Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in German lakes — a contribution to the implementation of the water framework directive

A new assessment system for macrophytes and phytobenthos in German lakes according to the Water Framework Directive of the European Community is described. Based on biological, chemical and hydromorphological data from about 100 lake sites covering the main ecoregions, hydromorphological lake types and degradation forms, biocoenotic types could be defined. For developing a classification system the quality element macrophytes and phytobenthos was divided into two components: macrophytes and benthic diatoms. For macrophytes 4 and for benthic diatoms 4 lake types were identified. The benthic vegetation at reference conditions is described and degradation is characterised as deviation in benthic vegetation species composition and abundance from the reference biocoenosis. For classification in five ecological status classes, several metrics were developed and used in combination with existing indices. For a few of the described lake types further investigations are necessary before a classification can be developed.     

Ecological classification of macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers in Germany according to the water framework directive

A new assessment system for macrophytes and phytobenthos in German rivers meeting the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Community is described. Biocoenotic types based on biological, chemical and hydromorphological data from over 200 river sites covering the main ecoregions, hydromorphological stream types and degradation forms have been defined. For developing a classification system the quality element macrophytes and phytobenthos was divided into three components: macrophytes, benthic diatoms and remaining phytobenthos. For macrophytes seven types including one subtype, for benthic diatoms 14 types including three subtypes and for the remaining phytobenthos five river types were identified. The benthic vegetation at reference condition was described for most of the river types. Degradation is characterised as deviation in benthic vegetation species composition and abundance from the reference biocoenosis. For classification in five ecological status classes, several metrics were developed and used in combination with existing indices. For some of the described river types additional investigations are necessary before a classification system can be developed.     

Testing different sorting techniques in macroinvertebrate samples from running waters

With the aim of finding an efficient, standardised and practical protocol for sorting macroinvertebrate samples for water management practice, three different sorting techniques were tested: RIVPACS sorting, a modified AQEM/STAR (MAS) sorting protocol and a Live-sorting method. Based on the same AQEM/STAR sample to ensure comparable results, we compared RIVPACS and MAS sorting for 20 samples, and Live-sorting and MAS for a different set of 20 samples. Comparisons were based on both ecological and financial parameters relevant for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Germany. Parameters include recently developed multimetric assessment indices, their stream type specific core metric results, time effort and costs. While RIVPACS and MAS sorting produced similar results in terms of ecological assessment, time effort and costs, Live-sorting differed notably in all three respects. Live-sorting is the quickest and least expensive protocol, but shows higher variability than the other protocols. We discuss the differences and the level of standardisation for each of these methods.     

Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a practical standardised protocol for macroinvertebrate sampling and sorting

In the past, no single standardised method for sampling and sorting benthic macroinvertebrates has been implemented in Germany. Therefore, we tested the suitability of two common sorting protocols, RIVPACS and AQEM/STAR, by taking samples with each protocol at 44 sampling sites. Our results reveal that different methods deliver slightly different assessment results. Moreover these two methods differ in costs. Although the AQEM/STAR protocol takes longer than the RIVPACS protocol, we favoured the AQEM/STAR protocol because of its higher level of standardisation. In order to limit costs to an acceptable level, a modification of the AQEM/STAR protocol (MAS method) is developed. This method is highly standardised, gives stable assessment results and is relatively inexpensive (€ 224.00 for processing of an average sample). A detailed protocol of the newly developed method is given.     

Comparison of two methods for estimating the abundance, diversity and habitat preference of fluvial macroinvertebrates in contrasting habitats

In this research we evaluate the effects of the method used for estimating the potential surface available for benthic macroinvertebrates in macrophyte and unvegetated habitats on several metrics and habitat preference of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the upper catchment of the Henares River (Guadalajara, Central Spain). Three sampling sites were selected: a well-preserved stream (site A), a stream with no wood riparian vegetation (site B), and a straightened and deforested reach (site C). Two habitats were selected in each site: unvegetated habitat (i.e., substrata without macrophytes) and macrophyte habitat (i.e., substrata covered by macrophytes). In each habitat, six macroinvertebrate samples (including all macrophytes or mineral particles) were collected using a Hess sampler. Diversity and density of major families were referred to the surface of the Hess sampler (=Hess surface method) and to the actual surface of either mineral particles or macrophytes (=actual surface method). In general, for the actual surface method, biomass, richness, dominance, and diversity metrics were higher in the mineral habitat than in the macrophyte habitat. This trend was different for the Hess surface method. In general, densities turned out to be higher in the unvegetated habitat than in the macrophyte habitat when using the actual surface method, but the reverse occurred when using the Hess surface method. This fact is relevant for river biomonitoring, especially when reaches with different dominant substrates (macrophytes vs mineral) are compared using just one of the methods. It is concluded that the macrobenthic metrics and density values are influenced by the method used to estimate the potential available surface for aquatic macroinvertebrates.