European Class 2005

1
European Class 2005

• The WFD approach at
• the River Gallikos
• in Makedonia, Hellas

Sabrina Coste, Julia Hegner and Fran?ois
Rose 13th May 2005 School of Biology -
Aristoteles University Thessaloniki
2
Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Study Area
• 3. Methods and Materials
• 4. Discussion of Results
• 5. Conclusion

3
1. Introduction

• The Water Framework Directive 2000/60 E.C.
• "good water status for all waters by 2015"

• The Ecological Quality Ratio

• Assessment of
• Biological Parameters
• Hydromorphological Parameters
• Physicochemical Parameters

4
Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Study Area
• 3. Methods and Materials
• 4. Discussion of Results
• 5. Conclusion

5
2. Study Area - Gallikos

• Localisation
• Coordinates 40,48299 N 22,51235 E
• Sampling in beginning of March
• Landuses

6
(No Transcript)
7
Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Study Area
• 3. Methods and Materials
• 4. Discussion of Results
• 5. Conclusion

8
3. Methods and Materials

• A, Biological Parameters
• Macroinvertebrate- Kick-Sampling
• Biotic Indices and Scores
• B, Hydromorphological Parameters
• Greek Habitat Richness Matrix
• River Habitat Survey (RHS)
• C, Physicochemical Parameters
• D, Statistical Analyses Multivariate Technics
• Primer
• Simper
• Fuzzy
• Canoco

9
A, Biological Parameters

• Using macroinvertebrates, because .
• They dont move a lot
• Indicator organisms
• Not difficult to sample and to identify
• Sampling
• Kick-sweep sampling
• With standards pond net
• 3 min 1 min in all habitats at each site
• Conservation with formol
• After sampling
• In laboratory animals are sorted and identify

10
Tool and Technic

• Kick sweep sampling by Yorgos Chatzinikolaou
• Pond net used to sample

11
BIOTIC INDICES AND SCORES

• Based on the principle that polluted waters are
  generally less diverse than comparable unpolluted
  waters.
• All countries have different Biotic Indices or
  Scores
• The UK Biological Monitoring Working Party Score
• ?
• The Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party
  Score
• ?
• The Hellenic Evaluation Score

12
The Hellenic Evaluation Score

• Abundant

• Common

• Present

• Taxa

• Calculation of the Hellenic Biological Monitoring
  Working Party (HBMWP) score Sum of all the
  results of the taxa
• Calculation of the Hellenic Average Score Per
  Taxon (HASPT) HBMWP/ number of taxa
• Decide whether the site is poor or rich according
  to Greek Habitat Richness Matrix (GHRM)

• (gt10) Case J

• (1.01-10) Case J

• (0-1) Case J

•  

•  

•  

•  

• ) Capniidae, Chloroperlidae,

•  

•  

•  

• ß) Siphlonuridae,

• 120

• 110

• 100

• ?) Aphelocheiridae,

•  

•  

•  

• d) Blephariceridae

•  

•  

•  

• e) Phryganeidae, Molanidae, Odontoceridae,
  Bareidae, Lepidostomatidae, Thremmatidae,
  Brachycentridae, Helicopsychidae

13
Rich site Many types of habitats
Poor site Few types of habitats

• Y

• HASPT

• X

• HBMWP

• Y

• ASPT

• X

• HBMWP

• 5

• gt55,69

• 5

• gt1053

• 5

• gt64,72

• 5

• gt1532

• 4

• 45,18-55,69

• 4

• 756-1052

• 3

• 35,33-45,17

• 3

• 389-755

• 3

• 45,82-54,56

• 3

• 830-1325

• 2

• 27,50-35,32

• 2

• 167-388

• 2

• 31,73-45,81

• 2

• 341-829

• 1

• 0-27,49

• 1

• 0-166

• 1

• 0-31,72

• 1

• 0-340

4. Choose the respectively X/Y-Table 5. Classify
HBMWP score ? X 6. Classify HASPT ? Y 7. Final
Calculation (XY)/2 HES
14
8. Classification of the water quality

• Interpretation

• Semi-sum (HBMWPHASPT)

• excellent

• 5

• Very good

• 4,5

• Good

• 4

• Good

• 3,5

• Moderate

• 3

• Moderate

• 2,5

• Poor

• 2

• Poor

• 1,5

• Very poor

• 1

15
The UK BMWP score

• The BMWP score
• Benthic invertebrate are refered to a score based
  on their susceptibility to pollution
• The ASPT
• BMWPT / number of taxa
• The EQItaxa
• number of taxa observed / number of taxa
  predicted
• The EQIaspt
• ASPT observed / ASPT predicted

16
UK river classification scheme

• EQIASPT

• EQItaxa

• Description

• Grade

• 1.0

• 0.85

• Very good

• A

•  

•  

•  

•  

• 0.90

• 0.70

• Good

• B

•  

•  

•  

•  

• 0.77

• 0.55

• Fairly good

• C

•  

•  

•  

•  

• 0.65

• 0.45

• Fair

• D

•  

•  

•  

•  

• 0.50

• 0.30

• Poor

• E

17
The Iberian BMWP score

• Meaning

• Score

• Quality

• Class

• Very clean waters (pristine)

• gt150

• Good

• I

• Differences to the UK BMWP
• news families that changes the score
• 5 different levels of classification
• Almost the same methodology as for the UK BMWP

• Not polluted, or not noticeably altered system

• 101-150

•  

•  

• Evidence of effects of mild pollution

• 61-100

• Passable

• II

•  

•  

•  

•  

• Polluted waters (altered system)

• 36-60

• Dubious

• III

• Very polluted waters (very altered system)

• 16-35

• Critical

• IV

•  

•  

•  

•  

• Strongly polluted waters (strongly altered system)

• lt15

• Very critical

• V

18
B, Hydromorphological Parameters

• Greek Habitat Richness Matrix (GHRM)

19
River Habitat Survey

• The Hydromorphological Parameters were recording
  using the River Habitat Survey field method
  (RHS).
• RHS systematic collection of data associated
  with the physical structure of the watercourses
  based on a standard 500m length of a river
  channel
• 10 spot checks located at an interval of 50m ?
  recording the features associated with the
  physical structure of the watercourses (channel
  and bank morphologies, structures,
  modifications).
• A sweep up ? report the general habitat of the
  channel and the management of adjacent land use.

20
(No Transcript)
21

• Data of the RHS are used for calculate the
  Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA) and the Habitat
  Modification Score (HMS) for each site.
• HQA give a score indicating the habitat quality
  based on the physical features recorded in the
  RHS (version 1.2).
• HMS provide a score expriming the extent of
  artificial modification to the physical structure
  of a river (version 1.1).
• ? 5 Habitat Modification Categories

22
C, Physicochemical Parameters

• Following physicochemical parameters were
  measured in situ using a digital multimeter
  Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
  Dissolved Oxygen (DO2), Conductivity, Salinity,
  pH, Cl-, NO3-, NH4, NH3-, Turbidity and
  Chlorophyll
• PO4-, BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were
  analysed in the laboratory
• Relative abundance of each category of substrate
  (boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, sand, silt)
  was estimated visually.
• Water velocity was measured at the sampling
  stations using a flow meter. Discharge was
  calculated using measurement of velocity and
  depth at each tenth of the width of the river.

23
D, Statistical Analyses

• Can be used to generate hypotheses about the
  causality of distribution of taxa.
• Can identify present discontinuities within
  the biological communities which can be related
  to environmental changes.
• Can be carried out on presence-absence data or
  quantitative data.
• Results, usually single figure, is a
  preferantial way to present data.

24

• Primer Simper (Field et al., 1982)
• Produces a similarity dendrogram of sampling
  stations based on the presence absence and the
  abundance of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa.
• Measures the similarity of stations and groups
  of stations, using the Bray-Curtis similarity
  index.
• Then by SIMPER analysis it may be explained
  which families of macroinvertebrates contribute
  to the similarity or dissimilarity between groups.

25

• Fuzzy (Equihua, 1990)
• Was performed in order to obtain ordination
  and classification of the sites.
• 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.
• Does not assume the existence of discrete
  benthic populations along the various stretches
  of a river system.
• Identifies the continuum and gradual change of
  the sites faunal composition. Therefore it is
  suitable for the description of ecological
  communities.

26

• Canoco (Ter Braak, 1988)
• Analysing the relationships between the
  macroinvertebrate lowest taxonomic level, the
  sampling sites and the physicochemical parameters
  
• Is performed to detect covariances between
  environmental/external variables and respective
  biological components.
• Particularly suited for a forward selection of
  environmental variables in order to determine
  which variables have the greatest influence on
  the species community.

27
Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Study Area
• 3. Methods and Materials
• 4. Discussion of Results
• 5. Conclusion

28
4. Discussion of Results

• A, Hydromorphological Parameters
• B, Physicochemical Parameters
• C, Biological Parameters
• D, Statistical Analyses

29
A, Hydromorphological Parameter
RHS Galliko (close Nea Filadelphia) HQA score
36 HMS score 30 significantly
modified
Valley Shape
Asymmetrical floodplain
Channel
substrate flow vegetation types modifications
Gravel/pebbles sand Ripples 4 No
Banks
material feature top face land
use modifications
Left
Right
Gravel/Sand Vegetation point bars simple complex R
ough pasture embankment
Earth Gravel/Sand Eroding cliff uniform complex
Tall herbs / rough pasture reinforced
30
Gallikos (close Nea Filadelphia)
31
(No Transcript)
32
B, Physicochemical Parameters
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
C, Biological Parameters
40

41

42
The Hellenic Evaluation Score

• Quality

• Score

• HBMWP

• HASPT

• Taxa

• moderate

• 3

• 950

• 47,5

• 20

• G01

• moderate

• 3

• 836

• 52,25

• 16

• G02

• moderate

• 2,5

• 768

• 48

• 16

• G03

43
COMPARATION OF TWO BIOTIC SCORE

• HELLENIC SCORE

• IBERIAN SCORE

• Quality

• Score

• Quality

• Score

• moderate

• 3

• passable

• 64

• G01

• moderate

• 3

• polluted water

• 50

• G02

• moderate

• 2,5

• polluted water

• 56

• G03

44
D, Statistical Analyses

• Primer
• Simper
• Fuzzy
• Canoco

45
Primer

• Similarity
• AB7, G01, G02 G03 (Gammaridae,Baetidae)
• -A067, A054, A034 A021 (Miscidaceae,Chironomidae
  )
• - A006 close to the sea

46
Fuzzy

• Similarity
• G01, G02 G03 (Gammaridae,Baetidae,
  Chironomidae)
• -A067, A054, A034 A021 (Miscidaceae,Chironomidae
  )
• A006 close to the sea
• AB7 tributary

47
Canoco
48
Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Study Area
• 3. Methods and Materials
• 4. Discussion of Results
• 5. Conclusion

49
After this Case Study

• we can not make a reliable statement about the
  water quality of the River Gallikos according to
  the WFD
• No monitoring of all recommended biological
  parameters
• Only once, not following the recommended
  monitoring frequencies
• No monitoring of the whole managment unit
• but it was enough for
• getting an overview about how the monitoring is
  carried out
• understanding the correlation between the
  different parameters
• getting to know the main principles and methods
  of the WFD
• experiencing and working in an international
  team

50
References
All course documents on Blackboard http//edu.bio.
auth.gr/wq Environment Agency (1997) River
Habitat Survey 1997 Field Survey Guidance
Manual, Incorporating Sercon. Equihua, M.
(1990). FUZZY clustering of ecological data. J.
Ecol. 78. pp. 519-534 Lazaridou-Dimitriadou, M.
et al. (2004) Assessment of the Water and habitat
Quality of a Mediterranean River (Kalamas,
Epirus, Hellas), in Accordance with the EU Water
Frame Work Directive. Acta hydrocim. Hydrobiol.
32, 3, p. 175-188
51
Thanks to
Maria Yorgos Konstantinos Giannis And all the
team of the Biology laboratory at Aristoteles
University, Thessaloniki
52
And for your attention!!