Variability in the ecological quality assessment of reference sites was tested on small headwater streams in Ireland. Although headwater streams constitute a large portion of the river channel network, they are not routinely monitored for water quality. Various metrics were used including the Irish Q-value and the newly developed Small Streams Risk Score (SSRS), and metrics applied elsewhere in the Atlantic biogeographic region in Europe, including the Biological Monitoring Working Party score (BMWP), the Average Score per Taxon (ASPT), the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxa (EPT), the Belgium Biotic Index (BBI) and the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI). The AQEM (version 2.5a) assessment software was used to apply some of these metrics. The spring and summer datasets are used to test the performance of biotic metrics with respect to season, and the applicability of their use to assess the ecological quality of wadeable streams. The quality status of most sites assigned by the various metrics was high using the spring invertebrate data, and an apparent considerable deviation in quality status occurred when the summer data was applied. Seasonal differences were noted using all the biotic indices and are attributed to the absence of pollution-sensitive groups in summer. Seasonal variability in the water quality status was particularly evident in acidic streams draining noncalcareous geologies with peaty soils that had relatively lower numbers of taxa. Some indices applied reflect a greater seasonal difference in the quality category assigned. The least amount of variability between seasons was obtained using the ASPT and the SSRS risk assessment system. Results suggest that reference status is reliably reflected in spring when more pollution-sensitive taxa were present, and that a new ecological quality assessment tool is required for application in summer when impacts may be most severe. This highly heterogeneous freshwater habitat seems to have too few taxa present in the summer to reliably determine the ecological quality of the stream using the available indices.
Eutrophication still continues to be an issue of major concern for the protection of water quality, and accordingly, the European Union Water Framework Directive has set a minimum target for all waters where ''good status'' is defined as a slight departure from the biological community which would be expected in conditions of minimal anthropogenic impact. The use of constructed ponds for wastewater treatment aimed at achieving this target has shown to be an effective alternative to conventional systems in the farm landscape. Their applicability in these areas is of great interest since these ponds have the added potential to combine their wastewater treatment properties with that of biodiversity enhancement. This article focuses on exploring the community structure of both natural and constructed ponds used for wastewater treatment and the driving environmental factors. A total of 15 constructed and 5 natural ponds were sampled for aquatic macroinvertebrates and hydrochemistry in spring and summer 2006. Results showed that the most important factors responsible for the differences in the community structure between these two types of ponds were pH, vegetation structure and pollution levels. These gradients helped to structure a large proportion of the communities with some taxa being associated with the constructed ponds. These results highlight the potential contribution of constructed ponds used for wastewater treatment to the landscape biodiversity. The present findings also open the possibility for a more integrated management of water quality and biodiversity enhancement in farmland areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.