Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes
Deltares, Delft.
NIVA, Oslo.
CEH, Edinburgh.
SYKE, University of Oulu.
Show others and affiliations
2008 (English)In: Aquatic Ecology, ISSN 1386-2588, E-ISSN 1573-5125, Vol. 42, no 2, p. 237-251Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aquatic macrophytes are one of the biological quality elements in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for which status assessments must be defined. We tested two methods to classify macrophyte species and their response to eutrophication pressure: one based on percentiles of occurrence along a phosphorous gradient and another based on trophic ranking of species using Canonical Correspondence Analyses in the ranking procedure. The methods were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scale as well as by alkalinity category, using 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. The grouping of species as sensitive, tolerant or indifferent to eutrophication was evaluated for some taxa, such as the sensitive Chara spp. and the large isoetids, by analysing the (non-linear) response curve along a phosphorous gradient. These thresholds revealed in these response curves can be used to set boundaries among different ecological status classes. In total 48 taxa out of 114 taxa were classified identically regardless of dataset or classification method. These taxa can be considered the most consistent and reliable indicators of sensitivity or tolerance to eutrophication at European scale. Although the general response of well known indicator species seems to hold, there are many species that were evaluated differently according to the database selection and classification methods. This hampers a Europe-wide comparison of classified species lists as used for the status assessment within the WFD implementation process.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 42, no 2, p. 237-251
National Category
Ecology
Research subject
Landscape Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-9244DOI: 10.1007/s10452-008-9182-yISI: 000255997700006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-43949108845Local ID: 7d3acd80-7370-11dd-a60f-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-9244DiVA, id: diva2:982182
Note
Validerad; 2008; 20080826 (ysko)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Ecke, Frauke

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ecke, Frauke
By organisation
Geosciences and Environmental Engineering
In the same journal
Aquatic Ecology
Ecology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 39 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf