Advertisement

Biological Indicators to Assess the Ecological Status of River-Dominated Estuaries: The Case of Benthic Indicators in the Ebro River Estuary

  • Carles IbáñezEmail author
  • Nuno Caiola
  • Rosa Trobajo
  • Alfonso Nebra
  • Laia Rovira
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 42)

Abstract

River-dominated estuaries (also known as salt-wedge or highly stratified estuaries) are transitional water bodies occurring in micro-tidal coasts such as the Mediterranean. Their hydrological and ecological particularities make difficult the assessment of the ecological status using either the procedures for rivers or estuaries. For instance, river-dominated estuaries become rivers when the discharge is higher than its annual average (riverine conditions), whereas they become highly stratified when discharge is lower than its annual average (estuarine conditions). Moreover, the transition between riverine and estuarine conditions is abrupt and irregular across space and time, converting these transitional water bodies in naturally stressed ecosystems. To add more complexity, the human intervention in river basins (i.e. damming and intensive water use) has tended to reduce and homogenise river discharge, making more frequent and regular the presence of a salt wedge in the estuary, softening their natural stressful dynamics. As a result, it is difficult to discern natural from anthropogenic stressors, because the increase in environmental stability leads to higher complexity in biological communities and thus some bioindicators may show scores indicating better ecological status under impacted conditions than under natural conditions, which is an expression of a phenomenon known as ‘estuarine quality paradox’. To sort out this situation and achieve a proper assessment of the ecological status of river-dominated estuaries, a specific approach is required, both in terms of the bioindicators to be used and the methodology to make them work in the correct way.

In this chapter a synthesis of preliminary work carried out to develop assessment methods (according to the Water Framework Directive) in the Ebro River estuary is presented, and the strategy to further develop the best methods to carry out the ecological status assessment is discussed. The Ebro River estuary is a typical salt-wedge estuary which is representative of this type of water bodies in the Mediterranean, and its hydrology and ecology have been intensively investigated in the past. Results show that existing bioassessment methods for transitional waters are not appropriate for the assessment of the ecological status of river-dominated estuaries, though in some cases the adaptation of some methods can be a useful way to start with the assessment as long as limitations are known.

Keywords

Diatoms Ecological indicators Macroinvertebrates Salt-wedge estuary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Government of Catalonia (Catalan Water Agency). The authors would like to thank to Lluís Jornet, David Mateu, Sílvia Rodríguez, Mireia San Lorenzo Rosa Valmaña, Esther Clavero and Cristina Buendía for field and laboratory support.

References

  1. 1.
    European Parliament (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Union 327:1–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allan IJ, Vrana B, Greenwood R, Mills GA, Roig B, Gonzalez C (2006) A “toolbox” for biological and chemical monitoring requirements for the European Union’s Water Framework Directive. Talanta 69:302–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borja A, Franco J, Valencia V, Bald J, Muxika I, Belzunce MJ, Solaun O (2004) Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive from the Basque country (northern Spain): a methodological approach. Mar Pollut Bull 48:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cloern JE, Powell TM, Huzzey LM (1989) Spatial and temporal variability in South San-Francisco Bay (USA). 2. Temporal changes in salinity, suspended sediments, and phytoplankton biomass and productivity over tidal time scales. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 28:599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rovira L, Trobajo R, Ibáñez C (2009) Periphytic diatom community in a Mediterranean salt wedge estuary: the Ebro estuary (NE Iberian Peninsula). Acta Bot Croat 68:285–300Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dauvin JC (2007) Paradox of estuarine quality: benthic indicators and indices, consensus or debate for the future. Mar Pollut Bull 55:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott M, Quintino V (2007) The estuarine quality paradox, environmental homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas. Mar Pollut Bull 54:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlacher TA, Wooldridge TH (1996) Ecological responses to reductions in freshwater supply and quality in South Africa’s estuaries: lessons for management and conservation. J Coast Conserv 2:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dauer DM, Ranasinghe JA, Weisberg SB (2000) Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaldívar JM, Cardoso AC, Viaroli P, Newton A, de Wit R, Ibañez C, Reizopoulou S, Somma F, Razinkovas A, Basset A, Holmer M, Murray N (2008) Eutrophication in transitional waters: an overview. Trans Water Monogr 1:1–78Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Navarro-Ortega A, Tauler R, Lacorte S, Barceló D (2010) Occurrence and transport of PAHs, pesticides and alkylphenols in sediment samples along the Ebro River Basin. J Hydrol 383:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nedwell DB, Jickells TD, Trimmer M, Sanders R (1999) Nutrients in estuaries. Adv Ecol Res 29:43–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karlson K, Rosenberg R, Bonsdorff E (2002) Temporal and spatial large-scale effects of eutrophication and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna in Scandinavian and Baltic waters—a review. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 40:427–489Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bock MT, Miller BS, Bowman AW (1999) Assessment of eutrophication in the firth of clyde: analysis of coastal water data from 1982 to 1996. Mar Pollut Bull 38:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearson TH, Rosemberg R (1978) Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 16:229–311Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diaz RJ (2001) Overview of hypoxia around the world. J Environ Qual 30:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caiola N, Vargas MJ, Sostoa A (2001) Feeding ecology of the endangered Valencia toothcarp, Valencia hispanica (Actinopterygii: Valenciidae). Hydrobiologia 448:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferreira T, Caiola N, Casals F, Oliveira JM, Sostoa A (2007) Assessing perturbation of river fish communities in the Iberian Ecoregion. Fish Manag Ecol 14:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caiola N, Vargas MJ, Sostoa A (2001) Life history pattern of the endangered Valencia toothcarp, Valencia hispanica (Actinopterygii: Valenciidae) and its implications for conservation. Arch Hydrobiol 150:473–489Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nebra A, Caiola N, Ibáñez C (2011) Community structure of benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting a highly stratified Mediterranean estuary. Sci Mar 75:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rovira L, Trobajo R, Ibáñez C (2012) The use of diatom assemblages as ecological indicators in highly stratified estuaries and evaluation of existing diatom indices. Mar Pollut Bull 64(3):500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smol JP, Stoermer EF (2010) The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences, 2nd edn. University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Descy JP, Coste M (1991) A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms. Verh Int Ver Limnol 24:2112–2116Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kelly MG, Penny CJ, Whitton BA (1995) Comparative performance of benthic diatom indexes used to assess river water-quality. Hydrobiologia 302:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    King L, Clarke G, Bennion H, Kelly M, Yallop M (2006) Recommendations for sampling littoral diatoms in lakes for ecological status assessments. J Appl Phycol 18:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Warwick RM, Platt HM, Clarke KR, Agard J, Gobin J (1990) Analysis of macrobenthic and meiobenthic community structure in relation to pollution and disturbance in Hamilton Harbor, Bermuda. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 138:119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kelly MG, Bennett C, Coste M, Delgado C, Delmas F, Denys L, Ector L, Fauville C, Ferreol M, Golub M, Jarlman A, Kahlert M, Lucey J, Ni Chathain 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
  28. 28.
    Della Bella V, Puccinelli C, Marcheggiani S, Mancini L (2007) Benthic diatom communities and their relationship to water chemistry in wetlands of central Italy. Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 43:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zgrundo A, Bogaczewicz-Adamczak B (2004) Applicability of diatom indices for monitoring water quality in coastal streams in the Gulf of Gdańsk region, northern Poland. Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 33:31–46Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bauer DE, Gómez N, Hualde PR (2007) Biofilms coating Schoenoplectus californicus as indicators of water quality in the Río de la Plata Estuary (Argentina). Environ Monit Assess 133:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dauer DM (1993) Biological criteria, environmental-health and estuarine macrobenthic community structure. Mar Pollut Bull 26:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simboura N, Zenetos A (2002) Benthic indicators to use in ecological quality classification of Mediterranean soft bottom marine ecosystems, including a new biotic index. Mediterr Mar Sci 3:77–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bustos-Baez S, Frid C (2003) Using indicator species to assess the state of macrobenthic communities. Hydrobiologia 496:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Borja A, Franco J, Perez V (2000) A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Mar Pollut Bull 40:1100–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borja A, Franco J, Muxika I (2004) The biotic indices and the Water Framework Directive: the required consensus in the new benthic monitoring tools. Mar Pollut Bull 48:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muxika I, Borja A, Bald J (2007) Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 55:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibáñez C, Pont D, Prat N (1997) Characterization of the Ebre and Rhone estuaries: a basis for defining and classifying salt wedge estuaries. Limnol Oceanogr 42:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibáñez C, Prat N (2003) The environmental impact of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan on the lower Ebro river and delta. Int J Water Resour Dev 19:485–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sierra JP, Sánchez-Arcilla A, Figueras PA, González del Río J, Rassmussen EK, Mösso C (2004) Effects of discharge reductions on salt wedge dynamics of the Ebro river. River Res Appl 20:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terrado M, Barcelo D, Tauler R (2006) Identification and distribution of contamination sources in the Ebro river basin by chemometrics modelling coupled to geographical information systems. Talanta 70:691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Falcó S, Niencheski LF, Rodilla M, Romero I, González del Río J, Sierra JP, Mösso C (2010) Nutrient flux and budget in the Ebro estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 87:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ibáñez C, Prat N, Duran C, Pardos M, Munné A, Andreu R, Caiola N, Cid N, Hampel H, Sánchez R, Trobajo R (2008) Changes in dissolved nutrients in the lower Ebro river: causes and consequences. Limnetica 27:131–142Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibáñez C, Alcaraz C, Caiola N, Rovira A, Trobajo R, Alonso M, Duran C, Jimenez PJ, Munné A, Prat N (2012) Regime shift from phytoplankton to macrophyte dominance in a large river: top-down versus bottom-up effects. Sci Total Environ 416:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ibáñez C, Caiola N, Rovira A, Real M (2012) Monitoring the effects of floods on submerged macrophytes in a large river. Sci Total Environ 440:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rovira L, Trobajo R, Leira M, Ibáñez C (2012) The effect of hydrological dynamics on benthic diatom community in a stratified estuary: the case of the Ebro estuary (Catalonia, Spain). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 101:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1997) Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae, vol 2/1, Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1997) Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae, vol 2/2, Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Witkowski A, Lange-Bertalot H, Metzeltin D (2000) Diatom flora of marine coasts I, vol 7, Iconographia Diatomologica. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., RugellGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Descy JP (1979) A new approach to water quality estimation using diatoms. Nova Hedwig Beih 64:305–323Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Buwal (2002) Bundesamt Für Umwelt, Wald Und Landschaft: Methoden zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fließgewässer Kieselalgen Stufe F (flächendeckend) Entwurf Stand January, BernGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dell’Uomo A (1996) Assessment of water quality of an Apennine river as a pilot study for diatom-based monitoring of Italian watercourses. In: Whitton BA, Rott E (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers II. Institut für Botanik, Universität InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rumeau A, Coste M (1988) Introduction into the systematic of freshwater diatoms for a useful generic diatomic index. Bull Fr Peche Piscic 309:1–69Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lenoir C, Coste M (1996) Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In: Whitton BA, Rott E (eds) Use of Algae for monitoring rivers II. Institut für Botanik, Universität InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Prygiel J, Lévêque L, Iserentant R (1996) A new practical diatom index for the assessment of water quality in monitoring networks. Revue des Sciences de l’Eau 9:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gómez N, Licursi M (2001) The Pampean diatom index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquat Ecol 35:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cemagref (1982) Etude des méthodes biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux, Rapport Q.E. Lyon – Agence de l’Eau RhôneMéditerranée-Corse, LyonGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Leclercq L, Maquet B (1987) New diatom and chemical indexes of water-quality – comparison with different existing indexes. Cah Biol Mar 28:303–310Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lobo EA, Callegaro VLM, Bender P (2002) Utilização de algas diatomáceas epilíticas como indicadoras da qualidade da água em rios e arroios da Região Hidrográfica do Guaíba, RS, Brasil. EDUNISC, Santa Cruz do SulGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schiefele S, Schreiner C (1991) Use of diatoms for monitoring nutrient enrichment, acidification and impact of salt rivers in Germany and Austria. In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Universität Innsbruck, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rott E, Hofmann G, Pall K, Pfister P, Pipp E (1997) Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 1: Saprobielle Indikation, WienGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sládeček V (1986) Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 14:555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kelly MG (1998) Use of the trophic diatom index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Res 32:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rott E, Binder N, Van Dam H, Ortler K, Pall K, Pfister P, Pipp E (1999) Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 2: Trophieindikation und autökologische Anmerkungen. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, WienGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Watanabe T, Asai K, Houki A (1986) Numerial estimation to organic pollution of flowing water by using the epilithic diatom assemblage index (DAIPO). Sci Total Environ 55:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Alba-Tercedor J, Jáimez-Cuéllar P, Álvarez M, Avilés J, Bonada N, Casas J, Mellado A, Ortega M, Pardo I, Prat N, Rieradevall M, Robles S, Elisa Sáinz-Cantero C, Sánchez-Ortega A, Suárez ML, Toro M, Vidal-Abarca MR, Vivas S, Zamora-Muñoz C (2002) Caracterización del estado ecológico de rıos mediterráneosibéricos mediante el ındice IBMWP (antes BMWP’). Limnetica 21:175–185Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dauvin JC, Ruellet T (2007) Polychaete/amphipod ratio revisited. Mar Pollut Bull 55:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nebra A, Caiola N, Muñoz-Camarillo G, Rodríguez-Climent S, Ibáñez C (2014) Towards a suitable ecological status assessment of highly stratified Mediterranean estuaries: a comparison of benthic invertebrate fauna indices. Ecol Indic 46:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ibáñez C, Prat N, Canicio A (1996) Changes in the hydrology and sediment transport produced by large dams on the lower Ebro river and its estuary. Regul Rivers Res Manage 12:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sabater S, Artigas J, Durán C, Pardos M, Romaní AM, Tornés E, Ylla I (2008) Longitudinal development of chlorophyll and phytoplankton assemblages in a regulated large river (the Ebro river). Sci Total Environ 404:196–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Torrecilla NJ, Galve JP, Zaera LG, Retarnar JF, Álvarez ANA (2005) Nutrient sources and dynamics in a mediterranean fluvial regime (Ebro river, NE Spain) and their implications for water management. J Hydrol 304:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Blanco S, Ector L, Huck V, Monnier O, Cauchie HM, Hoffmann L, Bécares E (2008) Diatom assemblages and water quality assessment in the Duero Basin (NW Spain). Belg J Bot 141:39–50Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Leira M, Sabater S (2005) Diatom assemblages distribution in catalan rivers, NE Spain, in relation to chemical and physiographical factors. Water Res 39:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tornés E, Cambra J, Gomà J, Leira M, Ortiz R, Sabater S (2007) Indicator taxa of benthic diatom communities: a case study in Mediterranean streams. Ann Limnol Int J Limnol 43:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    European Community (1991) Council directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Off J Eur Commun Ser L 135:40–52Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kelly MG (2011) The Emperor’s new clothes? A comment on Besse-Lotoskaya et al. (2011). Ecol Indic 11:1492–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Grantham TE, Figuero R, Prat N (2013) Water management in mediterranean river basins: a comparison of management frameworks, physical impacts and ecological processes. Hydrobiologia 719:451–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Dewson ZS, James ABW, Death RG (2007) A review of the consequences of decreased flow instream habitat and macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard HA, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81(2):163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Trobajo R, Quintana XD, Sabater S (2004) Factors affecting the periphytic diatom community in Mediterranean coastal wetlands (Emporda wetlands, NE Spain). Arch Hydrobiol 160:375–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Witkowski A, Cedro B, Kierzek A, Baranowski D (2009) Diatoms as a proxy in reconstructing the Holocene environmental changes in the south-western Baltic Sea: the lower Rega River Valley sedimentary record. Hydrobiologia 631:155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Trobajo R, Sullivan MJ (2010) Applied diatom studies in estuaries and shallow coastal environments. In: Smol JP, Stoermer EF (eds) The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences, 2nd edn. University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dauvin JC, Ruellet T (2009) The estuarine quality paradox: is it possible to define an ecological quality status for specific modified and naturally stressed estuarine ecosystems? Mar Pollut Bull 59:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carles Ibáñez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nuno Caiola
    • 1
  • Rosa Trobajo
    • 1
  • Alfonso Nebra
    • 1
  • Laia Rovira
    • 1
  1. 1.IRTA, Aquatic Ecosystems ProgramSant Carles de la RàpitaSpain

Personalised recommendations