Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Stream and river typologies – major results and conclusions from the STAR project

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EU Water Framework Directive uses abiotic variables for classifying streams and rivers into types. For rivers, the EU Water Framework Directive fixed typology i.e. ‘System A’ typology are defined by ecoregions, size based on the catchment area, catchment geology and altitude. Within any given part of the WFD typology, it is assumed that biological communities at undisturbed sites will be broadly similar and will therefore constitute a type-specific biological target and a way to stratify the spatial variability in stream and river monitoring and assessment. The data collected for the STAR project cover 13 countries and include 22 stream types. A total of 233 sites were fully sampled for all biological quality elements (fish, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and diatoms) in the study. Analysing the STAR macroinvertebrate dataset in relation to environmental and biogeographical variables resulted in three major groups of stream types that correspond to three major landscape types in Europe: Mountains, Lowlands and Mediterranean. Similar results were found when analysing all four biological quality elements (fish, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and diatoms) sampled in the STAR project. The studies also showed that the stream types using the WFD ‘System A’ descriptors are probably less useful at finer scales and it is suggested that a stream typology should take three main parameters as a starting point, i.e., climate (temperature), slope (current velocity) and stream size. Existing site-specific multivariate RIVPACS-type predictive models were also compared to both null models and the WFD ‘System A’ physical typology as methods of predicting macroinvertebrate reference conditions. It was concluded that the multivariate models are more effective in predicting reference conditions primarily because they make use of continuous rather than categorical predictor variables and because the multivariate RIVPACS-type models are not constrained by the use of a limited number of variables.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • J. Davy-Bowker R. T. Clarke R. K. Johnson J. Kokes J. F. Murphy S. Zahrádková (2006) ArticleTitleA 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

    Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameEuropean 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 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Heino T. Muotka R. Paavola (2003) ArticleTitleDeterminants of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: regional and local influences Journal of Animal Ecology 72 425–434 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00711.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Hering O. Moog L. Sandin P. F. M. Verdonschot (2004) ArticleTitleOverview and application of the AQEM assessment system Hydrobiologia 516 1–20 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025255.70009.a5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Illies (1978) Limnofauna Europaea Gustav Fischer Verlag Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • R. K. Johnson (1998) ArticleTitleSpatiotemporal variability of temperate lake macroinvertebrate communities: detection of impact Ecological Applications 8 61–70 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2641311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. M. Omernik R. G. Bailey (1997) ArticleTitleDistinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33 935–949

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • T. B. Reynoldson R. H. Norris V. H. Resh K. E. Day D. M. Rosenberg (1997) ArticleTitleThe reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16 833–852 Occurrence Handle10.2307/1468175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Sandin R. K. Johnson (2000) ArticleTitleEcoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19 462–474 Occurrence Handle10.2307/1468107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. F. M. Verdonschot R. C. Nijboer (2004) ArticleTitleTesting the European stream typology of the water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates Hydrobiologia 175 35–54 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:HYDR.0000025257.30311.b7

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • J. F. Wright D. Moss P. D. Armitage M. T. Furse (1984) ArticleTitleA prelimnary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macroinvertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data Freshwater Biology 14 221–256 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00039.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 1999. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK. The RIVPACS International Workshop, 16–18 September 1997, Oxford, UK

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Sandin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandin, L., Verdonschot, P.F.M. Stream and river typologies – major results and conclusions from the STAR project. Hydrobiologia 566, 33–37 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0072-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0072-9

Keywords

Navigation