Use and Applicability of Zoobenthic Communities in Lake Monitoring

Koskenniemi, Esa

doi:10.1002/9780470511121.ch9

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study did not support suggestions that the littoral zone of lakes is too heterogeneous for the collection of meaningful macroinvertebrate samples (Rasmussen, 1988;Johnes et al, 1996;Harrison and Hildrew, 1998;Koskenniemi, 2000). This does not mean that habitat heterogeneity within the littoral zone of lakes is not important, but that, at least across the lakes studied, overall variation of macroinvertebrate communities was greater among than within lakes.…”

Section: Variation Within and Among Lakescontrasting

confidence: 72%

“…The lack of understanding of fundamental relationships in the littoral zones of lakes is striking, and surprising, given the vast literature on macroinvertebrate communities in rivers. It has been argued (Rasmussen, 1988;Johnes et al, 1996;Harrison and Hildrew, 1998;Koskenniemi, 2000) that the inherent heterogeneity of habitats in the littoral of lakes prevents meaningful use of invertebrate communities for ecological assessment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of littoral mesohabitats and their macroinvertebrate assemblages in the ecological assessment of lakes

White

Irvine

2003

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Historically, ecological assessment of lakes has depended on open-water chemical and phytoplankton analysis, with trophic status determined by chlorophyll a and total phosphorus following the general protocol of the OECD lake classification scheme. This has been accompanied by a prevailing opinion that the littoral zone of lakes is too heterogeneous to allow meaningful interlake comparisons.2. Council of the European Communities Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) requires a broader approach to ecological assessment, including the need to incorporate a range of biotic variables. This paper describes the results of a monitoring programme designed to determine within-and among-lake variation of macroinvertebrate communities found in defined mesohabitats of 22 lakes incorporating a range of lake types. Three sampling approaches were applied to the study.3. Triplicate macroinvertebrate samples from a cobble/pebble mesohabitat of 11 lakes showed that community composition from a standard habitat was robust.4. Twinned samples from contrasting habitats of pebble/cobble and macrophyte dominated mesohabitats of 21 lakes had greater similarity within than among lakes. This showed that even across contrasting habitat structure, macroinvertebrate assemblages can provide a reliable lakespecific indicator.5. Multivariate analysis of replicate samples from 15 visually distinct mesohabitats in one lake showed that within-lake variation could, nevertheless, be identified as distinct clusters of invertebrate assemblages.6. Conclusions from the work are that variations within lakes were nested in among-lake variation across a range of lake types, and that macroinvertebrate assemblages can provide meaningful assessment of ecological differences across lakes. Monitoring can, however, produce a substantial amount of 'noise' from the data that reflects the complexity of macroinvertebrate community structure in littoral zones. It is recommended that incorporation of macroinvertebrates in ecological assessment is most useful when confined to well defined mesohabitats rather than attempt to incorporate a complete range of mesohabitats within a single lake.

show abstract

Section: Variation Within and Among Lakescontrasting

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of littoral mesohabitats and their macroinvertebrate assemblages in the ecological assessment of lakes

White

Irvine

2003

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of incorporation of littoral invertebrates into lake monitoring programmes reflects a traditional and common view that the structural heterogeneity of lake littoral areas, and associated variable distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates (Stoffels et al, 2003;White & Irvine, 2003;Stoffels et al, 2005;Brauns et al, 2007), negates the feasibility of their use in ecological assessment (Rasmussen, 1988;Harrison & Hildrew, 1998;Koskenniemi, 2000;Moss et al, 2003). Stoffels et al (2005) remarked, for example, on the 'surprising differences in structure and function that are often found between lakes with very similar features and physical settings' (citing Webster et al, 1996;Kratz et al, 1997;Soranno et al, 1999;Donahue et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Assessment of eutrophication pressure on lakes using littoral invertebrates

Donohue

Ainín

et al. 2009

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until the E.U. Water Framework Directive listed benthic invertebrates as a biotic element to be used for ecological classification of lakes, techniques for the assessment of the response of littoral invertebrates to anthropogenic pressures were extremely limited compared with those of rivers and lake profundal zones. We describe here the development of an ecological classification model based on changes of littoral invertebrate assemblages across a gradient of eutrophication, which is the most widespread anthropogenic pressure on lakes across Europe. The model comprises three derived parameters, two of which were developed from taxonspecific optima along a total phosphorus gradient calculated using canonical correspondence analysis, and the third based on invertebrate abundance. Combining the parameter metrics, we can estimate the ecological quality ratio (EQR), relative to those from paleolimnologically-confirmed reference lakes. The model was tested using independent samples collected from both hard and soft substrata and across two seasons from 45 lakes, comprising three alkalinity groups (n = 15 in each), and across gradients in water column total phosphorus concentrations. For hard substrata, EQRs were related consistently and highly significantly to water column concentrations of total phosphorus, accounting for the majority of the variance in every alkalinity group. For samples taken from soft substrata, a significant relationship was found only for high alkalinity lakes, accounting for a moderate proportion of the variability in water column total phosphorus concentrations. Our results compare highly favourably with those from other aquatic ecological assessment methods, irrespective of the faunal or floral group upon which they are based, demonstrating that littoral invertebrate assemblages can provide a statistically robust prediction of nutrient status when samples are collected from hard substrata. While the method was developed specifically to assess nutrient pressures on littoral invertebrates, many lakes are subject to multiple pressures. The development of classification models that incorporate multiple pressures presents a particularly significant challenge for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, requiring both reliable identification of minimally-impacted reference states and incorporation of pressures that are unlikely to interact in predictable ways.

show abstract

“…However, the high structural diversity of lake littoral zones has created severe doubts that an ecological assessment may be feasible (Harrison and Hildrew, 1998;Koskenniemi, 2000;Rasmussen, 1988). However, studies analysing data on the natural variation of littoral invertebrate communities, on governing environmental factors, and on detailed pressure-response relationships have suggested the contrary (White and Irvine, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%