Intercalibration of assessment methods for macrophytes in lowland streams: direct comparison and analysis of common metrics

  • Sebastian Birk
  • Thomas Korte
  • Daniel Hering
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 188)

Abstract

The results of four macrophyte assessment methods (French Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Rivière, German Reference Index, British Mean Trophic Rank and Dutch Macrophyte Score) were compared, based on plant survey data of medium-sized lowland streams in Central Europe. To intercalibrate the good quality class boundaries two alternative methods were applied: direct comparison and the use of “common metrics”. While the French and British methods were highly related (R 2 > 0.75), the German RI showed less (0.20 < R 2 < 0.55) and the Dutch DMS least correlation (R 2<0.10) with other methods. Of 70 macrophyte metrics tested only Ellenberg_N was considerably related to three of the national assessment methods, thus representing a potential common metric for intercalibration. Comparison of quality class boundaries via regression analysis using both intercalibration approaches revealed major differences between classifications of the French, German and British methods, which are, in addition, related in a nonlinear way.

Key words

ecological quality classification STAR project EU Water Framework Directive macrophytes Mean Trophic Rank Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Rivière 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. NF T90-395, 2003. Water quality — Determination of the Macrophytes biological index for rivers (IBMR). Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), Saint Denis La Plaine.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birk, S. & D. Hering, 2002. Waterview Web-Database: a comprehensive review of European assessment methods for rivers. FBA News 20: 4.Google Scholar
  4. Birk, S. & U. Schmedtje, 2005. Towards harmonisation of water quality classification in the Danube River Basin: overview of biological assessment methods for running waters. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement “Large Rivers” 16: 171–196.Google Scholar
  5. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, S. Birk, M. Cazzola, C. Feld, T. Ofenböck, J. Murray-Bligh, M. T. Furse, R. T. Clark, D. Hering, H. Soszka & W. v. d. Bund, 2005. Towards European Inter-calibration for the Water Framework Directive: Procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. project STAR. 11th STAR deliverable. STAR Contract No: EVK1-CT 2001-00089. Quaderni Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque 123: 1–468.Google Scholar
  6. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola, J. Murray-Bligh, H. Soszka & P. Genoni, 2006. The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibratin process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries. Hydrobiologia 566: 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council of the European Communities, 1991. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L135/40-52, 30 May 1991, Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. CIS WG 2.A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), 2004. Guidance on the intercalibration process. Agreed version of WG 2.A Ecological Status meeting held 7–8 October 2004 in Ispra. Version 4.1. 14. October 2004. ECOSTAT, Ispra.Google Scholar
  9. Elbersen, J. W. H., P. F. M. Verdonschot, B. Roels & J. G. Hartholt, 2003. Definitiestudie KaderRichtlijn Water (KRW). I. Typologie Nederlandse Oppervlaktewateren. Alterrarapport 669. ALTERRA, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  10. Ellenberg, H., H. E. Weber, R. Düll, V. Wirth, W. Werner & D. Paulißen, 1992. Indicator Values of Plants in Central Europe. Erich Goltze, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. European Commission PE-CONS 3639/1/100 Rev 1, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  12. Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot, in prep. Assessment of European rivers with diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish: A comparative metric-based analysis.Google Scholar
  14. Holmes, N. T. H., J. R. Newman, S. Chadd, K. J. Rouen, L. Saint & F. H. Dawson, 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A User’s Manual. R & D Technical Report E38. Environment Agency, Bristol.Google Scholar
  15. Holmes, N. T. H. & B. A. Whitton, 1975. Macrophytes of the river Tweed. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 42: 369–381.Google Scholar
  16. Janauer, G. A., 2001. Is what has been measured of any direct relevance to the success of the macrophyte in its particular environment? Journal of Limnology 60(Suppl.): 33–38.Google Scholar
  17. Janauer, G. A., P. Hale & R. Sweeting (eds), 2003. Macrophyte inventory of the river Danube: A pilot study. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement “Large Rivers” 147(1–2): 1–229.Google Scholar
  18. Kelly, M. G. & B. A. Whitton, 1998. Biological monitoring of eutrophication in rivers. Hydrobiologia 384: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohler, A., 1978. Methoden der Kartierung von Flora und Vegetation von Süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft & Stadt 10: 73–85.Google Scholar
  20. Korte, T. & K. Van de Weyer, 2005. Die Bewertung von Fließgewässern mit Makrophyten gemäß EU-WRRL — Ergebnisse des Vergleichs von zwei Bewertungsverfahren. Wasser und Abfall 9/2005: 46–49.Google Scholar
  21. Leyssen, A., P. Adriaens, L. Denys, J. Packet, A. Schneiders, K. van Looy & L. Vanhecke, 2005. Toepassing van verschillende biologische beoordelingssystemen op Vlaamse potentiële interkalibratielocaties overeenkomstig de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water — partim “Macrofyten”. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud in opdracht van VMM, Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. Meilinger, P., S. Schneider & A. Melzer, 2005. The reference index method for the macrophyte-based assessment of rivers — a contribution for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Germany. International Review of Hydrobiology 90: 322–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pall, K., V. Moser, J. Schaumburg, C. Schranz, & P. Meilinger, 2005. Ergebnisse zur Interkalibrierung der Fließgewässerbewertung mit Makrophyten (Option 3: Vergleich Deutschland-Österreich). Oral presentation held at the conference of the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie” in Karlsruhe, 28 September 2005.Google Scholar
  24. Pielou, E. C., 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology 13: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pot, R., 2005. QBWat — ecologische beoordeling van waterkwaliteit conform de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water. Version 1.01.Google Scholar
  26. SYSTAT Software Inc., 2002. TableCurve 2D — Version 5.01. SSI, Richmond CA.Google Scholar
  27. Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, J. Foerster, A. Gutowski, G. Hofmann, P. Meilinger, S. Schneider & U Schmedtje, 2004. Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34: 283–301.Google Scholar
  28. Schaumburg, J., U. Schmedtje, B. Köpf, C. Schranz, S. Schneider, P. Meilinger, D. Stelzer, G. Hofmann, A. Gutowski & J. Foerster, 2005. Makrophyten und Phytobenthos in Flüssen und Seen. Leitbildbezogenes Bewertungsverfahren zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Informationsbericht Heft 1/05. Bayerisches Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft, München.Google Scholar
  29. Schneider, S., 2000. Entwicklung eines Makrophytenindex zur Trophieindikation in Fließgewässern. Shaker Verlag, Aachen.Google Scholar
  30. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  31. Simpson, E. H., 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.Google Scholar
  32. Sládeček, V., 1973. System of water quality from the biological point of view. Archiv für Hydrobiologie Beiheft Ergebnisse der Limnologie 7: 1–218.Google Scholar
  33. Szoszkiewicz, K., T. Ferreira, T. Korte, A. Baattrup-Pedersen, J. Davy-Bowker & M. O’Hare, 2006. European river plant communities: the importance of organic pollution and the usefulness of existing macrophyte metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van de Weyer, K., 2003. Kartieranleitung zur Erfassung und Bewertung der aquatischen Makrophyten der Fließgewässer in Nordrhein-Westfalen gemäß den Vorgaben der EU-Wasser-Rahmenrichtlinie. LUA-Merkblä tter Nr. 39. Landesumweltamt (LUA) NRW, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  35. Van den Berg, M. S., H. C. Coops, R. Pot, W. Altenburg, R. Nijboer, T. v. d. Broek, M. Fagel, G. Arts, R. Bijkerk, H. v. Dam, T. Ietswaart, J. v. d. Molen, K. Wolfstein, D. d. Jong & H. Hartholt, 2004. Achtergronddocument referenties en maatlatten waterflora. RIZA, Lelystad.Google Scholar
  36. van der Molen, D. T., M. Beers, M. S. v. d. Berg, T. v. d. Broek, R. Buskens, H. C. Coops, H. v. Dam, G. Duursema, M. Fagel, T. Ietswaart, M. Klinge, R. A. E. Knoben, J. Kranenbarg, J. d. Leeuw, R. Noordhuis, R. C. Nijboer, R. Pot, P. F. M. Verdonschot & T. Vriese, 2004. Referenties en maatlatten voor rivieren ten behoeve van de Kaderrichtlijn Water — version July 2004. Alterra, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  37. Wiegleb, G., 1988. Analysis of flora and vegetation in rivers: concepts and applications. In Symoens, J. J. (ed.) Vegetation of Inland Waters. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 311–340.Google Scholar
  38. Wiegleb, G., 1991. Die Lebens-und Wuchsformen der makrophytischen Wasserpflanzen und deren Beziehung zur Ökologie, Verbreitung und Vergesellschaftung der Arten Tuexenia 11: 135–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Birk
    • 1
  • Thomas Korte
    • 1
  • Daniel Hering
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations