Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe

Developments in Hydrobiology Volume 175, 2004, pp 285-298

Integration of the Saprobic System into the
European Union Water Framework Directive
Peter Rolauffs,
Ilse Stubauer,
Otto Moog,
Svetlana Zahrdkov,
Karel Brabec
Abstract
The use of saprobic systems has long traditions in the water management in Austria, the Czech
Republic and Germany. Within the context of water quality assessment they are applied to
indicate the effects of anthropogenic caused organic impact leading to a decrease in the dissolved
oxygen content of running waters. In December 2000 the European Union Water Framework
Directive (WFD) came into force. It demands homogeneous procedures and methods for
assessing inland surface waters as well as groundwater, coastal and transitional waters. The
WFD focuses on the assessment of biotic elements and the ecological status has to be defined
based on type specific approaches and reference conditions. To incorporate the saprobic
approach into the new integrative methodology of the European assessment of the ecological
status of water bodies, the national saprobic systems need to be adjusted. This paper describes
the according methodological developments and adaptations of Austria, the Czech Republic, and
Germany required to harmonise the traditional procedure with the guidelines of the WFD. In the
three countries national databases were established to provide species lists from largely
undisturbed stream sites. Such reference sites build the basis for calculating stream type specific
reference values. The calculation has been done in slightly different ways dependent on the
country. In addition to that boundaries were defined to characterise the 5 saprobic quality classes.







Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe
Developments in Hydrobiology Volume 175, 2004, pp 161-172
Detection of Organic Pollution of Streams in
Southern Sweden Using Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
Joakim Dahl,
Richard K. Johnson,
Leonard Sandin
Abstract
Benthic macroinvertebrates samples were collected in spring and autumn 2000. Fifteen streams
in southern Sweden were sampled twice both for chemical, physical, and biological parameters.
Eighty-four macroinvertebrate single metrics were calculated and tested for their ability of
detecting organic pollution of streams. A comparison of the best single metrics with two
multimetric indices was also done. The Belgian Biotic Index (BBI), the Average Score Per
Taxon (ASPT), the Saprobic Index (Zelinka & Marvan), the German Saprobic Index, percentage
hypopotamal preferences, the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) and percentage pelal
preferences were found to be good indicators of organic pollution. Both DSFI and ASPT are
frequently used for detecting organic pollution in southern Sweden and could be recommended
for further use. Although saprobic indices are not commonly used in Sweden, our results indicate
that they may be appropriate. BBI, percentage hypopotamal preferences, and percentage pelal
preferences are seldom used for detecting organic pollution of Swedish streams, but could maybe
prove useful for future uses. Two multimetric indices recently developed for detecting the effects
of organic pollution in southern Sweden, the AQEM Type S05 Index and the DJ Index, were
compared to the best single metrics by determining their responses to total phosphorous
concentration, conductivity, and percentage cropland. The comparison showed that the DJ Index
proved to be a better indicator of the effects of organic pollution than the single metrics. The
other multimetric index, the AQEM Type S05 Index, had slightly lower statistical power, but
performed well in comparison to the other metrics.






Ways Towards Sustainable Management of Freshwater Resources
World in Transition Volume 1997, 1999, pp 45-113
The freshwater crisis: Basic elements
Citations
Abstract
The entire stock water on the blue planet, Earth, is estimated at approx. 1.4 billion km
3
(Fig. D
1.1.-1).The worlds oceans, which over 71% of the Earths surface, account for 96.5% of that
total.The rest is found as polar ice masses and glaciers (1.77%), as groundwater (1.7%) and as
the water of lakes, swamps, rivers permafrost and the atmosphere (0.03% all told).Freshwater
stocks account for only 2.5% of the total volume of water in the hydrosphere (35.1 million
km
3
),of which 69% is stored in glaciers and permanent snow cover and around 30% as
groundwater.A mere 0.3% of all surface water is freshwater.Although the water volume on the
planet has been constant for a long time, distribution among the three different water phases (ice,
water and water vapor)has been subject to major fluctuations during Earths history.



Find out how to access preview-only content
Remediation and Management of Degraded River Basins
NATO ASI Series Volume 3, 1995, pp 385-425
Factors Affecting Water Quality of (Large)
Rivers-Past Experiences and Future Outlook
Hermann H. Hahn,
Neithard Mller
Abstract
Man tends to generalize specific and real time experience into abstract reports and formulae. One
such instrument for generalization is the formulation of mathematical models to reproduce
observations and to extrapolate such observations into other frames of time and location. Effects
of pollution and other factors upon water quality of (large) rivers are such examples, i.e.,
observations are so numerous and, if not reported in a more generalized form, the information
becomes so heterogeneous if not contradictory, that it might be difficult to formulate a consistent
concept of quality changing factors and of the processes which they initiate. Therefore, even very
early quantitative attempts of water quality assessment and control have used the instrument of
mathematical modeling to describe dominant factors that control or change river water quality
and to quantify their effects.



The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and Intercalibration of Assessment
Methods
Developments in Hydrobiology Volume 188, 2006, pp 115-137
Detection of ecological change using multiple
organism groups: metrics and uncertainty
Richard K. Johnson,
Daniel Hering,
Mike T. Furse,
Ralph T. Clarke
Abstract
A number of biological approaches are commonly used to assess the ecological integrity of
stream ecosystems. Recently, it is becoming increasingly common to use multiple organism
groups in bioassessment. Advocates of the multiple organism approach argue that the use of
different organism groups should strengthen inference-based models and ultimately result in
lower assessment error, while opponents argue that organism groups often respond similarly to
stress implying a high degree of redundancy. Using fish, macroinvertebrate, macrophyte and
benthic diatom data, site-specific parameters (e.g., water chemistry and substratum) and
catchment variables from European mountain (n = 77) and lowland (n = 85) streams we
evaluated the discriminatory power and uncertainty associated with the use of a number of
biological metrics commonly used in stream assessment. The primary environmental gradient for
both streams types was land use and nutrient enrichment. Secondary and tertiary gradients were
related to habitat quality or alterations in hydromorphology. Benthic diatom and
macroinvertebrate metrics showed high discriminatory power (R
2
values often >0.50) and low
error (<30%) with the primary (nutrient) gradient, while both fish and macrophyte metrics
performed relatively poorly. Conversely, both fish and macrophyte metrics showed higher
response (high coefficients of determination) than either benthic diatom or macroinvertebrate
metrics to the second (e.g., alteration in habitat/hydromorphology) gradient. However, the
discriminatory power and error associated with individual metrics varied markedly, indicating
that caution should be exercised when selecting the best organism group or metric to monitor
stress.
Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems
NATO ASI Series Volume 28, 1995, pp 137-152
Using Biological Criteria to Protect
Ecological Health
James R. Karr
Abstract
Among organisms that inhabit Earth, the human species is unique for three reasons. First, our
population size and the extent of our geographic distribution gives us an impact that is
unprecendented in the history of life on Earth. Five times in the last 600 million years,
cataclysmic events, driven by major geological or astronomical forces such as meteorite strikes
or climate change, have set back the evolutionary process with a spasm of extinction that was
global in scope (Wilson 1992). As we move into the 21st century, the human species, a
biological agent, is likely to be responsible for the next massive extinction event.