Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches

  • Chapter
The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and Intercalibration of Assessment Methods

Part of the book series: Developments in Hydrobiology ((DIHY,volume 188))

Abstract

STAR is a European Commission Framework V project (EVK1-CT-2001-00089). The project aim is to provide practical advice and solutions with regard to many of the issues associated with the Water Framework Directive. This paper provides a context for the STAR research programme through a review of the requirements of the directive and the Common Implementation Strategy responsible for guiding its implementation. The scientific and strategic objectives of STAR are set out in the form of a series of research questions and the reader is referred to the papers in this volume that address those objectives, which include: (a) Which methods or biological quality elements are best able to indicate certain stressors? (b) Which method can be used on which scale? (c) Which method is suited for early and late warnings? (d) How are different assessment methods affected by errors and uncertainty? (e) How can data from different assessment methods be intercalibrated? (f) How can the cost-effectiveness of field and laboratory protocols be optimised? (g) How can boundaries of the five classes of Ecological Status be best set? (h) What contribution can STAR make to the development of European standards? The methodological approaches adopted to meet these objectives are described. These include the selection of the 22 stream-types and 263 sites sampled in 11 countries, the sampling protocols used to sample and survey phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, fish and hydromorphology, the quality control and uncertainty analyses that were applied, including training, replicate sampling and audit of performance, the development of bespoke software and the project outputs. This paper provides the detailed background information to be referred to in conjunction with most of the other papers in this volume. These papers are divided into seven sections: (1) typology, (2) organism groups, (3) macrophytes and diatoms, (4) hydromorphology, (5) tools for assessing European streams with macroinvertebrates, (6) intercalibration and comparison and (7) errors and uncertainty. The principal findings of the papers in each section and their relevance to the Water Framework Directive are synthesised in short summary papers at the beginning of each section. Additional outputs, including all sampling and laboratory protocols and project deliverables, together with a range of freely downloadable software are available from the project website at www.eu_star.at.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AQEM Consortium, 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM system. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0, February 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balon, E. K., 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 821–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baattrup-Pedersen, A., K. Szoszkiewicz, R. Nijboer, M. O’Hare & T. Ferreira, 2006. Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 566: 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besse-Lotoskaya, A., P. F. M. Verdonschot & J. A. Sinkeldam, 2006. Uncertainty in diatom assessment: Sampling, identification and counting variation. Hydrobiologia 566: 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birk, S. & D. Hering, 2002. Waterview Web-Database: a comprehensive review of European assessment methods for rivers. FBA News 20: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola, J. Murray-Bligh, H. Soszka & P. Genoni, 2006. The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries. Hydrobiologia 566: 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffagni, A. & L. J. Kemp, 2002. Looking beyond the shores of the United Kingdom: addenda for the application of River Habitat Survey in southern European rivers. Journal of Limnology 61: 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birk, S. & D. Hering, 2006. Direct comparison of assessment methods using benthic macroinvertebrates: a contribution to the EU Water Framework Directive intercalibration exercise. Hydrobiologia 566: 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birk, S., T. Korte & D. Hering, 2006. Intercalibration of assessment methods for macrophytes in lowland streams: direct comparison and analysis of common metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bis, B. & P. Usseglio-Polatera, 2004. Species traits analysis. STAR deliverable N2 to the European Commission, 148 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., 2000. Uncertainty in estimates of river quality based on RIVPACS. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., J. Davy-Bowker, L. Sandin, N. Friberg, R. K. Johnson & B. Bis, 2006a. Estimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using ‘national’ macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological status. Hydrobiologia 566: 477–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., M. T. Furse, R. J. M. Gunn, J. M. Winder & J. F. Wright, 2002. Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indices. Freshwater Biology 47: 1735–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., A. Lorenz, L. Sandin, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, N. T. Kneebone & P. Haase, 2006b. Effects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STARAQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 441–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 2003. RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modelling 160: 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Biological Assessment of Watercourse Quality. Guidelines, No. 5. — Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. E., 2003. Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davy-Bowker, J., R. T. Clarke, R. K. Johnson, J. Kokes, J. F. Murphy & S. Zahrádková, 2006. A comparison of the European Water Framework Directive physical typology and RIVPACS-type models as alternative methods of establishing reference conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 566: 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erba, S., A. Buffagni, N. Holmes, M. O’Hare, P. Scarlett & A. Stenico, 2006. Preliminary testing of River Habitat Survey features for the aims of the WFD hydro-morphological assessment: an overview from the STAR Project. Hydrobiologia 566: 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2000. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/00 REV 1, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2001. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Strategic document as agreed by the Water Directors under Swedish presidency, 2 May 2001. European Commission, 81 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2002. Water Framework Directive (WFD) Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.5. Intercalibration: Towards a guidance on establishment of the intercalibration network and on the process of the intercalibration exercise. European Commission, 50 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2003a. Water Framework Directive (WFD) Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.3 Reference conditions for inland surface waters (REFCOND). Guidance on establishing reference conditions and Ecological Status class boundaries for inland surface waters. Final version, 30 April 2003. European Commission, 86 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2003b. Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.7 Monitoring. Guidance on monitoring for the Water Framework Directive. Final version. 23 January 2003. European Commission, 170 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, 2003c. Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT). Overall approach to the classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential. European Commission, 86 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAY, Cabinet en Environnement, 1994. Indice Biologique Global Normalisé. NF T 90-350. Guide Technique. Agences de l’eau et Ministère de l’Environnement, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friberg, N., L. Sandin, M. T. Furse, S. E. Larsen, R. T. Clarke & P. Haase, 2006. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in Europe. Hydrobiologia 566: 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghetti, P. E., 1997. Manuale di Applicazione. Indice Biotico Esteso (I. B. E.). I Macroinvertebrati Nell Contro uo Della Qualita Degli Ambienti di Acquae Correnti. — Provinzia Autonoma di Trento, Agenzia Provinciale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente, Trento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase, P., J. Murray-Bligh, S. Lohse, S. Pauls, A. Sundermann, R. Gunn & R. Clarke, 2006. Assessing the impact errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples. Hydrobiologia 566: 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellawell, J. M., 1978. The Biological Surveillance of Rivers: A Biological Monitoring Handbook. Water Research Centre, Stevenage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellawell, J. M., 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management. Pollution Monitoring Series. Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, D., A. Buffagni, O. Moog, L. Sandin, M. Sommerhäuser, I. Stubauer, C. Feld, R. K. Johnson, P. Pinto, N. Skoulikidis, P. F. M. Verdonschot & S. Zahrádková, 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. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 88: 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering D., C. K. Feld, O. Moog & T. Ofenböck, 2006. Cook book for the development of a Multimetric-Index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia 566: 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004a. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hering, D., P. F. M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L. Sandin (eds), 2004b. Integrated assessment of running waters in Europe. Hydrobiologia. 516 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N. T. H., J. R. Newman, S. Chadd, K. J. Rouen, L Sharp & F. H. Dawson, 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A Users’ Manual. R&D Technical Report No. E38, Environment Agency, Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N. T. H. & B. A. Whitton, 1977. Macrophytic vegetation of the River Swale, Yorkshire. Freshwater Biology 7: 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., 1995. Defining acceptable status by comparing with reference conditions. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illies, J. (ed.), 1978. Limnofauna Europaea, 2nd edn. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York; Swets and Zeitlinger B. V., Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. K., D. Hering, M. T. Furse & R. T. Clarke, 2006a. Detection of ecological change using multiple organism groups: metrics and uncertainty. Hydrobiologia 566: 115–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. K., D. Hering, M. T. Furse & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2006b. Indicators of ecological change: comparison of the early response of four organism groups to stress gradients. Hydrobiologia 566: 139–152.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. G., A. Cazaubon, E. Coring, A. Dell’Uomo, L. Ector, B. Goldsmith, H. Guasch, J. Hürlimann, A. Jarlman, B. Kawecka, J. Kwandrans, R. Laugaste, E.-A. Lindstrøm, M. Leitao, P. Marvan, J. Padisák, E. Pipp, J. Prygiel, E. Rott, S. Sabater, H. van Dam & J. Vizinet, 1998. Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. Journal of Applied Phycology 10: 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoben, R. A. E., C. Roos & M. C. van Oirschot, 1995. Biological assessment methods for watercourses. UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment, 86 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokeš, J., S. Zahrádková, D. Němejcová, J. Hodovský, J. Jarkovský & T. Soldán, 2006. The PERLA system in the Czech Republic: a multivariate approach for assessing the ecological status of running waters. Hydrobiologia 566:343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latvian Standard Ltd., 1999 LVS 240:1999 Water quality — operative evaluation biological quality of small stream by saprobity index of macrozoobenthos community. In Catalogue of Latvian standards, Riga, Latvian Standard Ltd, 1999: Group 13.060, 1(11)-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecointe, C., M. Coste & J. Prygiel, 1993. “OMNIDIA” software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270: 509–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, A. & R. T. Clarke, 2006. Sample coherence — a field study approach to assess similarity of macroinvertebrate samples. Hydrobiologia 566: 461–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandl, V., 1992. Draft EC directive on ecological quality of surface waters. In Newman, P. J., M. A. Piavaux & R. A. Sweeting (eds), River Water Quality. Ecological Assessment and Control. Publication EUR 14606 EN-FR. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. H. K., 1996. Environmental requirements of European non-salmonid fish in rivers. Hydrobiologia 323: 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. L., 1989. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environmental Pollution 60: 101–139.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J. L., 1994. Biological water quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate communities. In Calow, P. & G. E. Petts (eds), The Rivers Handbook, Vol. II. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, 144–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. W., 1977. Seasonal succession of algae in a eutrophic stream in southern England. Hydrobiologia 53: 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray-Bligh, J. A. D., M. T. Furse, F. H. Jones, R. J. M. Gunn, R. A. Dines & J. F. Wright, 1997. Procedure for collecting and analysing macroinvertebrate samples for RIVPACS. Joint publication by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and the Environment Agency, 162 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, R. & I. Cowx, 2002. Development, evaluation & implementation of a standardised fish-based assessment method for the Ecological Status of European rivers — a contribution to the water framework directive (FAME). A report to the European Commission, 100 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H., 1994. Rapid biological assessment, natural variability and selecting reference sites. Classification of rivers and environmental health indicators. In Uys, M. C. (ed.), Proceedings of a Joint South African/Australian Workshop, Cape Town, South Africa. Water Research Commission, Report No. TT/63/94: 129–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, M. T., A. Baattrup-Pedersen, R. Nijboer, K. Szoszkiewicz & T. Ferreira, 2006. Macrophyte communities of European streams with altered physical habitat. Hydrobiologia 566: 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, P., M. Morais, M. Ilhéu & L. Sandin, 2006. Relationships among biological elements (macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and ichyofauna) for different river types across Europe at two different spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 566: 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, F. H. Dawson, P. J. A. Fox, M. Everard, I. R. Fozzard & K. J. Rouen, 1998. River Habitat Quality — The Physical Character of Rivers and Streams in the UK and Isle of Man. River Habitat Survey Report Number 2. Environment Agency, Bristol: Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling: Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast, 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson, T. B., R. C. Bailey, K. E. Day & R. H. Norris, 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 198–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson, T. B., K. E. Day & T. Pascoe, 2000. The development of the BEAST: a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the Great Lakes. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, D. M., T. B. Reynoldson & V. H. Resh, 2000. Establishing reference conditions in the Fraser River catchment, British Colombia, Canada, using the BEAST (Benthic Assessment of SedimenT) predictive model. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Kloiber, A., W. Graf, A. Lorenz & O. Moog, 2006. The AQEM/STAR taxalist — a pan-European macro-invertebrate ecological database and taxa inventory. Hydrobiologia 566: 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G. A. F. & E. D. Le Cren, 1967. Estimating population parameters from catches large relative to the population. Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 631–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sladecek, V., 1973. System of water quality from the biological point of view. Archiv für Hydrobiologie Ergebnisse der Limnologie 7: 1–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šporka, F., H. E. Vlek, E. Bulánková & I. Krno, 2006. Influence of seasonal variation on bioassessment of streams using macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 566: 543–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springe, G., L. Sandin, A. Briede & A. Skuja, 2006. Biological quality metrics: their variability and appropriate scale for assessing streams. Hydrobiologia 566: 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staniszewski, R., K. Szoszkiewicz, J. Zbierska, J. Lesny, S. Jusik & R. T. Clarke, 2006. Assessment of sources of uncertainty in macrophyte surveys and the consequences for river classification. Hydrobiologia 566: 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. Bottenfauna i sjöars litoral och I vattendrag — tidsserier. [In Swedish: Benthic fauna in lake litoral and running waters — time series]. Swedish EPA monitoring handbook, Fresh waters. [Published digitally at: www.naturvardsverket.se].

