SLOVAKIA Slovak Assessment of Benthic Invertebrates in Rivers

SLOVAKIA – Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in rivers

AUSTRIA – Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates

Compliance criteria / Compliance checking
Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes
High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / Calibrated against pre-classified sampling sites
Equidistant division of the EQR gradient
STEP 1: Reference sites are selected
STEP 2: The benchmark value between reference (High) and good status conditions is defined as the 25th percentile of index values under reference conditions and set to a value of 0.8.
STEP 3: That means, observed index values are divided by the benchmark value and multiplied by 0.8. Values > 1 are set to 1.
STEP 4: The Final Ecological Quality Class is determined by the worst case applying all relevant modules.
STEP 5: Class boundaries for the ecological quality classes are defined as follows:
Quality Class 1:  0.8
Quality Class 2:  0.6 < 0.8
Quality Class 3:  0.4 < 0.6
Quality Class 4:  0.2 < 0.4
Quality Class 5: < 0.2
All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine parameter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole / Metrics: Saprobic Index, Degradation-Index, Rhithron-Feeding-Type-Index, Ratio of the abundance of functional feeding types, Total number of taxa, Number of EPT-taxa, Ratio of EPT-Taxa, Share of littoral-preferring taxa, Ratio of Oligochaeta and Diptera taxa, Longitudinal Zonation Index, Margalef diversity
Combination for multimetric: Average metric scores
Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT / One common intercalibration type is used: R-E4
The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / Yes
Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes
Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time / One occasion (for Austrian monitoring), probably more acc. to aim of research within other projects
Pre-requisite low water conditions and representative benthic invert. community; Rhithral: spring ahead of regular spring floods (acc. to regime type); Potamal: early summer / summer during low flow conditions
Multihabitat sampling
Non-wadeable rivers: for routine monitoring only river banks are sampled with MHS; for other studies in non-wadeable rivers, airlift samples are preferred, but no national method so far;
All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / Result of sampling procedure is number of individuals per m2 using 500 μm mesh-size of net but also smaller animals are sampled because meshes are "clogged" and animals do not slip directly through the mesh
Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Genus, Species/species groups
Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) species-level
Oligochaeta species-(genus-)level
Hirudinea species-(genus-)level
Crustacea (Amphipoda, Decapoda, Isopoda) species-level Ephemeroptera species-(genus-)level
Plecoptera genus-(species-)level
Trichoptera (ohne Limnephilinae) species-(genus-)level
Coleoptera species-(genus-)level
Odonata species-(genus-)level
Heteroptera species-(genus-)level
Megaloptera species-(genus-)level
Chironomidae species-(genus-)level
Simuliidae species-level
Blephariceridae species-level
Limoniidae species-(genus-)level
Restliche Diptera-genus (family)-level
Bryozoa species-(genus-)level
Pressure-impact relationship / Yes, tested with quantitative data (e.g. against range of sites reflecting continuous gradient of pressure).
Reference site criteria / • no to very minor eco-morphological impairment (class 1 or 1-2 acc. to different classification systems used in Austria, e.g. Werth 1987 or Spiegler 1989); main focus was put on parameter "river bottom", as this is the most important part of the river for benthic invertebrates • no residual flow or upsurge/ down surge influence • no disruption of longitudinal continuum with direct (local) influence (remark: not true for whole river/catchment) • no intensive land use at investigation site • no punctual sewage water disposal/discharge directly above or at sampling site • no organic pollution (information of existing river quality assessment data were consulted)

HUNGARY – Hungarian Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index

Compliance criteria / Compliance checking
Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes
High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / High-good boundary derived from metric variability at alternative benchmark sites (median).
Good - moderate boundary derived from metric variability at alternative benchmark sites (lower quartiles).
The boundary setting was done on biological parameter level and by biological river groups.
The relevant metric boundaries were normalized to EQR values and used for the calculation of the composite index.
All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine parameter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole / HMMI_m: Average (Shannon diversity metric ,EP:Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera taxon number metric , ASPT metric , 1- Zonation preference of Littoral metric )
HMMI_sc: Average (Shannon diversity metric ,EPT:Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera+ Trichoptera taxon number metric ,Total taxon number metric, ASPT metric)
HMMI_lc: Average (EPT%:Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera+ Trichoptera taxon ratio ,log_RL (rheo- to limnophil, usually found in streams, )
HMMI_sl: Average (Shannon diversity metric, Total taxon number metric ,ASPT metric,Feeding type: predators abundance metric)
HMMI_ll: Average (Shannon diversity metric, Total taxon number metric , 2*ASPT metric,EPTCOB taxon number metric)
Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT / R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6
The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / Yes
Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes
Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time / One or two per year March to October
Multihabitat sampling
10 (low diversity habitat) or 20 (high diversity habitat (ex. more than 5 habitat). All available habitats in wadeable rivers; riparian zones at non-wadable rivers (deep mid-size and large rivers)
All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / Result of sampling procedure is ind/m2(0.625 or 1.25 m2 (10 or 20 units)) using Professional Hand Net - 1mm mesh/0.5m bag Professional Hand Net
Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Species/species groups
Genus level
Family level
Other level: Oligochaeta
Family: Turbellaria, Chironomidae, Simuliidae, Other Diptera
Genus: Bivalvia (Pisidium), Odonata (juv), Heteroptera (juv), Trichoptera (juv.), Coleoptera
Species, species groups: Bivalvia, Hirudinea, Mollusca (Gastropoda), Crustacea, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Megaloptera, Trichoptera, Heteroptera, Coleptera
Pressure-impact relationship / Yes, with quantitative data (e.g. against range of sites reflecting continuous gradient of pressure).
Based on the macro invertebrate data the 25 Physiographic river types of Hungary were pooled into six biological river groups. These are
1. Mountainous group (500-800m, small and medium catchment) Index name: HMMI_m
2. Small Colline group (200-500m, small and medium catchment and lowland 0-200 with coarse sediment small and medium catchment) Index name: HMMI_sc
3. Large Colline group (200-500m, large catchment and lowland 0-200 with coarse sediment large and very large catchment ) Index name: HMMI_sl
4. Small Lowland (0-200m, small to medium catchment size) Index name: HMMI_sl
5. Large Lowland (0-200m, large to very large catchment size) Index name: HMMI_ll
6. Danube (IC covered by ICPDR)
HMMI_m: Ecological data of 34 sampling location(56 samples) were tested against percentage cover of near natural vegetation, forested area percentage, and various chemical pressures (N-NO3, N-NO2, TP, TN, Conductivity*only significant corr. listed) (Spearman Correlation Coefficient absolute value ranging from 0.83 to 0.54).
HMMI_sc: Ecological data of 120 sampling location(243 samples) were tested against various chemical pressures(BOD, COD_Cr, N-NO3, N-NO2, TP, TN, Conductivity, dissolved oxygen)(Spearman Correlation Coefficient absolute value ranging from 0.23 to 0.56).
HMMI_lc: Ecological data of 27 sampling location(86 samples) were tested against various chemical pressures(BOD, COD_Cr, N-NO3, N-NO2, TP, TN, Conductivity, dissolved oxygen)(Spearman Correlation Coefficient absolute value ranging from 0.31 to 0.56).
HMMI_sl: Ecological data of 55 sampling location(129 samples) were tested against various chemical pressures(BOD, N-NO3, N-NO2, Na%)(Spearman Correlation Coefficient absolute value ranging from 0.26 to 0.47).
HMMI_ll: Ecological data of 45 sampling location(194 samples) were tested against various chemical pressures(BOD, COD_Cr, N-NO3, N-NO2, TP, TN, Conductivity, dissolved oxygen)(Spearman Correlation Coefficient absolute value ranging from 0.20 to 0.35).
Reference site criteria / Alternative benchmark selection criteria based on Sebastian Birk for the Danube basin countries, the benchmark selection was river group specific

SLOVENIA - Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates

Compliance criteria / Compliance checking
Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes
High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / 1. Module«Organic pollution» (Saprobic Index in relation to stream type specific reference value): The boundary value between high and good status conditions is defined as the 25th percentile of index values under reference conditions. Boundary values between other pairs of classes (good-bad) are set using equidistant division of the EQR gradient. Therefore good-moderate boundary was defined as 25% deviation of index value from high/good boundary.
2. Module «Hydromophological alterations/general degradation»: The benchmark values between all classess were defined using paired metrics - percentage of «good» hydromorphology (HM) taxa and percentage of »bad» hydromorphology (HM) taxa - that respond in different ways to the influence of the hydromorphological pressure defined by habitat quality and modification (HQM) index. Boundaries between classes were defined as follows:High/good boundary; percentage of» good» HM taxa >percentage of »bad» HM taxa
Good-moderateboundary; percentage of» good» HM taxa ≈percentage of »bad» HM taxa
All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine parameter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole / Metrics: Saprobic index (SI = Sum of (Indicator Taxa Abundance * Saprobic value* Indicator weight) / Indicator Taxa Abundance* Indicator weight), Slovenian multimetric index for hydromorphological alteration/general degradation (SMEIH = Weighted average of three or four metrics - depends on river type)
Combination rule for multimetric: Weighted average metric scores
Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT / Common intercalibration types are used: R-E4 ,R-EX5, R-EX6
The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / The metric selection does not differ between types of water bodies butreference conditions are surface water type-specific
Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes
Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time / One occasion per sampling season
small-medium-sized rivers: June-September,
large rivers: December-February
Multihabitat sampling
Non-wadable rivers are sampled only at the banks, i.e. multi-habitat sampling is confined to the river margin habitats.
All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / Result of sampling procedure is number of individuals per 0,3125 square meter using 500 μm mesh-size of hand net
Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Family, Genus, Species/species groups
Mostly species/genus, Chironomidae (subfamily), Tubificidae, some Brachycera (family)
Pressure-impact relationship / Yes, tested with quantitative data (e.g. against range of sites reflecting continuous gradient of pressure).
Pressure impact relationship was tested for hydromorphological pressure only and for each type separately. As hydromorphological pressure variable was used a hydromorphological quality and modification (HQM) index.
Reference site criteria / The criteria for the selection of the potential reference sites in the rivers include hydromorphological and physico-chemical condition of the site, riparian vegetation, floodplain and land use properties, saprobic index values, and some pressures presence. Potential reference sites were defined without considering the criteria of biotic pressures that includes allochthonous species and fishery management.

ROMANIA - Assessment method for ecological status of water bodies based on

macroinvertebrates

Compliance criteria / Compliance checking
Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes
High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / High-good boundary derived from metric variability at near-natural reference sites
Organic pollution and saprobic index; ecological status boundaries H/G = 1.55; G/M = 1.80.
The methodology proposed for the evaluation of the ecologic status will have two components: one regarding the organic pollution and the other one regarding the general degradation.
For the organic pollution we propose the evaluation of the ecologic status based on the saprobity index. The “generaldegradation” component will be evaluated according to a group of indices.
The indices proposed for the evaluation of the ecologic status of water bodies according to the macroinvertebrates communities are:
–Saprobity index (Pantle Buck)
–EPT_I index (no. individuals Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera)
–Shannon-Wiener diversity index
–Number of families
–OCH index (no. individuals Oligochaeta-Chironomidae)
–Functional grouping index (no. of scraper and shredder individuals)
–Water flow preference index (no. of reophile and limnophile individuals).
The calculation of values specific to the indices mentioned was achieved according to the statistic works. The values considered references (R) and the other values (AV) were processed differentiatedly. It was chosen to make the determination on the statistical basis for ecological status. At least 3 years data have been analysed. Univariate statistics reasoning is behind the process of establishing the boundaries for the mentioned indices and for 5 ecological status.
For the high status, there were considered the median or the percentages of 50 of the values considered as references, for the good status, the percentages of 50 of the other values (others than the ones considered as references), for the moderate status, the percentages of 75 of the other values (others than the ones considered as referencesl), and for the poor status, the percentages of 90 of the other values (others than the ones considered as references). For the bad status it is considered everything that is below the limit for the poor status. For each rivers type guide values for reference status were proposed as percentages of 10 of the values considered as references.
The introduction of values and weights for the proposed indices will allow the calculation of the multimetric index’s value for macroinvertebrates.
For the classification within ecologic status, it is proposed the division of the field of variation of the multimetric index values into 5 parts, as follows:
Ecological status / EQR Domain / Quality
High / 0,70-1,00 / 1
Good / 0,69-0,55 / 2
Moderate / 0,54-0,35 / 3
Poor / 0,34-0,20 / 4
Bad / <0,2 / 5
All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine parameter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole / Metrics: Saprobic index; No of individuals; EPT; Shannon-Wiener-Diversity
Combination rule for multimetric: Weighted average metric scores
Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT / Common intercalibration types are used: R-E1a, R-E1b,R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-E6, R-E6d, R-EX4, R-EX5, R-EX6
The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / For each rivers type, guide values for reference status were proposed as percentages of 10 of the values considered as natural or near-natural.
Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes
Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time / 2 - 3 Times / year
May / April; July / August; September / October.
Multihabitat sampling
All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / Result of sampling procedure is number of individuals per one square-meter using 250 μm mesh size of hand net
Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Family, Genus, Species/species groups
Oligochaeta, Chironomidae – species levels, genus levels; Coleoptera, Heteroptera - genus levels;
Plathelmintes (Turbellaria), Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Hirudinea, Arthropoda, Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Plecoptera, Diptera, species levels
Pressure-impact relationship / Pressure-impact relationship has not been tested
Reference site criteria / The absence of major pressures human impact
Minimal anthropogenic pressures (agriculture, land use, population density)
Natural vegetation in the catchment area
Longitudinal continuityand lateral connectivity
Presence of sensitive taxa,high diversity, ratio MIV groups, absence of invasive species.

BULGARIA - Irish biotic index