Monitoring and Evaluation of the Quality of Running Waters European Class 2002 Principal Coordinator: Prof. Maria Lazaridou-Dimitriadou Local Coordinator:

Monitoring and Evaluation of the

Quality of Running Waters

European Class 2002

Principal Coordinator: Prof. Maria Lazaridou-Dimitriadou

Local Coordinator: Prof. Josef Weber

Why was this study done?

To compare different European ways of evaluating the waterand habitat quality of running waters.

Habitat was assessed with the Austrian, Spanish and British way.

Water quality was assessed with the Extended Biotic Index, Biomonitoring Working Party Score and the Lincoln Index as wellas the Hellenic Evaluation Score.

Physicochemical parameters were measured with simple kits (Merck)and benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled with a quantitative andsemi-quantitative method.

Introduction

• trough valley, side valleys narrow

• all rivers carry a lot of sediments

rare area!

• rough climate, long winters,

a lot of percipitation (mean of

1800mm per year)

• The Lechtaler Alps seperate the

valley from the rest of Austria

Geology

• No other region in Austria shows such a geological variety as the Lechtal.

• This area includes 250 million years of earth´s history.

• Starting at the end of the palaezoikum

• Also triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, tertiaery and quartaernary sediments.

• Geological variety niche variety variety of

animals and plants

River corridor• In the Lech there is very strong sedimentation• These sediments come from the dolomites from the side

valleys.• Main debris comes from the Streimbach and the

Schwarzwasserbach.• The Lech has to escape at the places where the side valleys

bring the sediments.• It is strongly narrow at the villages reduced habitat

quality.• Valley areas of the Lechtaler Alps Mergelkalke,

Allgäuerschichten add ions to the water higher conductivity, higher pH (8.5 – 8.7)

River bank

• First pioneer communities: “Alpenschwemmlinge“

Left: Dryas octopetalaRight: Linaria alpina

River bank

• Second pioneer communities: willow communities

Salix purpurea

Myricaria germanicaSalix eleagnos

Methods and Materials

• Semiquantitative Sampling - Kick Sampling (3 min.)

• Quantitative Sampling - Surber Sampling• Water quality was assessed with the Extended Biotic Index,

Biomonitoring Working Party Score and the Lincoln Index as wellas the Hellenic Evaluation Score.

• Physicochemical Parameters (chemicals were analysed with simple kits –Merck-)

• Habitat : Austrian, Spanish and British Survey

Mühlbach (SS)

SMALL STREAM

Sampling Site 1

RHS CHARACTERISTICS

• Valley form : symmetrical floodplain• Banks attributes : material : gravel / sand modification : resectioned features : eroding cliff• Channel attributes : substratum : sand flow type : smooth modification : not known feature : none

RHS CHARACTERISTICS

• Land use within 5m of banktops : Rough pasture

• Vegetation structure on bank faces : simple – dominated by grasses and herbs

Characteristics from the Austrian Protocol

Mineral Substrates :

5 % mesolithal10 % microlithal15 % akal10 % sand,mud5 % silt,loam,clay (inorganic)5 % phytal20 % algae25 % submerged macrophytes15 % emergent macrophytes5 % living parts of terrestrial plants


• Channel form : sinuate

• Average stream width : 1,2 m

• Maximum depth water body : 0,5 m

• No stagnation

Riparian habitat Score

Total riparian cover 25

Cover Structure 0

Cover Quality 0

Channel alteration 5

Final Score 30

Quality Orange

Characteristics from the Ecobill Protocol(Spain)

Stream habitat Score

Rapid embeddedness 10

Frequency of riffles 4

Substrate composition 9

Velocity / Depth 4

% of shade in channel 3

Elements of heterogenity

4

Aquatic vegetation Cover

20

Final Score 54

Quality Yellow

Percentage Quant.results Small Stream

0.25% 7.86%0.25%

6.88%

8.35%

1.97%

0.74%

1.47%

2.95%

0.25%

1.47%

0.98%

2.21%

0.25%

56.51%

0.49% 7.13%

Lumbriculidae

Hydrocarina

Sericostomatidae

Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Capnidae

Perlodidae

Heptagenidae

Baetidae

Hydropsychidae

Tipulidae

Ceratopogonidae

Simuliidae

Thaumaleidae

Chironomidae Red

Muscidae

Chironomidae

Percentage Semiquantitative results Small Stream

2% 3%9%

16%

2%

9%

10%3%10%

6%2%

2%

10%

6%2%

8%

Hydrocarina Taeniopterygidae

Nemouridae Leuctridae

Perlodidae Heptageniidae

Baetidae Rhyacophilidae

Limnephilidae Tipulidae

Ceratopogonidae Simuliidae

Chironomidae Red Chironomidae

Empididae unknown Plecoptera

Quantitative sample comparison Small Stream

-

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Families

Sqr

roo

t of t

he N

r. o

f ind

ivid

uals

QT1

QT2

QT3

QT4

SSQT1 SSQT2 SSQT3 SSQT4 Sum

Baetidae 5 3 1 3 12

Capnidae 0 5 0 3 8

Ceratopogonidae 0 0 4 0 4

Chironomidae 7 0 19 3 29

Chironomidae Red 0 0 230 0 230

Heptageniidae 0 6 0 0 6

Hydrocarina 0 0 32 0 32

Hydropsychidae 0 1 0 0 1

Leuctridae 0 7 1 26 34

Lumbriculidae 1 0 0 0 1

Muscidae 0 0 1 1 2

Nemouridae 3 6 8 11 28

Perlodidae 0 0 0 3 3

Sericostomatidae 0 0 1 0 1

Simuliidae 2 0 7 0 9

Thaumaleidae 1 0 0 0 1

Tipulidae 1 3 2 0 6

SSQL1 SSQL2 SumBaetidae 1 13 14Capnidae 0 0 0Ceratopogonidae 3 0 3Chironomidae 7 0 7Chironomidae Red 0 12 12Empididae 2 0 2Heptageniidae 8 3 11Hydrocarina 2 0 2Leuctridae 1 20 21Limnephilidae 3 9 12Nemouridae 2 10 12Perlodidae 2 0 2Rhyacophilidae 2 2 4Simuliidae 1 2 3Taeniopterygidae 4 0 4Tipulidae 5 2 7unknown Plecoptera 10 0 10

Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1Small Stream Small Stream Small Stream Small StreamQt1 QT2 Qt3 Qt4

Date 5/10/2002 5/10/2002 5/10/2002 5/10/2002Time 15:27 15:27 15:27 15:27Atmospheric conditions sunny sunny sunny sunny Air temperature (C) 22 22 22 22Water Temperatur(C) 9.3. 9.3. 9.3. 9.3.Current speed (m/s) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29Width (m) 1.30. 1.30. 1.30. 1.30.Depth (m) 0.33. 0.33. 0.33. 0.33.pH 8.7. 8.7. 8.7. 8.7.Conductivity (microSiemens/cm) 360 360 360 360DO (%sat) 84 84 84 84DO (mg/l) 8.5. 8.5. 8.5. 8.5.

NO3-1 (mg/l) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

NO2-1 (mg/l) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NH4+1 (mg/l) 0.1. 0.1. 0.1. 0.1.

PO4-3 (mg/l)

Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 220 220 220 220

substrate 1 2 3 3Discharge 85l/s 85l/s 85l/s 85l/s

Pasture

Max 0.5m

Average 1.2m

Scheidbach (BS)

Braided Stream

Sampling Site 2

Sampling site

General Characteristics (RHS)

Scheidbach

Source: Spring 1,5 km us

Geology: Calcareous

Valley form: Shallow vee

Bank attributes:

Material/s- cobble

Modifications- not known

Features- none

Channel attributes:

Channel substratum - cobbles

Flow type- Chaotic flow

Modifications- Not known

Features- None

Substratum: Type 1

Riparian Assessment

Score


Cover Structure 10

Cover Quality 25


Final Score 50

Quality Bad

Stream Assessment Score




Velocity / Depth 6


Elements of heterogenity 4

Aquatic vegetation Cover 5

Final Score 40

Quality Poor

Characteristics from the Ecobill Protocol (Spain)


Mineral Substrates : <5 % megalithal

5 % macrolithal60 % mesolithal

20 % microlithal 10 % akal

Channel form : braided

Average stream width : 8m

Maximum depth water body : 0,25m

No stagnation

Date 10 May 2002

Atmospheric conditions 70% cloudness

Air Temperature (C) 22

Water Temperature (C) 9.3

Current Speed (m/s) 0.56

Width (m) 8

Depth (m) 0.11

pH 7.6

Conductivity (µ/cm) 210

DO% (sat) 87

DO (mg/l) 8.7

NO3-1 (mg/l) 0.1

NO2-1 (mg/l) 0

NH4+1 (mg/l) 0.1

Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 140

Substrate type 1

Chemical Parameters

Indices

QL QT

BM WP: A++ BM WP: A+

HBS: 91.4

Good Mod

HBS: 88.9

Good Mod

EBI: 9 EBI: 10

Braided Stream

QT1 QT2 QT3 QT4 Total

Lumbriculidae 0 2 0 1 3

Hydrocarina 1 0 0 0 1

Collembola 2 0 0 0 2

Nemouridae 0 4 1 1 6

Leuctridae 0 0 1 0 1

Perlidae 0 0 0 1 1

Perlodidae 4 0 0 0 4

Heptageniidae 0 0 0 1 1

Leptophlebiidae 1 0 0 0 1

Baetidae 0 3 1 2 6

Limnephildae 1 3 0 0 4

Psychodidae 0 0 0 1 1

Blepharoceridae 0 0 0 1 1

Simuliidae 4 0 0 1 5

Chironomidae 0 8 20 7 35

Athericidae 0 0 0 1 1

Empididae 1 0 0 0 1

Braided Stream

QL1 QL2 Total

Lumbriculidae 1 0 1

Nemouridae 1 3 4

Leuctridae 2 0 2

Capnidae 0 1 1

Perlidae 0 4 4

Perlodidae 1 3 4

Heptageniidae 0 3 3

Baetidae 6 6 12

Philopotamidae 0 2 2

Limnephildae 14 20 34

Tipulidae 1 0 1

Psychodidae 1 0 1

Simuliidae 1 8 9

Chironomidae 4 6 10

Athericidae 1 1 2

Braided stream QT

3 1 2 611

4

116

4115

35

1 1

Lumbriculidae

Hydrocarina

Collembola

Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Perlidae

Perlodidae

Heptageniidae

Leptophlebiidae

Baetidae

Limnephildae

Psychodidae

Blepharoceridae

Simuliidae

Chironomidae

Braided stream QT

4% 1% 3%8%

1%1%

5%

1%1%

8%

5%1%1%7%

47%

1% 1%

Lumbriculidae

Hydrocarina

Collembola

Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Perlidae

Perlodidae

Heptageniidae

Leptophlebiidae

Baetidae

Limnephildae

Psychodidae

Blepharoceridae

Simuliidae

Chironomidae

Athericidae

Empididae

Braided stream QT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lumbri

culid

ae

Hydroc

arina

Collem

bola

Nemour

idae

Leuctr

idae

Perlida

e

Perlod

idae

Heptag

eniid

ae

Leptop

hlebii

dae

Baetid

ae

Limne

phild

ae

Psych

odidae

Blepha

roce

ridae

Simuliid

ae

Chirono

midae

Atheri

cidae

Empididae

Braided Stream QL

1 4 2 1 44

3

12

234

1

19

10 2

Lumbriculidae

Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Capnidae

Perlidae

Perlodidae

Heptageniidae

Baetidae

Philopotamidae

Limnephildae

Tipulidae

Psychodidae

Simuliidae

Chironomidae

Athericidae

Braided Stream QL

1% 4% 2% 1% 4%4%

3%

14%

2%

39%

1%

1%

10%

12% 2%

Lumbriculidae

Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Capnidae

Perlidae

Perlodidae

Heptageniidae

Baetidae

Philopotamidae

Limnephildae

Tipulidae

Psychodidae

Simuliidae

Chironomidae

Athericidae

Braided Stream QL

05

10152025303540

Lumbri

culid

ae

Nemour

idae

Leuctr

idae

Capnid

ae

Perlida

e

Perlod

idae

Heptag

eniid

ae

Baetid

ae

Philopo

tamida

e

Limne

phild

ae

Tipulid

ae

Psych

odidae

Simuliid

ae

Chirono

midae

Atheri

cidae

LECH RIVER (L)

Sampling Site 3

General RHS characteristics

• Valley form: Concave/Bowl

• Left bank attributes:

Material/s- gravel/sand

Modifications-none

Features- vegetated side bar

• Right bank attributes:

Material/s- cobble

Modifications-none

Features- unvegetated side bar

RHS characteristics cont..

• Channel attributes:

Channel substratum - Not visible


Modifications- Not known

Features- None

• Substratum: 1 (from quantitative)

Riparian Assessment

Score


Cover Structure 15

Cover Quality 40


Final Score 115

Quality High

Stream Assessment Score




Velocity / Depth 6


Elements of heterogenity 2

Aquatic vegetation Cover 5

Final Score 56

Quality Fair



Mineral Substrates : 10 % megalithal5 % macrolithal70 % mesolithal

5% microlithal 5 % sand,mud

5% silt,loam,clay (inorganic material)


Average stream width : 55m

Maximum depth water body : 2m

No stagnation

Date 11 May 2002

Atmospheric conditions

Rain clouds, windy, cold


Water Temperature (C)

6.7

Current Speed (m/s) 2

Width (m) 35

Depth (m) 1.5

PH 8.8


DO% (sat) 84

DO (mg/l) 9.2

NO3-1 (mg/l) 0.25

NO2-1 (mg/l) 0

NH4+1 (mg/l) 0.1


Substrate type 1

CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Qt Ql

Score Comment Score Comment

HBS 70.6 Good-Moderate

62.8 Good-Moderate

EBI 8 9

BMWP A Excellent A Excellent

HBS: Hellenic Biotic ScoreEBI: Extended Biotic IndexBMWP: Biological Monitoring Working Party

INDICES

Semiquantitative

150

3

1

7

11739 11

13

1

64

1

Leuctridae

Capnidae

Oligochaeta

Perlodidae

Heptageniidae

Baetidae

Rhycophilidae

Tipulidae

Blepharoceridae

Chironomidae

Stratiomyidae

Quantitative

13 2 6

52

64

16

26

2Nemouridae

Leuctridae

Capnidae

Perlidae

Heptageniidae

Baetidae

Rhycophilidae

Tipulidae

Chironomidae

Empididae

Families Found In The LechOrder Family Quantitative Semiquantitative

Plecoptera Perlodidae 0 7

Perlidae 6 0

Leuctridae 3 150

Nemouridae 1 0

Capniidae 2 2

Ephemeroptera Heptagenidae 52 117

Baetidae 6 39

Diptera Tipulidae 16 13

Chironomidae 26 64

Empididae 2 0

Blepharoceridae 0 3

Stratiomyidae 0 1

Oligochaeta 0 1

Trichoptera Rhychophilidae 4 11

Streimbach (SB)

Sampling Site 4

Habitat description

The Streimbach is an unmodified river.

• e.g.: no dams, no logs, no straightening

The colour of the river is greenish. There are

no steady pools, no waterfalls,... . The

hydrological streamtype is permanent.

• no foam, no smell, no sewage

Habitat description

Picture channel form

Lech

Streimbachcanyon

bridge

flow

flow

islands

chemical parameters

QT

QL

QLQT

Chemistry

Habitat description

Picture riperian veg. And substrate

left shoreline bed right shoreline

island

Riparian vegetation

river bank =composite

Substrate: >60% boulders, < 40% cobbles, few gravel

General RHS characteristics• Valley form: canyon

• Left bank attributes:

Material/s- boulders, cobbles

Modifications-none


• Right bank attributes:

Material/s- boulders, cobble

Modifications-none


RHS characteristics cont..

• Channel attributes:

Channel substratum - Not visible (some boulders)


Modifications- None

Features- Not visible

• Substratum: 1 (from quantitative)


Mineral Substrates : >60 % megalithal

<40% macrolithalFew mesolithal


Average stream width : 16 m

Maximum depth water body : 0.5 m

No stagnation


Riparian Assessment

Score


Cover Structure 10

Cover Quality 25


Final Score 75

Quality High

Chemical parametersDate 11 May 2002

Atmospheric conditions

Rainy, cloudy


Water Temperature (C)

7.3

Current Speed (m/s) 1.7

Width (m) 16

Depth (m) 0.25

pH 8.7


DO% (sat) 83

DO (mg/l) 9.0

NO3-1 (mg/l) <0.5

NO2-1 (mg/l) 0

NH4+1 (mg/l) 0

PO4-3 (mg/l) 0.30


Qt Ql

Score Comment Score Comment

HBS 33 polluted 103 Good

EBI 7 9

BMWP A Excellent A Excellent

HBS: Hellenic Biotic ScoreEBI: Extended Biotic Index

INDICES

BMWP: Biological Monitoring Working Party

Abundance of orders in Streimbach (quantitative)

5%

81%

5%

9%

plecoptera

ephemeroptera

trichoptera

diptera

Abundance of orders in Streimbach (Semiquantitative)

10%

72%

2%

15%1%

plecoptera

ephemeroptera

trichoptera

diptera

others

Families Found In StreimbachOrder Family Quantitative Semiquantitative

Plecoptera Perlodidae 0 3

Perlidae 0 1

Leuctridae 1 5

Nemouridae 0 3

Capniidae 0 1

Ephemeroptera Heptagenidae 18 70

Baetidae 0 19

Diptera Tipulidae 1 2

Chironomidae 1 12

Athericidae 0 1

Blepharoceridae 0 3

Trichoptera Limnephilidae 0 2

Rhyachophilidae 1 1

Others Oligochaeta 0 1

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 4 STREAMS

Hellenic biotic score

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SS BS Lech SB

Sample sites

Sco

re Qualitative

Quantitative

Lincoln Index

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS BS Lech SB Sample Sites

Sco

re Qualitative

Quantitative

Extended biotic index

02

46

810

12

SS BS Lech SB Sam ple sites

Sc

ore Qualitative

Quantitative

>100 Very good

61-100 Good –moderate

36-60 Polluted

15 – 35 Very polluted

<15 Extremely poor

5+ Excellent (A-A++)

4-4.5 Good (C-B)

3-3.5 Moderate (E-D)

2-2.5 Poor (G-F)

1-1.5 Very poor (I-H)

13-15 Excellent

11-13 Very good

7-11 Moderate

5-7 Poor

0-5 Very poor

Small Stream

12.7%

27.0%

38.9%

19.8%1.6%

Trichoptera

Diptera

Plecoptera

Ephemeroptera

Other

Braided Stream

40.0%

25.6%

16.7%

16.7% 1.1%

Lech River

19.4%

39.3%

38.3%

0.2% 2.7%

Streimbach

2.4% 14.5%

10.5%

71.8%

0.8%

Comparison of semiquantitative samples

No. of families/semiquantitative sample

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Order

No.

of f

amili

es

Small StreamAvg

Braided Stream Avg

Lech Avg

Streimbach Avg

SS SS BS BS Lech Lech SB SBQL1 QL2 QL1 QL2 QL1 QL2 QL1 QL2

Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae 2 2 0 0 3 8 0 1

Philopotamidae 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Limnephilidae 3 9 14 20 0 0 0 2

Diptera Tipulidae 5 2 1 0 8 5 0 2

Psychodidae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Blepharoceridae 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0

Ceratopogonidae 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Simuliidae 1 2 1 8 0 0 0 0

Chironomidae Red 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chironomidae 7 0 4 6 26 38 12 0

Stratiomyidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Athericidae 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Empididae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nemouridae 2 10 1 3 0 0 3 0

Leuctridae 1 20 2 0 51 99 3 2

Capnidae 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0

Perlidae 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0

Perlodidae 2 0 1 3 2 5 0 3

unknown Plecoptera 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EphemeropteraHeptageniidae 8 3 0 3 67 50 19 51

Leptophlebiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Baetidae 1 13 6 6 19 20 0 19

Other Oligochaeta 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Lumbriculidae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Hydrocarina 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Abundance of macroinvertebrates in each Order in each stream with the quantitative method

Streimbach (SB)6 individuals per sampling

5%

81%

5%

9% 0%

plecoptera

ephemeroptera

trichoptera

diptera

others

Small stream (SS)102 individuals per sampling

8% 0%

70%

18%4%

Braided stream (BS)19 individual per sampling

8% 5%

60%

16%

11%

Lech river (LR)52 individuals per sampling

0%

3%

35%

11%

51%

Comparison of streams with their abundance of individuals in each

family (Quantitative method)Plecoptera

0123456789

taxa

per

cen

tag

e o

f ta

xa in

eac

h

stre

am

Small stream

Braided stream

Lech river

Streimbach

Ephemeroptera

0102030405060708090

taxa

Diptera

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tip

ulid

ae

Psychodid

ae

Ble

pharo

ceridae

Cera

topogonid

ae

Sim

uliidae

Thaum

ale

idae

Chironom

idae

Red

Muscid

ae

Chironom

idae

Ath

ericid

ae

Em

pid

idae

taxa

perc

en

tag

e o

f ta

xa in

each

str

eam

Other taxa

02468

10

Oligoc

haeta

Lumbric

ulidae

Hydro

carin

a

Collembola taxa

Trichoptera

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Serico

stom

atid

ae

Rhyco

philida

e

Hydro

psyc

hidae

Lim

neph

ildae

taxaper

cen

tag

e o

f ta

xa in

eac

h

stre

am

Small stream

Braided stream

Lech river

Streimbach

Chemical Parameters

Chemical parameters

IntroductionWhen assessing waterquality, the classical thing has been measuring different physico-chemical parameters. Still this is useful to do such measurements as to get a indication about the environmental conditions. Both natural factors like geology as well as human impact i e pollution may affect environment including waters. Parameters like acidity ( pH ), hardness, conductivity, dissolved oxygen ( D.O. ). Together all different parameters interact. Therefore it is important also to measure physical parameters like air pressure, temperature is also important to measure at the same time in order to get the parameters relevant. Of course there are several other parameters that should be measured, but the aim for this investigation was only to get a quick indication of the water quality for comparison with the biotic results.

Material and methods At the different sites we estimated the habitat and also in field measured physico-chemical parameters with standardized equipment.

Parameter pH Conductivity Hardness DO Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite Phosphate Temp

Unit S/cm dH % O2 mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l C

Results and discussionThe results are presented in tables and diagrams. Together all different parameters interact. Of course there are several other parameters that should be measured, but the aim for this investigation was only to get a quick indication of the water quality for comparison with the biotic results.

Lech river Streimbach

pH 8,8 8,7

Conductivity (microSiemens/cm) 200 200

Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 140 140

DO (%sat) 84 83

Water Temperatur(C) 6,7 7,3

DO (mg/l) 9,2 9

NO3-1 (mg/l) 0,25 0

NO2-1 (mg/l) 0 0

NH4+1 (mg/l) 0,1 0

PO4-3 (mg/l) 0 0,3

Current speed (m/s) 2 1,7

L.r. = Lech river, S. = Streimbach

Small stream Braded streampH 8,7 7,6Conductivity (microSiemens/cm) 360 210Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 220 140DO (%sat) 84 87Water Temperatur(C) 9,3 8,7DO (mg/l) 8,5 8,7NO3-1 (mg/l) 0,25 0,25NO2-1 (mg/l) 0 0NH4+1 (mg/l) 0,1 0,1PO4-3 (mg/l)Current speed (m/s) 0,29 0,585

TemperatureDepending on the angle of the sun. Is important for the DO. High temperature low DO. Heat is lost by evaporation. Depending of the moist in the air and the wind speed.

Water Temperatur(C)

0123456789

10

Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach

Current speed (m/s)

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5


Width (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Depth (m)

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6


pHThe pH scale is an logarithmic way of calculating acidity or alkalinity in a solution. Or you can say it’s a way of determine the molarity of H3O

+ (Hydronium ion) in a solution. The pH range goes from 1 – 14.

Acid: pH = - log H3O+

pH

77,27,47,67,8

88,28,48,68,8

9


Conductivity The determine of whether the water conducts an electric current. Because the current is a flow of electric charge or better a flow of electrons, only a solutions that contains ions can conduct electricity. High conductivity means that we have a solution with a high concentration of ions present.

Conductivity (microSiemens/cm)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Dissolved oxygen Depends on different factors such as: atmospheric pressure, current speed, Temperature and photosynthesis. Dissolved oxygen is very important for the biological life in water.

DO (%sat)

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88


DO (mg/l)

8

8,2

8,4

8,6

8,8

9

9,2

9,4


NutrientsWe measure the nutrients to know something about the nutrient compounds in the water, and the know something about if the water is in danger of a eutrophication.

NO3-1 (mg/l)

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3


Hardness

Hard water contains relatively high concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions, often in the form of hydrogen carbonates.

NH4+1 (mg/l)

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12


PO4-3 (mg/l)

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35


Hardness

Hard water contains relatively high concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions, often in the form of hydrogen carbonates.

Hardness (mg CaCO3/l)

0

50

100

150

200

250


81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Smallstream

Bradedstream

Lech River Streimbach

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

DO (%sat)

Current speed (m/s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Smallstream

Bradedstream

Lech RiverStreimbach

8

8,2

8,4

8,6

8,8

9

9,2

9,4

Water Temperatur(C)

DO (mg/l)

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Smallstream

Bradedstream

Lech RiverStreimbach

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DO (%sat)

Water Temperatur(C)

7

7,2

7,4

7,6

7,8

8

8,2

8,4

8,6

8,8

9

Small stream Bradedstream

Lech River Streimbach

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

pH

DO (%sat)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Small

stre

am

Braded

stre

am

Lech

Rive

r

Streim

bach

0

50

100

150

200

250

Conductivity(microSiemens/cm)

Hardness (mg CaCO3/l)

Primer Statistical Analysis

• Produces a similarity dendrogram

• Is a hierarchical analysis

• Uses the presence – absence of benthic families

• Uses the abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates

• Uses the Bray Curtis similarity index to determine the relationship between stations

• Used in conjunction with Simper to assertain the contribution of families to the similarity or dissimilarity of stations

Primer Analysis Stage One

• Created a dendrogram of all the sample stations

• Tried to determine if there was a relationship between Semiquantitative and Quantitative

• Difficult to understand, very messy and unclear!

Primer Analysis Stage TwoSemiquantitative

Quantitative

• Separated the two types of samples to make it clearer

• Determined one site is separate from the rest

Semiquantitative

Observations

• Samples from Day 2

•Samples from Day 1

Quantitative Observations

• Day 1 samples

• Separate sample

• Day 2 samples

BioEnv• A comparison was taken between the

stations and the environmental factors• These showed that stations were mainly

affected by.........1. pH2. Flow3. Hardness4. Substrate5. Water temperature

SIMPER• Describes family contribution to the similarity between sites of day 1

• Used for station BSQT1 (Braided Stream Quantitative 1)

• Ave. Similarity 28.37% (Chironomidae, Nemouridae)

• Ave. Dissimilarity 94.77% ( Red/Chironomidae)

Conclusions of Primer• Results show a clear distinction of two river

systems• Therefore there are different factors influencing

them• Shows that the two methods of sampling are

different• The key families of contribution to similarity are

Chironomidae and Nemouridae – determined by the comparison through SIMPER

• Other families influencing are Leuctridae, Perlolidae and Simuliidae

• Bioenv indicates that the environmental parameters influencing are pH, Flow, Substrate, Hardness and Water Temperature

CANOCO The relationships between the macroinvertebrate lowest

taxonomic level {data transformed to ln(x+1)}, the sampling sites and the physicochemical parameters were analysed by canonical correspondence analysis (program CANOCO, Ter Braak, 1988). This method is not based on the assumption of linearity and is able to detect unimodal relationships between species and external variables. It is particularly suited for a forward selection of environmental variables in order to determine which variables best explain the species data. CANOCO selects a linear combination of environmental variables, while it maximizes the dispersion of the scores of the species. It does not assume linear relationships between species and environmental variables. The graphical representation of sampling sites or species is carried out by the program itself, with regard to the physicochemical parameters.

CANOCO

• 24 samples collected• Environmental parameters

eliminated: Water

temperature Air temperature Width of the river10 environmental

parameters

-2.0 +2.0

-2.0

+2.0

flowDO

Depth

DOP

pHConducti

Hardness

NH4NO3

substrat

SBQt4

SBQt3

BSQT2BSQt3BSQt4BSQL1BSQt1BSQL2

SBQt1

SBQT2SBQL1 SBQL2

LQL2LQL1

LQT2 LQt1LQt3LQt4

SSQt1

SSQT2

SSQL2

SSQL1SSQt4SSQt3

GRAPHIC WITH CANOCO METHOD

Environ-mental parameters

Axis 1 Axis 2

flow 0.8396

pH -0.6165

conductivity -0.7148

DO 0.7891

hardness -0.7359

Substrate -0.8433

Eigenvalues : 0.304 0.260

Inter set correlations of environmental

variables with axes

RESULTS OF CANOCO

• The main environmental parameters influencing the horizontal repartition are the flow of the river and the DO

• The main environmental parameters influencing the vertical repartition are the substrate, the hardness, the conductivity and the pH.

• Samples separated in 2 different systems : samples of the small stream and the braided stream on the left side and the samples of Lech stream and Streimbach on the right side.

• Main environmental parameters separating these 2 groups are the flow and the DO.

CANOCO GRAPHIC ACCORDING TO FAMILIES

Results of Canoco according to families

• Influences of environmental parameters on the different families

• The different families are spread in all the graphic

Good environmental conditions

Equilibrium of tolerant and sensitive taxa per site.

FUZZY CLUSTERINGFUZZY CLUSTERING (Equihua, (Equihua, 1990)1990)

Fuzzy Clustering analysis (Equihua, 1990) was performed, in order to obtain both ordination and classification of the sites. Fuzzy technique produces clusters according to the assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates in each site, according to the membership value. The numbers of Fuzzy clusters are selected according to the higher partition coefficient. Fuzzy analysis, is more suitable for the description of ecological communities, as similar macroinvertebrate communities may overlap in a lot of sites along a river.

FUZZY DIAGRAM

RESULTS OF FUZZY

• BSQT1 site belongs to a different cluster• In the inner cluster of the second group

only sites from the first day (Small stream-Braided stream)

• In the inner cluster of the third group only sites from the second day

(Lech stream-Strehnbach)

COMPARISON OF THE THREE METHODS

• Similar results• BSQT1 station is an ambiguous result for

Primer and Fuzzy• Sites from the first day:similar Sites from the second day:similar• Enviromental values that influence the

systems : flow, DO, pH, substrate, hardness

Critics of our sampling method

Choice of sampling site

Streams are very heterogenic systems,

They change all the time, if we have a point source of pollution, chemical tests are not informative

Type of streams

homogeneous heterogeneous

current

A small stream is more heterogeneous than a big one

Moment of sampling

Season (Biocycle, laying, embryonic development, emergence of imago etc… )

In the day, photocycle

Sampling method

Qualitative, quantitative or semiquantitative?

With a surber or a cylinder?

Which area ?

With a net ?

For how long ?

How many samplings ?

Choice of chemical compounds to analyse?

How many samplings ?

determination of samplings number (SS)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10number of samplings

nu

mb

er o

f fa

mili

es

ConclusionsThe evaluation of the habitat with the three different European waysgave a different kind of information, but the British way cannot beapplied anywhere except in GB, because reference sites don´t existfor the other countries.

The three different Biotic Indices showed that the water quality wasgood-excellent except in one station, but it cannot be concluded thatone of them is better than the others for the Austrian rivers.The only thing that it was obvious was the fact that the semi-quantitative method is better for covering the biodiversity of the site, easier to apply and not time consuming in relation to the sampling effort.

The level of the physicochemical parameters was good for the biotaexcept in one case that the pH was low.

CONCLUSION FOR STATISTICS

Our opinion is that Canoco is the most applicable method :

• States relationships between sites and environmental parameters

• Gives an illustrated view of the results (visualise relationships)

• Takes into account the whole picture (env/biota)

• Can be used for multiple comparison

Final Conclusions

• All rivers sampled were of good quality• Important to preserve the quality of these

rivers and their habitats• All of them must be included in Natura 2000

Thank you to.....

All the Professors of the European Network whohelped us and provided the resources for research,

Lechtaler Hauptschule for the use of the IT facilities and rooms,

A special thanks to Josef Weber for his extremely hard work over the past months with the European Class

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Quality of Running Waters European Class 2002 Principal Coordinator: Prof. Maria Lazaridou-Dimitriadou Local Coordinator:

Documents

british survey slide

rest of austria slide

linaria alpina slide

josef weber slide

habitat quality

river bank

lincoln index

party score