Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 566, Issue 1, pp 281–296 | Cite as

Preliminary testing of River Habitat Survey features for the aims of the WFD hydro-morphological assessment: an overview from the STAR Project

  • Stefania Erba
  • Andrea Buffagni
  • Nigel Holmes
  • Mattie O’Hare
  • Peter Scarlett
  • Alberta Stenico
Article

Abstract

The UK River Habitat Survey (RHS) method for the assessment of hydro-morphological features was applied within the EU STAR project simultaneously with the collection of biological data. A subset of data from 79 sites affected by hydro-morphological alteration and belonging to 7 different stream types was analysed. The different features recorded within RHS were evaluated separately considering the characteristics associated with banks, channel and riparian zone. Different scores were assigned to selected features representing hydro-morphological alteration and naturalness of habitat. The ability of the different compartments to represent the quality gradient of sites was investigated. In addition, the link between macroinvertebrate community and hydro-morphological data was investigated, directly relating indices and metrics calculated from taxa list collected in a site to scores assigned to the RHS features. The sections highly affected by morphological alteration were channel geometry and bank profile. Metrics showing the best correlation with the features selected were EPT taxa, ASPT and ICMi (Inter-calibration Common Metric index). Among the indices studied, the HQA score (Habitat Quality Assessment) apparently played the most important role in structuring biological communities and the lentic-lotic character of rivers was also important.

Keywords

river macroinvertebrate CEN metrics ICM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

supp.doc (58 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Agences de l’Eau & Ministère de l’Environnement, 1998. SEQ-Physique: A System for the Evaluation of the Physical Quality of Watercourses, 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J. D., Johnson, L. B. 1997Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystemsFreshwater Biology37107111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. A. L., Fay, J. 1997The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scalesFreshwater Biology37149161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armitage, P. D., Moss, D., Wright, J. F., Furse, M. T. 1983The performance of a new biological water quality scores system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sitesWater Research17333347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage, P. D., Lattmann, K., Kneebone, N., Harris, I. 2001Bank profile and structure as determinants of macroinvertebrate assemblages – seasonal changes and managementRegulated Rivers: Research & Management17543556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balestrini, R., M. Cazzola & A. Buffagni, 2004. Riparian ecotones and hydromorphological features of selected Italian rivers: a comparative application of environmental indices. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 365–379Google Scholar
  7. Beisel, J., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Moreteau, J. 2000The spatial heterogeneity of a river bottom: a key factor determining macroinvertebrate communitiesHydrobiologia422/423163171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunke, M. 2002Floodplains of a regulated southern alpine river (Brenno, Switzerland): ecological assessment and conservation optionsAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems12583599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buffagni, A. 1997Mayfly community composition and the biological quality of streamsLandolt, P.Sartori, M. eds. Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera: Biology-Ecology-SystematicsMTLFribourg235246Google Scholar
  10. Buffagni, A. 1999Pregio naturalistico, qualità ecologica e integrità della comunità degli Efemerotteri (Insecta Ephemeroptera): un indice per la classificazione dei fiumi italianiAcqua&Aria899107Google Scholar
  11. Buffagni, A., Kemp, J. L., Erba, S., Belfiore, C., Hering, D., Moog, O. 2001A Europe wide system for assessing the quality of rivers using macroinvertebrates: the AQEM project and its importance for southern Europe (with special emphasis on Italy)Journal of Limnology603948Google Scholar
  12. Buffagni, A. & S. Erba, 2002. Guidance for the assessment of hydromorphological features of rivers within the STAR Project. June 2002, 20+18 pp (Available at STAR web site, www.eu-star.at)Google Scholar
  13. Buffagni, A., Kemp, J. L. 2002Looking beyond the shores of the United Kingdom: addenda for the application of River Habitat Survey in South-European riversJournal of Limnology61199214Google Scholar
  14. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, D. Armanini, D. De Martini & S. Somaré, 2004a. Aspetti idromorfologici e carattere Lentico-lotico dei fiumi mediterranei: River Habitat Survey e descrittore LRD. In ‘Classificazione ecologica e carattere lentico-lotico in fiumi mediterranei’. Quad. Ist. Ricerca Acque, Roma 122: 41–63Google Scholar
  15. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola & J. L. Kemp, 2004b. The AQEM multimetric system for the southern Italian Apennines: assessing the impact of water quality and habitat degradation on pool macroinvertebrates in Mediterranean rivers. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 313–329Google Scholar
  16. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, S. Birk, M. Cazzola, C. Feld, T. Ofenböck, J. Murray-Bligh, M. T. Furse, R. Clarke, D. Hering, H. Soszka & W. van de Bund, 2005. Towards European Inter-calibration for the Water Framework Directive: Procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. project STAR. 11th STAR Deliverable. STAR Contract No: EVK1-CT 2001-00089. Rome (Italy), Quad. Ist. Ric. Acque 123, Rome (Italy), IRSA, 468 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. EN14614:2004. Water Quality: Guidance Standard for Assessing the Hydromorphological Features of Rivers. CEN TC 230/WG 2/TG 5: N47Google Scholar
  18. Environmental Agency, 1997. River Habitat Survey – Field Guidance Manual. BristolGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission, 2000. Directive 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 L 327, 22.12.2000, 1–72Google Scholar
  20. European Commission, 2003. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No 10. Rivers and Lakes – Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems Produced by Working Group 2.3 – REFCOND, 94 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Feld, C. K., 2004. Identification and measure of hydromorphological degradation in Central European lowland streams. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 69–90Google Scholar
  22. Fleischhacker, T. & K. Kern, 2002. Ecomorphological Survey of Large Rivers. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Postfach 200 253, D-56002 Koblenz, 41 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. 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: 3–29Google Scholar
  24. Griffith, M. B., Husby, P., Hall, R. P., Kaufmann, P. R., Hill,  B. 2003Analysis of macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to environmental gradients among lotic habitats of California’s central valleyEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment82281309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20Google Scholar
  26. Jansen, W., Böhmer, J., Kappus, B., Beiter, T., Breitinger, B., Hock,  C. 2000Benthic invertebrate and fish communities as indicators of morphological integrity in the Enz River (south-west Germany)Hydrobiologia422/423331342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krebs, C. J., 1989. Ecological Methodology. University of British Columbia, Harper Collins Publishers, 357–367Google Scholar
  28. Legendre, P., Legendre, L. 1998Numerical Ecology. Developments in Environmental Modelling 20ElsevierAmsterdam853Google Scholar
  29. Logan, P. & M. Furse, 2002. Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive – making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 425–437Google Scholar
  30. Lorenz, A., D. Hering, C. K. Feld & P. Rolauffs, 2004. A new method for assessing the impact of hydromorphological degradation on the macroinvertebrate fauna of five German stream types In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 107–127Google Scholar
  31. Maddock, I. 1999The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river healthFreshwater Biology41373391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Margalef, R., 1984. Ecosystems: Diversity and Connectivity as measurable components of their complication. In AIDA, et al. (ed.), The Science and Praxis of Complexity. Tokyo: United Nations University, 1984, 228–244Google Scholar
  33. Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., 1994. Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate communities. In Calow, P. & G. E. Petts (eds), The River Handbook. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford Vol 2: 144–170Google Scholar
  34. Muhar, S., M. Kainz, M. Kaufmann & M. Schwarz, 1996. Ausweisungflusstypspezifisch erhaltener Fliessgewässerabschnitte in Österreich (In German). Österreichische Bundesgewässer, BMLF, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien, 176 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Muhar, S., M. Kainz & M. Schwarz, 1998. Ausweisungflusstypspezifisch erhaltener Fliessgewässerabsc- hnitte in Österreich – Fliessgewässer mit einem Einzugsgebiet >500 km2 ohne Bundesflüsse (In German). BMLF, BMUJF, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien: 177 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Naura, M., Robinson, M. 1998Principles of using River Habitat Survey to predict the distribution of aquatic species: an example applied to the native white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipesAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems8515527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nijboer, R. C., R. K. Johnson, P. F. M. Verdonschot, M. Sommerhäuser & A. Buffagni, 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 91–105Google Scholar
  38. Ofenböck, T., O. Moog, J. Gerritsen & M. Barbour, 2004. A stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 516: 251–268Google Scholar
  39. Ogbeibu, A. E., Oribhabor, B. J. 2002Ecological impact of river impoundment using benthic macro-invertebrates as indicatorsWater Research3624272436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedersen, M. L. & A. Baattrup-Pedersen, 2003. Økologisk overvågning i vandløb og på vandløbsnære arealer under NOVANA 2004–2009 (In Danish). Teknisk Anvisning fra DMU nr. 21. National Environmental Research Institute, 128 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinay, G., Decamps, H., Chauvet, E., Fustec, E. 1990Functions of ecotones in fluvial systemsNaiman, R. J.Decamps, H. eds. The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial EcotonesThe Parthenon Publishing GroupParis141164Google Scholar
  42. Pinto, P., J. Rosado, M. Morais & I. Antunes, 2004. Assessment methodology for southern siliceous basins in Portugal. In Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, printed in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia, 516: 191–214Google Scholar
  43. Raven, P. J., P. J. A. Fox, M. Everard, N. T. H. Holmes & F. D. Dawson, 1997. River Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In Boon, P. J. & D. L. Howell (eds), Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, 215–234 Google Scholar
  44. Raven, P. J., T. H. Holmes, F. H. Dawson, P. J. A. Fox, M. Everard, I. R. Fozzard & K. J. Rouen, 1998. River Habitat Survey, the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of man. River Habitat Survey No.2, May 1998. The Environment Agency, Bristol, 86 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. Raven, P. J., Holmes, N. T. H., Naura, M., Dawson, F. H. 2000Using river habitat survey for environmental assessment and catchment plan in the UKHydrobiologia422/423359367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raven, P. J., Holmes, N. T. H., Charrier, P., Dawson, F. H., Naura,  R., Boon, P. J. 2002Towards a harmonized approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative comparison of three survey methodsAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems12405424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandin, L., Johnson, R. K. 2004Local, landscape and regional factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swedish streamsLandscape Ecology19501514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Szoszkiewicz K., A. Buffagni, J. Davy-Bowker, J. Lesny, B. H. Chojnicki, J. Zbierska, R. Staniszewski & T. Zgola, 2006. Occurrence and variability of River Habitat Survey features across Europe and consequences on data quality evaluation. Hydrobiologia 566: 267–280Google Scholar
  49. Tabacchi, E., Correll, D. L., Hauer, R., Pinay, G., Planty-Tabacchi, A. -M., Wissmar, R. C. 1998Development, maintenance, and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscapeFreshwater Biology40497516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verdonschot, P. F. M. 2000Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment managementHydrobiologia442/443389412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ward, J. V., Wiens, J. A. 2001Ecotones of riverine ecosystems: role and typology, spatio-temporal dynamics, and river regulationEcohydrology Hydrobiology12536Google Scholar
  52. Werth, W. 1987Okomorphologische Gewasserbewertung (Ecomorphological survey of streams, in German)Osterreichische Wasserwirtschaft39122128Google Scholar
  53. Woodiwiss, F. S. 1964The biological system of stream classification used by the Trent River BoardChemistry and Industry14443447Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Erba
    • 1
  • Andrea Buffagni
    • 1
  • Nigel Holmes
    • 2
  • Mattie O’Hare
    • 3
  • Peter Scarlett
    • 3
  • Alberta Stenico
    • 4
  1. 1.CNR-IRSA, Water Research InstituteBrugherioItaly
  2. 2.The Almonds, WARBOYSHuntingdonUK
  3. 3.CEH, Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWinfrith Technology CentreDorchester, DorsetUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.LABBIO, Provincia Autonoma di BolzanoAgenzia Provinciale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente, Laboratorio biologicoLaivesItaly

Personalised recommendations