quality assessment. NRA Thames Region Operational Investigation. Environment Agency Technical Report No. 0I/T/001. National Rivers Authority Thames Region, Reading.Google Scholar
  4. Birk, S. & D. Hering, 2002. Waterview web-database: a comprehensive review of European assessment methods for rivers. FBA News 20: 4.Google Scholar
  5. Birk, S. & P. Rolauffs, 2003. A preliminary study comparing the results between the Austrian, Czech and German saprobic systems for the intercalibration of cross-border river basin districts. In Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie (DGL) — Tagungsbericht (Köln). DGL, Werder, 74–79.Google Scholar
  6. Birk, S. & U. Schmedtje, 2005. Towards harmonization of water quality classification in the Danube River Basin: overview of biological assessment methods for running waters. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement Large Rivers 16: 171–196.Google Scholar
  7. BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Party)., 1978. Final Report of the Biological Monitoring Working Party: Assessment and presentation of the biological quality of rivers in Great Britain. Department of the Environmental Water Data Unit, London.Google Scholar
  8. Böhmer, J., C. Rawer-Jost, A. Zenker, C. Meier, C. K. Feld, R. Biss & D. Hering, 2004. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a multimetric invertebrate based assessment system. Limnologica 34: 416–432.Google Scholar
  9. Brabec, K., S. Zahradkova, D. Nemejcova, P. Paril, J. Kokes & J. Jarkovsky, 2004. Assessment of organic pollution effect considering differences between lotic and lentic stream habitats. Hydrobiologia 516: 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola, J. Murray-Bligh, H. Soszka & P. Genoni, 2006. The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries. Hydrobiologia 566: 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CIS WG 2.A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), 2004. Guidance on the intercalibration process. Agreed version of WG 2.A Ecological Status meeting held 7–8 October 2004 in Ispra. Version 4.1. 14. October 2004. ECOSTAT, Ispra.Google Scholar
  12. CSN 757716., 1998. Water quality, biological analysis, determination of saprobic index. Czech Technical State Standard, Czech Standards Institute, Prague.Google Scholar
  13. Feld, C. K., T. Ofenböck, O. Moog & D. Hering, in prep. Assessing hydromorphological degradation and organic pollution in European rivers — selection of suited metrics derived from benthic macroinvertebrates. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  14. Friberg, N., L. Sandin, M. T. Furse, S. E. Larsen, R. T. Clark & P. Haase, 2006. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in Europe. Hydrobiologia 566: 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedrich, G. & V. Herbst, 2004. Eine erneute Revision des Saprobiensystems — weshalb und wozu?. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 32: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedrich, G., E. Coring & B. Küchenhoff, 1995. Vergleich verschiedener europä ischer Untersuchungs-und Bewertungsmethoden für Fließgewässer. Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, Essen.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Ghetti, P. F. & G. Bonazzi, 1977. A comparison between various criteria for the interpretation of biological data in the analysis of the quality of running waters. Water Research 11: 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghetti, P. F. & G. Bonazzi, 1980. Biological water assessment methods: Torrente Parma, Torrente Stirone, Fiume Po. 3rd Technical Seminar. Final Report. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Just, I., F. Schöll & T. Tittitzer, 1998. Versuch einer Harmonisierung nationaler Methoden zur Bewertung der Gewässergüte im Donauraum am Beispiel der Abwässer der Stadt Budapest. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.Google Scholar
  22. Knoben, R. A. E., C. Roos & M. C. M. van Oirschot, 1995. Biological Assessment Methods for Watercourses. UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment, Lelystad.Google Scholar
  23. Kownacki, A., H. Soszka, D. Kudelska & T. Fleituch, 2004. Bioassessment of Polish rivers based on macroinvertebrates. In Geller, W. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the International 11th Magdeburg Seminar on Waters in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessment, Protection, Management. 18–22 October 2004, UFZ Leipzig, 250–251.Google Scholar
  24. Metcalfe-Smith, J. L., 1994. Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: Use of macroinvertebrate communities. In Calow, P. & G. E. Petts (eds), The Rivers Handbook — Hydrological and Ecological Principles. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 144–170.Google Scholar
  25. Moog, O., A. Chovanec, J. Hinteregger & A. Römer, 1999. Richtlinie zur Bestimmung der saprobiologischen Gewässergüte von Fliessgewässern. Bundesministerium für Landund Forstwirtschaft, Wien.Google Scholar
  26. Morpurgo, M., 1996. Confronto fra Indice Saprobico (Friedrich e DIN, 1990) e Indice Biotico Esteso (Ghetti e IRSA, 1995). Biologia Ambientale 14: 30–36.Google Scholar
  27. National Rivers Authority, 1994. The Quality of Rivers and Canals in England and Wales (1990 to 1992) as Assessed by a New General Quality Assessment Scheme. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  28. Nixon, S. C., C. P. Mainstone, T. Moth Iversen, P. Kristensen, E. Jeppesen, N. Friberg, E. Papathanassiou, A. Jensen & F. Pedersen, 1996. The harmonized monitoring and classification of ecological quality of surface waters in the European Union. Final Report. European Commission Directorate General XI, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Rico, E., A. Rallo, M. A. Sevillano & M. L. Arretxe, 1992. Comparison of several biological indices based on river macroinvertebrate benthic community for assessment of running water quality. Annales de Limnologie 28: 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rolauffs, P., D. Hering, M. Sommerhäuser, S. Rödiger & S. Jähnig, 2003. Entwicklung eines leitbildorientierten Saprobienindexes für die biologische Fließgewässerbewertung. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.Google Scholar
  31. Sandin, L. & D. Hering, 2004. Comparing macroinvertebrate indices to detect organic pollution across Europe: a contribution to the EC water framework directive intercalibration. Hydrobiologia 516: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt-Kloiber, A., W. Graf, A. Lorenz & O. Moog, 2006. The AQEM/STAR taxalist — a pan-European macroinvertebrate ecological database and taxa inventory. Hydrobiologia 566: 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skriver, J., N. Friberg & J. Kirkegaard, 2000. Biological assessment of running waters in Denmark: introduction of the Danish stream fauna index (DSFI). Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 27: 1822–1830.Google Scholar
  34. STN (Slovenská Technická Norma) 83 0532-1 to 8, 1978/79. Biologický rozbor povrchovej vody. (Biological analysis of surface water quality.) Slovak Standardisation Institute, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  35. Stubauer, I. & O. Moog, 2000. Taxonomic sufficiency versus need for information — comments based on Austrian experience in biological water quality monitoring. Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen 27: 1–5.Google Scholar
  36. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Environmental quality criteria: lakes and watercourses. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  37. SYSTAT Software Inc., 2002. TableCurve 2D — Version 5.01. SSI, Richmond CA.Google Scholar
  38. Tittizer, T., 1976. Comparative study of biological-ecological water assessment methods. Practical demonstration on the river Main. 2–6 June, 1975 (summary report). In Amavis, R.-J. (ed.) Principles and Methods for Determining Ecological Criteria on Hydrobiocoenosis: Proceedings of the European Scientific Colloquium Luxembourg, Nov. 1975. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 403–463.Google Scholar
  39. Woodiwiss, F. S., 1978. Comparative study of biological-ecological water quality assessment methods. Second practical demonstration. Summary Report. Commission of the European Union, Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Birk
    • 1
  • Daniel Hering
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations