Data composition and taxonomic resolution in macroinvertebrate stream typology

In the EU water framework directive (WFD) a typological framework is defined for assessing the ecological quality of water bodies in the future. The aim of this study was to test the effect of data composition and taxonomic resolution on this typology. The EU research projects AQEM and STAR provided 1660 samples of 48 stream types sampled all over the major geographical gradients in Europe. These stream types fit the WFD typological demands and fit to the major European geographic regions (ecoregions). The samples included gradients from reference conditions to samples with bad ecological quality. Despite standardisation, there were large differences between the participating countries concerning the number of taxa, the number of specimens, and the taxonomic resolution. The macroinvertebrate data were analysed by using detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). The distribution patterns using all samples, only reference samples, and only degraded samples showed that the use of species-level (or ‘best available taxonomic’ level) performed better at a practical (fine) scale in comparison to family-level. The analyses further showed that even the use of a standardised protocol can not easily overcome (i) differences in site conditions that force the researcher to deviate from the protocol as well as (ii) the experiences of the researcher(s) and (iii) the available taxonomic knowledge.

[1]  Vincent H. Resh,et al.  Taxonomy and stream ecology—The benefits of genus- and species-level identifications , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[2]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[3]  Peter Davies,et al.  Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. , 2000 .

[4]  Taxonomic adjustment affects data analysis: an often forgotten error , 2000 .

[5]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Ecological characterization of surface waters in the province of Overijssel, The Netherlands , 1990 .

[6]  O. Moog,et al.  Does the ecoregion approach support the typological demands of the EU ‘Water Framework Directive’? , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[7]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[8]  P. Verdonschot.  Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment management , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[9]  J. Karr,et al.  Restoring life in running waters : better biological monitoring , 1998 .

[10]  Michael K. Young,et al.  A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features , 1993 .

[11]  O. Moog,et al.  Taxonomic sufficiency versus need for information — comments based on Austrian experience in biological water quality monitoring , 2000 .

[12]  V. Resh,et al.  Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. , 1975, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[13]  Peter Haase,et al.  The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[14]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data , 1984 .

[15]  A. Schmidt‐Kloiber,et al.  The effect of taxonomic resolution on the assessment of ecological water quality classes , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[16]  Leonard Sandin,et al.  Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  Piet F. M. Verdonschot,et al.  Evaluation of the use of Water Framework Directive typology descriptors, reference sites and spatial scale in macroinvertebrate stream typology , 2006, Hydrobiologia.