Occurrence and variability of River Habitat Survey features across Europe and the consequences for data collection and evaluation

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
  • Andrea Buffagni
  • John Davy-Bowker
  • Jacek Lesny
  • Bogdan H. Chojnicki
  • Janina Zbierska
  • Ryszard Staniszewski
  • Tomasz Zgola
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 188)

Abstract

River Habitat Survey (RHS) data collected for the EU-funded STAR project was used to identify hydromorphological characteristic features of rivers in four European regions namely: lowlands; mountain; the Alps; and the Mediterranean. Using RHS attributes, Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA) — a measure of natural habitat diversity, and Habitat Modification Score (HMS) — a measure of anthropogenic modifi- cation, we identified considerable differences in frequency, diversity and evenness of features between the regions. A relatively small subset of features clearly distinguish the hydromorphological characters of lowland, Alpine and southern European rivers. It was more difficult to distinguish mountain rivers from Alpine rivers. The highest statistical differences are observed between Lowland and Mountain region. Within the four regions studied the RHS attributes that most strongly influence the HQA and HMS indices were identified. We conclude that specific effort should be made to ensure these are recorded properly as part of the quality control of RHS data.

Key words

River Habitat Survey hydromorphology variability data quality river assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse, 1996. Outil d’évaluation de la qualité du milieu physique — synthèse. Metz.Google Scholar
  2. 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: 365–379.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Buffagni, A. & J. L. Kemp, 2002. Looking beyond the shores of the United Kingdom: addenda for the application of River Habitat Survey in South-European rivers. Journal of Limnology 61: 199–214.Google Scholar
  5. 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: 41–63.Google Scholar
  6. Buffagni, A., S. Erba & R. Pagnotta, 2004b. Carattere Lenticolotico dei fiumi mediterranei e classificazione biologica di qualità. In: ‘Classificazione ecologica e carattere lenticolotico in fiumi mediterranei’. Quad. Ist. Ricerca Acque, Roma 122: 157–178.Google Scholar
  7. Buffagni, A., S. Erba & M. Ciampittiello, 2005. Il rilevamento idromorfologico e degli habitat fluviali nel contesto della Direttiva Europea sulle Acque (WFD): principi e schede di applicazione del metodo CARAVAGGIO. Notiziario dei Metodi Analitici Ist. Ric. Acque, Dicembre 2005(2): 27–42.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, R. T. & D. Hering, 2006. Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods — major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS. Hydrobiologia 566: 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Directive 2000/60/EC. Water Framework Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000.Google Scholar
  10. Environment Agency, 1997. River Habitat Survey — Field Guidance Manual, Bristol.Google Scholar
  11. Environment Agency, 2003. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey Guidance Manual. Environmental Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  12. Hering, D. & J. Strackbein, 2002. STAR stream types and sampling sites. http://www.eu-star.at/pdf/FirstDeliverable.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, F. D. Dawson, P. J. A. Fox, M. Everard, I. R. Fozzard & K. J. Rouen, 1998a. River Habitat Quality: the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. Environment Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  15. Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, F. H. Dawson & M. Everard, 1998b. Quality assessment using River Habitat Survey data. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 477–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, P. Charrier, F. H. Dawson, M. Naura & P. J. Boon, 2002. Towards a harmonised approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative comparison of three survey methods. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schneider, P. J., M. Neitzel, M. Schaffrath & H. Schlumprecht, 2003. Physico-chemical assessment of the reference status in German surface waters: A contribution to the establishment of the EC Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EG in Germany. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 31: 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Szoszkiewicz K., Zbierska J., Staniszewski R., Jusik S., Zgoła T., Kupiec J., 2005. Errors and variation associated with field protocols for the collection and application of macrophyte and hydro-morphological data. STAR Deliverable N4.Google Scholar
  19. ter Braak, C. J. F., 1995. Ordination. In Jongman, R. H. G., C. J. F. ter Braak & O. F. R. van Tongeren (eds), Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 109–115.Google Scholar
  20. ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Smilauer, 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Zbierska, J., S. Murat-Bazejewska, K. Szoszkiewicz & A. Lawniczak, 2002. Bilans biogenow w agroekosystemach Wielkopolski w aspekcie ochrony jakosci wod na przykladzie zlewni Samicy Steszewskiej. Wyd. AR Poznan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    • 1
  • Andrea Buffagni
    • 2
  • John Davy-Bowker
    • 3
  • Jacek Lesny
    • 4
  • Bogdan H. Chojnicki
    • 4
  • Janina Zbierska
    • 1
  • Ryszard Staniszewski
    • 1
  • Tomasz Zgola
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionAugust Cieszkowski Agricultural UniversityPoznanPoland
  2. 2.CNR-IRSA Water Research InstituteBrugherio (Milan)Italy
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWinfrith Technology CentreDorchester, DorsetUK
  4. 4.Department of AgrometeorologyAugust Cieszkowski Agricultural UniversityPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations