Climate and land-use change drive a suite of stressors that shape ecosystems and interact to yield complex ecological responses, i.e. additive, antagonistic and synergistic effects.Currently we know little about the spatial scale relevant for the outcome of such interactions and about effect sizes. This knowledge gap needs to be filled to underpin future land management decisions or climate mitigation interventions, for protecting and restoring freshwater ecosystems. The study combines data across scales from 33 mesocosm experiments with those from 14 river basins and 22 cross-basin studies in Europe producing 174 combinations of paired-stressor effects on a biological response variable. Generalised linear models showed that only one of the two stressors had a significant effect in 39% of the analysed cases, 28% of the paired-stressor combinations resulted in additive and 33% in interactive (antagonistic, synergistic, opposing or reversal) effects. For lakes the frequency of additive and interactive effects was similar for all spatial scales addressed, while for rivers this frequency increased with scale. Nutrient enrichment was the overriding stressor for lakes, generally exceeding those of secondary stressors. For rivers, the effects of nutrient enrichment were dependent on the specific stressor combination and biological response variable. These results vindicate the traditional focus of lake restoration and management on nutrient stress, while highlighting that river management requires more bespoke management solutions.

The biota of European rivers are affected by a wide range of stressors impairing water quality and hydro‐morphology. Only about 40% of Europe's rivers reach ‘good ecological status’, a target set by the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and indicated by the biota. It is yet unknown how the different stressors in concert impact ecological status and how the relationship between stressors and status differs between river types. We linked the intensity of seven stressors to recently measured ecological status data for more than 50,000 sub‐catchment units (covering almost 80% of Europe's surface area), which were distributed among 12 broad river types. Stressor data were either derived from remote sensing data (extent of urban and agricultural land use in the riparian zone) or modelled (alteration of mean annual flow and of base flow, total phosphorous load, total nitrogen load and mixture toxic pressure, a composite metric for toxic substances), while data on ecological status were taken from national statutory reporting of the second WFD River Basin Management Plans for the years 2010–2015. We used Boosted Regression Trees to link ecological status to stressor intensities. The stressors explained on average 61% of deviance in ecological status for the 12 individual river types, with all seven stressors contributing considerably to this explanation. On average, 39.4% of the deviance was explained by altered hydro‐morphology (morphology: 23.2%; hydrology: 16.2%), 34.4% by nutrient enrichment and 26.2% by toxic substances. More than half of the total deviance was explained by stressor interaction, with nutrient enrichment and toxic substances interacting most frequently and strongly. Our results underline that the biota of all European river types are determined by co‐occurring and interacting multiple stressors, lending support to the conclusion that fundamental management strategies at the catchment scale are required to reach the ambitious objective of good ecological status of surface waters.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract