You are here:Home//Results//Methods database (results)//Improvement of the Hungarian ecological water qualification system - Phytobenthos in Rivers

back to overview methods

HUNGPHYTOBENTRIVER [id:]

Method: Improvement of the Hungarian ecological water qualification system - Phytobenthos in Rivers [A magyarországi ökológiai minoítési rendszer továbbfejlesztése, fitobentosz]

1. General information

1.01 GIG: Eastern Continental
Relevant intercalibration types: n.a.
1.02 Category: Rivers
1.03 BQE: Benthic Diatoms
1.04 Country: Hungary
1.05 Specification: n.a.
1.06 Method name:
Improvement of the Hungarian ecological water qualification system - Phytobenthos in Rivers
1.07 Original name:
A magyarországi ökológiai minoítési rendszer továbbfejlesztése, fitobentosz
1.08 Status: Method is/will be used in First RBMP (2009)
1.09 Detected pressure(s):
Eutrophication, General degradation, Pollution by organic compounds (e.g. DDT, PCB), Pollution by organic matter Specification of pressure-impact-relationship:
On basis of the pressure data (TP, BOD, CODCr, Electrical Conductivity) the LDS were selected. The relationship between the phytobenthos metrics and BOD, EC, COD, TN, ox. sat and SRP showed significant correlations in several types (Spearman Correlation Coefficient ranging from 0.17 to 0.61 if the raltaionship was significant).
Pressure-impact-relationship:
Yes, with quantitative data (e.g. against range of sites reflecting continuous gradient of pressure).
1.10 Internet reference: n.a.
1.11 Pertinent literature of mandatory character:
Ács, É., G. Borics, G. Fehér, K.T. Kiss, N.M. Reskóné, M. Nagy, C. Stenger-Kovács, A. Tóth & G. Várbiró, 2009. A fitobentosz élolénycsoport zárójelentése az ökológiai min?sítési rendszer továbbfejlesztésérol.
1.12 Scientific literature:
Ács, É., G. Borics, G. Fehér, K.T. Kiss, N.M. Reskóné, C. Stenger-Kovács & G. Várbiró, 2009. Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive to assessmment the water quality in Hungarian running waters with diatoms. Diatomededelingen 33: 29-32. ISSN1872-9673.
Szilagyi, F., E. Acs, G. Borics, B. Halasi-Kovacs, P. Juhasz, B. Kiss, T. Kovacs, Z. Müller, G. Lakatos, J. Padisak, P. Pomogyi, C. Stenger-Kovacs, K. E. Szabo, E. Szalma & B. Tothmeresz, 2008. Application of Water Framework Directive in Hungary: Development of Biological Classification Systems. Water Science and Technology 58: 2117-2125.
1.13 Method developed by: Eva Acs and Gäbor Borics
Email of developer: evaacs@freemail.hu, boricsg@gmail.com
Institute of developer:
Hungarian Danube Research Station, Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Authority of Transtiszanian Region
1.14 Method reported by: Eva Acs
Email of person reporting the method: evaacs@botanika.hu, evaacs@freemail.hu
Email of institute reporting the method: Hungarian Danube Research Station, Göd
1.15 Comments: none

2. Data acquisition

Field sampling/surveying

2.01 Sampling/Survey guidelines:
CEN, 2003. Water quality. Guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. European Standard EN 13946. Brussels, European Committee for Standardization, 14 pp.
2.02 Short description:
Rivers: 5 stones or 5 macrophytes stems are randomly selected from 10 to 100 m river stretch
2.03 Method to select the sampling/survey site or area: Random sampling/surveying
2.04 Sampling/survey device: Brush
2.05 Specification: none
2.06 Sampled/surveyed habitat:
Specification of sampled habitat: Stones, macrophytes
Sampled habitat: Single habitat(s)
2.07 Sampled/surveyed zones in areas with tidal influence: not relevant
2.08 Sampling/survey month(s): Rivers: May to October
2.09 Number of sampling/survey occasions (in time) to classify site or area: One ocassion per sampling season
2.10 Number of spatial replicates per sampling/survey occasion to classify site or area: 5
2.11 Total sampled/surveyed area or volume or total sampling duration to classify site or area:
5 x 10 cm2= 50 cm2

Sample processing

2.12 Minimum size of organisms sampled and processed: every diatom
2.13 Sample treatment:
Organisms of the complete sample are identified.
2.14 Level of taxonomical identification:
Level: Species/species groups
Specification of level of determination: n.a.
2.15 Record of abundance:
Determination of abundance: Relative abundance
Abundance is related to: Area
Unit of the record of abundance: number of valves per 400 valves
2.16 Quantification of biomass: n.a.
2.17 Other biological data: none
2.18 Special cases, exceptions, additions: none
2.19 Comments: none

3. Data evaluation

Evaluation

3.01 List of biological metrics:
Relative abundance of taxa with indicator and sensitivity values for organic material and nutrients (diatom indices calculated by OMNIDIA)
3.02 Does the metric selection differ between types of water bodies: Yes
3.03 Combination rule for multi-metrics: Average metric scores
3.04 From which biological data are the metrics calculated:
List of biological metrics: Data from single sampling/survey occasion in time

Reference conditions

3.05 Scope of reference conditions: Surface water type-specific
3.06 Key source(s) to derive reference conditions:
Scope of reference conditions: Expert knowledge, Least Disturbed Conditions
3.07 Reference site characterisation:
Number of sites: n.a.
Geographical coverage: n.a.
Location of sites: n.a.
Data time period: n.a.
Criteria:
It was practically impossible to find reference conditions, especially in case of lowland rivers and large rivers that are the most of Hungarian rivers, so we used the so called "Least Disturbed Sites" for boundary setting.
3.08 Reference community description: n.a.
3.09 Results expressed as EQR: Yes

Boundary setting

3.10 Setting of ecological status boundaries: Equidistant division of the EQR gradient
3.11 Boundary setting procedure:
Reference conditions which could be applied across rivers in Hungary have not been established yet. Nevertheless unimpacted stretches or sites with low pollution and with smaller hydromorphological alterations can be found in almost every river type. On basis of the pressure data (TP, BOD, CODCr, Electrical Conductivity) the LDS were selected.
10th percentiles of the index values of the selected LDS sites were considered as high/good (H/G) class boundaries and 75th percentiles as good/moderate G/M boundaries in every type. The rest of data was divided into 3 equal parts between the minimum value of the index in a given river groups and the G/M value in order to set the further boundaries. Theoretical EQR values (H/G= 0.8; G/M= 0.6; M/P= 0.4; P/B= 0.2) were plotted against the index boundaries for all types. By equation of the actual line of best fit the EQR values can be calculated.
3.12 "Good status" community:
At good status stands of the sensitive taxa are well developed. They are dominant, but significantly decreasing at good-moderate boundary and replaced by tolerant taxa.The 10th percentiles of the index values of the selected LDS sites were considered as high/good (H/G) class boundaries.

Uncertainty

3.13 Consideration of uncertainty: No (to be done)
3.14 Comments: none

back to overview methods


WISER: "Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery"
Online: http://www.wiser.eu/results/method-database/detail.php [date: 2019/08/19]
© 2019 WISER (Contract No. 226273). All rights reserved.