Advertisement

The Use of Diatoms to Assess the Ecological Status in Catalan Rivers: Application of the WFD and Lessons Learned from the European Intercalibration Exercise

  • Elisabet TornésEmail author
  • Sergi Sabater
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 42)

Abstract

The biological communities have been widely applied in the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies. In particular, diatom communities integrate the environmental effects of water chemistry, along with the physical and geomorphological characteristics of rivers and lakes. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) included for the first time in Europe the concept of ecological status of aquatic ecosystems in water quality evaluation, based on the use of biological quality elements (BQE) in a type-specific context. During the implementation of the WFD in Catalan rivers using diatoms, 152 stream and river sites were sampled, and the applicability of existing diatom indices to monitor water quality in Catalan rivers was tested. The correspondence between the already proposed typological classifications of rivers and the biological classification was also examined. Since the bioassessment methods using diatoms needed to be comparable amongst different fluvial ecosystems in Europe, several intercalibration (IC) exercises were done throughout Mediterranean areas in Europe. The Mediterranean IC exercise faced the inconsistency between the river types and the biotic classification, the lack of real pristine sites and the existence of taxonomic discrepancies. In spite of these constraints, the Intercalibration Common Metric (ICM) consistently related with the local-used indices (IPS) in all the countries tested. However, during this process, the need of revising the river typology as well as of revisiting the fine-tuning of taxonomic identifications was clear. Putting effort in these aspects would improve the water quality assessment at the national level and would also improve the subsequent comparability amongst countries.

Keywords

Bioassessment Catalan rivers Diatoms Indices Intercalibration Mediterranean 

References

  1. 1.
    Stevenson RJ, Pan Y (1999) Assessing environmental conditions in rivers and streams using diatoms. In: Stoermer EF, Smol JP (eds) The diatoms: application for the environmental and earth sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 11–40Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sabater S, Admiraal W (2005) Biofilms as biological indicators in managed aquatic ecosystems. In: Azim ME, Verdegem MCJ, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM (eds) Periphyton: ecology, exploitation and management. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 159–177Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pan YD, Stevenson RJ, Hill BH, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT (1999) Spatial patterns and ecological determinants of benthic algal assemblages in Mid-Atlantic streams, USA. J Phycol 35:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sabater S, Sabater F, Armengol J (1988) Relationships between diatom assemblages and physico-chemical variables in the river Ter (NE Spain). Int Rev Gesamten Hydrobiol 73:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rott E (1991) Methodological aspects and perspectives in the use of periphyton for monitoring and protecting rivers. In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Botanik, Innsbruck, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly MG, Cazaubon A, Coring E, Dell’Uomo A, Ector L, Goldsmith B, Guasch H, Hurlimann J, Jarlman A, Kawecka B, Kwandrans J, Laugaste R, Lindstrom EA, Leitao M, Marvan P, Padisak J, Pipp E, Prygiel J, Rott E, Sabater S, van Dam H, Vizinet J (1998) Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J Appl Phycol 10:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prygiel J, Carpentier P, Almeida S, Coste M, Druart JC, Ector L, Guillard D, Honore MA, Iserentant R, Ledeganck P, Lalanne Cassou C, Lesniak C, Mercier I, Moncaut P, Nazart M, Nouchet N, Peres F, Peeters V, Rimet F, Rumeau A, Sabater S, Straub F, Torrisi M, Tudesque L, van de Vijver B, Vidal H, Vizinet J, Zydek N (2002) Determination of the biological diatom index (IBD NF T 90–354): results of an intercomparison exercise. J Appl Phycol 14:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Committee for Standardization (2003) European Standard EN 13946. Water quality—guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers for water quality assessment. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Committee for Standardization (2004) European Standard EN 14407. Water quality—guidance standard for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samples from running waters. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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. Off J Eur Communities L327:1–73Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Almeida SF, Elias C, Ferreira J, Tornés E, Puccinelli C, Delmas F, Dörflinger G, Urbanič G, Marcheggiani S, Rosebery J, Mancini L, Sabater S (2014) Water quality assessment of rivers using diatom metrics across Mediterranean Europe: a methods intercalibration exercise. Sci Total Environ 476:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cemagref (1982) Étude des méthodes biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Cemagref Lyon. Agence de l’Eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, LyonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coste M, Boutry S, Tison-Rosebery J, Delmas F (2009) Improvements of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI): description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006). Ecol Indic 9:621–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Descy JP, Coste M (1990) Utilisation des diatomées benthiques pour l’évaluation de la qualité des eaux courantes. Rapport final. Université de Namur, Cemagref BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zelinka M, Marvan P (1961) Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Arch Hydrobiol 57:389–407Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lecointe C, Coste M, Prygiel J (1993) OMNIDIA: software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nijboer RC, Johnson RK, Verdonschot PFM, Sommerhäuser M, Buffagni A (2004) Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munné A, Prat N (2004) Defining river types in a Mediterranean area: a methodology for the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Environ Manag 34:711–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ACA (2005) Caracterització de masses d’aigua i anàlisi del risc d’imcompliment dels objectius de la Directiva Marc de l’Aigua (2000/60/CE) a Catalunya (conques intra i intercomunitàries). Report of the Catalan Water Agency, Barcelona. Available from http://aca-web.gencat.cat/aca/appmanager/aca/aca?_nfpb = true&_pageLabel = P1206154461208200586461Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tornés E, Leira M, Sabater S (2012) Is the biological classification of benthic diatom communities concordant with ecotypes? Hydrobiologia 695:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cao Y, Hawkins CP (2011) The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:680–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahlert M, Albert R-L, Anttila E-L, Bengtsson R, Bigler C, Eskola T, Gälman V, Gottschalk S, Herlitz E, Jarlman A, Kasperoviciene J, Kokociński M, Luup H, Miettinen J, Paunksnyte I, Piirso K, Quintana I, Raunio J, Sandell B, Simola H, Sundberg I, Vilbaste S, Weekström J (2009) Harmonization is more important than experience—results of the first Nordic-Baltic diatom intercalibration exercise 2007 (stream monitoring). J Appl Phycol 21:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feio M, Aguiar F, Almeida S, Ferreira J, Ferreira M, Elias C, Serra S, Buffagni A, Cambra J, Chauvin C, Delmas F, Dörflinger G, Erba S, Flor N, Ferréol M, Germ M, Mancini L, Manolaki P, Marcheggiani S, Minciardi MR, Munné A, Papastergiadou E, Prat N, Puccinelli C, Rosebery J, Sabater S, Ciadamidaro S, Tornés E, Tziortzis I, Urbanič G, Vieira C (2014) Least disturbed condition for European Mediterranean rivers. Sci Total Environ 476:745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kelly M, Bennett C, Coste M, Delgado C, Delmas F, Denys L, Ector L, Fauville C, Ferréol M, Golub M, Jarlman A, Kahlert M, Lucey J, Ní Chatháin B, Pardo I, Pfister P, Picinska-Faltynowicz J, Rosebery J, Schranz C, Schaumburg J, van Dam H, Vilbaste S (2009) A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European water framework directive: results of an intercalibration exercise. Hydrobiologia 621:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ECOSTAT (Working Group 2.A Ecological Status) (2004) Overview of common intercalibration types. Final version 5.1Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van de Bund W (ed) (2009) Water Framework Directive Intercalibration technical report. Part 1: rivers. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IspraGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hawkins CP, Vinson MR (2000) Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sánchez-Montoya MM, Puntí T, Suárez ML, Vidal-Abarca MR, Rieradevall M, Poquet JM, Zamora-Muñoz C, Robles S, Álvarez M, Alba-Tercedor J, Toro M, Pujante AM, Munné A, Prat N (2007) Concordance between ecotypes and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Mediterranean streams. Freshw Biol 52:2240–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rott E, Binder N, van Dam H, Ortler K, Pall K, Pfister P, Pipp E (1999) Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 2: Trophieindikation, geochemische Reaktion, toxikologische und taxonomische Anmerkungen. Publ. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, BMfLF:1–248Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Comission (2011) Technical report-2011–045. Guidance document on the intercalibration process 2008–2011. Guidance Document n° 14. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA)GironaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Aquatic EcologyUniversity of GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations