, Volume 542, Issue 1, pp 137–150 | Cite as

Implications of taxonomic modifications and alien species on biological waterquality assessment as exemplified by the Belgian Biotic Index method



In this paper, some important problems related to taxonomic resolution in water quality assessment by means of macroinvertebrates are discussed. Most quality indices based on macroinvertebrates only require identification up to genus or family level. Although this can be seen as a practical trade-off between taxonomic precision and time constraints and financial resources, it can result in biased assessment scores for certain stream types. An additional difficulty of identification levels other than species is caused by possible changes in taxonomy over time. A given genus may indeed have been split up into two or more genera or a species could be assigned to a different genus. These changes may alter biotic index values calculated over time, due to a change in number of taxa or replacement of one taxon by another one having a different tolerance class. An additional problem is caused by the invasion of exotic species. The genus Corbicula for instance is currently invading Belgian watercourses in increasing numbers. Since no Belgian Biotic Index (BBI) tolerance class is defined for Corbicula, this may cause inconsistencies in index calculations as well. In order to eliminate these, a semi-fixed taxa list, including a tolerance class for each taxon, for BBI calculation is proposed.


biological assessment methods macroinvertebrates surface water exotic species 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adriaenssens, V., Simons, F., NguyenL, T. H., Goddeeris, B., Goethals, P. L. M., Pauw, N. 2004Potential of bio-indication of chironomid communities for assessment of running water quality in Flanders (Belgium)Belgian Journal of Zoology1341524Google Scholar
  2. Bervoets, L, Bruylants, B., Marquet, P., Vandelannoote, A., Verheyen, R. 1989A proposal for modification of the Belgian Biotic Index methodHydrobiologia179223228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bijde Vaate, A., Jazdzewski, K., Ketelaars, H. A. M., Gollasch, S., Velde, G. 2002Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in EuropeCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5911591174Google Scholar
  4. Bowman, M. F., Bailey, R. C. 1997Does taxonomic resolution affect the multivariate description of the structure of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities?Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5418021807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns, J,Jr., Bidwell, J.R. 1996Discontinuities in technological and natural systems caused by exotic speciesBiodiversity and Conservation510851094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, R. T. 2000Uncertainty in estimates of biological quality based on RIVPACSWright, J. F.Sutcliffe, D. W.Furse, M. T. eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other TechniquesFreshwater Biological AssociationAmbleside Cumbria3954Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, R. T., Furse, M. T., Gunn, R. J. M., Winder, J. M., Wright, J. F. 2002Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indicesFreshwater Biology4717351751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pauw, N., Hawkes, G. 1993Biological monitoring of river water qualityWalley, W. J.Judd, S. eds. River Water Quality Monitoring and ControlAston UniversityBirmingham, UK87111Google Scholar
  9. Pauw, N., Heylen, S. 2001Biotic index for sediment quality assessment of watercourses in Flanders, BelgiumAquatic Ecology35121133Google Scholar
  10. Pauw, N., Vanhooren, G. 1983Method for biological quality assessment of watercourses in BelgiumHydrobiologia100153168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pauw, N.Vannevel, R eds. 1991Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality (in Dutch)Stichting LeefmilieuAntwerp, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  12. DIN, 1990. Biological–Ecological Analysis of Water (group M). Determination of the Saprobic Index (M 2). DIN 38 410, Part 2. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  13. Dolédec, S., Olivier, J. M., Statzner, B. 2000Accurate description of the abundance of taxa and their biological traits in stream invertebrate communities: effects of taxonomic and spatial resolutionArchiv für Hydrobiologie1482543Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, D. 1985Taxonomic sufficiency in pollution assessmentMarine Pollution Bulletin16459Google Scholar
  15. EU2000Directive 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 policyOfficial Journal of the European Communities L327172Google Scholar
  16. Furse, M.T., Moss, D., Wright, J.F., Armitage, D. 1984The influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running-water sites in Great Britain and on the prediction of their macro-invertebrate communitiesFreshwater Biology14257280Google Scholar
  17. Gayraud, S., Statzner, B., Bady, P., Haybach, A., Schöll, F., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Bacchi, M. 2003Invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of large European rivers: an initial assessment of alternative metricsFreshwater Biology4820452064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghetti P.F. (1997). Manuale di applicazione Indice Biotico Esteso (I.B.E.). I macroinvertebrati nel controllo della qualità degli ambienti di aque correnti. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Agenzia provinciale per la protezione degli ambienti, 222 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Guérold, F. 2000Influence of taxonomic determination level on several community indicesWater Research34487492Google Scholar
  20. Hughes, B. D. 1978The influence of factors other than pollution on the value of Shannon’s diversity index for benthic macro-invertebrates in streamsWater Research12359364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humphrey, C. L., Storey, A. W., Thurtell, L. 2000AUSRIVAS: operator sample processing errors and temporal variability – implications for model sensitivityWright, J. F.Sutcliffe, D. W.Furse, M. T. eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other TechniquesFreshwater Biological AssociationAmbleside, Cumbria, UK143163Google Scholar
  22. IBN, 1984. Biological Quality of Watercourses. Determination of the Biotic Index Based on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, NBN T92-402 (in Dutch and French). Belgian Institute for Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Karr, J. R., Chu, E. W. 1999Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological MonitoringIsland PressWashington, DC, USA206Google Scholar
  24. King, R. S., Richardson, C. J. 2002Evaluating subsampling approaches and macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution for wetland bioassessmentJournal of the North American Benthological Society21150171Google Scholar
  25. Lenat, D. R., Resh, V. H. 2001Taxonomy and stream ecology – the benefits of genus-and species-level identificationsJournal of the North American Benthological Society20287298Google Scholar
  26. Linke, S., Bailey, R. C., Schwindt, J. 1999Temporal variability of stream bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebratesFreshwater Biology42575584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lodge, D. M. 1993Biological invasions – lessons for ecologyTrends in Ecology & Evolution8133137Google Scholar
  28. Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., Bazzaz, F. A. 2000Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and controlEcological Applications10689710Google Scholar
  29. Nguyen, L.T.H., Pauw, N. 2002The invasive Corbicula species (Bivalvia, Corbiculidae) and the sediment quality in Flanders, BelgiumBelgian Journal of Zoology1324148Google Scholar
  30. Olsgard, F., Somerfield, P. J., Carr, M. R. 1998Relationships between taxonomic resolution, macrobenthic community patterns and disturbanceMarine Ecology Progress Series1722536Google Scholar
  31. Reece, P. F., Reynoldson, T. B., Richardson, J. S., Rosenberg, D. M. 2001Implications of seasonal variation for biomonitoring with predictive models in the Fraser River catchment, British ColumbiaCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5814111418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Resh, V. H., McElravy, E. P. 1993Contemporary quantitative approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebratesRosenberg, D. M.Resh, V. H. eds. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates.Chapman & HallNew York, USA159194Google Scholar
  33. Roach, A. C., Jones, A. R., Murray, A. 2001Using benthic recruitment to assess the significance of contaminated sediments: the influence of taxonomic resolutionEnvironmental Pollution112131143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosillon, D. 1989The influence of abiotic factors and density-dependent mechanisms on between-year variations in a stream invertebrate communityHydrobiologia1792538Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt-Kloiber, A., Nijboer, R. C. 2004The effect of taxonomic resolution on the assessment of ecological water quality classesHydrobiologia516269283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stubauer, I., Moog, O. 2000Taxonomic sufficiency versus need for information – comments based on Austrian experience in biological water quality monitoringVerhandlungen der Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie2725622566Google Scholar
  37. Torchin, M. E., Lafferty, K. D., Dobson, A. P., McKenzie, V. J., Kuris, A. M. 2003Introduced species and their missing parasitesNature421628630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuffery, G. & J. Verneaux, 1968. Méthode de détermination de la qualité biologique des eaux courantes. Exploitation codifiée des inventaires de la faune du fond. Ministère de l’ Agriculture (France), Centre National d’Etudes techniques et de recherches technologiques pour l’agriculture, les forêts et l’équipement rural ‘C.E.R.A.F.E.R.’, Section Pêche et␣Pisciculture, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Usseglio-Polatera, P. & J. N. Beisel, 2003. International biomonitoring of the Meuse River: spatio-temporal analysis of benthic communities (1998–2001). Final report (in French). LBFE, Equipe de Démoécologie, Université de Metz, France, 107 pp. + appendices.Google Scholar
  40. Vanden Bossche, J. -P., Chérot, F., Delooz, E., Grisez, F., Josens, G. 2001First record of the Pontocaspian invader Hypania invalida(Grube, 1860) (Polychaeta: Ampharetidae) in the river Meuse (Belgium)Belgian Journal of Z oology131183185Google Scholar
  41. Vanhooren G., Ovaere A., De Schutter H., Boelen C. 1982. Coded list of aquatic macroinvertebrates (in Dutch and French). Instituut voor Hygiene en Epidemiologie, Brussels, Belgium, 58 pp. + appendix.Google Scholar
  42. Brink, F. W. B., Velde, G., Bijde Vaate, A. 1991Amphipod invasion on the RhineNature352576Google Scholar
  43. Verdonschot, P. F. M. 2000Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment managementHydrobiologia422/423389412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warwick, R. M. 1988The level of taxonomic discrimination required to detect pollution effects on marine benthic communitiesMarine Pollution Bulletin19259268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams, P. H., Gaston, K. J. 1994Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness?Biological Conservation67211217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodiwiss, F. S. 1964The biological system of stream classification used by the Trent River BoardChemistry and Industry14443447Google Scholar
  47. Woodiwiss F. S. 1980. Biological Monitoring of Surface Water Quality. Summary Report. Commission of the European Communities, 45 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic EcologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations