, Volume 573, Issue 1, pp 133–154 | Cite as

Selection and validation of reference sites in small river basins

  • M. L. Chaves
  • J. L. Costa
  • P. Chainho
  • M. J. Costa
  • N. Prat
Primary Research Paper


Type-specific reference conditions that describe sites with no or only very minor anthropogenic disturbances are a basic requirement of the European Water Framework Directive. The reference condition approach implies a previous determination of criteria acceptable for the definition of near-natural stretches. In this paper, a methodology based on selection and validation procedures is applied to a Portuguese watershed to guide the identification of reference sites. The methodology consisted of three phases: (1) a preliminary site inspection through the use of maps, available data and an extensive screening field campaign that resulted in the selection of 52 potentially undisturbed small- and medium-sized rivers stretches, ranging from 43 to 1069 m in altitude, with catchment areas between 4 and 641 km2 and representing siliceous and calcareous riverbeds; (2) a detailed site selection based on ten pre-defined criteria involving physical/social/biological attributes that indicated catchment land use changes and alien vegetal riparian species as major human impacts; (3) a site validation procedure involving detailed investigation of benthic macroinvertebrate communities, riparian vegetation, in-stream habitat quality and chemical parameters that showed riparian wood-related problems as a major restriction to validate a stretch as a near-natural site. Only about 12% of all investigated river sites, accounting for 600 m of all 5200 m studied, could be considered as near-reference stretches or sites retaining essential natural functions. Selection and validation procedures can identify different sites as reference, which reinforces the need for applying both procedures. The results presented can help to accomplish the requirements of the EU – Water Framework Directive by selecting reference sites as the first step to establish biological reference conditions and, simultaneously, to form a basis for nature conservation strategies.


Water Framework Directive hydromorphological criteria physico-chemical criteria biological criteria ecological status Mondego River basin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

supp.doc (112 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Aguiar F. C., Ferreira M. T. and Pinto P. (2002). Relative influence of environmental variables on macroinvertebrate assemblage from an Iberian basin. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba-Tercedor J., Jáimez-Cuéllar P., Alvarez M., Avilés J., Casas J., Mellado A., Ortega M., Pardo I., Rieradevall M., Robles S., Sáinz-Cantero C. E., Suárez M. L., Toro M., Vidal-Abarca M. R., Vivas S. and Zamora-Muñoz C. (2002). Caracterización del estado ecológico de ríos mediterráneos ibéricos mediante el índice IBMWP (antes BMWP’). Limnetica 21: 175–185Google Scholar
  3. Alba-Tercedor J. and Sánchez-Ortega A. (1988). Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell (1978). Limnetica 4: 51–56Google Scholar
  4. Alves, M. H., J. M. Bernardo, H. D. Figueiredo, J. Pádua, P. Pinto & M. T. Rafael, 2004. Aplicação do sistema B da Directiva-Quadro da água na identificação de tipos de rios em Portugal continental. Actas do 7° Congreso da água: água – Qualidade de toda a Vida. Associação Portuguesa dos Recursos Hídricos, Lisboa Google Scholar
  5. (1999). Plano de bacia hidrográfica do Mondego. INAG, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  6. Anastácio P. and Marques J. C. (2002). Crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard) in the Lower Mondego River valley. In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C. and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 347–362. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  7. Armitage P. D., Moss D., Wright J. F. and Furse M. T. (1983). The performance of a new biological water quality system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17: 383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bailey R. C., Norris R. H. and Reynoldson T. B. (2004). Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems using the reference condition approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Peryphiton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Barbour M. T., Plafkin J. L., Bradley B. P., Graves C. G. and Wisseman R. W. (1992). Evaluation of EPA’s rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 437–449Google Scholar
  11. Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen & J. R. Karr, 1996. Biological criteria: Technical guidance for streams and rivers. EPA/822-B-96-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonada N., Prat N., Munné A., Rieradevall M., Alba-Tercedor J., Alvarez M., Avilés J., Casas J., Jáimez-Cuéllar P., Mellado A., Moyà G., Pardo I., Robles S., Ramón G., Suárez M. L., Toro M., Vidal-Abarca M. R., Vivas D. and Zamora-Muñoz C. (2002). Criterios para la selección de condiciones de referencia en los ríos mediterráneos. Resultados del proyecto GUADALMED. Limnetica 21: 99–114Google Scholar
  13. Cabral J. A., Mieiro C. and Marques J. C. (2002). Role assessment of an exotic fish on rice fields of the Lower Mondego River valley: Life history, population dynamics, production and diet of eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki (Pices, Poeciliidae). In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C., and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 363–380. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  14. (1994). National River and Management Program Monitoring River Health Initiative: River Bio-assessment Manual. Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaves M. L., Chainho P. M., Costa J. L., Prat N. and Costa M. J. (2005). Regional and local environmental factors structuring undisturbed benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Mondego River basin, Portugal. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 163: 497–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cortes R. M. and Monzon A. (1991). Biological assessment of water quality in Northern Portugal using a method combining species tolerance and diversity along the longitudinal axis. Limnetica 7: 123–132Google Scholar
  17. Dodds W. K. and Welch E. B. (2000). Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Domingos I., Chainho P., Costa J. L., Almeida P. R. and Costa M. J. (2002). Factors affecting the distribution of fish communities in the river Mondego and main tributaries. In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C., and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 125–134. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  19. Economou, A. N., 2002. Defining Reference Conditions (D3). Development, Evaluation & Implementation of a Standardised Fish-based Assessment Method for the Ecological Status of European Rivers – A Contribution to the Water Framework Directive. Institute for Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehlert T., Hering D., Koenzen U., Pottgiesser T., Schuhmacher H. and Friedrich G. (2002). Typology and type specific reference conditions for medium sized and large rivers in Northrhine-Westphalia: Methodological and biological aspects. International Review of Hydrobiology 87: 151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission, 2003. Guidance Document on Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. Final Report Produced by Working Group 2.2. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. Graça M. A., Coimbra N., Carvalho M. J., Oliveira R. and Abelho M. (2002). Freshwater macroinvertebrates in the Mondego river basin. In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C., and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 115–124. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  24. Graça M. A. S., Fonseca D. M. and Castro S. T. (1989). The distribution of macroinvertebrate communities in two Portuguese rivers. Freshwater Biology 22: 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hering D., Buffagni A., Moog O., Sandin L., Sommerhäuser M., Stubauer I., Feld C., Johnson R., Pinto P., Skoulikidis N., Verdonschot P. F. M. and Zahrádková S. (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. International Review of Hydrobiology 88: 345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hering D., Moog O., Sandin L. and Verdonschot P. F. M. (2004). Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hiner, S. W., 2002. Analyses of two aspects of study design for bioassessment with benthic macroinvertebrates: Single versus multiple habitat sampling and taxonomic identification level. Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic and State University Blacksburg, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Holland P. G. (2002). The Water Framework Directive. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 13: 277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holloway J. M., Dahlgren R. A., Hansen B. and Casey W. H. (1998). Contribution of bedrock nitrogen to high nitrate concentrations in stream water. Nature 395: 785–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes R. M. (1995). Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In: Davies, W. S. and Simon, T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 31–48. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  31. Illies J. (ed.) (1978) Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  32. Irvine K. (2004). Classifying ecological status under the European Water Framework Directive: The need for monitoring to account for natural variability. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Systems 14: 107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jáimez-Cuéllar P., Vivas S., Bonada N., Robles S., Mellado A., Alvarez M., Avilés J., Casas J., Ortega M., Pardo I., Prat N., Rieradevall M., Sáinz-Cantero C., Sánchez-Ortega A., Suárez M. L., Toro M., Vidal-Abarca M. R., Zamora-Muñoz C. and Alba-Tercedor J. (2002). Protocolo Guadalmed (PRECE). Limnetica 21: 187–204Google Scholar
  34. Lima M. I. and Lima J. L. (2002). Precipitation and the hydrology of the Mondego catchment: A scale – invariant study. In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C. and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 13–28. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  35. Loureiro, J. J., M. C. Almeida, M. L. Machado & E. Teixeira, 1986. Bacia hidrográfica do rio Mondego. In DGRAH (ed.), Monografias Hidrológicas dos principais cursos de água de Portugal continental. DGRAH, Lisboa, Portugal, 240–278Google Scholar
  36. Marques J. C., Graça M. A. and Pardal M. A. (2002). Introducing the Mondego River basin. In: Pardal, M. A., Marques, J. C., and Graça, M. A. S. (eds) Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience, pp 7–12. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  37. Moyle P. B. and Light T. (1996). Biological invasions of fresh water: Empirical rules and assembly theory. Biological Conservation 78: 149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muhar S., Schwarz M., Schmutz S. and Jungwirth M. (2000). Identification of rivers with high and good habitat quality: Methodological approach and applications in Austria. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munné A., Prat N., Solà C., Bonada N. and Rieradevall M. (2003). A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munné A., Solà C. and Prat N. (1998). QBR: Un Indice rápido para la evaluación de la calidad de los ecosistemas de ribera. Tecnologia del Agua 175: 20–37Google Scholar
  41. Nijboer R. C., Johnson R. K., Verdonschot P. F. M. and Buffagni A. (2004). Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516: 91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nixon, S., Z. Trent, C. Marcuello & C. Lallana, 2003. Europe’s water: An indicator-based assessment. EEA /92-9167-581-4. Topic report 1/2003. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  43. Pardo I., Álvarez M., Casas J., Moreno J. L., Vivas S., Alba-Tercedor J., Jáimez-Cuéllar P., Moyà G., Prat N., Robles S., Suárez M. L., Toro M. and Vidal-Abarca M. R. (2002). El hábitat de los ríos mediterráneos. Diseño de un índice de diversidad de hábitat. Limnetica 21: 115–133Google Scholar
  44. Pinto P., Rosado J., Morais M. and Antunes I. (2004). Assessment methodology for southern siliceous basins in Portugal. Hydrobiologia 516: 191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes (1989) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4-89-001. Assessment and Water Protection Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Resh V. H., Norris R. H. and Barbour M. T. (1995). Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reynoldson T. B., Norris R. H., Resh V. H., Day K. E. and Rosenberg D. M. (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: 833–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roy A. H., Rosemond A. D., Paul M. J., Leigh D. S. and Wallace J. B. (2003). Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 48: 329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sánchez-Montoya M., Suárez M. L. and Vidal-Abarca M. R. (2005). Propuesta de criterios para la selección de estaciones de referencia en ríos mediterráneos en el contexto de la Directiva Marco del Agua. Tecnología del Agua 266: 42–52Google Scholar
  50. Siegel S. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill International Editions, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Strahler A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63: 923–938Google Scholar
  52. Tachet H., Richoux P., Bournard M. and Usseglio-Polatera P. (2000). Invertébrés d’eaux douce – Systématique, biologie, écologie. CNRS ÉDITIONS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallin, M., T. Wiederholm & R. K. Johnson, 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters. Final Report to the European Commission from CIS Working Group 2.3 – REFCONDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Chaves
    • 1
  • J. L. Costa
    • 1
  • P. Chainho
    • 1
  • M. J. Costa
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. Prat
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto de OceanografiaFaculdade de Ciências da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Biologia AnimalFaculdade de Ciências da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Departament d’EcologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations