Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise

  • Primary research paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The European Union (EU)’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all Member States participate in intercalibration exercises in order to ensure that ecological status concepts and assessment levels are consistent across the EU. This paper describes one such exercise, performed by the countries in the Central/Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group stretching from Ireland in the west to Estonia in the east and from the southern parts of Scandinavia to the northern regions of Spain and Italy (but excluding alpine regions, which were intercalibrated separately). In this exercise, methods used to measure ecological status of rivers using benthic diatoms were compared. Ecological status is estimated as the ratio between the observed value of a biological element and the value expected in the absence of significant human impact. Approaches to defining the ‘reference sites’, from which these ‘expected’ values were derived, varied from country to country. Minimum criteria were established as part of the exercise but there was still considerable variation between national reference values, reflecting typological differences that could not be resolved during the exercise. A simple multimetric index was developed to compare boundary values using two widely used diatom metrics. Boundary values for high/good status and good/moderate status set by each participant were converted to their equivalent values of this intercalibration metric using linear regression. Variation of ±0.05 EQR units around the median value was considered to be acceptable and the exercise provided a means for those Member States who fell significantly above or below this line to review their approaches and, if necessary, adjust their boundaries.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AFNOR, 2000. Détermination de l’Indice Biologique Diatomées (IBD). Norme NF T: 90–354.

  • Besse-Lotoskaya, A., P. F. M. Verdonschot & J. A. Sinkeldam, 2006. Uncertainty in diatom assessment: sampling, identification and counting variation. Hydrobiologia 566: 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, B. J. F. & M. E. Close, 1989. Periphyton biomass dynamics in gravel bed rivers—the relative effects of flows and nutrients. Freshwater Biology 22: 209–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birk, S., T. Korte & D. Hering, 2006. Intercalibration of assessment methods for macrophytes in lowland streams: direct comparison and analysis of common metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffagni, A., S. Erba, S. Birk, M. Cazzola, C. Feld, T. Ofenböck, J. Murray-Bligh, M. T. Furse, R. Clarke, D. Hering, H. Soszka & W. van de Bund, 2005. Towards European inter-calibration for the Water Framework Directive: procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. Project STAR. Istituto di ricerca sulle acque, Rome: 468 pp.

  • CEMAGREF, 1982. Etude des méthodes biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux. CEMAGREF rapport Q.E. Lyon A.F. Bassin Rhône-Méditérannée-Corse, 218 pp.

  • CEN, 2003. Water quality – Guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. EN 13946: 2003. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN, 2004. Water quality – guidance standard for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samples from running waters. EN 14407:2004. Comité European de Normalisation, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coste, M. & H. Ayphassorho, 1991. Étude de la qualité des eaux du Bassin Artois-Picardie à l’aide des communautés de diatomées benthiques (application des indices diatomiques). Rapport CEMAGREF. Bordeaux – Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai.

  • Denys, L., 2006. Validation and revision of the reference concept for river phytobenthos in Belgium – Flanders proposed for the European Water Framework Directive, based on diatom assemblages from reference sites in the Central-Baltic GIG region. Advies Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek INBO.A.2006.163, Brussel: 8 pp.

  • ECOSTAT [Working Group 2.A Ecological Status], 2004. Overview of common intercalibration types. Final Version 5.1, 38 pp.

  • European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickx, A. & L. Denys, 2005. Toepassing van verschillende biologische beoordelingssystemen op Vlaamse potentële interkalibratielocaties overeenkomstig de Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water: partim ‘fytobenthos’. Rapport van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, IN.R.2005.06. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Brussel, Belgium: 107 pp.

  • Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. Verdonschot, 2006. Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51: 1757–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. O., 1979. DECORANA – A FORTRAN Program for Detrended Correspondence Analysis and Reciprocal Averaging. Ecology and Systematics. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, A., M. Sharifi & M. G. Kelly, 2007. Evaluation of the Trophic Diatom Index for assessing water quality in the River Gharasou, western Iran. Hydrobiologia 589: 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. K., W. Goedkoop, E. Willén & D. Larsson, 2003. Typanpassning av referenssjöar och vattendrag: Kritisk granskning av biologiska kvalitetsfaktorer med bedömningsgrunder. Report 2003:17. Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala: 47 pp.

  • Kelly, M. G., 2006. A comparison of diatoms with other phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in streams in northern England. In Witkowski, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Diatom Symposium. Biopress, Bristol: 139–151.

  • Kelly, M. G. & B. A. Whitton, 1995. The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7: 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. G., L. Cazaubon, E. Coring, A. Dell’Uomo, L. Ector, B. Goldsmith, H. Guasch, J. Hürlimann, A. Jarlman, B. Kawecka, J. Kwandrans, R. Laugaste, E.-A. Lindstrøm, M. Leitao, P. Marvan, J. Padisák, E. Pipp, J. Prygiel, E. Rott, S. Sabater, H. van Dam & J. Vizinet, 1998. Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. Journal of Applied Phycology 10: 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M.G., C. Bennett, M. Coste, F. Delmas, L. Denys, L. Ector, C. Fauville, M. Ferreol, M. Golub, A. Jarlman, M. Kahlert, J. Lucey, B. Ni Chathain, I. Pardo, P. Pfister, J. Picinska-Faltynowicz, C. Schranz, , J., Tison, J., H. van Dam & S. Vilbaste, 2007. Central/Baltic GIG Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/library?l=/intercalibration_2/lastest_committee/rivers/phytobenthosdoc/_EN_1.0_&a=d.

  • Kelly, M. G., S. Juggins, R. Guthrie, S. Pritchard, J. Jamieson, B. Rippey, H. Hirst & M. Yallop, 2008a. Assessment of ecological status in U.K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biology 53: 403–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M. G., L. King, R. I. Jones, P. A. Barker & B. J. Jamieson, 2008b. Validation of diatoms as proxies for phytobenthos when assessing ecological status in lakes. Hydrobiologia 610: 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986. Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 1 Teil: Naviculaceae. Gustav Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart: 876 pp.

  • Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1997. Die Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, II: 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil 2: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. 2te Auflage, mit einem neuen Anhang. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 594 pp.

  • Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 2000. Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 3 Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, 2nd ed. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 2004. Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2, Bacillariophyceae. Teil 4: Achnanthaceae. Kritische Ergänzungen zu Achnanthes s.l., Navicula s. str., Gomphonema. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag/Gustav Fischer, Heidelberg: 468 pp.

  • Leclercq, L. & B. Maquet, 1987. Deux nouveaux indices chimique et diatomique de qualité d’eau courante. Application au Samson et à ses affluents (bassin de la Meuse belge). Comparaison avec d’autres indices chimiques, biocénotiques et diatomiques. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, document de travail, 28 pp.

  • Lenoir, A. & M. Coste, 1996. Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Institut für Botanik. Universität Innsbruck: 29–43.

  • Moss, B., 2007. Shallow lakes, the Water Framework Directive and life: what should it all be about? Hydrobiologia 584: 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre & R. B. O’Hara, 2007. Vegan: Community Ecology Package version 1.8–6. http://cran.r-project.org/.

  • Pardo, I., A. M. Olsen, C. Delgado, L. García, A. Nebra & M. Domínguez, 2005. Implantación da Directiva Marco da Auga 2000/60/CE no Ámbito territorial Galicia-Costa. Technical report.

  • Prygiel, J., P. Carpentier, S. Almeida, M. Coste, J. C. Druart, L. Ector, D. Guillard, M. A. Honoré, R. Iserentant, P. Ledeganck, C. Lalanne-Cassou, C. Lesinak, I. Mercier, P. Moncaut, M. Nazart, N. Nouchet, F. Peres, V. Peeters, F. Rimet, A. Rumeau, S. Sabater, F. Straub, M. Torrisi, L. Tudesque, B. Van De Vijver, H. Vidal, J. Vizinet & N. Zydek, 2002. Determination of the Diatom Index (IBD NF T 90-354): results of an intercalibration exercise. Journal of Applied Phycology 14: 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Project Core Development Team, 2005. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  • Rott, E., G. Hofmann, K. Pall, P. Pfister & E. Pipp, 1997. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 1: Saprobielle Indikation. Publ. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, BMfLF: 1–73.

  • Rott, E., H. Van Dam, P. Pfister, E. Pipp, K. Pall, N. Binder & K. Ortler, 1999. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 2: Trophieindikation, geochemische Reaktion, toxikologische und taxonomische Anmerkungen. Publ. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, BMfLF: 1–248.

  • Schaumburg, J., C. Schranz, J. Foerster, A. Gutowski, G. Hofmann, P. Meilinger & S. Schneider, 2004. Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34: 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, S. & C. Schreiner, 1991. The use of diatoms for monitoring nutrient enrichment, acidification and impact of salt in rivers in Germany and Austria. In Whitton, B. A., E. Rott & G. Friedrich (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Univ. Innsbruck, Institut fur Botanik: 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slàdeček, V., 1986. Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiologia 14(5): 555–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Bund, W., et al. (eds), 2008. Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Technical Report. Joint Research Centre, Ispra.

  • Van der Molen, D. T. (ed.), 2004. Referenties en concept-maatlatten voor rivieren voor de Kaderrichtlijn Water. STOWA-rapport 2004/43. STOWA, Utrecht: 365 pp.

  • Wallach, D. & B. Goffinet, 1989. Mean squared error of prediction as a criterion for evaluating and comparing system models. Ecological Modelling 44: 299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 10, 2003. Rivers and Lakes – Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems. Working Group 2.3 – REFCOND Guidance Document No 10. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). ISBN: 92-894-5614-0, ISSN: 1725-1087.

  • Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott, 1996. Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Institut fur Botanik, Univ. Innsbruck: 196 pp.

  • Whitton, B. A., E. Rott & G. Friedrich, 1991. Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Institut fur Botanik, Univ. Innsbruck: 193 pp.

  • Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation des Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 57: 389–407.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All participants in this exercise acknowledge support from national governments and regulatory agencies. Thanks to Sebastian Birk (University of Essen), John Murray-Bligh (Environment Agency, UK) and Marian Yallop (University of Bristol, UK) for comments on a draft of this manuscript. Views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the final policy positions of any of the governments involved or of the European Commission. Thanks, too, to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bowburn Consultancy, 11 Monteigne Drive, Bowburn, Durham, DH6 5QB, UK

    Martyn Kelly

  2. SEPA, Greyhope Road, Torry, Aberdeen, AB11 9RD, UK

    Cathy Bennett

  3. REQUE Research Unit, Cemagref – Bordeaux Centre, 50, Avenue de Verdun, Gazinet, France

    Michel Coste, François Delmas, Martial Ferréol & Juliette Rosebery

  4. Departamento de Ecología y Biología Animal, Universidad de Vigo, Campus Lagoas-Marcosende, 36310, Vigo, Spain

    Cristina Delgado & Isabel Pardo

  5. Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Kliniekstraat 25, 1070, Brussel, Belgium

    Luc Denys

  6. Centre de Recherche Public – Gabriel Lippmann, 41 rue du Brill, 4422, Belvaux, Luxembourg

    Luc Ector & Martial Ferréol

  7. Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology, URBO FUNDP, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium

    Claude Fauville

  8. Institute of Environmental Protection, ul. Kolektorska 4, 01-692, Warsaw, Poland

    Malgorzata Golub

  9. Jarlman HB, Stora Tvärgatan 33, 22352, Lund, Sweden

    Amelie Jarlman

  10. Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7050, 75007, Uppsala, Sweden

    Maria Kahlert

  11. Environmental Protection Agency, Butts Green, Kilkenny, Ireland

    John Lucey

  12. Shannon River Basin District Project, Mulkear House, Newtown Centre, Annacotty, Co. Limerick, Ireland

    Bernadette Ní Chatháin

  13. ARGE Limnologie, Hunoldstr. 14, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Peter Pfister

  14. Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Wrocław Branch, Parkowa 30, 51-616, Wrocław, Poland

    Joanna Picinska-Faltynowicz

  15. Referat 8.4, Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (Bavarian Environmental Agency), Lazarettstraße 67, 80636, München, Germany

    Christine Schranz & Jochen Schaumburg

  16. Consultant for Water and Nature, P.O. Box 37777, 1030 BJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Herman van Dam

  17. Estonian University of Life Sciences (former Estonian Agricultural University), Riia 181, 51014, Tartu, Estonia

    Sirje Vilbaste

Authors
  1. Martyn Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michel Coste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cristina Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. François Delmas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luc Denys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luc Ector
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Claude Fauville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martial Ferréol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Malgorzata Golub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Amelie Jarlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Maria Kahlert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John Lucey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Bernadette Ní Chatháin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Isabel Pardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Peter Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Joanna Picinska-Faltynowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Juliette Rosebery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Christine Schranz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Jochen Schaumburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Herman van Dam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Sirje Vilbaste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martyn Kelly.

Additional information

Handling editor: J. Padisak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, M., Bennett, C., Coste, M. 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. Hydrobiologia 621, 169–182 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9641-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9641-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation