Benthic macroinvertebrates in lake ecological assessment: A review of methods, intercalibration and practical recommendations

Abstract

Legislation in Europe has been adopted to determine and improve the ecological integrity of inland and coastal waters. Assessment is based on four biotic groups, including benthic macroinvertebrate communities. For lakes, benthic invertebrates have been recognized as one of the most difficult organism groups to use in ecological assessment, and hitherto their use in ecological assessment has been limited. In this study, we review and intercalibrate 13 benthic invertebrate-based tools across Europe. These assessment tools address different human impacts: acidification (3 methods), eutrophication (3 methods), morphological alterations (2 methods), and a combination of the last two (5 methods). For intercalibration, the methods were grouped into four intercalibration groups, according to the habitat sampled and putative pressure. Boundaries of the 'good ecological status' were compared and harmonized using direct or indirect comparison approaches. To enable indirect comparison of the methods, three common pressure indices and two common biological multimetric indices were developed for larger geographical areas. Additionally, we identified the best-performing methods based on their responsiveness to different human impacts. Based on these experiences, we provide practical recommendations for the development and harmonization of benthic invertebrate assessment methods in lakes and similar habitats.

Human pressures and ecological status of European rivers

“…This variability in approaches limits the methodological consistency across the EU. However, classification scales for the biological classification methods have been intercalibrated across EU Member States 42–44 .…”

Effects of anthropogenic activities on macroinvertebrate assemblages in the littoral zone of Lake Hawassa, a tropical Rift Valley Lake in Ethiopia

“…They are an important part of the food chain, especially for fish and other predators (Strayer, 2006), and many feed on plankton and bacteria on the lower end of the food chain. They can regulate rates of primary production, decomposition, water clarity, thermal stratification and nutrient cycling in lakes (Strayer, 2006) and are widely used for biomonitoring (Gezie, Anteneh, Dejen, & Tiku, 2017;Jun, Won, Lee, Kong, & Hwang, 2012;Poikane et al, 2016;Sandin & Hering, 2004;Wang, Zheng, Liu, & Wang, 2015) because of their specific life-history traits and ecology (Voshell, 2002).…”

“…Although several biomonitoring efforts have been conducted for different aquatic ecosystems (Czerniawska-kusza, 2005), the biomonitoring of lake systems, using macroinvertebrate assemblages, is less developed compared to rivers and streams elsewhere (Poikane et al, 2016). This is also true in developing countries (Odountan, Bisthoven, Abou, & Eggermont, 2019) like Ethiopia, where most of the lakes have been exposed to many anthropogenic activities related to the country's developmental plan, a situation that also explains the condition of Lake Hawassa.…”

Macrophyte assessment in European lakes: Diverse approaches but convergent views of ‘good’ ecological status

“…A benchmarking procedure allows any typological or biogeographical differences between countries to be removed by normalization (Birk et al, 2013, Poikane et al, 2015). Intercalibration can be carried out by a direct comparison of commonly assessed sites or indirectly, using a common biological or pressure index (Kelly et al, 2014, Poikane et al, 2016a, Poikane et al, 2017). The concept of a ‘harmonisation band’ has been introduced to unify both approaches and to convey the magnitude and direction of deviation of national methods from the global average view of ecological status (Birk et al, 2013).…”