    Google Scholar 

  • Szoszkiewicz, K., A. Buffagni, J. Davy-Bowker, J. Lesny, B. H. Chojnicki, J. Zbierska, R. Staniszewski & T. Zgola, 2006a. Occurrence and variability of River Habitat Survey features across Europe and the consequences for data collection and evaluation. Hydrobiologia 566: 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szoszkiewicz, K., T. Ferreira, T. Korte, A. Baattrup-Pedersen, J. Davy-Bowker & M. O’Hare, 2006b. European river plant communities: the importance of organic pollution and the usefulness of existing macrophyte metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 211–234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verdonschot, P. F. M., 2006a. Evaluation of the use of Water Framework Directive typology descriptors, reference sites and spatial scale in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdonschot, P. F. M., 2006b. Data composition and taxonomic resolution in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, H. E., F. Šporka & I. Krno, 2006. Influence of macroinvertebrate sample size on bioassessment of streams. Hydrobiologia 566: 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, J. G. & H. C. Duthie, 2000. Stream epilithic, epipelic and epiphytic diatoms: habitat fidelity and use in biomonitoring. Aquatic Ecology 34: 345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., P. D. Armitage & M. T. Furse, 1989. Prediction of invertebrate communities using stream measurements. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4: 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Winfrith Technology Centre, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, CEH Dorset, Winfrith Newburgh, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZD, UK

    Mike Furse

  2. Institute of Hydrology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 5, 45117, Essen, Germany

    Daniel Hering

  3. Institute for Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Max Emanuel Strasse 17, A-1180, Vienna, Austria

    Otto Moog

  4. Department of Ecology and Environment, Alterra, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Piet Verdonschot

  5. Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7050, S-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Richard K. Johnson

  6. Department of Zoology and Ecology, Masaryk University, Kotlárská, 611 37, Brno, Czech Republic

    Karel Brabec

  7. Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters, 46.7 km Athens-Sounion Avenue, 190 13, Anavyssos, Greece

    Kostas Gritzalis

  8. CNR-Water Research Institute, Via della Mornera, 25, I-20047, Brugherio (Milano), Italy

    Andrea Buffagni

  9. Centre of Applied Ecology, University of Evora, Apartado 94, Lago dos Colegiais 2, 7002-554, Evora, Portugal

    Paulo Pinto

  10. Department of Freshwater Ecology, NERI, National Environmental Research Institute, Vejlsøvej 25, P.O. Box 314, DK-8600, Silkeborg, Denmark

    Nikolai Friberg

  11. South West Region, Manley House, Kestrel Way, Environment Agency, EX2 7LQ, Exeter, Devon, UK

    John Murray-Bligh

  12. Vyzkumny Ustav Vodohospodarsky T.G. Masayka, Drevarska 12, 657 57, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jiri Kokes

  13. LABBIO, Unterbergstrasse 2, 39055, Laives, Italy

    Renate Alber

  14. Centre of Ecotoxicology, Biodiversity and Environmental Health, University of Metz, Campus Bridoux, Rue de Général, 57070, Metz, France

    Philippe Usseglio-Polatera

  15. Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Lochmuehle 2, D-63599, Biebergemünd, Germany

    Peter Haase

  16. Freshwater Biological Association, The Ferry House, Far Sawrey, LA22 0LP, Cumbria, UK

    Roger Sweeting

  17. Institute of Ecology and Nature Protection, Department of Applied Ecology, University of łodź, Banacha 12/16, 90-237, łodź, Poland

    Barbara Bis

  18. Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Agricultural University of August Cieszkowski, ul. Piątkowska 94C, 61-691, Poznan, Poland

    Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz

  19. Lake Protection Laboratory, Instytut Ochrony Środowiska, Kolektorska 4, 01-692, Warsaw, Poland

    Hanna Soszka

  20. Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Miera 3, 2169, Salaspils, Latvia

    Gunta Springe

  21. Institute of Zoology, Department of Hydrobiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 84206, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Ferdinand Sporka

  22. Faculty of Science, Department of Ecology, Comenius University Bratislava, Mlynská dolina B-2, 842 15, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Il’ja Krno

Authors
  1. Mike Furse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Hering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Otto Moog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Piet Verdonschot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard K. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karel Brabec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kostas Gritzalis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrea Buffagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Paulo Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nikolai Friberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. John Murray-Bligh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jiri Kokes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Renate Alber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Philippe Usseglio-Polatera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Peter Haase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Roger Sweeting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Barbara Bis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Hanna Soszka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Gunta Springe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Ferdinand Sporka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Il’ja Krno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Winfrith Technology Centre, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, CEH Dorset, Winfrith Newburgh, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZD, UK

    Mike T. Furse

  2. Institute of Hydrobiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr.5, 45117, Essen, Germany

    Daniel Hering

  3. Department of Zoology and Ecology, Masaryk University, Kotlárská, 611 37, Brno, Czech Republic

    Karel Brabec

  4. CNR-Water Research Institute, Via della Mornera, 25, I-20047, Brugherio (Milano), Italy

    Andrea Buffagni

  5. Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7050, S-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Leonard Sandin

  6. Alterra, Department of Ecology and Environment, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Piet F. M. Verdonschot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Furse, M. et al. (2006). The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. In: Furse, M.T., Hering, D., Brabec, K., Buffagni, A., Sandin, L., Verdonschot, P.F.M. (eds) The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and Intercalibration of Assessment Methods. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol 188. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5493-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation