A comparison of two methods for surveying aquatic macrophyte communities in boreal lakes: Implications for bioassessment

Aquatic Botany

Volumn 104, Issue , 2013, Pages 88-100

  Kanninen, A ^a,b   Vallinkoski, V M ^b   Leka, J ^c   Marjomaki T J ^a   Hellsten, S ^d   Hamalainen H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b Centre for Economic Development Transport and the Environment   (Finland)

^c Valonia Service Centre for Sustainable Development and Energy Issues of Southwest Finland   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Aquatic macrophyte; Monitoring method; Phytolittoral inventory; Transect survey; Water Framework Directive

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; LAKE ECOSYSTEM; MACROPHYTE; PLANT COMMUNITY; SAMPLING; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES RICHNESS; TRANSECT;

EID: 84870296409     PISSN: 03043770     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alahuhta J., Kanninen A. & Vuori K.-M., 2012. Response of macrophyte communities and status metrics to natural gradients and land use in boreal lakes. Aquatic Botany, in press. doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.07.003.
2. Alahuhta J., Vuori K., Hellsten S., Järvinen M., Olin M., Rask M., Palomäki A. Defining the ecological status of small forest lakes using multiple biological quality elements and palaeolimnological analysis. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 2009, 175:203-216.
3. Aroviita J., Koskenniemi E., Kotanen J., Hämäläinen H. A priori typology-based prediction of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna for ecological classification of rivers. Environmental Management 2008, 42:894-906.
4. Capers R.S., Selsky R., Bugbee G.J. The relative importance of local conditions and regional processes in structuring aquatic plant communities. Freshwater Biology 2010, 55:952-966.
5. Capers R.S. A comparison of two sampling techniques in the study of submersed macrophyte richness and abundance. Aquatic Botany 2000, 68:87-92.
6. CEN, 2006. Water Quality - Guidance Standard for the Surveying of Macrophytes in Lakes, Pr EN 15460.
7. Clarke R.T., Hering D. Errors and uncertainty in bioassessment methods - major results and conclusions from the STAR project and their application using STARBUGS. Hydrobiologia 2006, 566:433-439.
8. Connor E.F., McCoy E.D. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 1979, 113:791-833.
9. Croft M.V., Chow-Fraser P. Non-random sampling and its role in habitat conservation: a comparison of three wetland macrophyte sampling protocols. Biodiversity and Conservation 2009, 18:2283-2306.
10. European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000, 327:1-72.
11. G.-Tóth L., Poikane S., Penning E., Free G., Maemets H., Kolada A., Hanganu J. First steps in the Central-Baltic intercalibration exercise on lake macrophytes: where do we start?. Aquatic Ecology 2008, 42:265-275.
12. Gunn I.D.M., O'Hare M., Carvalho L., Roy D.B., Rothery P., Darwell A.M. Assessing the condition of lake habitats: a test of methods for surveying aquatic macrophyte communities. Hydrobiologia 2010, 656:87-97.
13. Gunn, I.D.M., Carvalho, L., Dudley, B.J., Gacia, E., Hellsten, S., Hennessy, M., Lauridsen, T.L., Leka, J., Vörös, L., Vlek, H.E., 2006. Report on ALTER-Net Workshop: Assessing Biodiversity Trends in European Lakes 17-18 October 2006. CEH Edinburgh. NERC/Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 34 pp.
14. Hawkins C.P., Olson J.R., Hill R.A. The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2010, 29:312-343.
15. Heegaard E., Birks H.H., Gibson C.E., Smithd S.J., Wolfe-Murphy S. Species-environmental relationships of aquatic macrophytes in Northern Ireland. Aquatic Botany 2001, 70:175-223.
16. Heino J., Toivonen H. Aquatic plant biodiversity at high latitudes: patterns of richness and rarity in Finnish freshwater macrophytes. Boreal Environment Research 2008, 13:1-14.
17. Hellsten S. Effects of water level regulation on aquatic macrophyte stands in northern Finland and options to predict these impacts under varying conditions. Acta Botanica Fennica 2001, 171:1-47.
18. Hering D., Borja A., Carstensen J., Carvalho L., Elliott M., Feld C.K., Heiskanen A.-S., Johnson R.K., Moe J., Pont D., Lyche Solheim A., Van De Bund W. The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Science of the Total Environment 2010, 408:4007-4019.
19. Herlihy A.T., Paulsen S., Van Sickle J., Stoddard J., Hawkins C., Yuan L. Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2008, 27:860-877.
20. Hurford C. Observer variation in river macrophyte surveys - the results of multiple-observer sampling trials on the Western Cleddau. Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater Habitats 2010, 137-146. Springer, Netherlands. C. Hurford, M. Schneider, I. Cowx (Eds.).
21. Hurford C., Lansdown R. The implications of observer variation for existing macrophyte recording methods. Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater Habitats 2010, 147-155. Springer, Netherlands. C. Hurford, M. Schneider, I. Cowx (Eds.).
22. Ilmavirta V., Toivonen H. Comparative studies on macrophytes and phytoplankton in ten small, brown-water lakes of different trophic status. Aqua Fennica 1986, 16:125-142.
23. Janauer G.A. Water Framework Directive, European Standards and the Assessment of Macrophytes in Lakes: a methodology for scientific and practical application. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen-Gesellschaft in österreich 2002, 139:143-147.
24. Jensen S. An objective method for sampling the macrophyte vegetation in lakes. Vegetatio 1977, 33:107-118.
25. Jyväsjärvi J., Aroviita J., Hämäläinen H. Evaluation of approaches for measuring taxonomic completeness of lake profundal macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 2011, 56:1876-1892.
26. Kanninen A., Vallinkoski V.-M., Leka J. Vesikasvillisuus pienten humusjärvien tilan arvioinnissa ja seurannassa. Pienten humusjärvien ekologisen tilan arviointi 2009, 21-49. Pohjois-Savon ympäristökeskus, Sastamala. A. Kanninen (Ed.).
27. Kolada A., Hellsten S., Kanninen A., Søndergaard M., Dudley B., Nõges P., Ott I., Ecke F., Mjedle M., Bertrin V., Davidson T., Duel H. Overview and Comparison of Macrophyte Survey Methods Used in European Countries and a Proposal of Harmonized Common Sampling Protocol to be Used for WISER Uncertainty Exercise Including a Relevant Common Species List 2009, Available at: www.wiser.eu.
28. Kuoppala M., Hellsten S., Kanninen A. Sisävesien vesikasviseurantojen laadunvarmennus. Suomen ympäristö 2008, 36:1-93.
29. Lacoul P., Freedman B. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Reviews 2006, 14:89-136.
30. Leka J., Kanninen A. Field surveys of aquatic macrophytes as a tool for monitoring and assessing the ecological status of the boreal lakes. How to Assess and Monitor Ecological Quality in Freshwaters 2003, 127-130. Nordic Council of Ministers. M. Ruoppa, P. Heinonen, A. Pilke, S. Rekolainen, H. Vuoristo (Eds.).
31. Leka, J., Valta-Hulkkonen, K., Kanninen, A., Partanen, S., Hellsten, S., Ustinov, A., Ilvonen, R., Airaksinen, O., 2003. Vesimakrofyytit järvien ekologisen tilan arvioinnissa ja seurannassa. Etelä- ja Pohjois-Savon ympäristökeskus 312.
32. Mäkelä S., Huitu E., Arvola L. Spatial patterns in aquatic vegetation composition and environmental covariates along chains of lakes in the Kokemäenjoki watershed (S. Finland). Aquatic Botany 2004, 80:253-269.
33. McElarney Y., Rippey B. A comparison of lake classifications based on aquatic macrophytes and physical and chemical water body descriptors. Hydrobiologia 2009, 625:195-206.
34. Moe S., Dudley B., Ptacnik R. REBECCA databases: experiences from compilation and analyses of monitoring data from 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries. Aquatic Ecology 2008, 42:183-201.
35. Novak M.A., Bode R. Percent model affinity: a new measure of macroinvertebrate community composition. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 1992, 11:80-85.
36. Partanen S., Keto A., Visuri M., Tarvainen A., Riihimäki J., Hellsten S. The relationship between water level fluctuation and distribution of emergent aquatic macrophytes in large mildly regulated lakes in the Finnish Lake District. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 2006, 29:1160-1166.
37. Penning W.E., Dudley B., Mjelde M., Hellsten S., Hanganu J., Kolada A., van den Berg M., Poikane S., Phillips G., Willby N., Ecke F. Using aquatic macrophyte community indices to define the ecological status of European lakes. Aquatic Ecology 2008, 42:253-264.
38. Pentecost A., Willby N., Pitt J. River Macrophyte Sampling: Methodologies and Variability, SC070051/R1 2009, 30 pp. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/.
39. Poikane S., van den Berg M., Hellsten S., de Hoyos C., Ortiz-Casas J., Pall C., Portielje R., Phillips G., Lyche Solheim A., Tierney D., Wolfram G., van de Bund W. Lake ecological assessment systems and intercalibration for the European Water Framework Directive: aims achievements and further challenges. Procedia Environmental Sciences 2011, 9:153-168.
40. Ranta P., Toivonen H. Changes in aquatic macrophytes since 1933 in an urban lake, Iidesjärvi, in SW Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 2008, 45:359-371.
41. Rask M., Vuori K., Hämäläinen H., Järvinen M., Hellsten S., Mykrä H., Arvola L., Ruuhijärvi J., Jyväsjärvi J., Kolari I., Olin M., Salonen E., Valkeajärvi P. Ecological classification of large lakes in Finland: comparison of classification approaches using multiple quality elements. Hydrobiologia 2011, 660:37-47.
42. Rintanen T. Changes in the flora and vegetation of 113 Finnish lakes during 40 years. Annales Botanici Fennici 1996, 33:101-122.
43. Rodusky A.J., Sharfstein B., East T.L., Maki R.P. A comparison of three methods to collect submerged aquatic vegetation in a shallow lake. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2005, 110:87-97.
44. Rørslett B. Principal determinants of aquatic macrophyte richness in northern European lakes. Aquatic Botany 1991, 39:173-193.
45. Spears B.M., Gunn I.D.M., Carvalho L., Winfield I.J., Dudley B., Murphy K., May L. An evaluation of methods for sampling macrophyte maximum colonisation depth in Loch Leven, Scotland. Aquatic Botany 2009, 91:75-81.
46. Staniszewski R., Szoszkiewicz K., Zbierska J., Lesny J., Jusik S., Clarke R.T. Assessment of sources of uncertainty in macrophyte surveys and the consequences for river classification. Hydrobiologia 2006, 566:235-246.
47. Stoddard J.L., Larsen D.P., Hawkins C.P., Johnson R.K., Norris R.H. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 2006, 16:1267-1276.
48. Toivonen H. Changes in the pleustic macrophyte flora of 54 small Finnish lakes in 30 years. Annales Botanici Fennici 1985, 22:37-44.
49. Toivonen H., Huttunen P. Aquatic macrophytes and ecological gradients in 57 small lakes in southern Finland. Aquatic Botany 1995, 51:197-221.
50. Vuori, K., Mitikka, S., Vuoristo, H., 2009. Pintavesien ekologisen tilan luokittelu (Guidance on ecological classification of surface waters in Finland. Part 1: Reference conditions and classification criteria, Part 2: Environmental impact assessment). Ympäristöopas 3/2009, 120 pp.