Bringing European river quality into line: an exercise to intercalibrate macro-invertebrate classification methods

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires intercalibration to be performed to ensure that ecological status, as defined by the boundary values of national biological assessment systems, is consistent with the definitions outlined in the WFD and comparable between Member States (MS). This article describes an intercalibration of 17 national river macro-invertebrate assessment methods from the Central and Baltic regions of Europe. We explore the hypothesis that intercalibration should be successful if ratios of the observed biota to that expected in reference condition are used to compare assessments of different national assessment systems. National boundaries expressed as ecological quality ratios (EQRs) were converted to values of a common multi-metric for the purpose of comparison. Twelve MS for the High/Good boundary and nine MS for the Good/Moderate boundary (and four MS who subsequently harmonised their boundaries) were within ±0.05 EQR units of the intercalibration boundaries and were deemed to be of comparable ecological standard. The use of a reference-based approach was deemed to be successful given that all the critical pre-requisites for intercalibration were satisfied. The boundaries derived from this intercalibration represent the first common interpretation of the ecological status of rivers based on macro-invertebrate assessment methods across Europe.

[1]  Andrea Buffagni,et al.  A simple procedure to harmonize class boundaries of assessment systems at the pan-European scale , 2007 .

[2]  P. Sandra,et al.  Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Technical Report. Part 2: Lakes , 2009 .

[3]  Sebastian Birk,et al.  Direct comparison of assessment methods using benthic macroinvertebrates: a contribution to the EU Water Framework Directive intercalibration exercise , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[4]  M. Furse,et al.  The ecological status of European rivers: evaluation and intercalibration of assessment methods , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[5]  M. T. Furse,et al.  The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites , 1983 .

[6]  J. Wright,et al.  Classification of the biological quality of rivers in England and Wales. , 2000 .

[7]  Y. Heymann,et al.  CORINE Land Cover. Technical Guide , 1994 .

[8]  Lester L. Yuan,et al.  Condition of stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national assessment , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[9]  D. Herbst,et al.  Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures , 2006, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[10]  Lester L. Yuan,et al.  Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[11]  Charles P. Hawkins,et al.  Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[12]  John Murphy,et al.  River Invertebrate Classification Tool , 2008 .

[13]  J. Stoddard,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams , 2003, Environmental management.

[14]  Andrea Buffagni,et al.  The validation of common European class boundaries for river benthic macroinvertebrates to facilitate the intercalibration process of the Water Framework Directive , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[16]  R. Clarke,et al.  Towards European Inter-Calibration for the Water Framework Directive Procedures and Examples for Different River Types from the BC Project STAR , 2005 .

[17]  P. Usseglio-Polatera,et al.  Characterization, Ecological Status and Type-specific Reference Conditions of Surface Water Bodies in Wallonia (Belgium) using Biocenotic Metrics based on Benthic Invertebrate Communities , 2005, Hydrobiologia.

[18]  M. Kelly,et al.  A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[19]  Andrea Buffagni,et al.  The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  N. Friberg,et al.  Biological assessment of running waters in Denmark: introduction of the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) , 2000 .

[21]  D. M. Rosenberg,et al.  Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. , 1994 .

[22]  J. Wright,et al.  The influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain and on the prediction of their macro‐invertebrate communities , 1984 .

[23]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[24]  Søren E. Larsen,et al.  Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in Europe , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[25]  W van de Bund,et al.  Towards good ecological status of surface waters in Europe--interpretation and harmonisation of the concept. , 2004, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[26]  Astrid Schmidt-Kloiber,et al.  The AQEM/STAR taxalist : a pan-European macro-invertebrate ecological database and taxa inventory , 2006 .

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

[28]  John R. Olson,et al.  The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments , 2010, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[29]  Ana Cristina Cardoso,et al.  Assessment of the ecological status of European surface waters: a work in progress , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[30]  J. Wright,et al.  A new approach to the biological surveillance of river quality using macroinvertebrates: With 2 figures and 2 tables in the text , 1988 .

[31]  Mark Huxham,et al.  The European Water Framework Directive: a new era in the management of aquatic ecosystem health? , 1998 .

[32]  John L Stoddard,et al.  Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[33]  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 .

[34]  V. Resh,et al.  After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[35]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[36]  W. Tümpling.  V. SLÁDEČEK: System of Water Quality. Archiv für Hydrobiologie ‐ Beiheft: Ergebnisse der Limnologie 7. Stuttgart, 1973 ‐ 218 S., 70 Abb., 64 Tab., 502 Lit. , 1975 .

[37]  M. Appelberg,et al.  Biological monitoring in Nordic rivers and lakes , 2000 .

[38]  Michael T. Barbour,et al.  A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies , 2002 .

[39]  N. Prat,et al.  A comparison of rapid bioassessment protocols used in 2 regions with Mediterranean climates, the Iberian Peninsula and South Africa , 2006, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[40]  Mike Furse,et al.  Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive — making the links between habitat and aquatic biota , 2002 .

[41]  Susan K. Jackson,et al.  The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[42]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  RIVPACS database documentation. Final report , 2007 .

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

[44]  Geoff Phillips,et al.  Ecological threshold responses in European lakes and their applicability for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation: synthesis of lakes results from the REBECCA project , 2008, Aquatic Ecology.

[45]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  The prediction of the macro‐invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running‐water sites in Great Britain using environmental data , 1987 .

[46]  Jan Hodovský,et al.  The PERLA system in the Czech Republic: a multivariate approach for assessing the ecological status of running waters , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[47]  C. Hawkins,et al.  Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[48]  W. Howarth,et al.  The Progression Towards Ecological Quality Standards , 2005 .

[49]  N. Prat,et al.  Use of macroinvertebrate-based multimetric indices for water quality evaluation in Spanish Mediterranean rivers: an intercalibration approach with the IBMWP index , 2009, Hydrobiologia.

[50]  Vladimir Sládecek,et al.  System of water quality from the biological point of view , 1973 .

[51]  Piet F. M. Verdonschot,et al.  Referenties en maatlatten voor natuurlijke watertypen voor de Kaderrichtlijn Water , 2007 .

[52]  Richard K. Johnson,et al.  A multimetric macroinvertebrate index for detecting organic pollution of streams in southern Sweden , 2004 .

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

[54]  F. Chris JonesF.C. Jones,et al.  Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates , 2008 .

[55]  M. Kelly,et al.  THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF ECOLOGICAL—STATUS ASSESSMENTS USING DIATOMS , 2022, Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

[56]  Andrea Buffagni,et al.  The AQEM Multimetric System for the Southern Italian Apennines: Assessing the Impact of Water Quality and Habitat Degradation on Pool Macroinvertebrates in Mediterranean Rivers , 2004 .

[57]  P. Verdonschot,et al.  Establishing reference conditions for European streams , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[58]  Pier Francesco Ghetti,et al.  Indice Biotico Esteso (E.B.I.). I macroinvertebrati nel controllo della qualità degli ambienti di acque correnti. Manuale di Applicazione. , 1997 .

[59]  Christian K. Feld,et al.  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 , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[60]  Simon Williams,et al.  Bioassessment of streams with macroinvertebrates: effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic resolution , 2007, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[61]  H. Knöpp.  COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL WATER ASSESSMENT METHODS — PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION ON THE RIVER MAIN , 1976 .

[62]  H. Hawkes,et al.  Origin and development of the biological monitoring working party score system , 1998 .

[63]  Knut Dörmann,et al.  Working group 2 , 2005 .