Abstract
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union requires all member countries to provide information on the level of confidence and precision of results in their river monitoring programmes to assess the ecological status class of river sites. As part of the European Union project STAR, the overall effects of sampling variation for a wide range of commonly used metrics and sampling methods were assessed. Replicate samples were taken in each of two seasons at 2-6 sites of varying ecological status class within each of 18 stream types spread over 12 countries, using both the STAR-AQEM method and a national sampling method or, where unavailable, the RIVPACS sampling protocol. The sampling precision of a combination of sampling method and metric was estimated by expressing the replicate sampling variance as a percentage P samp of the total variance in metric values with a stream type; low values of Psamp indicate high precision. Most metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 20% for all or most stream types and methods. Most national methods including RIVPACS had sampling precisions at least as good as those for the STAR-AQEM method as used in their country at the same sites; the main exceptions were the national methods used in Latvia and Sweden. The national methods used in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Poland and the RIVPACS method used in the UK and Austria all had percentage sampling variances of less than 10% for the majority of metrics assessed. In contrast, none of the metrics had percentage sampling variances less than 10% when based on either the Italian (IBE) method, which used bank-side sorting, or the Latvian national method which identifies only a limited set of taxa. P samp was lowest on average for the two stream types sampled in the Czech Republic using either the PERLA national method or the STAR-AQEM method. Averaged over all stream types and methods, the three Saprobicbased metrics had the lowest average percentage sampling variances (3–6%) amongst the 26 metrics assessed. These estimates of sampling standard deviation can be used to help assess the uncertainty in single or multi-metric systems for estimating site ecological status using the general STAR Bioassessment Guidance Software (STARBUGS) developed within the STAR project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd edn. EPA/841-B-98-010. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Washington, DC.
Bis, B. & P. Usseglio-Polatera, 2004. Species Traits Analysis. European Commission, STAR (Standardisation of river classifications), Deliverable N2, 134 pp.
Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola, J. Murray-Bligh, H. Soszka & P. Genoni, 2006. The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries. Hydrobiologia 566: 379–399.
Clarke, R. T., 2000. Uncertainty in estimates of river quality based on RIVPACS. In: Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and similar techniques. Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside: 39–54.
Clarke, R. T., 2004. 9th STAR deliverable. Error/uncertainty module software STARBUGS (STAR Bio Assessment Uncertainty Guidance Software) User Manual.
Clarke, R. T., M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright & D. Moss, 1996. Derivation of a biological quality index for river sites: comparison of the observed with the expected fauna. Journal of Applied Statistics 23: 311–332.
Clarke, R. T., M. T. Furse, R. J. M. Gunn, J. M. Winder & J. F. Wright, 2002. Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indices. Freshwater Biology 47: 1735–1751.
Clarke, R. T. & D. Hering, 2006. Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods — major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS. Hydrobiologia 566: 433–439.
Clarke, R. T., A. Lorenz, L. Sandin, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, N. T. Kneebone & P. Haase, 2006. Effects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STAR-AQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metrics. Hydrobiologia 566: 441–459.
Council of the European Communities, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327(43): 1–72.
Extence, C. A., B. M. Balbi & R. P. Chadd, 1999. River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: a framework for setting hydroecological objectives. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 543–574.
Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29.
Haase, P., J. Murray-Bligh, S. Lohse, S. Pauls, A. Sundermann, R. Gunn & R. Clarke, 2006. Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples. Hydrobiologia 566: 505–521.
Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.
Hose, G., E. Turak & N. Wadell, 2004. Reproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 126–139.
Illies, J. (ed.), 1978. Limnofauna Europaea (2nd edn). Gustav Fischer Verlag Stuttgart, New York; Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., Amsterdam, 532 pp.
Johnson, R.K., 1998. Spatiotemporal variability of temperate lake macroinvertebrate communities: detection of impact. Ecological Applications 81: 61–70.
Murray-Bligh, J. A. D., M. T. Furse, F. H. Jones, R. J. M. Gunn, R. A. Dines & J. F. Wright, 1997. Procedure for collecting and analysing macroinvertebrate samples for RIVPACS. Joint publication by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and the Environment Agency, 162 pp.
Ofenböck, T., O. Moog, J. Gerritsen & M. Barbour, 2004. A stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 251–268.
Ostermiller, J. D. & C. P. Hawkins, 2004. Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 363–382.
Pinto, P., J. Rosado, M. Morais & I. Antunes, 2004. Assessing methodology for southern siliceous basins in Portugal. Hydrobiologia 516: 191–214.
REFCOND, 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters. Final version, 30 April 2003, produced by WG 2.3.
Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Smith, M. J., W. R. Kay, D. H. D. Edward, P. J. Papas, St. J. Richardson, J. C. Simpson, A. M. Pinder, D. J. Cale, P. H. J. Horwitz, J. A. Davis, F. H. Yung, R. H. Norris & S. A. Halse, 1999. AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 269–282.
Sokal, R. R. & J. R. Rohlf, 1995. Biometry (3rd edn). Freeman and Company, New York.
Taylor, L. R., 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189: 732–735.
Vlek, H. E., 2004. Comparison of (cost) effectiveness between various macroinvertebrate field and laboratory protocols. European Commssion, STAR (Standardisation of river classifications), Deliverable N1, 78 pp.
Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Similar Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 373 pp.
Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur Prä zisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fließender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 389–407.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clarke, R.T., Davy-Bowker, J., Sandin, L., Friberg, N., Johnson, R.K., Bis, B. (2006). Estimates and comparisons of the effects of sampling variation using ‘national’ macroinvertebrate sampling protocols on the precision of metrics used to assess ecological status. In: Furse, M.T., Hering, D., Brabec, K., Buffagni, A., Sandin, L., Verdonschot, P.F.M. (eds) The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and Intercalibration of Assessment Methods. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol 188. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5493-8_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5493-8_33
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5160-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5493-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)