Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric‐based analysis of organism response to stress

Abstract

1. Periphytic diatoms, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish were sampled with standard methods in 185 streams in nine European countries to compare their response to degradation. Streams were classified into two main stream type groups (i.e. lowland, mountain streams); in addition, the lowland streams were grouped into four more specific stream types. 2. Principal components analysis with altogether 43 environmental parameters was used to construct complex stressor gradients for physical-chemical, hydromorphological and land use data. About 30 metrics were calculated for each sample and organism group. Metric responses to different stress types were analysed by Spearman Rank Correlation. 3. All four organism groups showed significant response to eutrophication/organic pollution gradients. Generally, diatom metrics were most strongly correlated to eutrophication gradients (85% and 89% of the diatom metrics tested correlated significantly in mountain and lowland streams, respectively), followed by invertebrate metrics (91% and 59%). 4. Responses of the four organism groups to other gradients were less strong; all organism groups responded to varying degrees to land use changes, hydromorphological degradation on the microhabitat scale and general degradation gradients, while the response to hydromorphological gradients on the reach scale was mainly limited to benthic macroinvertebrates (50% and 44% of the metrics tested correlated significantly in mountain and lowland streams, respectively) and fish (29% and 47%). 5. Fish and macrophyte metrics generally showed a poor response to degradation gradients in mountain streams and a strong response in lowland streams. 6. General recommendations on European bioassessment of streams were derived from the results.

The relative influence of geographic location and reach-scale habitat on benthic invertebrate assemblages in six ecoregions

“…Gradients are used to evaluate biological responses over a range in a particular stressor (Woodcock and Huryn 2007), with many gradient studies focusing on anthropogentic stressors, as in metals (Carlise and Clements 2003;Woodcock and Huryn 2007), nutrient/organic inputs (Porter et al 2008), or larger-scale diffuse land use gradients Hering et al 2006). However, underlying any anthropogenic gradient are also natural gradients (e.g.…”

“…However, underlying any anthropogenic gradient are also natural gradients (e.g. temperature, substrate) that can greatly influence our understanding of what is controlling stream assemblages, particularly when we are attempting to understand anthropogentic gradients (Hering et al 2006). The importance of studying biological assemblages from a gradient perspective has been demonstrated in algae (Biggs 1995;Stevenson 1997;Munn et al 2002) and invertebrates (Waite et al 2000;Black et al 2004).…”

Large‐scale relationships between basin and riparian land cover and the ecological status of European rivers

“…The benthic invertebrates appeared to be the best indicators of ecological status for comparing the Author-produced version of the final draft post-refeering, the original publication is available at Freshwater Biology, 55: 1465Biology, 55: -1482Biology, 55: . doi: 10.1111Biology, 55: /j.1365Biology, 55: -2427Biology, 55: .2010 pressure-impact relationships in different European countries for two reasons: i) they respond to a wide range of pressures, including hydro-morphological degradation Hering et al, 2006), and ii) data were available from existing national monitoring networks. Moreover, the invertebrate indices were submitted to the WFD Intercalibration process, ensuring the comparability of the evaluations of ecological status (Olsauskyke & Van de Bund, 2008).…”

A new framework to evaluate ecosystem health: a case study in the Wei River basin, China

“…There are two controversial concepts about ecosystem health recently. The first aspect (Ladson et al 1999) focus on ecological integrity, and it is usually composed of a set of protocols dealing with different aspects of river quality, including water quality, hydrology, and indicators of biotic integrity based on fish, macroinvertebrate, algae, or macrophyte assemblages (Hering et al 2006). For example, the objective of the federal Clean Water Act in the USA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.…”