UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"STRENGTHENING THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITIES FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION AND
TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN"
ACTIVITY 1.1.7 "IMPLEMENTING ECOLOGICAL STATUS ASSESSMENT IN LINE
WITH REQUIREMENTS OF EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE USING SPECIFIC
BIO-INDICATORS"
FINAL REPORT
prepared by
Dr. Mario Sommerhäuser
Dipl. Biol. (RO) Sabina Robert
Dipl. Umweltwiss. Sebastian Birk
PD Dr. Daniel Hering
at
University of Duisburg-Essen
D-45117 Essen, Germany
Univ. Prof. Dr. Otto Moog
DI Dr. Ilse Stubauer
DI Thomas Ofenböck
at
BOKU University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
A-1180 Vienna, Austria
December, 2003
This report has been prepared in cooperation with the following national consultants:
Name Country
Institution
Franz Schöll
Germany
German Federal Institute of Hydrology
Gunter Seitz
Germany
Government of Lower Bavaria
Veronika Koller-
Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Austria
Kreimel
Water
Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Birgit Vogel
Austria
Water
Ilja Bernardova
Czech Republic
Water Research Institute T.G.M. Prague
Karel Brabec
Czech Republic
Masaryk University
Jarmila Makovinska
Slovakia
Water Research Institute
Béla Csányi
Hungary
Water Resources Research Centre (VITUKI)
Országos Vízügyi Figazgatóság / National Water
László Perger
Hungary
Authority
Országos Vízügyi Figazgatóság / National Water
Szilvia Dávid
Hungary
Authority
Dagmar Surmanovic
Croatia
Croatian Waters
Marija Jokic
Croatia
Croatian Waters
Naida Andjelic
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Vodno podrucje slivova rijeke Save
Bozo Knezevic
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Vodno podrucje slivova rijeke Save
Ministry for Protection of Natural Resources and
Jovanka Ignjatovic
Serbia-Montenegro
Environment of the Republic of Serbia
Momir Paunovic
Serbia-Montenegro
Institute for Biological Research ,,Sinisa Stankovic"
Graziella Jula
Romania
National Administration ,,Apele Romane" (Rowater)
Ministry of Environment and Water, Executive
Mihail Mollov
Bulgaria
Environmental Agency
Ministry of Environment and Water, Executive
George Mungov
Bulgaria
Environmental Agency
Liudmila Cunician
Moldova
State Hydrometeorological Service
Svetlana Stirbu
Moldova
Monitoring Centre on Environmental Pollution
The authors like to thank all national consultants who have contributed to this report.
Furthermore, the assistance of Detlef Günther-Diringer, Wolfram Graf, Serban Iliescu,
Berthold F.U. Janecek, Matus Kudela, Carolin Meier, Yanka Presolska, Antal Schmidt, Astrid
Schmidt-Kloiber, Erika Schneider, Martin Seebacher, Luiza Ujvarosi, Yordan Uzunov,
Hartmut Vobis, Reinhard Wimmer and Ivanka Yaneva is very much appreciated. We also
thank Ivan Zavadsky, Ursula Schmedtje and Igor Liska as well as the concerned members of
the ICPDR experts groups for the fruitful collaboration.
We are grateful to Sandra Kramm for her administrative work within this project.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"STRENGTHENING THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITIES FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION AND TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN
THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN"
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Biological and Hydromorphological Assessment Methods in the Danube
River Basin........................................................................................................................7
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 7
2. METHODS....................................................................................................................................................... 7
3. RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................ 8
4. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................. 21
5. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 23
Integration of the Saprobic System into the Assessment Approach of the WFD a
Proposal for the Danube River ......................................................................................29
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 29
2. METHODS..................................................................................................................................................... 30
3. RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................... 31
4. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................. 37
5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 37
6. OUTLOOK..................................................................................................................................................... 38
7. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 39
The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach for Assessing the Ecological Status of
the Danube River............................................................................................................41
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 41
2. PRE- CLASSIFICATION OF SITES ACCORDING TO THEIR DEGRADATION (BASED ON THE AQEM SITE
PROTOCOL DATA).......................................................................................................................................... 42
3. TESTING OF METRICS FOR DEVELOPING OF A "DANUBE SPECIFIC MULTIMETRIC INDEX" .......................... 44
4. EXAMPLES OF METRICS THAT SHOW THE BEST DISCRIMINATORY POWER TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NON
OR SLIGHTLY IMPAIRED AND STRESSED SITES ............................................................................................. 49
5. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK FOR DEVELOPING A MULTIMETRIC INDEX OF THE DANUBE RIVER..................... 58
6. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 59
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"STRENGTHENING THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITIES FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION AND TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN
THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN"
Introduction
The report at hand presents the final outputs of the Activity 1.1.7 of the UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project (DRP) "Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for
Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin". The
overall objective of the DRP is to complement the activities of the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) required to strengthen a
regional approach for solving transboundary problems. This includes the
development of national policies and legislation, the definition of priority actions for
pollution control, especial y nutrient reduction, and to establish sustainable
transboundary ecological conditions within the Danube River Basin (DRB) and the
Black Sea Basin area.
The presented results are part of the Output 1.1 "Development and implementation of
policy guidelines for river basin and water resource management" supporting the
Danube River Basin countries in the development of common tools and in
implementation of common approaches, methodologies and guidelines for sub-basin
management plans. The project assists in the implementation of the EU Water
Framework Directive in Danube River Basin in order to apply a basin wide concept of
river basin management.
With the reports of the activities 1.1.2, 1.1.6 and 1.1.7 the high priority tasks pressure
and impact analysis, typology of surface waters, ecological status assessment have
been executed. As products of this project we present a newly developed, validated
stream section typology for the Danube River, which completely fulfils the
requirements of the Water Framework Directive and is already agreed among the
Danube River countries. The section types are described by means of short tables
("passports"), which may serve as hydromorphological reference conditions. For the
definition of biological reference conditions an example is presented using historical
data of the fish fauna of the Danube.
Beside this, tools for the analysis of pressures and impacts along the Danube are
provided. For ecological assessment proposals for suitable methods have been
developed after checking a variety of possible metrics. In this context saprobic
reference conditions of the Danube are recommended based on macroinvertebrate
data of the Joint Danube Survey. Furthermore, results of a detailed overview on
biological and hydromorphological assessment methods used in the Danube River
Basin are presented along with descriptions of individual methods available at
http://starwp3.eu-star.at (Waterview Database).
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"STRENGTHENING THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITIES FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION AND TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN
THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN"
The individual activities comprised the fol owing steps:
Activity 1.1.2 "Adapt and implement common approaches and methodologies for
stress and impact analysis with particular attention to hydromorphological conditions"
1. Development of the methodological approach (overview on driving forces and
according pressures, development of criteria for significant impacts of a
pressure):
· Developing/completing a list of drivers that may cause important pressures
that change the hydromorphological conditions in the Danube River stretch
of the according country.
· Developing/completing a list of pressures induced by each of the drivers that
may provide important impacts on the biotic conditions in the Danube River
stretch of the according country.
· Developing/discussing a system to assess if a pressure has a significant
impact and the water body is at risk to fail the good ecological status.
2. Outlook on necessary activities to achieve an overview of stress and impacts
caused by changes of hydromorphological conditions in the Danube River.
Activity 1.1.6 "Develop the typology of surface waters and define the relevant
reference conditions"
1. Division of the entire Danube River into section types featuring homogeneous
abiotic characteristics.
2. Bottom-up validation of the proposed river-section types by means of Joint
Danube Survey data and similarity analyses.
3. Agreement on the proposed typology of the Danube River between the Danube
River countries and adaptation as part of the national typology systems for rivers.
4. Description of hydromorphological reference conditions for each of the section
types by means of type-specific ,,passports".
5. Description of biological reference conditions (Austrian reference fish fauna as
example).
Activity 1.1.7 "Implement ecological status assessment in line with requirements of
EU Water Framework Directive using specific bio-indicators"
1. Conducting an overview study on existing ecological status assessment and
classification systems in the Danube River Basin, which serve as a basis for
harmonisation in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
2. Test of potential y suited assessment metrics based on the benthic invertebrate
data of the Joint Danube Survey.
3. Establishing of type specific saprobic reference conditions for the Danube River
itself.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT: -7-
ACTIVITY 1.1.7 ECOLOGICAL STATUS ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN
Overview of Biological and Hydromorphological Assessment
Methods in the Danube River Basin
SEBASTIAN BIRK
1. INTRODUCTION
One priority objective of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project is to assist the
Danube River Basin countries in the implementation of the EU Water Framework
Directive (EU WFD) in order to establish river basin and water resource
management. This includes support in developing systems to monitor the ecological
status of surface waters. The EU WFD demands the application of methods that
consider water body type-specific variations of the biotic communities, and their
(near-)natural composition as benchmark of appraisal (the so-called reference state).
The implementation of these specific requirements currently initiates scientific and
administrative activities throughout Europe: Existing monitoring programs and
assessment systems are redesigned and new methods for the evaluation of surface
water quality are in preparation (e.g. SCHMUTZ & HAIDVOGL 2002, HERING et al. 2003).
Except for the Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN) the present situation in the
Danube River Basin is characterised by monitoring systems on regional and national
levels. This fact leads to a large variety of methods at the cost of basin-wide
comparability of results. Yet the EU WFD demands standardisation of assessment
procedures and intercalibration of the outputs in order to reach harmonised water
quality evaluation. This can only be put into practice on the basis of profound
knowledge of each single, even regionally applied method. Such information has to
be acquired and made available to the scientific community, the water management
and the general public.
This study reviews methods used to monitor and assess the biological and
hydromorphological quality of watercourses in the Danube catchment and outlines a
policy towards harmonisation of quality classification.
2. METHODS
To collect data on assessment methods for watercourses in the Danube River Basin,
two different questionnaires have been circulated to national consultants associated
with the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project - one for methods using the biological
quality elements: benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, phytobenthos, phytoplankton
or fish; another for methods assessing general habitat quality (hydromorphological
quality elements). Since the EU WFD places emphasis on biological parameters to
assess the ecological state of surface waters, data on chemical assessment
schemes have not been inquired. The questionnaires have been designed as blank
-8-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
forms with answers to be ticked or fil ed in. Recipients have been asked to complete
the digital forms at the computer after receiving them via electronic mail.
Both questionnaires consisted of six chapters. The first chapter asked for general
description of the method including scope of application, detected type of
anthropogenic pressure and relevant literature references. In the second chapter
questions covered sampling devices used and procedures applied, taxonomical data
(e.g. level of identification) or recorded hydromorphological features, and costs of
sampling. Chapter three dealt with calculation and assessment techniques such as
score formula, conversion into quality classes, whether the evaluation is related to
reference conditions, and the region where the method is applied. The fourth chapter
queried data on presentation, monitoring programs and databases. Two final
chapters allowed to describe how outputs are combined in order to obtain an
integrated appraisal of ecological status, and to add comments.
To enable a comprehensive presentation additional sources such as methodological
references, literature reviews, overview reports, internet resources and personal
communication were used.
The acquired information has been entered into the Waterview Database, an
Internet-based review of European assessment methods for rivers and streams
(http://starwp3.eu-star.at).
3. RESULTS
The overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods for
watercourses in the Danube River Basin comprises 47 schemes in 13 countries.
Table 1 provides all biological methods currently applied or under development. In
table 2 the differences of saprobic systems used by the countries of the Danube
catchment are specified.
In the fol owing section the national practices concerning biological and
hydromorphological monitoring and assessment are summed up. Detailed
descriptions of each method comprising the complete set of acquired data are
available at http://starwp3.eu-star.at (Waterview Database).
Biological Assessment Schemes
Austria
Biological assessment of watercourses in Austria is based on the investigation of
various quality elements. By means of benthic invertebrate and phytobenthos
sampling the degree of organic pollution is monitored in a national network of 244
sites. Within this program the benthic flora is additionally used to indicate the trophic
state. At the large rivers Danube, March and Thaya chlorophyl -a measurements are
continuously carried out. Additionally, most of the federal states conduct regional
-9-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
networks, which evaluate benthic invertebrate samples and sometimes
phytobenthos. In the federal state Upper Austria e.g. eutrophication of smaller
watercourses is detected using diatoms.
From the early sixties to the mid eighties the Austrian water management put a focus
on the documentation of organic pollution effects on rivers. Since 1985 water
management shifted from a technocratic to a more integrative view by introducing the
ecological integrity (,,ökologische Funktionsfähigkeit") of a water body as a political
goal (CHOVANEC et al. 1994). The methods to describe the ecological integrity of
rivers is described by MOOG (1994), CHOVANEC et al. (2001) and the Austrian
standard ÖNORM M6232 (1997) that outlines a general framework for the ecological
assessment of running waters. Within the context of implementing the WFD two
multimetric schemes for assessing the ecological status of rivers are in preparation:
The ,,Multi-level Concept for Fish-based, River Type-specific Assessment" (SCHMUTZ
et al. 2000) shall enable a large-scale, nation-wide assessment of ecological
integrity. A macroinvertebrate-based stressor-specific multimetric index for monitoring
running waters in Austria has been tested and will be developed until end of 2004
(AQEM CONSORTIUM 2002; OFENBÖCK et al. 2002, 2003).
In this context it is planned to extend the national monitoring network to a maximum
of 900 sites at which all biological quality elements will be sampled (benthic
invertebrates, macrophytes, phytobenthos, fish) according to their relevance.
Within the ,,Multifunctional Integrated Study Danube Corridor and Catchment"
(JANAUER et al. 2003) the aquatic vegetation of the Danube River Basin is surveyed
covering Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia-
Montenegro, Bulgaria and Romania.
Bosnia-Herzegovina
In Bosnia-Herzegovina watercourses have been monitored using the saprobic
system combined with ,,Species Deficit" (KOTHÉ 1962) until 1991 (cancelled due to
war in April 1992). By using benthic invertebrate and phytobenthos samples the
Saprobic Index is calculated according to PANTLE & BUCK (1955) formula and
presented in seven quality classes. The ,,Species Deficit" method is based on the
ecological principle that increasing watercourse deterioration is accompanied by
decreasing species diversity. With reference to undisturbed conditions the
percentage of remaining species is calculated. Results are used to complement
findings of the saprobic system.
Bulgaria
The official method to monitor the biological quality of running waters in Bulgaria is a
Biotic Index based on the Irish ,,Quality Rating System" (CLABBY et al. 1982). The
index relates the relative abundance of five key groups of benthic invertebrates
(sensitive forms to most tolerant forms) to water quality. Since most taxa are
-10-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
identified to family level application of this scheme requires less expertise and is
cost-effective.
The Danube and its tributaries are investigated on the basis of macroinvertebrate
data for more than twenty years. Analyses of species diversity, dominance and
evenness are carried out and Saprobic Indices according to PANTLE & BUCK (1955)
and ROTHSCHEIN (1962) are calculated (PEEV & GERASSIMOV 1999).
Croatia
Based on the investigation of different quality elements the Saprobic Index (PANTLE &
BUCK 1955) is calculated. Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos are sampled in the
Sava basin. In the Danube basin planktonic communities are assessed. In addition,
density of phytoplankton and chlorophyl -a concentration is used to determine the
trophic state of large rivers.
Preliminary studies on the implementation of the WFD are carried out and
assessment methods are harmonised according to the demands of the EU WFD.
This includes revision of indicator lists with respect to stream typology, redefinition of
the classification scheme, developing a quality control system, education of future
experts and organising workshops and seminars to prepare future standardisation.
Czech Republic
Saprobiological monitoring is used for standardised assessment of organic pollution
in Czech rivers. It is applied in a large monitoring network (approx. 1450 sites) and
evaluates the degree of pollution according to the technical norm CSN 75 7716
(1998). Within a separate method the investigation of phytobenthos is specified to
detect organic pollution and acidification of watercourses.
Since 2002 small watercourses are monitored by using the PERLA prediction system
(KOKES et al. 2001). The method compares the sampled fauna with a stream type-
specific reference fauna to detect general degradation. A multimetric approach is
fol owed in the Czech AQEM system. Organic pollution, morphological and general
degradation are assessed comprising three small and mid-sized stream types.
Combined approach including fish, phytobenthos and chemical assessment is under
development.
Germany
In Germany both the federal structure and implementation of the WFD account for a
broad spectrum of methods currently applied or under development.
The Danube River Basin covers parts of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria. In these
states the degree of organic pollution is monitored using benthic invertebrates and
heterotrophic periphyton (mostly ciliates). The German standard DIN 38 410 (1990,
2003) which is presently revised including an enhanced list of indicator species
provides the methodological framework. In regions sensitive to acidification two
similar schemes are applied derived from the ,,Indication of the Class of Actual
-11-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Acidity" (BRAUCKMANN 1992). This Biotic Index differentiates four macroinvertebrate
groups of gradual sensitivity to acidification. Organisms belonging to the same
indicator group are summed up to determine the acidity-class by exceeding a specific
frequency-threshold. The trophic state of rivers in both federal states is investigated
by chlorophyl -a analysis. Additionally, plant communities indicate trophy at Bavarian
streams dominated by macrophytes.
The ,,Potamon-Type-Index" (SCHÖLL & HAYBACH 2001) is specifically designed for the
assessment of large watercourses. Species traits are considered for indication of
general degradation.
Expansion of the multimetric approach conducted in the AQEM project to all German
stream types comprising modules for the detection of organic pollution, acidification
and general perturbation will be finalised in 2005. A nationwide stream type-specific
assessment scheme based on reference conditions using macrophytes and
phytobenthos is almost finished (SCHAUMBURG et al. in prep.).
Hungary
Monitoring of Hungarian watercourses is chiefly done by saprobiological analysis of
the bioseston of rivers (Hungarian Norm MSZ 12 756 1998). Chlorophyl -a
concentration of planktonic organisms acts as an indicator for eutrophication. In 2001
a small program has started to regularly sample benthic invertebrates at 100 sites
throughout Hungary. Since taxonomical skills have to be expanded an adapted
BMWP score (BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORKING PARTY 1978) has been developed
requiring family-level identification (CSÁNYI in NÉMETH 1998).
Within the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring Program various quality elements
(benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, fish) are sampled at all major habitats including
watercourses. The program aims at assessing the general state of the biota and
communities, and studying the direct and indirect effects of human-induced changes.
Moldova
In Moldova regular monitoring of saprobiological water quality is carried out at the
Prut River since 1976. Samples are jointly taken by Romanian and Moldavian water
authorities and further data are exchanged.
By end of 2004 a new saprobiological assessment scheme will be finalised that
includes investigation of benthic and planktonic organisms. Besides determination of
the Saprobic Index the percent ratio of oligochaete-individuals to benthic
invertebrates in total, and the abundance of saprophytic bacteria make up multimetric
assessment. The overall water quality (six classes) is obtained by averaging the
individual classifications.
Romania
Monitoring of aquatic biota throughout Romania is seasonally conducted in the
National Water Monitoring System started in 1978. Formerly supported by the ,,Index
-12-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
of Relative Quality" (KNÖPP 1955) pollution bioassessment of watercourses is now
exclusively based on determination of the Saprobic Index according to PANTLE &
BUCK (1955). As of 2004 resulting index scores will be classified in a five-fold scheme
fol owing the recommendations of KNOBEN et al. (1999). Additionally, chlorophyl -a
concentration of phytoplankton is analysed to evaluate the trophic state of rivers.
To meet the demands of the EU WFD a national stream typology system will be
finished by mid of 2004. In 2003 a multimetric method assessing the biological water
quality has been completed regarding biodegradable substances, toxic substances
and hydromorphological alterations. It is planned to combine the results of this
method with the outputs of other methods in order to reach integrated appraisal of
the aquatic environment by end of 2004. Additional monitoring of fish and
macrophytes starts in June 2004.
Serbia-Montenegro
Based on the PANTLE & BUCK (1955) index water quality in Serbia is assessed since
1967. Monitoring comprises sampling of benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton and
zooplankton. Eutrophication is indicated by classification of chlorophyl -a
concentrations.
To meet its requirements Serbia-Montenegro aim at stepwise implementation of the
WFD (TRIPKOVIC 2003): In the first phase effectual biological monitoring is made
operational until 2004. In parallel, scientific and administrative foundations are
elaborated including testing of appropriate metrics, establishment of a stream
typology and definition of reference conditions. In the second phase national
monitoring is integrated in the European network until 2007 providing data on
assessment of ecological water status. For immediate incorporation into biological
monitoring benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, phyto- and zooplankton and fish are
suggested. In addition, phytobenthos and microzoobenthos are included in a second
step.
Slovakia
In Slovakia watercourse monitoring is performed since 1963. It comprises
investigations of the benthic and planktonic communities. Classification of biological
quality is standardised (STN 83 0532 1978/79) and includes determination of the
Saprobic Index according to ZELINKA & MARVAN (1961). The index values for
macroinvertebrates, phytobenthos and bioseston are separately classified. Five
classes of chlorophyl -a concentration complete the overall assessment.
To evaluate the ecological status of small watercourses a modified version of the
AQEM system is prepared using benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos. In this
context reference sites are investigated since 2003. An adapted method for large
rivers like Váh, Hron, Ipel and Danube is also under development.
-13-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Slovenia
The classification of water quality in Slovenia is based on physical, chemical and
biological analysis. Determination of the Saprobic Index is part of the biological
watercourse monitoring program (GRBOVI 1999). Periphyton and benthic
invertebrates are investigated according to DIN 38 410 (1990).
Switzerland
Although the Swiss part of the Danube River Basin is rather small the headwater of
the River Inn, an important tributary to the Danube, is located in the canton of
Grisons. The cantonal water authorities use the ,,Swiss Diatom Index" for biological
water assessment (HÜRLIMANN & NIEDERHAUSER 2002). Based on the weighted
average equation of ZELINKA & MARVAN (1961) the diatom index is calculated using
220 different taxa. To each taxon an indicator value is assigned which correlates with
six chemical parameters.
The scheme is part of the ,,Methods for Investigation and Assessment of Running
Waters in Switzerland" which contain survey procedures at three intensity levels for
the areas hydrodynamics and morphology, biology, and chemical and toxic effects. In
future the multidisciplinary approach will lead to an integral assessment of running
waters (LIECHTI et al. 1998).
-14-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Table 1: Biological assessment methods for watercourses in the Danube River Basin
Stressors
Biological Quality Elements1
Monitoring
Name of method
Country
detected2
Status
Category
Program
BI MA PB PP ZP FI HP PlB OP MD AC EU GD
under
AQEM Austria (Stressor-specific multimetric approach)
Austria
under
developm.
Multimetric Index
developm.
Assessment of Saprobiological quality of rivers
Austria
currently used
yes
Saprobic Index
Plankton Monitoring of large watercourses
Austria
currently used
yes
Biomass Analysis
Diatom-based Trophic State Indication
Austria
currently used
yes
Biotic Index
Multifunctional Integrated Study Danube Corridor and
Austria
currently used
yes
no assessment
Catchment (MIDCC)
Multi-Level concept for Fish-based, river-type-specific
under
Austria
under developm.
Multimetric Index
Assessment (MuLFA)
developm.
Trophic state indication and geochemical evaluation of
Austria
currently
used
yes
Biotic
Index
running waters
Revised Saprobic Index combined with Species Deficit
Bosnia-Herzegovina
currently used
cancelled
Saprobic Index
Biotic Index based on ,,Quality Rating Scheme"
Bulgaria
currently used
yes
Biotic Index
Saprobic Index according to ROTHSCHEIN (1962)
Bulgaria
currently used
no
Saprobic Index
Saprobic Index/Biomass
Saprobic Index
Croatia
++
currently
used yes
Analysis
AQEM Czech
Czech Republic
under developm.
no
Multimetric Index
Assessment of Saprobity based on species composition
Saprobic Index/Biomass
Czech Republic
++
currently
used
no
of Microphytobenthos
Analysis
Perla
Czech Republic
currently used
yes
Community Assessment
Saprobiological Monitoring
Czech Republic
currently
used yes
Saprobic
Index
AQEM Germany
Germany
currently used
no
Multimetric Index
Assessment of Watercourses - Saprobity
Germany
currently
used yes
Saprobic
Index
1 BI Benthic Invertebrates; MA Macrophytes; PB Phytobenthos; PP Phytoplankton; ZP Zooplankton; FI Fish; HP Heterotrophic Periphyton; PlB Planktonic Bacteria
2 OP Organic Pollution; MD Morphological Degradation; AC Acidification; EU Eutrophication; GD General Degradation
++ additional detection of eutrophication by classification of chlorophyll-a concentration
§§ Macrophyte investigation in the context of the `Multifunctional Integrated Study Danube Corridor and Catchment'
-15-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Table 1 (continued): Biological assessment methods for watercourses in the Danube River Basin
Stressors
Biological Quality Elements
Name of method
Country
Monitoring
detected
Status
Category
Program
BI MA PB PP ZP FI HP PlB OP MD AC EU GD
Bio-Ecological Investigation of Watercourses
Germany
currently
used Yes
Saprobic
Index
Bioindication of Acid Condition
Germany
currently used
yes
Biotic Index
Ecological classification system for rivers and lakes using
Germany
under developm.
no
Multimetric Index
Macrophytes and Phytobenthos
Indication of Actual Acidity
Germany
currently used
yes
Biotic Index
Biomass Analysis/Community
Mapping of Trophy
Germany
currently
used
yes
Assessment
Unified watercourse assessment scheme using Benthic
Germany
under developm.
no
Multimetric Index
Invertebrates
Potamon-Type-Index Germany
currently used
yes
Process Assessment
BMWP - HY (adapted to Hungarian conditions)
Hungary
currently used
yes
Biotic Index
Macrozoobenthos Sampling Project of the Hungarian
under
Hungary
currently used
no assessment
National Biodiversity Program
developm.
under
Sampling Fish by Electric Fishing
Hungary
under developm.
no assessment
developm.
Saprobic Index/Biomass
Saprobiological Investigation of Hungarian watercourses
Hungary
++
currently
used yes
Analysis
Vegetation sampling as part of the Hungarian Biodiversity
Hungary
currently used
yes
no assessment
Monitoring System
Saprobiological assessment based on various metrics
Moldova
under
developm.
yes
Saprobic
Index
Determination of Saprobic Index according to PANTLE &
Saprobic Index/Biomass
Romania
++
currently used
yes
BUCK (1955)
Analysis
National Water Monitoring Strategy
Serbia-Montenegro
§§
under developm.
no
Multimetric Index
Saprobiological Investigations using PANTLE &
Saprobic Index/Biomass
Serbia-Montenegro
++
currently used
yes
BUCK (1955) Index
Analysis
National Surface Water Quality Monitoring System
Slovakia
§§
currently used
yes
Saprobic Index
Saprobiological Analysis
Slovenia
currently used
yes
Saprobic Index
Swiss Diatom Index
Switzerland
currently
used
yes
Biotic
Index
-16-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Table 2: Saprobic systems used in the Danube River Basin
No. of
No. of
Country
Elements3 used to
Quality
Upper Quality Class boundaries
Calculation
Lists of indicator species4
abundance
calculate SI
Classes
classes
Austria5
BI, PB, HP
7
< 1.25/ 1.75/ 2.25/
2.75/
3.25/
3.75/ > 3.75/
ZELINKA &
MOOG (1995, 2002); ROTT et al.
no. of ind. or
< 1.3
1.7
2.1
2.5
3.0
3.4
> 3.5 MARVAN (1961)
(1997)
5 classes
Bosnia-Herzegovina
BI, PB
7
P
S
< 1.5
< 1.8
< 2.3 < 2.7
< 3.2
< 3.5
3.5
ANTLE & BUCK
LÁDECEK (1973); UZUNOV, KOSEL &
3
(1955)
SLÁDECEK (1988); WEGL (1983)
Bulgaria BI
5
R
S
>
80 80 60 40 20 OTHSCHEIN
LÁDECEK (1973); UZUNOV, KOSEL &
no. of ind.
(1962)
SLÁDECEK (1988)
Croatia
BI, MA, PB, PP, ZP
5
P
1.8
2.3
2.7
3.2
> 3.2
ANTLE & BUCK
W
(1955)
EGL (1983)
3
Czech Republic
BI, PB
5
Z
< 1.5
< 2.2
< 3.0
< 3.5
3.5
ELINKA &
CSN 75 7221 (1998)
no. of ind.
MARVAN (1961)
Germany (
Z
nationwide)6
BI
5
stream type-specific (see R
ELINKA &
OLAUFFS et al. 2003)
DIN 38 410 (2003)
7
MARVAN (1961)
Germany
(Baden-Wuerttemberg and
BI, HP
7
P
< 1.5
< 1.8
< 2.3 < 2.7
< 3.2
< 3.5
3.5
ANTLE & BUCK
BLfW (2003)
7
(1955)
Bavaria)
Hungary
PP, ZP, PlB
5
P
< 1.8
2.3
2.8
3.3
> 3.3
ANTLE & BUCK
G
(1955)
ULYÁS (1998)
6
Moldova7
PP, ZP, HP, PlB
6
P
no. of ind. or
<
1.1 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 >
4.0 ANTLE & BUCK
S
(1955)
LÁDECEK (1973)
cells
MARVAN, ROTHSCHEIN & ZELINKA
Romania8
BI, PB, PP, ZP
5
P
no. of ind. or
1.8
2.3
2.7
3.2
> 3.2
ANTLE & BUCK (1980); S
(1955)
LÁDECEK (1977); SLÁDECEK
cells
(1981)
SEV (1973); SLÁDECEK (1973);
Serbia-Montenegro
BI, PP, ZP
4
P
BI: 5
< 1.5
< 2.5
< 3.5
3.5
ANTLE & BUCK U
(1955)
ZUNOV, KOSEL & SLÁDECEK (1988);
PP, ZP: 6
Uzunov (1979); WEGL (1983)
BI, PP, ZP:
Slovakia9
BI, PB, PP, ZP
5
< 1.8/
2.3/
2.7/
3.2/
> 3.2/
ZELINKA &
STN 83 0532 (1978/79)
no. of ind. or
< 1.5
2.0/
2.5
3.0
> 3.0
M
ARVAN (1961)
cells
PB: 7
Slovenia BI,
PB
7
Z
1.5 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.5 >
3.5
ELINKA &
S
M
LÁDECEK (1973)
3
ARVAN (1961)
3 BI Benthic Invertebrates; MA Macrophytes; PB Phytobenthos; PP Phytoplankton; ZP Zooplankton; FI Fish; HP Heterotrophic Periphyton; PlB Planktonic Bacteria
4 Some lists are partly modified and adapted to national requirements.
5 different Quality Class boundaries (BI / PB)
6 SI is one metric among others (Multimetric Index).
7 SI is one metric among others (Multimetric Index).
8 Here, only Class boundaries for Benthic Invertebrates are stated.
9 different Quality Class boundaries (BI, PP, ZP / PB)
-17-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Method Categories
Assessment of environmental quality is based on the analysis of measurable
components of the biotic and abiotic environment. According to type and scope of
measured parameters (,,metrics") different categories of assessment methods can be
distinguished:
· A simple assessment of the trophic state of running waters is the Biomass
Analysis by means of classification of chlorophyl -a concentration. In
several countries spectrometric determination according to ISO 10 260
(1992) is applied to phytoplankton samples. The different national quality
classifications are listed in table 3.
· Biotic Indices integrate taxa richness and pollution tolerance metrics. Basic
principle of this approach is the assumption that taxa showing different
sensitivity to disturbance disappear in a certain order as the pressure
increases. In addition, the number of taxonomic groups is reduced. Both the
Hungarian BMWP score and the Bulgarian ,,Quality Rating System" belong
to this category.
Extended by abundance information Saprobic Indices represent specific
modes of biotic scores. Especial y in the Danube River Basin their
application is widespread to detect organic pollution. Based on the work of
KOLKWITZ & MARSSON (1902; 1908; 1909) saprobic systems have been
revised with regard to quality classification and presentation (LIEBMANN
1951), calculation (PANTLE & BUCK 1955), indication (ZELINKA & MARVAN
1961) and general scientific framework (SLÁDECEK 1973). Due to these
modifications different specifications of the system exist. In the Danube
catchment twelve countries apply Saprobic Indices using different quality
elements, class boundaries, indicator lists and calculation formulas (table 2).
Apart from detection of organic pollution Biotic Indices are used to assess
eutrophication of watercourses. By means of weighted average equation
(ZELINKA & MARVAN 1961) indicator values of phytobenthos species are
taken into account.
·
Within Community Assessment complete species assemblages are
considered. A basic implementation of this approach is represented by the
,,Mapping of Trophy" (BLFW 1998) applied in Bavaria. Different macrophyte
assemblages are described and allocated to diverse levels of trophic
condition.
The Czech PERLA system is a Community Assessment scheme based on
multivariate analysis techniques. To implement the scheme biological data of
different reference sites have been classified according to their species
assemblage. These classes have been related to a series of environmental
watercourse attributes. Based on these variables the undisturbed species
community can be predicted at any site and compared to the community
observed at this site. Results are presented as Ecological Quality Ratios.
· Process Assessment focuses on evaluation of taxon characteristics such
as functional groups and species traits.
The definition of distinct reference communities as basis of assessment for
large watercourses is difficult due to substantial anthropogenic influence and
-18-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
the occurrence of newcomer species occupying ecological niches. Here, the
concept of Process Assessment is suitable as it appraises the performance
of ecological functions rather than the presence of individual species. The
,,Potamon-Type-Index" thus operates on the basis of an ,,open" taxon list in
which all species showing preference to potamal habitats are indicators of
high quality. By definition newcomers have low ecological values.
· A fundamental concept of Multimetric Assessment is to analyse
community health composed of community structure, community balance
and functional feeding groups (BARBOUR et al. 1992). In this context it
represents an integrative approach to water quality assessment combining
various metrics like Biotic and Saprobic Indices, and Process Assessment
measures.
All Multimetric Assessment schemes in the Danube River Basin are under
development or have been implemented in recent times. As novel
methodologies they feature stream type-specific assessment based on
reference conditions.
Table 3: National quality classifications of chlorophyll-a concentration
No. of
Country
Upper Quality Class boundaries [µg/l]
Classes
Austria
10 <
1 3 5 8 16 30 50
100
>
100
-
Croatia
5
< 2.5
10
30
> 30
-
Czech Republic
5
< 10
< 25
< 50
< 100
> 100
Germany
7
4
8
30
50
100
> 100
-
Hungary
10
0 <
1 3 10 20 50 100 200 800
>
800
Romania
5
25
50
100
250
> 250
Hydromorphological Assessment Schemes
In most countries of the Danube River Basin hydrological and hydromorphological
features of running waters are surveyed. However, systems for quality assessment
based on abiotic parameters exist in only a few countries.
In the various federal states of Austria different methods to evaluate the structural
quality of streams are applied (Upper Austria and Styria: Eco-morphological
classification of channels according to WERTH 1987; Vorarlberg: Riverstructures
Recording-Assessing-Representing BUHMANN & HUTTER 1996; Tyrol: Inventory of
Hydromorphology and Land-Use AMT DER TIROLER LANDESREGIERUNG 1996a+b;
Lower Austria: NÖMORPH FREILAND UMWELTCONSULTING 2001a+b). Except for the
Tyrolese method all these schemes represent more or less regional adaptations of
WERTH (1987). Several hydromorphological attributes are summarised to assess five
main-parameters (channel route, channel bed, water-land-interfaces, bank structure,
riparian vegetation).
-19-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
In Tyrol the modified Swiss ,,Rapid Ecomorphological Assessment" (BUWAL 1998) is
used. In Switzerland this scheme is part of the ,,Methods for Investigation and
Assessment of Running Waters" and aims at both assessing streams and providing a
guide to the degree of naturalness of running waters in a particular region.
Data for the above mentioned methods are acquired in the field by recording
structural features of the stream. In Germany, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria
apply a low-cost screening method (Stream Habitat Survey"Übersichtsverfahren" -
LAWA 1999) for the compilation of spacious survey maps. It is based on map-derived
data and surveys a small number of parameters at section lengths of 1 km. An official
German scheme for large watercourses using field-derived data is still under
development. In a recent study the ,,Ecomorphological Survey of Large Rivers" has
been described by FLEISCHHACKER et al. (2002) to fill this gap. It has been applied to
sections of the rivers Elbe, Main, Moselle, Rhine and Odra in Germany as wel as in
the Czech Republic.
Structural quality of Slovene watercourses is assessed by the ,,River Habitat Survey"
scheme (RHS - RAVEN et al. 1997). The method has been developed to support river
management and habitat conservation in the United Kingdom. Within the European
STAR project (http://www.eu-star.at) RHS is applied to provide hydromorphological
data about the sampled sites. Participating countries in the Danube River Basin are
Austria, Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia.
In Romania an assessment scheme called ,,IMPAHID" is under development. It is
based on structural criteria subject to the type of hydraulic works which physically
modifies the watercourse morphology.
Table 4: Hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Name of Method
Country
Region
Status Monitoring
Program
Eco-morphological classification of channels
Austria
Upper Austria and currently
yes
according to WERTH
Styria
used
Riverstructures Recording-Assessing-
Austria
currently
Vorarlberg
yes
Representing
used
Inventory of Hydromorphology and Land-Use
Austria
currently
Tyrol
no
used
NÖMORPH
Austria
currently
Lower Austria
yes
used
Stream Habitat Survey
Baden-
Germany
currently
Wuerttemberg
yes
,,Übersichtsverfahren"
used
and Bavaria
Germany and Czech rivers Elbe, Main,
Ecomorphological Survey of Large Rivers
currently
Moselle, Rhine
no
Republic
used
and Odra
IMPAHID Romania
all large river
under
no
basins
developm.
Slovenia; Austria,
Czech Republic,
STAR project:
River Habitat Survey
currently
small number of
no
Germany, Slovakia
sampling sites
used
(STAR project)
Rapid Ecomorphological Assessment
Switzerland
throughout the
currently
yes
country
used
-20-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
Danube River Basin assessment in a pan-European context
In figure 1 results of the present survey are compared to findings of an overview
study covering 139 assessment methods in 33 European countries (BIRK 2003). Both
overview studies result in the fact that mainly schemes using benthic invertebrates
are applied. Water quality appraisal by means of benthic or planktonic algae
represents another main focus in the Danube region, whereas only four percent of
methods investigate fish communities to detect anthropogenic disturbance.
Hydromorphological assessment methods and schemes sampling macrophytes
make up equal percentages in both the Danube River Basin and entire Europe.
In the Danube basin the detection of organic pollution ranks first. One third of
systems indicates this stressor. Throughout Europe water pollution and general
degradation are the main pressures identified by biological quality elements.
Eutrophication and morphological degradation are of higher relevance when
assessing running waters in eastern Europe. However, schemes to detect toxic
substances are not applied in the Danube region.
Hydromorphology
Fish
General Degr.
Eutrophication
Phytoplankton
Phytobenthos
Toxic Substances
Acidification
Macrophytes
Benthic Inv.
Morph. Degr.
Organic Pollution
28
35
34
40
18
12
12
21
8
20
3
15
6
15
9
19
14
4
10
28
20
15
14
Danube river basin (47)
entire Europe (139)
Danube river basin (47)
entire Europe (139)
Figure 1: Percentages of quality elements used (left) and stressors detected (right) in watercourse
assessment in the Danube River Basin and entire Europe (digits in brackets indicate total
number of methods)
-21-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
4. DISCUSSION
The large number of methods compiled in this overview reveals the importance of
biological and hydromorphological assessment in environmental quality control in the
Danube River Basin. Almost every country monitors the biological condition of
running waters by means of specific programs. Although organic pollution
traditionally represents the focus of bioassessment (e.g. SLÁDECEK 1973) the broad
spectrum of stressors which can be detected, and the various biotic groups used to
identify the nature of impairment point out that multiple challenges of watercourse
deterioration are addressed.
The current task set by the EU WFD is obtaining comparable assessment and
classification of ecological quality of watercourses across Europe. This study
illustrates two major shortcomings which are likely to impede realisation of these
objectives in the Danube River Basin.
Harmonisation of quality assessment
The large variety of methods regionally developed and applied complicate to
compare outputs of assessment. The alternative of specifying standardised methods
and unified classification with which all countries must comply is difficult to achieve
politically and technically in the short to medium term. On the one hand this would
lead to loss of spatial and temporal consistency in present national monitoring. On
the other hand, scientific requirements to implement a system for the entire Danube
catchment have not yet been substantiated. This issue is currently addressed by the
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River which aims at
reconciling national methodologies and practices.
The Standard Operational Procedure (KNOBEN et al. 1999) represents a first
approach towards harmonisation of biomonitoring in the Danube River Basin. It
provides a framework for sampling macroinvertebrates in the Danube and its
tributaries and is intended for TNMN sites. Numerical evaluation of taxon lists is done
by Saprobic Index calculation (ZELINKA & MARVAN 1961) including counted number of
individuals per sample. The procedure recommends the use of saprobic indicator
values based on the list of the Bavarian Water Management Agency (revised version:
BLFW 2003). Quality is presented in a five-fold scheme and class boundaries are
proposed according to ÖNORM M6232. A preliminary list of indicator species for the
Danube River Basin has been compiled by MAKOVINSKA (2000) comprising benthic
invertebrates, macrophytes, periphyton, phyto- and zooplankton. Nevertheless,
STUBAUER & MOOG (2003) point out that complete harmonisation of saprobic lists for
the Danube biota is still in demand.
With regard to national implementations of the saprobic system numerous country-
specific modifications are applied (table 2). They comprise differences in investigated
taxonomical groups, lists of indicator species, numerical evaluation schemes and
quality classifications. Since these individual systems presently form the basis of
-22-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
watercourse evaluation in the Danubian countries the first step towards
harmonisation has to include a compilation of data about the specific methodologies.
The Waterview Database represents a means to facilitate transparency of national
activities and exchange of knowledge by providing a comprehensive description of
European assessment schemes (BIRK 2003). Its Internet-posted contents are publicly
available and offer opportunity to obtain selected information suited to specific needs
of the user by means of query. At present, the database contains more than 130
descriptions of methods applied in Europe and is continuously updated.
SI
= 0.707 * SI
+ 0.688
AUSTRIAN
GERMAN
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
AUSTRIANSI 2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
n=262;
1.4
r2=0.749
1.21.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
SIGERMAN
Figure 2: Scatterplot representing correlation of SI values calculated according to German and
Austrian Saprobic System based on samples taken at 262 sites of the common stream-type:
siliceous mid-sized streams in lower mountainous areas (200-800m a.s.l.). Formula of
conversion (,,intercalibration factor") is stated at the top of the diagram.
Based on these data intercalibration can be implemented in a second step, as long
as no common methodology exists. According to the EU WFD the process of
intercalibration shall ensure the comparability of biological monitoring results on the
basis of Europe-wide agreement on what is meant by ,,good status". This issue is
currently addressed by the CIS (Common Implementation Strategy) Working Group
2A ,,Ecological Status" of the European Commission, but practical experiences have
not been gained so far. SCHMID (2000) presents a harmonised water quality map of
the Danube and her tributaries based on transformed quality classes of the individual
saprobic systems. BIRK & ROLAUFFS (2004) propose bilateral correlation of the results
of national saprobic systems applied to common stream types. This enables the
derivation of ,,intercalibration factors" to convert index values of a certain national
method into equivalent values of another scheme (figure 2). Nevertheless, the
-23-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
definition of common quality class criteria valid throughout Europe will be difficult due
to strong national interests in this topic. For each monitoring site failing to meet the
good ecological status countries have to raise funds for improvement.
Assessment of Ecological Status
A fundamental obstacle in implementing the WFD is represented by the lack of
appropriate methods to assess the ecological watercourse status. The majority of
schemes currently applied have been developed decades ago to detect the most
significant impact at that time: organic pollution. With increasing awareness of other
causes of reduction in watercourse quality (e.g. eutrophication or morphological
degradation) different indicative parameters have been chosen. So systems have
evolved which miss interconnections. Simple combination of existing methods
covering diverse aspects of the river ecosystems can apparently not satisfy the
premises of integrated ecological assessment.
Two basic approaches to address this issue can be observed in the Danube River
Basin: Predictive modelling as conducted by the Czech PERLA system includes
entire species assemblages. This enables assessment of ecosystems at community
scale. However, the translation of biological data into precise conclusions concerning
the cause of stress is not yet inherent to the system (WRIGHT 2000). Multimetric
schemes offer decision support to water managers through stressor-specific
appraisal. They aim at measuring diverse structural and functional aspects of the
watercourse biota, but consider individual taxa to describe and evaluate a site's
condition.
As these two different procedures perform stream type-specific assessment based
on reference conditions they represent appropriate methodologies in line with the
requirements of the WFD. In the future integrated ecological appraisal could be
ensured by linking both approaches: a multimetric system in which the reference
values of individual metrics are predicted on the basis of environmental watercourse
variables.
Both subjects outlined above represent major challenges for environmental quality
control in the countries of the Danube River Basin. Cooperation of individual states in
this multinational catchment area is indispensable. Here, governmental institutions
like the ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River) as
wel as non-governmental organisations like the IAD (International Association for
Danube Research) hold key roles for the corporate overcoming of these obstacles.
5. REFERENCES
AQEM CONSORTIUM (2002): Manual for the application of the AQEM system - a
comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic
-24-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive.
Report, financed by European Union, 5th Framework Programme.
AMT DER TIROLER LANDESREGIERUNG, ABT. WASSERWIRTSCHAFT (1996a): Fließgewässeratlas
Tirol - Bachmorphologische und nutzungsorientierte Inventarisierung. Bezirk Kufstein.
AMT DER TIROLER LANDESREGIERUNG, ABT. WASSERWIRTSCHAFT (1996b): Fließgewässeratlas
Tirol - Bachmorphologische und nutzungsorientierte Inventarisierung. Bezirk Kitzbühl.
BARBOUR, M.T., PLAFKIN, J.L., BRADLEY, B.P., GRAVES, C.G. & R.W. WISSEMAN (1992):
Evaluation of EPAs rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and
variability among reference stream sites. Envir. Toxicol. Chem., 11: 437-449.
BIRK, S. (2003): Review of European assessment methods for rivers and streams using
benthic invertebrates, aquatic flora, fish and hydromorphology.- Diploma thesis,
University of Duisburg-Essen, 103 pp.
BIRK, S. & P. ROLAUFFS (2004): A preliminary study comparing the results between the
Austrian, Czech and German Saprobic Systems for the intercalibration of cross-
border river basin districts. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie (DGL) -
Tagungsbericht (Köln). DGL, Werder. (in print)
BLFW (BAYERISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR WASSERWIRTSCHAFT) (2003): Taxaliste der
Gewässerorganismen Deutschlands. Informationsbericht des Bayer. Landesamts für
Wasserwirtschaft, 1/03. BLfW, München.
BLFW (BAYERISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR WASSERWIRTSCHAFT) (1998): Hinweise zur Kartierung
der Trophie von Fließgewässern in Bayern. Merkblatt Nr. 2.5/3. BLfW, München.
BMWP (BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORKING PARTY) (1978): Final Report of the Biological
Monitoring Working Party: Assessment and presentation of the biological quality of
rivers in Great Britain. Department of the Environmental Water Data Unit, London.
BRAUKMANN, U. (1992): Biological indication of stream acidity in Baden-Wuerttemberg by the
use of macroinvertebrates. In: BÖHMER, J. & H. RAHMANN (eds.):
Bioindikationsverfahren zur Gewässerversauerung. Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz,
Karlsruhe: 58-71.
BUHMANN, D. & G. HUTTER (1996): Fließgewässer in Vorarlberg. Gewässerstrukturen.
Erfassen - Bewerten - Darstellen. Ein Konzept. Umweltinformationsdienst Vorarlberg,
Bregenz.
BUNDESAMT FÜR UMWELT, WALD UND LANDWIRTSCHAFT (BUWAL) (1998): Methoden zur
Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fließgewässer: Ökomorphologie Stufe F
(flächendeckend). Mitteilungen zum Gewässerschutz 27. Bern.
CHOVANEC, A.; HEGER, H.; KOLLER-KREIMEL, V.; MOOG, O.; SPINDLER, T & H. WAIDBACHER
(1994): Anforderungen an die Erhebung und Beurteilung der ökologischen
Funktionsfähigkeit von Fließgewässern - eine Diskussionsgrundlage. ÖWAW 46,
11/12: 257-264.
CHOVANEC, A.; KOLLER-KREIMEL, V.; MOOG, O. & S. WEISS (2001): Assessment of the
ecological integrity of running waters - the Austrian approach.- Proceedings of an
Internat. Workshop ,,Assessment and Classification of Rivers", 5.-7.11.1995,
Düsseldorf, Germany: 171-197.
CLABBY, K.J., LUCEY, J. & M. MCGARRIGLE (1982): The National Survey of Irish Rivers. River
Quality Investigations - Biological. Results of the 1980 and 1981 Investigations. An
Foras Forbartha, Dublin.
CSÁNYI, B. in NÉMETH, J. (1998): A biológiai vízminsítés módszerei. (Methods of biological
water quality assessment.) Vízi Természet- és Környezetvédelem sorozat, 7. Bp.:
Környezetgazdálkodási Intézet: 1-304.
-25-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
CSN 75 7716 (1998): Water quality, biological analysis, determination of saprobic index.
Czech Technical State Standard, Czech Standards Institute, Prague.
CSN 75 7221 (1998): Water quality - Classification of surface water quality. Czech Technical
State Standard, Czech Standards Institute, Prague.
DIN 38 410 (2003): Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und
Schlammuntersuchung - Biologisch-ökologische Gewässeruntersuchung (Gruppe M)
- Teil 1: Bestimmung des Saprobienindex in Fließgewässern (M 1).- Normentwurf,
Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin. (draft standard)
DIN 38 410 (1990): Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und
Schlammuntersuchung; Biologisch-ökologische Gewässeruntersuchung (Gruppe M);
Bestimmung des Saprobienindex (M 2).
FLEISCHHACKER, T., KERN, K. & M. SOMMER (2002): Ecomorphological Survey of Large
Rivers Manual. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz.
FREILAND UMWELTCONSULTING (2001a): NÖMORPH. Strukturkartierung ausgewählter
Fließgewässer in Niederösterreich. Endbericht - Teil I: Methodik. (unpublished)
FREILAND UMWELTCONSULTING (2001b): NÖMORPH. Strukturkartierung ausgewählter
Fließgewässer in Niederösterreich. Endbericht - Teil II: Al gemeines und Ergebnisse.
(unpublished)
GRBOVI, J. (1999): Water quality monitoring in Slovenia. Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Limnologie (DGL) - Tagungsbericht (Klagenfurt). DGL, Tutzing.
GULYÁS, P. (1998): Szaprobiológiai indikátorfajok jegyzéke. (List of saprobiological indicator
species.) Vízi természet -és környezetvédelem, 6. Környezetgazdálkodási Intézet TOI
Környezetvédelmi és Tájékoztató Szolgálat, Budapest.
HERING, D., BUFFAGNI, A., MOOG, O., SANDIN, L., SOMMERHÄUSER, M., STUBAUER, I., FELD,
C., JOHNSON, R., PINTO, P., SKOULIKIDIS, N., VERDONSCHOT, P., ZAHRADKOVA, S.
(2003): The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams
based on macroinvertebrates design of the sampling programme within the AQEM
project. Internat. Revue Hydrobiol., 88: 345-361.
HÜRLIMANN, J. & P. NIEDERHAUSER (2002): Methoden zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der
Fliessgewässer: Kieselalgen Stufe F (flächendeckend). BUWAL, Bern.
ISO 10 260 (1992): Water quality - Measurement of biochemical parameters - Spectrometric
determination of the chlorophyll-a concentration.
JANAUER, G.A., HALE, P. & R. SWEETING (2003): Macrophyte inventory of the river Danube: A
pilot study. Large Rivers, 14 (1-2): 1-229.
KARR, J.R. & E.W. CHU (1999): Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring.
Washington DC (Island Press).
KOKES, J. et al. (2001): Prediction Models for River Ecosystems (Predikcní modely rícních
ekosystému;). Report of the grant No. 510/7/99 of the Council of the Government of
the Czech Republic for Research and Development, T.G.M. Water Research Institute,
Prague.
KOLKWITZ, R. & M. MARSSON (1909): Ökologie der tierischen Saprobien. Int. Revue ges.
Hydrobiol., 2: 126-152.
KOLKWITZ, R. & M. MARSSON (1908): Ökologie der pflanzlichen Saprobien. Ber. Dt. Botan.
Ges., 26a: 505-519.
KOLKWITZ, R. & M. MARSSON (1902): Grundsätze für die biologische Beurteilung des
Wassers nach seiner Flora und Fauna. Mitt. aus d. Kgl. Prüfungsanstalt für
Wasserversorgung u. Abwasserbeseitigung Berlin, 1: 33-72.
-26-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
KOTHÉ, P. (1962): Der `Artenfehlbetrag', ein einfaches Gütekriterium und seine Anwendung
bei biologischen Vorfluteruntersuchungen. Dtsch. Gewässerkundl. Mitt., 6: 60-65.
KNOBEN, R.A.E, BIJLMAKERS, L. & P. VAN MEENEN (1999): Classification/characterisation of
water quality, Water Quality Enhancement in the Danube River Basin, Phare Contract
No. 98-0399.00. IWACO, Brussels.
KNÖPP, H. (1955): Grundsätzliches zur Frage biologischer Vorfluteruntersuchungen, erläutert
an einem Gütelängsschnitt des Mains. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl., 22: 362-369.
LAWA (1999): Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
Übersichtsverfahren. 26. Januar 1999.
LIEBMANN, H. (1951): Handbuch der Frischwasser- und Abwasserbiologie. Biologie des
Trinkwassers, Badewassers, Fischwassers, Vorfluters und Abwassers. Band I.
Oldenbourg, München.
LIECHTI, P., SIEBER, U., VON BLÜCHER, U., WILLI, H.P., BUNDI, U., FRUTIGER, A., HÜTTE, M.,
PETER, A., GÖLDI, C., KUPPER, U., MEIER, W. & P. NIEDERHAUSER (1998): Methoden
zur Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Fliessgewässer: Modul-Stufen-Konzept.
BUWAL, Bern.
MAKOVINSKA, J. (2000): Review of the Bioindicators Study in Yugoslavia, Development of a
Preliminary Set of Danube River Basin Ecosystem Indicators, Preparation of a
Concept for Monitoring Ecological Status of Significant Impact Areas and Wetlands.-
Report, Water Research Institute Bratislava.
MARVAN, P., ROTHSCHEIN, J. & M. ZELINKA (1980): Der diagnostische Wert saprobiologischer
Methoden. Limnologica, 12(2): 299-312.
MOOG, O. (ed.) (1995, 2002) Fauna Aquatica Austriaca.- Wasserwirtschaftskataster,
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
MOOG, O. (1994): Ökologische Funktionsfähigkeit des aquatischen Lebensraumes. Wiener
Mitt., 120: 15-59.
MSZ 12 756 (1998): Felszíni vizek szaprobitásának meghatározása. (Determination of
saprobity grade of surface waters.)
ÖNORM M6232 (1997): Richtlinien für die ökologische Untersuchung und Bewertung von
Fließgewässern. (bilingual version: German and English). Österreichisches
Normungsinstitut, Wien.
OFENBÖCK, T.; MOOG, O.; GERRITSEN, J. & M.T. BARBOUR (2002): Multimetrische Methoden
zur Charakteristik des "ökologischen Zustandes" gemäß EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie (DGL) Tagungsbericht 2001 (Kiel): 157-162.
OFENBÖCK, T.; MOOG, O.; GERRITSEN, J. & M.T. BARBOUR (2003): The development of
macro-invertebrate based multimetric index for monitoring the ecological status of
running waters in Austria. Hydrobiologia (in print)
PANTLE, R. & H. BUCK (1955): Die biologische Überwachung der Gewässer und die
Darstellung der Ergebnisse. Gas- und Wasserfach, 96: 604.
PEEV, D. & S. GERASSIMOV (1999): National Biomonitoring Programme of Bulgaria. EU
Programme Phare BG9310-04-03-01. GEA-Libris, Sofia: 240 pp. (in Bulgarian).
RAVEN, P.J., FOX, P., EVERARD, M., HOLMES, N.T.H. & F.H. DAWSON (1997): River Habitat
Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In: BOON,
P.J. & D.L. HOWELL (eds): Freshwater quality: defining the indefinable? The Stationary
Office, Edinburgh: 215-234.
ROLAUFFS, P., HERING, D., SOMMERHÄUSER, M. , JÄHNIG, S. & S. RÖDIGER (2003):
Entwicklung eines leitbildorientierten Saprobienindexes für die biologische
Fließgewässerbewertung. UBA-Texte 11/2003. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
-27-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
ROTHSCHEIN, J. (1962): Grafické znázornenie výsledkov biologického hodnotenia cistoty vod.
Výsk. Ústav vodohosp. Bratislava, 9: 1-63.
ROTT, E. & G. HOFMANN (1997): Indikatorlisten für Aufwuchsalgen - Teil 1: Saprobielle
Indikation. BMLF, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien.
SCHAUMBURG, J., SCHRANZ, C., SCHMEDTJE, U., KÖPF, B., SCHNEIDER, S., MEILINGER, P.,
STELZER, D., HOFMANN, G., GUTOWSKI, A. & J. FOERSTER (in prep.): Erarbeitung eines
ökologischen Bewertungsverfahrens für Fließgewässer und Seen im Teilbereich
Makrophyten und Phytobenthos zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie.
Abschlussbericht. München.
SCHMID, R. (2000): Water quality of the Danube and her tributaries - 1995. Explanations to
the River Danube water quality map. State Office for Regional Water Management
Regensburg and IAD General Secretary Vienna, April 2000.
SCHMUTZ, S. & G. HAIDVOGL (2002): FAME Ein EU-Projekt zur Entwicklung einer
fischbezogenen Bewertungsmethode für den ökologischen Zustand von
europäischen Fließgewässern. Österreichs Fischerei, 55 (7): 173-176.
SCHMUTZ, S., KAUFMANN, M., VOGEL, B., JUNGWIRTH, M. & S. MUHAR (2000): A multi-level
concept for fish-based, river-type-specific assessment of ecological integrity.
Hydrobiologia, 422/423: 279-289.
SCHÖLL, F. & A. HAYBACH (2001): Bewertung von großen Fließgewässern mittels Potamon-
Typie-Index (PTI). Verfahrensbeschreibung und Anwendungsbeispiele. BfG-
Mitteilungen Nr. 23. Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde, Koblenz.
SEV (1973): Unificirovanie metodi isledovania kacestva vod III. Metodi biologiceskogo
analiza vod. 1. Indikatori saprobnosti. Moskva.
SLÁDECEK, V. (1981): Biologický rozbor povrchové vody: komentár k CSN 83 0532, cásti 6 :
stanovení saprobního indexu. Praha: Vydavatelství Úradu pro normalizaci a merení:
186 p.
SLÁDECEK, V. (ed.) (1977): Symposium on Saprobiology. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.
SLÁDECEK, V. (1973): System of water quality from the biological point of view. Arch.
Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebnisse der Limnologie, 7: 1-218.
STN (SLOVENSKÁ TECHNICKÁ NORMA) 83 05321 to 8 (1978/79): Biologický rozbor
povrchovej vody. (Biological analysis of surface water quality.) Úrad pro Normalizaci a
Mereni, Praha.
STUBAUER, I. & O. MOOG (2003): Integration of the Saprobic system into the assessment
approach of the WFD a proposal for the Danube River this report.
TRIPKOVIC, D. (ed.) (2003): National water monitoring strategy. Regional Environmental
Centre for Central and Eastern Europe Country Office Serbia and Montenegro,
Belgrade.
UZUNOV, J., KOSEL, V. & V. SLÁDECEK (1988): Indicator value of freshwater Oligochaeta. Acta
hydrochim. Hydrobiol., 16 (2): 173-186.
UZUNOV, J. (1979): Aquatic Oligochaeta a supplement to the list of limnosaprobic
bioindicators. Dokl. Bolg. Acad. Nauk, 32: 1101-1103.
WEGL, R. (1983): Index für die Limnosaprobität. In: BUNDESANSTALT FÜR WASSERGÜTE,
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, WASSER UND ABWASSER
(ed.): Beiträge zur Gewässerforschung. Bundesanst. f. Wassergüte d. Bundesmin. f.
Land- u. Forstwirtschaft, Wien.
WERTH, W. (1987): Ökomorphologische Gewässerbewertung in Oberösterreich
(Gewässerzustandkartierungen). Eco-morphological classification of channels in
Upper Austria. Oesterreichische Wasserwirtschaft, 39 (5/6): 121-128.
-28-
BIRK: Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the Danube River Basin
WRIGHT, J.F. (2000): AN INTRODUCTION TO RIVPACS. In: WRIGHT, J.F.; SUTCLIFFE, D.W. &
M.T. FURSE (eds.): Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. RIVPACS and
similar techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside: 1-24.
ZELINKA, M. & P. MARVAN (1961): Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der
Reinheit fließender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol., 57: 389-407.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT: -29-
ACTIVITY 1.1.7 ECOLOGICAL STATUS ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN
Integration of the Saprobic System into the Assessment Approach
of the WFD a Proposal for the Danube River
ILSE STUBAUER & OTTO MOOG
1. INTRODUCTION
One step of Activity 1.1.7 "Implement ecological status assessment in line with the
requirements of the European Water Framework Directive using specific bio-
indicators" of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project is to test potentially suited
assessment metrics.
Many Danubian countries use the Saprobic Index as a metric for organic water
quality assessment (BIRK 2003a, waterview database): Austria, Germany, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, partly Hungary, Serbia-
Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova. As a common biological element, in
many countries benthic invertebrates are used. Most of these countries use a seven
class system for the water quality assessment (BIRK 2003b).
As all of them have a long tradition and an extensive experience in the use of the
Saprobic System, countries will most likely be interested in integrating the system
into the approach of the Water Framework Directive. Thus a comparison of further
analyses and old evaluations will be assured.
The integration of the Saprobic Systems to the WFD has recently been successfully
undertaken in Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic (STUBAUER & MOOG 2002,
ROLAUFFS et al. 2003b, AQEM CONSORTIUM 2002a). This approach offers the
possibility to inter-link the long used organic pollution assessment with the
requirement of the WFD, which is to base the assessment on type specific reference
conditions. The procedure fol owed the hypothesis of BRAUKMANN (1987), who
proposed to use "saprobic basic conditions" as near-natural reference conditions of
unpolluted running waters in terms of degradable organic matter. In the recent
studies mentioned above it could clearly be demonstrated, that this approach leads
to a successful integration of the Saprobic System into the WFD policy. The
international consultants recommend the adaptation of this procedure to evaluate the
saprobic water quality aspects in the Danube countries. These findings open up the
possibility for the Danubian countries to overcome the challenges of the WFD in a
similar manner.
The fol owing report describes the approach of establishing type specific reference
conditions for the Danube River itself.
-30-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
2. METHODS
For the whole Danube River, data sets on benthic macroinvertebrates were provided
by the ICPDR. These data were elaborated during the Joint Danube Survey, which
was carried out in August and September 2001 by a biological expert team from the
Danubian countries. The data base contains sheets with information on the sampling
site and sampling conditions (location of the sample, JDS Station, River km,
monitoring point code, location in profile, and village/location). The biological data
sheets consist of taxonomic lists and abundances; taxa are determined to species
level were possible respectively to higher taxonomic units (genus, family). At most
sampling points, samples were taken on the left respectively right side and in the
middle of the river (location of the sample), where possible. Due to this structure, in
many cases more than one taxa list exists per sample reach.
For the purpose of calculating metrics like the saprobic index, the JDS data were
imported into the PC software ECOPROF 2.5 (MOOG et al. 2001). The import of the
data included biological data (taxa lists and abundances) as wel as all information
available on site characteristics.
We want to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Heide Bernerth for providing
unpublished environmental data of the Joint Danube Survey.
Saprobic indices were calculated for all sampling sites. Currently, no obligatory
common catalogue with ecological notes exists for the Danube River or in the
Danube River Basin. Recently, an attempt was made to compile a list of bioindicators
for the Danube (MAKOVINSKA 2000). In this report, a preliminary list of benthic
invertebrates of the Danube River Basin with saprobic values is available.
Most countries using the saprobic system have nevertheless specific lists, which
serve as a basis for calculating the saprobic indices. The information which saprobic
indicator lists are used in the Danubian countries is available from the waterview
database (http://starwp3.eu-star.at).
For the analyses of the JDS data, four different catalogues have been taken into
account for the calculation:
· the catalogue compiled by MAKOVINSKA (2000)
· the Fauna Aquatica Austriaca (MOOG 1995, 2002)
· the Czech Standards CSN 757716 (1998)
· the German DIN 38410-1 (2003)
Three of the saprobic lists are integrated into the AQEM-assessment software
(AQEM CONSORTIUM 2002b) and are thus easily available. The list provided by
MAKOVINSKA (2000) is only accessible as paper version.
-31-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Saprobic indices based on the Fauna Aquatica Austriaca have been calculated in
ECOPROF. For calculations based on the Makovinska-catalogue, a database has
been created and linked with ECOPROF. For the calculation of saprobic indices
based on German and Czech Standards, data have been exported to Excel and
imported into the AQEM assessment software.
As a next step, sites have been pre-classified mainly based on morphological criteria
with the help of DI Birgit Vogel, who participated in the JDS and is familiar with
characteristics of the sampling sites. One hundred sites out of 148 met the criteria of
reference/good sites, concerning the morphological point of view. With respect to
water quality none of the investigated Danube sections meets the criteria to be
regarded as reference site. The 100 sites that were pre-classified as morphologically
reference/good sites were then checked according to the number of taxa present and
the number of taxa that can be used to calculate a saprobic index. Those sites with
less than 10 classified taxa (= taxa with a saprobic index) were removed from the
evaluation. Finally, 83 sites could be used for the analyses.
For statistical evaluation and graphical visualisation the software package
STATISTICA 5.5 (STATSOFT. INC. 2000) has been used.
As a spatial river typology, two different approaches were applied:
· The proposal of the JDS to separate the Danube River into three major
reaches (upper, middle and lower part) (LITERÁTHY et al. 2002), and
· the ten section types for the Danube River proposed by the international
consultants (SOMMERHÄUSER et al. 2003).
3. RESULTS
Saprobic indices of reference sites and good sites in the three major reaches
of the Danube River
The evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the upper, middle and lower sections of the Danube by means of box-
and-whisker plots is shown in Figure 1 to Figure 4. The number of sampling sites
used for the calculation is given in Table1.
-32-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: Makovinska-report
2.6
nska) 2.5
2.4
Makovi 2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
ka & Marvan, 1.8
i
n 1.7
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
1.6
75%
1.5
25%
ndex (Zel 1.4
Median
c i 1.3
Outliers
1.2
Extremes
1
2
3
saprobi
JDS sections
Figure 1: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the upper (1), middle (2) and lower section (3); saprobic rankings taken from
MAKOVINSKA (2000)
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: FAA
2.3
FAA)
2.2
2.1
ka & Marvan, 2.0
i
n
1.9
Non-Outlier Max
1.8
Non-Outlier Min
ndex (Zel
c i
75%
1.7
25%
Median
1.6
Outliers
saprobi
1
2
3
JDS sections
Figure 2: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the upper (1), middle (2) and lower section (3); saprobic rankings taken from
Fauna Aquatica Austriaca (1995, 2002)
-33-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: CZ
)
Z 2.3
2.2
a
r
van, C
M 2.1
2.0
elinka &
Z 1.9
Non-Outlier Max
1.8
Non-Outlier Min
75%
1.7
25%
obic index (
Median
sapr 1.6
Outliers
1
2
3
JDS sections
Figure 3: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the upper (1), middle (2) and lower section (3); saprobic rankings taken from
Czech Standards (1998)
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: DIN
2.5
N)
DI 2.4
2.3
ka & Marvan,
i
n 2.2
2.1
ndex (Zel
Non-Outlier Max
c i 2.0
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
1.9
saprobi
Median
1
2
3
JDS sections
Figure 4: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the upper (1), middle (2) and lower section (3); saprobic rankings taken from
DIN (2003)
-34-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
The fol owing table summarises the results for the calculations with the above
mentioned three different saprobic ranking lists used for this purpose.
Table 1: Median (M) and 75 % percentile (P) of the saprobic indices of the upper, middle and lower
section of the Danube River
saprobic ranking
upper section
middle section
lower section
n= 8
n= 46
n= 29
M P M P M P
Makovinska
2.13 2.15 2.13 2.20 2.16 2.20
n= 8
n= 47
n= 28
FAA
2.13 2.13 2.11 2.15 2.10 2.16
CZ
2.13 2.13 2.09 2.16 2.08 2.15
DIN
2.12 2.15 2.22 2.34 2.16 2.25
Saprobic indices of reference sites and good sites in the ten section types of
the Danube River
The evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the ten section types of the Danube River by means of box- and-
whisker plots is shown in Figure 5 to Figure 8. The number of sampling sites
available in the different section types is given in Table 2. For section type one (from
the sources of Brigach and Breg to Neu Ulm), section type three (Passau to Krems)
and section type seven (Bazias to Turnu Severin), no JDS data sets from high or
good morphological sites are available.
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: Makovinska-report
2.6
nska) 2.5
2.4
Makovi 2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
ka & Marvan, 1.8
i
n 1.7
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
1.6
75%
1.5
25%
ndex (Zel 1.4
Median
c i 1.3
Outliers
1.2
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
saprobi
section types
Figure 5: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the 10 section types; saprobic rankings taken from MAKOVINSKA (2000)
-35-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: FAA
2.3
FAA)
2.2
2.1
ka & Marvan, 2.0
i
n
1.9
Non-Outlier Max
1.8
Non-Outlier Min
ndex (Zel
c i
75%
1.7
25%
Median
1.6
Outliers
saprobi
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section types
Figure 6: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the 10 section types; saprobic rankings taken from FAA (1995, 2002)
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: CZ
2.3
CZ)
2.2
2.1
ka & Marvan, 2.0
i
n
1.9
Non-Outlier Max
ndex (Zel 1.8
Non-Outlier Min
c i
75%
1.7
25%
Median
saprobi 1.6
Outliers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section types
Figure 7: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the 10 section types; saprobic rankings taken from CZ Standards (1998)
-36-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Saprobic Indices in the Danube River
JDS data, high/good morphological sites
saprobic ranking: DIN
2.5
N)
DI 2.4
2.3
ka & Marvan,
i
n 2.2
2.1
ndex (Zel
Non-Outlier Max
c i 2.0
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
1.9
saprobi
Median
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section types
Figure 8: Evaluation of saprobic indices from JDS-sites with high or good morphological
conditions in the 10 section types; saprobic rankings taken from DIN (2003)
Table 2: Median (M) and 75 % percentile (P) of the saprobic indices in the section types of the Danube
River
Section
2 4 5 6 8 9 10
types
n= 2
n= 8
n= 15
n= 29
n= 21
n= 4
n= 4
saprobic
M P M P M P M P M P M P M P
ranking
Makov. 2.12 2.13 2.15 2.17 2.17 2.21 2.11 2.17 2.16 2.20 2.20 2.26 2.13 2.16
n= 2
n= 8
n= 16
n= 29
n= 21
n= 3
n= 4
M P M P M P M P M P M P M P
FAA
2.12 2.13 2.13 2.17 2.13 2.16 2.10 2.11 2.08 2.14 2.12 2.17 2.12 2.15
CZ
2.12 2.13 2.11 2.13 2.11 2.18 2.09 2.11 2.06 2.13 2.15 2.18 2.12 2.16
DIN
2.07 2.09 2.12 2.15 2.13 2.22 2.30 2.36 2.16 2.26 2.16 2.25 2.17 2.24
For the definition of saprobic reference conditions, the medians and 75 % percentiles
are taken into account as a threshold value. This procedure fol ows the U.S. method
described e.g. by BARBOUR et al. (1999), which has successfully been applied to
Austrian rivers. The reference values represent the border between high and good
quality and are expressed as the upper limit for high quality.
-37-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
4. DISCUSSION
The definition of saprobic reference conditions has recently been carried out for
Austria (STUBAUER & MOOG 2000, 2002). In this study, saprobic indices of near-
natural sites showed an increasing trend with increasing catchment area. On the
other hand, saprobic indices decreased with increasing altitude. Similar results were
obtained in the German study by ROLAUFFS et al. (2003b).
As the spatial typology used for the evaluation of saprobic indices of the Danube
includes catchment and altitude size, a similar trend was to be expected. This
assumption could not be verified, neither for the detailed analysis of the ten section
types, nor for the aggregated evaluation of the three main reaches.
Concerning the upper, middle and lower section of the Danube, medians of the
saprobic indices of high and good morphological sites range around 2.1 for all four
different saprobic lists used. The German DIN indicates slightly higher values of the
medians and 75%-percentiles in the middle and lower section (Table 1). The
calculation with the Makovinska-catalogue also shows somewhat higher results in the
lower section.
The same pattern is detected by applying the ten section types as typological scale.
The medians range between 2.06 and 2.15 using the FAA or the CZ Standards.
Again the values obtained with the DIN rankings are slightly different, ranging
between 2.07 and 2.31 whereby the highest median is not given in the lowest part of
the Danube (Table 2). For the Makovinska list, indices range between 2.12 and 2.20,
whereby no trend of increasing saprobic indices in the downstream sections can be
detected.
One reason for the instability of the saprobic indices could be, that the number of
evaluated sampling sites is quite different in the sections. The very upper and lower
sections (section type two resp. ten) are only represented with two resp. four sites,
whereas section type six and eight include more than 20 sites each.
Another possible explanation is the lack of saprobic rankings for benthic
invertebrates species in the middle and mainly the lower sections. Although, on an
average about 70 percent of the species detected in the JDS samples are ranked in
the FAA, the remaining 30 percent might include typical Danubian species which
could change the saprobic indices.
5. CONCLUSION
The investigated Danube sites cover the entire Danube stream from Regensburg to
the Danube Delta. Out of a total of 148 investigated cross sections 100 section are of
high or good environmental status with respect to morphological conditions. With
respect to water quality none of the investigated Danube sections meets the criteria
-38-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
to be regarded as reference site. These findings base on a pre-classification
procedure that has been conducted by DI Birgit Vogel from the Environmental
Agency Austria and the BOKU team around the international consultant Otto Moog. It
needs to be explicitly stated that the pre-classification status of the JDS Danube sites
may change after applying more sophisticated criteria for estimating pressures and
impacts on the Danube River (see activity 1.1.2, MOOG & STUBAUER 2003). Excluding
sampling sites of known organic pollution (e.g. downstream Budapest and Belgrade)
indicates that no significant differences of saprobic indices in high and good
morphological sites of the Danube could be identified. The fact that no gradient from
the upper to the lower parts of the Danube can be detected may give evidence that
the middle and lower stretches of the Danube are characterised by common saprobic
reference conditions.
Summarising the existing knowledge and the results of the JDS data the fol owing
saprobic reference conditions can be recommended for the Danube River. According
to ROLAUFFS et al. (2003b) the saprobic reference conditions of the Bavarian Danube
are characterised by saprobic indices between 1.91 and 2.01.
The saprobic reference conditions of the Austrian Danube within Ecoregion 9
(Central Highlands) are described with saprobic indices below the threshold value of
1.75 (STUBAUER & MOOG 2000). The reduction of the saprobic index is induced by the
confluence of River Inn which changes the character of the Danube dramatically. The
water volume of River Inn exaggerates the discharge of the Bavarian Danube, the
water temperature is respectively colder. The reduction of the water temperature in
the Danube after the confluence combined with the morphological features of the
Austrian stretch leads to the rhithralisation and thus to a lower threshold value. After
the narrow break through section "Wachau" which is a very famous world heritage
due to its beautiful scenery the Ecoregion changes from 9 to 11 (Hungarian
Lowlands). In accordance with the Ecoregion change the saprobic reference
conditions move to a saprobic index of <2.0. Due to the lack of reference sites this
threshold value was defined by an expert panel of scientists, technicians and
administration. The SI of 2.0 as the highest threshold reference value seems to be a
good estimate not only for the Austrian part of Danube in Ecoregion 11, but also for
the Danube sections downstream. Quite similar saprobic indices around 2.1 have
been observed along the entire stretch of the Danube below the borderline of
Ecoregion 9 and 11. Based on these findings, a saprobic index of 2.0 is
recommended as class boundary of the saprobic reference condition.
6. OUTLOOK
The international consultants recommend the adaptation of the saprobic system to
evaluate the saprobic water quality aspects in the Danube countries in the above
-39-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
described manner. This will offer the possibility for the Danube countries to integrate
the traditional system into the type specific reference approach of the WFD.
For future procedures in the Danube River Basin the fol owing steps are
recommended:
· Harmonisation of sampling techniques
· Harmonisation of saprobic lists for the Danube biota, at least benthic
invertebrates
· Harmonisation of saprobic lists for the Danube tributaries
· Harmonisation of methodology to define saprobic reference conditions in the
Danubian countries
· Establishment resp. harmonisation of an assessment scheme to define five
ecological status classes based on saprobic reference conditions.
7. REFERENCES
AQEM CONSORTIUM (2002a): Manual for the application of the AQEM system - a
comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic
macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive.
Report, financed by European Union, 5th Framework Programme.
AQEM CONSORTIUM (2002b): AQEM assessment software Version 2.1. AQEM European
stream assessment software.. Software; Prototype; Financed by European Union.
BARBOUR, M.T., GERRITSEN, J., SNYDER, B.D. & J.B. STRIBBLING (1999): Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C
BIRK, S. (2003a): Review of European assessment methods for rivers and streams using
benthic invertebrates, aquatic flora, fish and hydromorphology.- Diploma thesis,
University of Duisburg-Essen, 103 pp.
BIRK, S. (2003b): Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the
Danube River Basin.- this report.
BRAUKMANN, U. (1987): Zoozönologische und saprobiologische Beiträge zu einer
allgemeinen regionalen Bachtypologie.- Arch. Hydrobiol. Heft 26: 355 pp.
CSN 75 77 16 (1998): Water quality, biological analysis, determination of the Saprobic
Index.- Czech Technical State Standard, Prague.
DIN 38410-1 (2003): Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und
Schlammuntersuchung - Biologisch-ökologische Gewässeruntersuchung (Gruppe M)
- Teil 1: Bestimmung des Saprobienindex in Fließgewässern (M 1).- Normentwurf,
Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin.
LITERÁTHY, P., KOLLER-KREIMEL, V. & I. LISKA (eds.) (2002): Joint Danube Survey.- Technical
Report of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, 261
pp.
MAKOVINSKA, J. (2000): Review of the Bioindicators Study in Yugoslavia, Development of a
Preliminary Set of Danube River Basin Ecosystem Indicators, Preparation of a
-40-
STUBAUER & MOOG: Integration of the Saprobic System into the assessment approach of the WFD
Concept for Monitoring Ecological Status of Significant Impact Areas and Wetlands.-
Report, Water Research Institute Bratislava.
MOOG, O. (ed.) (1995, 2002) Fauna Aquatica Austriaca.- Wasserwirtschaftskataster,
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
MOOG, O., SCHMIDT-KLOIBER, A., VOGL, R. & V. KOLLER-KREIMEL (2001): ECOPROF-
Software.- Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien.
MOOG, O. & I. STUBAUER (2003): Common Approaches and Methodologies for Stress and
Impact Analysis with particular Attention to Hydromorphological Conditions
Methodological Approach. In: SOMMERHÄUSER, M., ROBERT, S., BIRK, S., MOOG, O.,
STUBAUER, I. & T. OFENBÖCK: End report of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Activity 1.1.6. Essen and Vienna, December 2003: 6-47.
ROLAUFFS, P., STUBAUER, I., ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, S., BRABEC, K. & O. MOOG (2003a): Integration of
the Saprobic System into the European Union Water Framework Directive. Case
studies in Austria, Germany and Czech Republic.- Hydrobiologia, in print.
ROLAUFFS, P., HERING, D., SOMMERHÄUSER, M. , JÄHNIG, S. & S. RÖDIGER (2003b):
Entwicklung eines leitbildorientierten Saprobienindexes für die biologische
Fließgewässerbewertung. UBA-Texte 11/2003. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
SOMMERHÄUSER M., ROBERT, S., BIRK, S., HERING, D., MOOG, O., STUBAUER, I. & T.
OFENBÖCK (2003): Proposal for a stream-section typology and reference conditions of
the Danube River.- UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, unpublished report, 38 pp.
STATSOFT. INC. (2000): STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa.
STUBAUER I. & O. MOOG (2002): Verfahren zur Anpassung des Saprobiensystems an die
Vorgaben der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Limnologie,
DGL (Ed.): Tagungsbericht 2001 (Kiel), 163-168.
STUBAUER I. & O. MOOG (2000): Saprobielle Grundzustände österreichischer Fließgewässer.-
Kapitel 7. In: MOOG, O. (ed.): Erstellung typspezifischer benthoszönotischer Leitbilder
österreichischer Fließgewässer.- BM:LFUW, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien.
waterview database (2003): http://starwp3.eu-star.at
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT: -41-
ACTIVITY 1.1.7 ECOLOGICAL STATUS ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN
The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach for Assessing the
Ecological Status of the Danube River
THOMAS OFENBÖCK & OTTO MOOG
The activity 1.1.7 (Implement ecological status assessment in line with requirements
of the EU Water Framework Directive using specific bio-indicators) comprises four
working units:
1. Consultation of national experts (consultants) for existing hydrological and
biological assessment methods presently applied to the Danube or under
development;
2. Conducting an overview study on existing ecological status assessment and
classification systems, from which recommendations for changes in the
classification systems in the Danube River Basin will be derived in order to
harmonize them with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive;
3. Test of potential y suited assessment metrics, based on the benthic invertebrate
data of the Joint Danube Survey;
4. Development of a Danube specific metric index, based on the benthic
invertebrate data of the Joint Danube Survey data (e.g. regarding sensitive
species).
The outcomes of parts 1 and 2 have been summarized in the overview study on
existing ecological status assessment methods (BIRK 2003). The results of parts 3
and 4 are delivered in the present part of the final report "The Applicability of the
Multimetric Approach for Assessing the Ecological Status of the Danube River".
1. INTRODUCTION
Metrics are defined as "Measurable parts or processes of a biological system
empirically shown to change in value along a gradient of human influence" (KARR &
CHU 1999). Useful metrics are
· ecologically relevant to the biological assemblage or community under study
and to the specified program objectives and
· sensitive to stressors and provide a response that can be discriminated from
natural variation.
Successful biological monitoring depends on precise measures of a site's fauna or
flora, especial y those components that are influenced most by perturbation. Thus,
the spatial and temporal scale of sampling should detect and foster understanding of
human influences, not document the magnitude and sources of natural seasonal or
successional variation in the same system (KARR & CHU 1999).
A multimetric index combines several individual biotic metrics which are finally
combined into a multimetric result. Thus, multimetric indices integrate multiple
-42-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
attributes of stream communities to describe and evaluate a site's condition.
Aggregation of metric scores simplifies management and decision making so that a
single index value is used to determine whether action is needed (KARR et al. 1986).
A requirement for developing the system is that river stressors must be estimated
objectively without using biotic information to avoid circular statements. The
calculation starts from a the database which contains:
· taxa lists of the macroinvertebrate fauna
· data on river morphology, physico-chemistry and catchment characteristics
of the individual sites.
2. PRE- CLASSIFICATION OF SITES ACCORDING TO THEIR DEGRADATION (BASED
ON THE AQEM SITE PROTOCOL DATA)
At least reference sites and impaired sites have to be distinguished for developing a
classification system. Sites should be pre-classified into five quality classes based on
abiotic features, but an exact differentiation between all graduations of stream quality
classes cannot be done on forehand. The five pre-classified quality classes should
correspond with the five ecological status classes according to the Water Framework
Directive.
Calculation of metrics
Starting from the biological data (taxa lists, abundance) a large number of biological
metrics are calculated to identify those metrics that are strongly associated with the
parameters selected for the pre-classifications of sites.
Metrics are calculated using ECOPROF (MOOG et al. 2001) and AQEM assessment
software (AQEM CONSORTIUM 2002). For the evaluation of metrics box-and-whisker-
plots are used to visualize metrics values. For statistical analysis and graphical
visualisation the software package STATISTICA 5.5 (STATSOFT. INC. 2000) is used.
Identification of candidate metrics
All metrics that represent ecologically relevant aspects of the assemblage and
respond to the targeted stressors are potential metrics for a final index. Out of the
"universe" of metrics, some have to be eliminated because of insufficient data or
because the range of values is not adequate to discriminate between natural
variability and anthropogenic effects.
Descriptive statistics are used to characterize metric performance within the
population of reference sites of each site class. Metrics with too high variability in
reference sites that do not discriminate sufficiently among sites of different condition
are eliminated. The remaining metrics, which were used in further analysis, are
termed as candidate metrics.
-43-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
Selection of robust measures (Core Metrics)
Core metrics are those that discriminate best between good and poor quality of
ecological conditions. Metrics that are highly correlated with each other and show
linear gradients contribute approximately the same information (KARR et. al 1986,
KARR 1991, BARBOUR et al. 1996). To avoid redundancy the pre-selected metrics are
tested using pairwise correlation analysis (Pearson product-moment correlation). A
correlation coefficient r = 0.75 is used as the upper limit.
Transformation of metrics into unitless scores and index calculation
Multimetric indices provide a means of integrating information from the various
measures of biological metrics. For the development of an integrated index,
normalizing of core metrics via transformation to unitless scores is essential. The
standardization assumes that each metric has the same value and importance. The
method applied in this study fol ows the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols of the United
States - Environmental Protection Agency (BARBOUR et al. 1999): The scoring criterion
for each metric is based on the distribution of values in all sites, including reference
sites. The 95th percentile of the data distribution of a single metric is used to eliminate
extreme outliers. From this upper percentile, the range of the metric values is
standardized as the percentage of the 95th percentile value to provide a range of
scores. Values that are close to the 95th percentile receive higher scores, values
having a greater deviation from this percentile have lower scores. Values that exceed
the 95th percentile are scored as 1. For those metrics values that increase in
response to perturbation (,,reverse" metrics) the 5th percentile is used to remove
outliers and to form a basis for scoring. The resulting index values are calculated by
simply averaging the score values (figure 1).
Metric
!
Score
!
Index
transformation of metrics into scores
(range of values between 0 and 1,
standardised as the percentage of the
transformation of scores into index
(averaging the scores)
95th percentile to eliminate extreme
outliers)
Figure 1: Scheme of transforming metrics to scores and creating a final index
Determination of the best aggregation of core measures for indicating status and
change in condition
For aggregating metrics into multimetric indices special emphasis should be given to
cover as many different metrics types as possible and finally to select those
combinations of metrics which show the best discriminatory power to distinguish
between non or slightly impaired and stressed sites. Furthermore, metrics should be
selected to include - if possible - at least all four primary metrics types (KARR & CHU
1999). To evaluate the strength of the final index the discrimination efficiency (DE)
-44-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
values and the statistical power between classes are calculated using a one tailed t-
test design with a significance level of alpha = 0.05
The DE is calculated as the percentage of stressed samples with metric values lower
than the 25th percentile of reference values for decreasing metrics, and higher than
the 75th percentile for increasing metrics, respectively (figure 2).
10
9
8
e
7
e
u
6
5
t
r
i
cs Val
e
% st
s ress
s e
s d
e site
s s
Non-Outlier Max
% stressed site
M
4
Non-Outlier Max
M
4
Non-
N
Ou
O tli
tl er Mi
Mn
3
75%
3
25%
2
Medi
M
an
2
edi
1
referenc
n e
c
st
s ress
s e
s d
Qual
u i
al t
i y
t C
y lass
l
Figure 2: The discrimination efficiency is defined as percentage of stressed samples showing values
lower than the 25th percentile of reference values for decreasing metrics, and higher than the
75th percentile for increasing metrics, respectively.
Definition of threshold values for ecological quality classes
The derivation of the threshold values to discriminate between different stages of
stress is based on the index ranges. Different methods have been developed for
defining boundaries between quality classes (see BARBOUR et al. 1999). Following
the demands of the WFD, a five-class scheme is used where the 25th percentile of
reference site distribution is fixed as the lower limit to separate reference sites from
stressed sites. The appropriateness of the thresholds is verified with the index
performance (DE) and precision estimates (statistical power analysis).
Application of the indices: evaluating new sites
Core metrics for the targeted index are calculated and converted into unitless scores.
The resulting scores are averaged and used for rating and interpreting a site's
condition. The component metrics can be used to aid in determination of cause and
effect.
3. TESTING OF METRICS FOR DEVELOPING OF A "DANUBE SPECIFIC
MULTIMETRIC INDEX"
The ICPDR provided data sets on benthic macroinvertebrates for the entire course of
the Danube River. These data were elaborated during the Joint Danube Survey
-45-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
(JDS), which was carried out in August and September 2001 by a biological expert
team from the Danubian countries (LITERÁTHY et al. 2002).
The database contains information on the sampling site and sampling conditions
(location of the sample, JDS Station, River-Kilometre, monitoring point code, location
in profile, and village/location). The biological data sheets consist of taxonomic lists
and abundances; taxa are determined to species level where possible resp. to higher
taxonomic units (genus, family). At most sampling points, samples were taken on the
left and/or right side and in some cases in the middle of the river (location of the
sample). Due to this structure, in many cases more than one taxa/abundance list
exists per sample reach.
As described in the methodology part for the development of a multimetric index, the
calculation of as many candidate metrics as possible is a necessary must. For this
purpose the JDS data were imported into the PC software ECOPROF 2.5 (MOOG et
al. 2001).
ECOPROF is a software tool to store, handle and analyse field and ecological data
with special emphasis on benthic algae, microfauna and macroinvertebrates. The
calculation procedures focus on a large variety of biotic indices, scores and metrics.
The ecological information are regularly enlarged and updated. It also includes a
separate Danube taxa list comprising many benthic taxa known from the river
Danube including autecological information as far as available.
According to autecological information available, taxa are ranked along gradients of
environmental conditions based on the Fauna Aquatica Austria (FAA). The FAA is a
comprehensive inventory that comprises a checklist of Austrian aquatic invertebrates
and ciliates and also provides some ecological information like functional feeding
groups, saprobic valences, and longitudinal zonation patterns (MOOG 1995, 2002).
More information on the Fauna Aquatica Austria can be obtained via
http://www.lebensministerium.at/wasser link to ,,Wassergüte". This web page of the
Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment & Watermanagement provides a free
download of the whole Fauna Aquatica Austria catalogue (in German and English).
More details on the assessment software are provided at http://www.ecoprof.at.
ECOPROF is based on MS-Access and is capable to calculate a wide range of
metrics and is available free of any costs.
The import of the JDS data into ECOPROF included biological data (taxa lists and
abundances) as wel as all information available on site characteristics. The project
structure for the JDS data was established on the basis of the sampling structure
given, and data were imported according to this pattern. In context with the data
import, the fauna catalogue which is the basis for ECOPROF needs to be extended
by species that are not present in Austria. For some of the species, autecological
information had to be obtained by literature research. Additionally, all data were
checked for correct spelling of the taxonomic names, to be able to import them
-46-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
accurately. Species/genus codes provided in the JDS database were linked with the
ECOPROF codes and amendments resp. corrections were necessary.
Basic information on taxa is also available from the AQEM taxa list (available on
http://www.aqem.de), a result of the AQEM-project (a research project under the 5th
Framework Programme of the European Union, Contract No. EVK1-CT-1999-00027).
The autecological information is mainly based on ECOPROF and was extended for
species not present in Austria if ecological notes were available in other catalogues.
Besides containing autecological information on all of the AQEM taxa, the taxa list is
the basis for the AQEM European Stream Assessment Program and the AQEM data
input program. It provides an overview of species occurring in several European
countries (countries represented in AQEM). It offers taxonomic information on each
species with regard to order, family, subfamily, genus, author and date of description.
The taxa list is one of the main products of AQEM and is, therefore, provided for
general public use. The compilation process included the fol owing steps: The eight
AQEM partner countries (S, D, NL, CZ, A, I, GR, P) compiled draft lists of aquatic
invertebrates occurring in their countries. Additional lists were created for Slovakia
and - for some taxonomic groups only - for Norway, Finland and Denmark. This was
done using published checklists (checklist tables); a list of those people who have
compiled these literature-based ,,national lists". For questions concerning the national
checklists please contact them. All taxa which were first recorded during the AQEM
project were added to the "national lists". The resulting lists were checked by
taxonomic experts (expert list) to correct nomenclature and taxonomy.
The precision of the list differs for individual countries. For central Europe countries
(NL, A, D, CZ) the lists should be nearly complete while for other countries
considerable gaps may remain.
Further updates on the list will be provided by the STAR consortium (Standardisation
of River Classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey
results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water
Framework Directive, Contract No: EVK1-CT 2001-00089) and will be published at
http://www.eu-star.at.
The database will be developed in MS ACCESS with particular attention being paid
to the development of user-friendly front-end access, a simple menu of pre-
programmed queries and clear, relevant data output forms. These will include simple
verification forms for data-input validation.
The database will be designed to hold the results of all the sampling programs
comprising the current proposal. It will contain a spatially-referenced relational set of
data including information about the location, biological data comprising species
names, abundances and functional roles and traits, relevant index values for each
taxon (e.g. Saprobien values, Biological Monitoring Working Party scores, Mean
Trophic Rank and Trophic Diatom Index values etc.), environmental information for
-47-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
site characterisation and prediction purposes, River Habitat Survey information, the
parameter from the AQEM site protocol (http://www.aqem.de), information on the
laboratories and personnel responsible for significant stages in the data acquisition
processes and meta-data fields, including audit information.
The principal formats in which aquatic biological and environmental data are stored in
other European and national monitoring databases, assessment systems,
biodiversity databases, research programs and museums will be determined by
direct enquiry and reference to the literature and the World Wide Web. This will
include the principal taxonomic coding systems used to record data and the currently
accepted literature.
The current project database will incorporate specific ,,macros" for the direct
exchange of data between the major databases including the transfer of data from
the most widely used electronic spreadsheets, relational databases. The use of
common data fields will maintain the referential integrity of the data transfer process.
The project database will also include facilities for the translation of each of the major
European systems of taxonomic coding (Maitland/Furse Code, German DV no.,
ECOPROF, AQEM, TCM Code) to each of the other systems and will provide
equivalent facilities for resolving taxonomic synonymies.
Concerning the JDS data, the second step after the import was an overall calculation
of candidate metrics, as mentioned above. The fol owing metrics were calculated
either with ECOPROF or exported into Excel and imported into the AQEM
assessment software, which calculated some additional metrics established lately in
context with the AQEM project. References on the metrics are listed in the AQEM
manual (AQEM CONSORTIUM 2002). A list of the calculated candidate metrics is given
in table 1.
-48-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
Table 1: List of candidate metrics calculated
Metric
Metric
Abundance [ind/m²]
Taxonomic group [%]
Number of Taxa
Porifera [%]
Saprobic Index (Zelinka & Marvan)
Coelenterata [%]
Saprobic Valence
Cestoda [%]
Xeno [%]
Trematoda [%]
Oligo [%]
Turbellaria [%]
Beta-meso [%]
Nematoda [%]
Alpha-meso [%]
Nematomorpha [%]
Poly [%]
Gastropoda [%]
German Saprobic Index (old version)
Bivalvia [%]
Dispersion
Polychatea [%]
Abundance
Oligochaeta [%]
Indicator Taxa
Hirudinea [%]
German Saprobic Index (new version)
Crustacea [%]
Dispersion
Araneae [%]
Abundance
Ephemeroptera [%]
Indicator Taxa
Odonata [%]
Dutch Saprobic Index
Plecoptera [%]
Czech Saprobic Index
Heteroptera [%]
Biological Monitoring Working Party
Planipennia [%]
Average Score per Taxon
Megaloptera [%]
Danish Stream Fauna Index Diversity Groups
Trichoptera [%]
Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI)
Lepidoptera [%]
Belgian Biotic Index (BBI)
Coleoptera [%]
Indice Biotico Esteso (IBE)
Diptera [%]
IBE Aqem
Bryozoa [%]
Mayfly Average Score (MAS)
EPT-Taxa [%]
Integr. class
EPT/OL [%]
Operational Units
EP [%]
Mayfly Total Score (MTS)
Ep ind./Total ind. [%]
MAS (Large Rivers)
Taxonomic group (number of taxa)
Integr. class
Porifera
Operational Units
Coelenterata
Diversity (Simpson-Index)
Cestoda
Diversity (Shannon-Wiener-Index)
Trematoda
Diversity (Margalef Index)
Turbellaria
Evenness
Nematoda
Acid Class (Braukmann)
Nematomorpha
Acid Index (Hendrikson & Medin
Gastropoda
Number of sensitive taxa (Austria)
Bivalvia
Zonation
Polychatea
[%] crenal
Oligochaeta
[%] hypocrenal
Hirudinea
[%] epirhithral
Crustacea
[%] metarhithral
Araneae
[%] hyporhithral
Ephemeroptera
[%] epipotamal
Odonata
[%] metapotamal
Plecoptera
[%] hypopotamal
Heteroptera
[%] littoral
Planipennia
[%] profundal
Megaloptera
[%] littoral + profundal
Trichoptera
-49-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
Metric
Metric
Zonation Index
Lepidoptera
Current preference (acc. Schmedtje)
Coleoptera
[%] Type LB
Diptera
[%] Type LP
Bryozoa
[%] Type LR
EPT-Taxa
[%] Type RL
EPT/OL
[%] Type RP
Oligochaeta and Diptera -Taxa [%]
[%] Type RB
Oligochaeta and Diptera -Taxa /Total-Taxa
[%] Type IN
EP-Taxa
Microhabitat preference
EPTCOB (Eph., Ple., Tri., Col., Odo., Bivalv.)
[%] Type Pelal
Taxonomic group (abundance)
[%] Type Argyllal
Porifera
[%] Type Psammal
Coelenterata
[%] Type Akal
Cestoda
[%] Type Lithal
Trematoda
[%] Type Phytal
Turbellaria
[%] Type POM
Nematoda
[%] Type Other
Nematomorpha
[%] Type Akal + Lithal + Psammal
Gastropoda
Feeding types
Bivalvia
[%] Grazers and scrapers
Polychatea
[%] Miners
Oligochaeta
[%] Xylophagous Taxa
Hirudinea
[%] Shredders
Crustacea
[%] Gatherers/Collectors
Araneae
[%] Active filter feeders
Ephemeroptera
[%] Passive filter feeders
Odonata
[%] Predators
Plecoptera
[%] Parasites
Heteroptera
[%] Other Feeding types
Planipennia
([%] Grazers + Scrapers)/(
Megaloptera
[%]GatherersCollectors + [%] FilterFeeders)
[%] Xyloph. + Shred. + ActFiltFee. + PasFiltFee Trichoptera
RETI (Rhithron Ernährungstypen Index)
Lepidoptera
Locomotion type
Coleoptera
[%] swimming/skating
Diptera
[%] swimming/diving
Bryozoa
[%] burrowing/boring
Number of Families
[%] sprawling/walking
Number of Genera
[%] (semi)sessil
[%] others (e.g. climbing)
4. EXAMPLES OF METRICS THAT SHOW THE BEST DISCRIMINATORY POWER TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NON OR SLIGHTLY IMPAIRED AND STRESSED SITES
Based on the calculation of the candidate metrics listed above, core metrics as
described in the methods part have to be selected. This selection should be based
on real data, e.g. from the Joint Danube Survey. For this purpose a detailed pre-
classification of the ecological status of all JDS sites needs to be done. The
methodology of pre-classifying the JDS sites can use the criteria for pressures and
impacts analyses (activity 1.1.2) as a valuable tool.
-50-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
To study the reaction of selected metrics under stress a preliminary pre-classification
of the JDS sites was performed by Birgit Vogel and Thomas Ofenböck. The biological
data (saprobic indices only) and environmental data of the JDS report together with
photographs of all sites served as the main data sources for pre-classification. The
preliminary pre-classification is based on the saprobic indices and selected hydro-
morphological features. For the morphological classification the general scheme for
hydromorphological status assessment (WERTH 1987, SPIEGLER et al. 1989, MUHAR
et al. 1996, 1998), the final report of the AQEM project and the six criteria for
estimating the significance of a pressure's impact (activity 1.1.2, MOOG & STUBAUER
2003) were used.
The fol owing two figures give evidence that a couple of metrics show a sufficiently
good discrimination efficiency and can be successfully applied in developing a
multimetric based assessment system for Danube River. Using box-and-whisker
plots those sites that were pre-classified as reference sites or sites of good status are
plotted against clearly disturbed sites.
In figure 3 only metrics from sites along the upper Danube (section types 2-4; see
ROBERT et al. 2003) with a focus on the Austrian and Slovakian stretch are
presented. Examples are given for: number (#) of EPT taxa, % of EPT taxa, %
abundance of EPT individuals, % shredder, % grazer, % passive filter feeders,
longitudinal zonation index and the Italian water quality index (IBE). Figure 4 gives
some examples of metrics for the middle reach of the river Danube (section types 5-
7): number (#) of EPT-Taxa, % active filter feeders, % shredder, total abundance, %
type phytal living species, % type akal dwelling species. Within the "universe of
metrics" the examples from the Danube River are representing each of four primary
categories: (1) richness measures for diversity or variety of the assemblage; (2)
composition measures for identity and dominance; (3) tolerance measures that
represent sensitivity to perturbation; and (4) trophic or habit measures for information
on feeding strategies and guilds.
28
65
55
22
45
16
35
taxa
taxa
10
25
# EPT
% EPT 15
Non-Outlier Max
4
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Max
75%
5
Non-Outlier Min
25%
75%
Median
-2
25%
-5
Outliers
ref/good
disturbed
Median
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
-51-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
90
2.6
2.2
70
]
%
1.8
e
[
r
50
nc
1.4
dde
re
h 1.0
bunda 30
s
a
%
T
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Max
0.6
P
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
E 10
75%
75%
25%
0.2
25%
Median
Median
Outliers
-10
Outliers
-0.2
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
9
4.5
7
3.5
s
er
5
2.5
er
feed
r
az
l
t
er
% g 3
1.5
ve fi
Non-Outlier Max
1
Non-Outlier Max
assi
Non-Outlier Min
p 0.5
Non-Outlier Min
75%
75%
25%
25%
Median
-1
Median
-0.5
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
7,4
12
11
7,0
gion
10
re 6,6
9
ic
not 6,2
8
oe 5,8
IBE
7
bioc
6
5,4
Non-Outlier Max
x
of
Non-Outlier Max
5
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
5,0
75%
inde
75%
4
25%
25%
Median
4,6
Median
3
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
Outliers
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
3,4
55
x
)
e
)
3,0
typ 45
n
e
r
-
I
nde
2,6
n
t
i
o
o 35
2,2
m
Wie
c
o
1,8
o 25
l
(l
nnon- 1,4
ha
15
S 1,0
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Max
-) sessi
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
5
0,6
75%
e
r
s
i
t
y
(
75%
25%
25%
Median
Div 0,2
Median
% (semi -5
Outliers
ref/good
disturbed
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
Figure 3: Examples of possibly suitable metrics for the upper reach of the river Danube (section types
2-4). Sites pre-classified as reference sites or sites of good status are plotted against clearly
disturbed sites.
-52-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
8
11
7
9
6
s
er
5
7
4
feed
- taxa
l
t
er
5
3
# EPT 2
ve fi
3
Non-Outlier Max
1
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
% acti
1
75%
0
75%
25%
25%
Median
-1
Median
-1
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
Extremes
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
4000
45
3500
3000
35
s
)
e 2500
nt
nc
la
p 25
2000
t
a
l (
bunda 1500
phy 15
t
a
l a 1000
t
o
y
pe
500
t
Non-Outlier Max
5
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
%
Non-Outlier Min
0
75%
75%
25%
25%
-500
Median
-5
Median
ref/good
disturbed
Outliers
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
110
22
90
18
)
d
70
r 14
(san
50
dde
re 10
h
e
akal
s
30
%
6
Non-Outlier Max
% typ
Non-Outlier Min
10
Non-Outlier Max
2
75%
Non-Outlier Min
25%
75%
Median
-10
25%
-2
Outliers
ref/good
disturbed
Median
ref/good
disturbed
pre-classification
pre-classification
Figure 4: Examples of metrics for the middle reach of the river Danube (section types 5-7). Sites pre-
classified as reference sites or sites of good status are plotted against clearly disturbed sites.
The discriminatory power of the metrics in figures 3 and 4 is promising, but needs
improvement. As an important starting point the establishment of reference
conditions (through actual sites or by other means) is crucial for the determination of
metric (and later index) thresholds. The current process of a quick and preliminary
pre-classification of JDS sites does not meet the necessary quality targets, but shows
that the development of a multimetric index is on the right way.
Metric variability among Danube sections
Box-and-whisker plots of the JDS investigation sites classified by aggregated
Danube section types were used to depict the natural variability of the metrics within
the population of reference and good sites. The fol owing figures plot the relationship
of metric values against various Danube sections to document two effects: 1) the
-53-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
longitudinal development of the Danube River and 2) to validate the Danube section
types.
In a first step the box-and-whisker plots of the metrics were aggregated to three
groups that represent the JDS sites of the upper, middle and lower Danube. This
rough grouping was chosen to gain a general prospectus of the metrics' reaction
among longitudinal properties. Again the examples from the Danube River are
representing each of four primary categories within the ,,universe of metrics". The
richness measures for diversity or variety of the assemblage are represented by the
species richness (total number of taxa) and the number of EPT taxa. Unexpectedly
the number of species decreases with increasing length of the river. This finding is in
contradiction with limnological theories and probably due to the fact that a definite
portion of the fauna typical for the lower Danube stretches could not be identified
according to the necessary taxonomic resolution.
65
26
55
22
45
18
s
35
x
a 14
hnes
t
a
25
10
t
a
x
a
ric
# EPT
15
Non-Outlier Max
6
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
75%
5
75%
25%
2
25%
Median
Median
Outliers
-5
-2
Outliers
upper
middle
lower
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
reach
reach
55
2.5
2.4
45
2.3
2.2
35
x
a
2.1
t
a
I
ndex
25
2.0
1.9
% EPT 15
Non-Outlier Max
1.8
Non-Outlier Max
Saprobic
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
75%
1.7
75%
5
25%
25%
Median
1.6
Median
Outliers
Outliers
-5
1.5
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
reach
reach
220
8.5
180
7.5
6.5
140
P
5.5
W 100
BM
ASPT 4.5
60
Non-Outlier Max
3.5
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
75%
20
75%
25%
2.5
25%
Median
Median
Outliers
-20
1.5
Outliers
upper
middle
lower
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
reach
reach
-54-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
11
110
9
.
)
90
7
t
pref
a
70
rous
i
v
o
5
50
rit
rohabit
3
30
% det
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
75%
75%
1
25%
10
25%
% pelal (mic
Median
Median
Outliers
Outliers
-1
-10
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
Extremes
upper
middle
lower
reach
reach
110
)
es
90
erenc
70
pref
50
urrent
30
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
10
75%
25%
% rheophil (c
Median
-10
Outliers
upper
middle
lower
reach
Figure 5: Distribution of metric values among Danube reaches. upper reach: section types 2-4; middle
reach: section types 5-7; lower reach: section types 8-10
The percentage of EPT taxa is chosen as a representative of the composition
measures for identity and dominance. The figures show a remarkably high portion of
EPT taxa in the upper courses, a conspicious decrease in the middle parts and a
"recovery" in the downstream sections.
Among the tolerance measures that represent sensitivity to perturbation four metrics
were selected. The saprobic indices range within the same order of magnitude with
median around 2.1 and thus indicating a good saprobic water quality during the JDS
period. This observation does not correspond with other evaluations based on family
level methods. For instance the BMWP and ASPT values start with quite low
numbers and show a further decrease with increasing river length. It is not the
intention of this chapter to discuss the water quality of the Danube but as a result of
these analyses some questions arise that indicate the necessity for future
investigations. With respect to the application of the saprobic system the need for a
saprobic ranking of more Danube taxa in the middle and lower sections is evident
(see also STUBAUER & MOOG 2003, this report). Figure 6 clearly demonstrates a
distinct increase of taxa without saprobic ranking from stream kilometre 1000 towards
the delta.
-55-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
120
100
80
ailable
60
40
no data av
%
20
0
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
rkm
Figure 6: Percentage of individuals without saprobic ranking vs. river length (rkm).
The apparent decrease of the biological water quality as indicated by the BMWP and
ASPT values may be explained by the fact that the JDS data show a tendency of
decreasing taxa richness towards the delta (exceptive the delta region). With respect
to this observation it might be possible that this phenomenon is a result of the fact
that taxa diversity is an important input variable for BMWP calculations. To explain
the validity of these BMWP results it is necessary to know if the decreasing species
diversity within the longitudinal gradient is an artefact of the JDS data or reality. If the
decrease in species numbers is a fact it must be clarified if this declining diversity is a
typical and natural phenomenon along the Danube or if it is due to environmental
impairment.
Out of the trophic or habit measures for information on feeding strategies and
ecological guilds three examples from the JDS data are presented: the share of
detritivorous species (% detritivorous), percentage share of mud-dwelling organisms
(% pelal) and percentage share of rheophilic species (% rheophil). The amount of
mud-dwelling and detritivorous organisms increase with the rivers' length, the
number of rheophilic species decrease.
The variation of the metrics ranges among the three Danube sections (upper, middle,
and lower course) clearly indicate that a multimetric index must be based on river
types. Therefore the next step of data evaluations was to check the box-and-whisker
plots of the JDS investigation sites classified by the aggregated ten Danube section
types. Some Danube sections were excluded from the analysis. No samples have
been taken from section type 1 during the JDS. No sites of reference character or
good conditions were available from section types 2 (Western Alpine Foothills
Danube) and 7 (Iron Gate Danube) due to the impacts of hydropower generation.
-56-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
9
18
7
14
x
a
a
x
a
a
era t 5
10
era t
3
hopt
6
r
ic
Non-Outlier Max
# T
Non-Outlier Max
# Ephemeropt 1
Non-Outlier Min
2
Non-Outlier Min
75%
75%
25%
25%
Median
Median
-1
-2
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Outliers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
55
24
45
20
35
a 16
x
a
tax 12
t
a
25
# EPT
EPT
8
% 15
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
4
Non-Outlier Max
75%
Non-Outlier Min
5
25%
75%
0
Median
25%
Outliers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Median
-5
Outliers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
9.0
8.5
8.5
7.5
8.0
6.5
ion index 7.5
5.5
onat 7.0
ASPT 4.5
6.5
Non-Outlier Max
udinal z
Non-Outlier Max
3.5
6.0
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
75%
75%
25%
longit
25%
2.5
5.5
Median
Median
Outliers
Outliers
5.0
1.5
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
Box Plot (Metrics aus AQEM.STA 251v*149c)
110
220
90
180
.
)
pref
70
140
urrent
50
100
BMWP
60
30
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
rheophil (c
Non-Outlier Min
75%
20
%
10
75%
25%
25%
Median
Median
Outliers
-20
-10
Outliers
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
-57-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
110
110
.
)
90
.
)
90
t
pref
t
pref
a
70
a
70
50
50
rohabit
rohabit
30
30
Non-Outlier Max
al (mic
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
h
Non-Outlier Min
75%
lit
75%
pelal (mic
10
10
25%
%
25%
%
Median
Median
Outliers
Outliers
-10
-10
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
45
18
.
)
35
.
) 14
pref
at
t
pref
a
25
10
rohabit
rohabit
15
6
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Max
al (mic
Non-Outlier Min
Non-Outlier Min
ammal (mic
5
75%
ak
2
75%
25%
ps
25%
%
Median
%
Median
Outliers
Outliers
-5
-2
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extremes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
section type
section type
Figure 7: Distribution of metric values among Danube River section types
The richness measures for diversity or variety of the assemblage are represented by
the Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera species richness (# Ephemeroptera taxa and #
Trichoptera taxa) and the number of EPT taxa (# EPT taxa). All three of them show a
similar distribution of the box-and-whisker plots indicating a high redundancy of
information. For the final designation of core metrics only one out of the three will be
taken. The phenomenon of increasing species numbers in the Danube Delta section
can also be confirmed at the level of the sensitive EPT taxa.
Again the percentage of EPT taxa is chosen as a representative of the composition
measures for identity and dominance. The box-and-whisker plots show a continuous
decrease of the portion of EPT taxa (% EPT taxa) from the upper courses to the
middle and lower Danube sections and a "recovery" in the delta reach.
The BMWP and ASPT metrics are selected as tolerance measures that represent
sensitivity to perturbation. Among the trophic or habit measures for information on
feeding strategies and ecologic guilds the fol owing examples from the JDS data are
chosen: percentage share of rheophilic species (% rheophil), percentage share of
stone-dwelling species (% lithal), percentage share of sand-dwelling organisms (%
psammal) and percentage share of mud-dwelling species (% pelal). The faunas of
the first two categories show a steady decline from the source to the mouth into the
Black Sea. The second two categories (amount of sand-dwelling organisms and
mud-dwelling organisms) develop in the opposite direction by increasing their shares
with the rivers' length.
-58-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
These evaluations clearly show that the Danube typology, especial y the sub-division
in ten section types is an important features for developing a type specific multimetric
index.
5. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK FOR DEVELOPING A MULTIMETRIC INDEX OF THE
DANUBE RIVER
The preliminary analyses of the JDS data showed clearly that the multimetric
approach can serve as a useful tool for assessing the ecological status of the
Danube River. Although the ecological status of the JDS investigation sites has be
pre-classified in a very rough way the metrics under test provided a remarkably high
discriminatory power to distinguish between good and disturbed sites.
Out of a large set of candidate metrics the following measures proved the ability to
function as core metrics:
· EPT taxa (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera-Taxa)
· % EPT-Taxa
· abundance of EPT Individuals
· % shredder
· % grazer
· % detritivorous
· % passive filter feeders
· % active filter feeders
· saprobic index
· longitudinal zonation index
· IBE (Indice biotico esteso)
· diversity index (Shannon-Weaner)
· semisessile locomotion type
· % rheophilic species
· % type phytal - microhabitat preference
· % type lithal- microhabitat preference
· % type akal - microhabitat preference
· % type psammal- microhabitat preference
· % type pelal - microhabitat preference
· total abundance
Nevertheless, the available data from the Joint Danube Survey do not reflect the real
diversity in the river Danube adequately. For the future development of an
assessment approach that is based on the multimetric procedure at least a second
-59-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
run of the Joint Danube Survey is highly recommended. The already applied
sampling design which more or less reflects the longitudinal development of the
Danube River needs to be adapted to a type specific and stressor based approach.
For creating a new assessment system that fulfils the demands of the Directive a
wide range of environmental conditions needs to be documented for each Danube
type. As it is possible that reference conditions (and resultant thresholds) will need to
be established on a seasonal basis it is necessary to perform a year-round sampling
and assessment.
In a pre-classification process sites including reference stretches to heavily impaired
sections need to be identified. As the "water bodies" will be the operative units in the
future administrative system the water bodies of different types and environmental
quality may serve as a source for defining sampling sites. In addition it will be helpful
for the selection of according sampling sites to hark back to the presumed status
information provided by the pressures and impact analysis.
The preliminary evaluations clearly show that the Danube typology, especial y the
sub-division in ten section types is an important feature for developing a type specific
multimetric index.
6. REFERENCES
AQEM CONSORTIUM (2002): Manual for the application of the AQEM system. A
comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic
macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive.
Version 1.0.
BARBOUR, M.T., GERRITSEN, J., GRIFFITH, G.E., FRYDENBORG, R., MCCARRON, E., WHITE,
J.S. & M.L. BASTIAN (1996): A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams
using benthic macroinvertebrates. J.N.Am.Benthol.Soc., 15: 185-211.
BARBOUR, M.T., GERRITSEN, J., SNYDER, B.D. & J.B. STRIBLING (1999): Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-98-010. U.S. EPA. Office of
Water. Washington. D.C
BIRK, S. (2003): Overview of biological and hydromorphological assessment methods in the
Danube River Basin.- this report.
HUGHES, R.M. & D.P. LARSEN (1988): Ecoregions: An approach to surface water protection.
J. Wat. Pollut. Cont. Fed., 60: 486-493.
KARR, J.R. & E.W. CHU (1999): Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring.
Island Press. Washington. D.C.
KARR, J.R., FAUSCH, K.D., ANGERMEIER, P.L., YANT, P.R. & I.J. SCHLOSSER (1986):
Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Spec.
Publ. 5. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv.
KARR, J.R. (1991): Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource
management. Ecol. App., 1: 66-84.
LEGENDRE, P. & L. LEGENDRE (1998): Numerical Ecology. Second English Edition. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
-60-
OFENBÖCK & MOOG: The Applicability of the Multimetric Approach
LITERÁTHY, P., KOLLER-KREIMEL, V. & I. LISKA (eds.) (2002): Joint Danube Survey.- Technical
Report of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, 261
pp.
MCCUNE, B. & M.J. MEFFORD (1999): PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data,
Version 4. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA: 237 pp.
MOOG, O., SCHMIDT-KLOIBER, A., VOGL, R. & V. KOLLER-KREIMEL (2001): ECOPROF-
Software.- Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien.
MOOG, O. & I. STUBAUER (2003): Common Approaches and Methodologies for Stress and
Impact Analysis with particular Attention to Hydromorphological Conditions
Methodological Approach. In: SOMMERHÄUSER, M., ROBERT, S., BIRK, S., MOOG, O.,
STUBAUER, I. & T. OFENBÖCK: End report of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Activity 1.1.6. Essen and Vienna, December 2003: 6-47.
MOSS, D., FURSE, M.T., WRIGHT, J.F. & P.D. ARMITAGE (1987): The prediction of the macro-
invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using
environmental data. Freshwat. Biol., 17: 41-52.
MOSS, D. (2000): Evolution of statistical methods in RIVPACS. In: WRIGHT, J.F., SUTCLIFFE,
D.W. & M.T. FURSE (eds.), Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters
RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association: 25-38.
MUHAR, S., KAINZ, M., KAUFMANN, M. & M. SCHWARZ (1996): Ausweisung flußtypspezifisch
erhaltener Fließgewässerabschnitte in Österreich - Bundesflüsse gem. § 8 WBFG.-
Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien,
167 pp.
MUHAR, S., KAINZ, M. & M. SCHWARZ (1998): Ausweisung flußtypspezifisch erhaltener
Fließgewässerabschnitte in Österreich - Fließgewässer mit eine Einzugsgebiet > 500
km2 ohne Bundesflüsse.- Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land-
und Forstwirtschaft, Wien, 177 pp.
ROBERT, S., BIRK, S. & M. SOMMERHÄUSER (2003): Typology of the Danube River part 1:
top-down approach. In: SOMMERHÄUSER, M., ROBERT, S., BIRK, S., MOOG, O.,
STUBAUER, I. & T. OFENBÖCK: End report of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Activity 1.1.6. Essen and Vienna, December 2003: 6-14.
SPIEGLER, A. et al. (1989): Strukturökologische Methode zur Bestandsaufnahme und
Bewertung von Fließgewässern.- Wasserwirtschaftskataster (WWK) des
Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft.
STATSOFT. INC. (2000): STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa.
STUBAUER, I. & O. MOOG (2003): Integration of the saprobic system into the assessment
approach of the WFD a proposal for the Danube River. this report.
WERTH, W. (1987): Ökomorphologische Gewässerbewertungen in Oberösterreich
(Gewässerzustandskartierungen).- Österreichische Wasserwirtschaft, 39 (5/6): 122-
128.
Document Outline