monitoring and evaluation of the quality of running waters european class 2002 principal...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
Characteristics from the Austrian Protocol
• 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
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
Total riparian cover 5
Cover Structure 10
Cover Quality 25
Channel alteration 10
Final Score 50
Quality Bad
Stream Assessment Score
Rapid embeddedness 5
Frequency of riffles 8
Substrate composition 7
Velocity / Depth 6
% of shade in channel 5
Elements of heterogenity 4
Aquatic vegetation Cover 5
Final Score 40
Quality Poor
Characteristics from the Ecobill Protocol (Spain)
Characteristics from the Austrian Protocol
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
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
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
Flow type- Chaotic flow
Modifications- Not known
Features- None
• Substratum: 1 (from quantitative)
Riparian Assessment
Score
Total riparian cover 35
Cover Structure 15
Cover Quality 40
Channel alteration 25
Final Score 115
Quality High
Stream Assessment Score
Rapid embeddedness 10
Frequency of riffles 10
Substrate composition 20
Velocity / Depth 6
% of shade in channel 3
Elements of heterogenity 2
Aquatic vegetation Cover 5
Final Score 56
Quality Fair
Characteristics from the Ecobill Protocol (Spain)
Characteristics from the Austrian Protocol
Mineral Substrates : 10 % megalithal5 % macrolithal70 % mesolithal
5% microlithal 5 % sand,mud
5% silt,loam,clay (inorganic material)
Channel form : braided
Average stream width : 55m
Maximum depth water body : 2m
No stagnation
Date 11 May 2002
Atmospheric conditions
Rain clouds, windy, cold
Air Temperature (C) 16
Water Temperature (C)
6.7
Current Speed (m/s) 2
Width (m) 35
Depth (m) 1.5
PH 8.8
Conductivity (µ/cm) 200
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
Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 140
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
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
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
Features- vegetated side bar
• Right bank attributes:
Material/s- boulders, cobble
Modifications-none
Features- vegetated side bar
RHS characteristics cont..
• Channel attributes:
Channel substratum - Not visible (some boulders)
Flow type- Chaotic flow
Modifications- None
Features- Not visible
• Substratum: 1 (from quantitative)
Characteristics from the Austrian Protocol
Mineral Substrates : >60 % megalithal
<40% macrolithalFew mesolithal
Channel form : braided
Average stream width : 16 m
Maximum depth water body : 0.5 m
No stagnation
Characteristics from the Ecobill Protocol (Spain)
Riparian Assessment
Score
Total riparian cover 15
Cover Structure 10
Cover Quality 25
Channel alteration 25
Final Score 75
Quality High
Chemical parametersDate 11 May 2002
Atmospheric conditions
Rainy, cloudy
Air Temperature (C) 14
Water Temperature (C)
7.3
Current Speed (m/s) 1.7
Width (m) 16
Depth (m) 0.25
pH 8.7
Conductivity (µ/cm) 200
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
Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) 140
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
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
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
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
Small stream Braded stream Lech River Streimbach
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
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.
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.
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
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