Lake Management Criteria for Main Pressures

Eutrophication

General introduction The word eutrophication is of Greek origin and it means food/ nutrient (='Trophi')

Table 1 Common water uses, related quality problems, and monitoring requirements in a sample of legislative texts

Water use

Pollution problem

Monitoring requirements

Source

Drinking water supply

Toxic pollution

Microbial pollution Toxins from algal blooms

Health related inorganic and organic compounds Microbiological parameters Microcystin Turbidity

Total dissolved solids

1, 2, 3, 4

Bathing, recreation

Microbial pollution Cyanobacteria toxins and products Turbidity

Microbiological parameters Turbidity, transparency Cyanobacteria abundance and toxins

1, 5, 6

Fish resources

Oxygen depletion

Dissolved oxygen

7, 8

Aquaculture

Toxic compounds Temperature

Suspended solids Toxic compounds

Agricultural water supply

Chemical contamination

Salinity

9, 10, 11

(irrigation and livestock)

Salinization

Bacteriological contamination

Sodium content Toxic compounds

Industrial water supply

Chemical/bacteriological contamination Excessive alga/plants

Nutrients

Suspended sediment pH, salinity (industry dependent)

12

Aquatic ecosystem

Eutrophication

Acidification Habitat degradation Toxic pollution

Biological, physical, chemical hydromorphologcial variables

5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15

Sources

1. WHO (2006) Guidelines for drinking water quality (3rd ed.), Vol. 1: Recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization.

2. US EPA (2006) Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Washington, DC: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

3. Council Directive 98/83/EC (1998). Quality of water intended for human consumption. Official Journal of the European Communities, 5.12.2998, L330 41: 32-54.

4. Health Canada (2007) Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Ottawa: Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (CDW), Health Canada.

5. WHO (2003) Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments, Vol. 1: Coastal and fresh waters. Geneva: World Health Organization.

6. Council Directive 2006/7/EC (2006) Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities, 4.3.2006, L64: 37-51.

7. Council Directive 98/83/EC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (78/659/EEC).

8. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (1999) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (Water: Aquatic Life). Ottawa: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

9. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (1999) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (Water: agriculture). Ottawa: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

10. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1994) Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage. Paper 29, Rev. 1. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

11. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1986) Water for Animals. Report AGL/MISC/4/85. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

12. Japan: Basic Environmental Law (Law No. 91) (1993) Environment Quality Guidelines. Available at http://www.env.go.jp/en/water/wq/wp.html.

13. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, 22.12.2000, L 327/1.

14. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) Auckland, New Zealand: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

15. European Community (1992) Directive 92/43/EECof the Council of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities LZ06: 7-50.

in abundance (= 'eu'). Currently, several definitions can be found in generalist, scientific, and policy texts. Most agree in defining eutrophication as a process wherein enrichment of aquatic systems by nutrients, usually phosphorus and nitrogen compounds, causes excessive growth of plants and algae, leading to an imbalance between the processes of algal production and consumption. This is often reflected in enhanced sedimentation of algal-derived organic matter, stimulation of microbial decomposition and oxygen consumption, with depletion of oxygen in the hypolimnion.

Eutrophication becomes a serious problem when one or more of the following symptoms are observed:

1. aquatic plants hinder uses of the waterbody

2. toxic algal species proliferate in large numbers

3. noxious odors are common

4. water becomes highly turbid

5. depletion of dissolved oxygen and fish kills.

A lake's natural productivity reflects the biogeo-chemical characteristics and hydrological processes of the watershed in which the lake is located, as well as the physicochemical and biological dynamics within the lake's waters and sediments. These characteristics and processes are responsible for a differential vulnerability of lakes to alterations in nutrient loading. Specifically, the vulnerability of lakes to enhanced nutrient loading is mediated by lake size and depth, flushing rate, patterns of stratification and mixing, and alkalinity. The establishment of criteria for eutrophication management needs to consider these conditions, for example by defining lake types and setting type specific reference conditions and objectives.

The issue of lake eutrophication started to receive public and scientific attention in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the industrialized countries, where it was linked to a growing population and to the intensification of industrial and agricultural activities. Since then, for many lakes in industrialized countries, wastewater treatment to remove phosphorus and/or nitrogen has reduced water quality degradation. However, the impact of human activities on lakes is today several times higher than 40-50 years ago, given the growth in population, in industrial and agricultural production, and in transport.

Criteria for assessment In 1967, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) initiated a Cooperative Program on eutro-phication, designed to quantify the relationship between nutrient loading in inland aquatic systems (lakes and reservoirs) and their trophic response. This program covered a wide variety of geographic and limnological situations and aimed at developing a sound database for evaluating the response of inland aquatic systems to various rates of nutrient supply over a large geographical area and provided the foundation for the development of scientific lake management principles for the control of excessive nutrient loading to lake water. The main results of this program have since then constituted the basis for lake eutrophication control worldwide and are as follows:

1. recognition that phosphorus is the factor determining eutrophication in most cases

2. definition of the relationship between nutrient loading to lake waters and their trophic response for a high number of lakes

3. development of models allowing the establishment of nutrient load limits compatible with the water use objectives.

The OECD proposed quantitative classification criteria for the previously vague, qualitative, description of trophic classes, i.e., oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutro-phic, and their border categories ultra-oligotrophic and hypereutrophic. Two classification systems, fixed boundary and open boundary, were developed, integrating the criteria for in-lake total phosphorus concentration, yearly average chlorophyll-a concentration, maximum chlorophyll-a concentration, yearly average Secchi depth transparency, and minimum Secchi depth transparency into a trophic scale from ultra-oligotrophic to hypertrophic. Table 2 shows the boundaries for a selection of published classification systems that typically have a 4-5 trophic scale based on average chlorophyll-a concentrations as found in studies published from 1966 to 1999.

However, the success of management strategies based on OECD and analogous approaches proved to have some limitations. Improvement of water quality after the implementation of restoration measures in some lakes has been relatively slow, despite the implementation/introduction of nutrient abatement measures being tailored to achieve the established water quality criteria. Several cases exist where the trophic status could not be reversed owing to several buffering mechanisms, for instance phosphorus release from sediments, interactions in the food web, and interactions with other pressures (e.g., climate changes). For example, if piscivores are substantially reduced by changes induced by eutrophication, plank-tivores often increase and exert strong predation on the larger zooplankton. Hence, the grazing pressure on phytoplankton declines and algal blooms may increase in severity. Furthermore, the size distribution of the phytoplankton may shift to larger species, which sink faster and may decompose at different rates than smaller algae.

Since the OECD studies and following improvement of the scientific knowledge on the eutrophica-tion process in lakes, including knowledge on biotic interactions, there has been a shift in the management approach from a use-orientated management to an ecosystem approach. This has stimulated the development of ecological classifications incorporating biological criteria (Table 3).

Table 2 Eutrophication class boundaries based on average phytoplankton chlorophyll-a

(a) Trophic class boundaries based on average chlorophyll-a concentration (before 2000)

Table 2 Eutrophication class boundaries based on average phytoplankton chlorophyll-a

(a) Trophic class boundaries based on average chlorophyll-a concentration (before 2000)

Ultra-

Oligotrophic

Mesotrophic

Eutrophic

Politrophic

Hyper-eutrophic

Source

oligotrophic

0.3-2.5

1-5

5-140

1

0-4

4-10

>10

2

0-4.3

4.3-8.8

>8.8

3

<7

7-12

>12

4

<2.6

2.6-6.4

6.4-56

>56

5

0-2

2-6

>6

6

<3

3-7

7-40

>40

7

<3

3-10

10-40

40-60

>60

8

<1.0

<2.5

2.5-8

8-25

>25

9

0.8-3.4a

3.0-7.4a

6.7-31a

9

0.4-7.1b

1.0-11.6b

3.1-66b

9

<10

<30 (dimictic)

>30 (dimictic)

10

(dimictic)

<30 (polymictic)

30-100

>100

(polymictic)

(polymictic)

<0.5

0.5-4.2

1.7-21

9.6-97.4

>45.4

11

<8

<15

<25

12

<8

8-25

25-35 (moderate)

>75

13

35-55 (strong)

55-75 (high)

<3

3-9.7

9.7-31

31-100

>100

14

(b) New class boundaries according to the WFD, numbers given as chlorophyll-a (mg l 1)

Type

Lake type

Reference conditions

High/good boundary

Good/moderate

characterization

boundary

L-AL3

Lowland or mid-altitude, deep, moderate to high alkalinity, large

1.5-1.9

2.1-2.7

3.8-4.7

L-AL4

Mid-altitude, shallow, moderate to high alkalinity, large

2.7-3.3

3.6-4.4

6.6-8.0

L-A1/2

Lowland, shallow, calcareous

2.6-3.8

4.6-7.0

8-12

L-CB1

Lowland, shallow, calcareous

2.6-3.8

4.6-7.0

8-12

L-CB2

Lowland, very shallow, calcareous

6.2-7.4

9.9-11.7

21-25

Continued w

Ol CD

(a) Trophic class boundaries based on average chlorophyll-a concentration (before 2000)

Ultra-

oligotrophic

Oligotrophic

Mesotrophic

Eutrophic

Politrophic

Hyper-eutrophic Source

L-CB3

Lowland, shallow, siliceous

2.S-3.7

4.3-6.5

8-12

L-M5/7

Reservoirs, deep, large siliceous, 'wet areas'

1.4-2.D

-

6.7-9.5

L-M8

Reservoirs, deep, large, calcareous

1.8-2.6

-

4.2-6.D

L-N1

Lowland, shallow, siliceous (moderate alkalinity) clear, large

2.S-3.S

S.D-7.D

7.S-1D.S

L-N2a

Lowland, shallow, siliceous (low alkalinity) clear, large

1.S-2.S

3.D-S.D

S.D-8.S

L-N2b

Lowland, deep, siliceous (low alkalinity) clear, large

1.S-2.S

3.D-S.D

4.5-7.5

L-N3

Lowland, shallow, siliceous (low alkalinit), humic, large

2.S-3.S

S.D-7.D

8.D-12.D

L-NS

Mid-altitude, shallow, siliceous (low alkalinity) clear, large

1.S

2.D-4.D

3.D-6.D

L-N6

Mid-altitude, shallow siliceous (low alkalinity), humic, large

2.S

4.D-6.D

6.D-9.D

L-N8

Lowland, shallow, siliceous (moderate alkalinity), humic, large

3.S-S

7.D-1D.D

1D.5-15.D

All chlorophyll values are in mg l \ ax ± 1 SD. bx ± 2 SD. Sources

1. Sakamoto M (1966) Primary production by the Phytoplankton community in some Japanese lakes and its dependence on lake depth. Archives of Hydrobiology 62: 1-28.

2. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1973) Guidelines and FDA action levels for toxic chemicals in shellfish. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA Ecological Research Series. EPA-R3-73-033.. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

3. Dobson II F, Gilbeitson M, and Sly PG (1974) A summary and comparison of nutrients and related water quality in Lakes Eric, Ontario, Iluron, and Superior. Journal the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31: 731-738.

4. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1974) The relationships of phosphorus and nitrogen to the trophic state of northeast and north central lakes and reservoirs. National Eutrophication survey Working Paper No. 23. Corvallis: US EPA Pacific Northwest Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory.

5. Carlson RE (1977) A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 361-369.

6. Rast W and Lee GF (1978) Summary analysis of the North American (US portion) OECD eutrophication project: Nutrient loading-lake response relationships and trophic state indices. Corvallis: US EPA Environmental Research Laboratory.

7. Forsberg C and Ryding S-O (1980) Eutrophication parameters and trophic state indices in 30 Swedish waste-receiving lakes. Archives of Hydrobiologia 89: 189-207.

8. Tecnhical Standard (1982) Utilization and protection of waterbodies. Standing inland waterbodies. Classification. Berlin: Technical Standard 27885/01.

9. Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1982) Eutrophication of waters: monitoring, assessment and control. Paris: OECD.

10. Hillbricht-Ilkowska A (1993) Phosphorus loading to lakes of Suwalki Landscape Park (north-eastern Poland) and its relation to lake trophy indices. Ekol. Pol./Polish Journal of Ecology 41: 221-235.

11. Yoshimi H (1987) Simultaneous construction of single-parameter and multiparameter trophic state indices. Water Research WATRAG 21(12): 1505-1511.

12. Soszka H and Kudelska D (1994) An approach to lake monitoring in Poland. In Adriaanse M, der Kraats J, Stoks PG etal. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Monitoring and Assessment in Water Management, pp. 232-240. Lelystad: RIZA.

13. Bowman JJ, Clabby KJ, Lucey J, et al. (1996) Water quality in Ireland 1991-1994. Wexford: Environmental Protection Agency.

14. Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) (1999) Gewasserbewertung - stehende gewisser - Vorläufige richtlinie für eine erstbewertung von naturlich entstandenen seen nach trophischen kriterien 1998. Berlin: Kulturbuch-Verlag GmbH.

Table 3 Models or classification schemes forming the basis for development/or outlining the eutrophication criteria based on biological elements for lakes

Region

Notes

Source

Phytoplankton USA

UK European Alps

Europe, Denmark, UK, Norway

Macrophyte UK

Sweden

Northern Ireland

Romania

Europe, Denmark, Finland,

Germany, Northern Ireland Benthic invertebrate Palearctic

Lake Geneva, Switzerland Sweden

The Netherlands Norway Finland Denmark Alberta, Canada

Florida, USA

Lake Ladoga, NW Russia

EPA lake classification scheme, which uses phytoplankton abundance, chlorophyll concentrations, and transparency (Secchi disc depth).

Quantitative direct relationships between phytoplankton composition and nutrient conditions for planktonic diatoms, based on relative abundances within surface sediment sub-fossil assemblages. Individual species TP optima are dataset specific and cannot necessarily be applied outside the region of development or for different lake types.

Preliminary phytoplankton classifications (composition and abundance) developed specifically for the WFD.

The Trophic Ranking Scheme (TRS) used the macrophyte composition recorded in 1224 standing waters to classify UK lakes into 10 vegetation groups, which were related to lake alkalinity, pH, and conductivity. Each of these 10 groups were allocated site types based on lake trophy. Individual macrophyte species were also allocated a TRS based on the range of site types within which they were found. The average site TRS can be used to infer whether eutrophication has occurred.

The Swedish Environmental Quality Criteria (SEQC) scheme assesses the state of lakes using a variety of factors, including nutrients and species richness of macrophytes. Comparisons of the current condition with reference values are used in appraisals. The SEQC scheme defines conditions for both nutrient loadings and macrophytes at high to low ecological status as well as deviations from the high reference state. The macrophyte scheme is based on the UK TRS (Palmer etal., 1992).

The US EPA lakes and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria uses submerged macrophytes as one of 7 biological monitoring elements for assessing the condition of US lakes. Lake condition is assessed using additive indices that integrate both habitat and biological scores. The LRBB scheme provides reference values for macrophyte metrics and nutrients but does not directly relate them together. This multimetric index indicates the overall biological condition of a lake; however, it cannot quantify the actual cause of degradation, although it does suggest where eutrophication may be the cause.

The Northern Ireland Lake Survey quantified macrophyte species - environmental relationships from over 500 lakes using Generalized Additive Models (GAM) and Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA). Nutrient concentrations appeared influential in 'explaining' species distribution, but were highly correlated with alkalinity and altitude.

A classification of Danube Delta lakes based on aquatic macrophytes and turbidity.

Preliminary macrophyte classification schemes developed specifically for evaluation of ecological status in relation to the European WFD.

Benthic Quality Index (BQI) used to assess trophic status of Palearctic lakes. In this system in eutrophic lakes the BQI value is considered to be 1 and Chironomus plumosus the dominant taxon; a BQI value of 5 is characteristic of oligotrophic lakes. If no indicator species are present then a value of 0 is scored indicating a hypereutrophic lake.

Indices of trophy were developed based on the structure of the tubificid and lumbriculid (Oligochaeta) communities.

Studies linking chironomid communities with lake trophic state (indicated by variables such as oxygen concentration, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and algal biovolume).

Empirical model linking profundal macroinvertebrate biomass (PMB) and water chemistry and morphometric variables from 26 lakes located within the Boreal mixed wood and Boreal Subarctic ecoregions.

Five macroinvertebrate core metrics were linked to surface-water TP from an observed P gradient and a P-dosing experiment in coastal wetlands of south Florida to estimate numerical water quality criteria for TP.

Model of the annual dynamics and distribution of zoobenthos biomass with respect of lake phosphorus dynamics.

21 22

Continued

Table 3 Continued

Region

Notes

Source

Fish

Denmark Europe

Europe, Danube Delta lakes The Netherlands

Austria

UK, Europe, USA

Sweden

Romania Romania

Fish species richness, biodiversity, and trophic structure are linked to a trophic gradient of TP.

Classification system developed for 48 European lake ecotypes using 28 variables for water quality status with 3 fish parameters: fish community, fish biomass, and piscivorus-zooplanctivorus biomass ratio.

Classification offish communities in relation with a lake ecology guild, such as riverine/ white fish, euritopic/grey fish, and limnophilic/black fish.

Occurrence of three fish communities (perch-type, pike-perch-type, and pike - perch-bream-type) and the size of total fish stock, perch stock, pike stock, and cyprinid stock linked with summer average TP concentration.

A relationship between TP (mg m~3) and total fish biomass in kg ha~1 were calculated for prealpine oligo- and oligo-mesotrophic lakes using: BM = 3.8148 x TP1 0940, r2 = 0.59, n = 10.

Classification criteria between threshold requirement for oxygen concentrations and fish communities (e.g., in UK: dissolved oxygen >8mg r1 for salmonids, >6fornon-salmonids, and >1 for tolerant species of cyprinids). Similar or slightly different thresholds have been forwarded by the European Inland Fishery Advisory Commission (EIFAC), National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), and US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

Method for classifying fish communities in rivers and lakes using parameters from fish surveys and physical characteristics of the water bodies. The classifications are not directly related to specific physico-chemical parameters, but aim to define the extent to which these communities may deviate from 'undisturbed' waters.

Classification systems based on fish ecology and oxygen sensitivity.

Direct nutrient stress on fish. Toxic effects of nitrite and nitrate, depend on species, salinity, concentration, and time of exposure. Maximum level of Romanian STAS range of 10-45 mg T1 for nitrate (-NO3) and 0-1 mg.T1 for nitrite (-NO2), depending of water category use.

The table integrates and modifies information contained in tables 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 of the REBECCA report edited by Sollmini et al. (2006).

Sources

1. Gibson G, Carlson R, Simpson J, et al. (2000) Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual: Lakes and reservoirs. Washington DC: US EPA.

2. Carlson RE (1977) Atrophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 361-369.

3. Carlson RE (1980) More complications in the chlorophyll-Secchi disk relationship. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 379-382.

4. Bennion H (1994) A diatom-phosphorus transfer-function for shallow, eutrophic ponds in southeast England. Hydrobiologia 276: 391-410.

5. Wunsam S and Schmidt R (1995) A diatom-phosphorus transfer function for alpine and pre-alpine lakes. Memorie del Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia 53: 85-99.

6. Moss B, Johnes P, and Phillips G (1996) The monitoring of ecological quality and classification of standing water in temperate regions: A review and proposal based on a worked scheme for British waters. Biological Review 71: 301-339.

7. Sondergaard M, Jeppesen E, Jensen JP, et al. (2003) Vandrammedirektivet og danske soer Undertitel: Del 1: Sotyper, referencetilstand og okologiske kvalitetsklasser. Copenhagen: Danmarks Milj0ministeriet.

8. Carvalho L, Maberly, S, May L, et al. (2004) Risk assessment methodology for determining nutrient impacts in surface freshwater bodies. Environment Agency of England and Wales and Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

9. Solheim A Lyche, Andersen T, Brettum P, et al. (2004) BIOKLASS - Klassifisering av okologiske status i norske vannforekomster: Forslag til aktuelle kriterier og forelopige grenseverdier mellom god og moderat okologisk status for utvalgte elementer og pHvirkninger. Oslo: Norsk institutt for vannforskning (NIVA).

10. Palmer MA. and Bell SL, et al. (1992) A botanical classification scheme of standing waters in Britain, applications for conservation and monitoring. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2: 125-143.

11. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Lakes and watercourses: Environmental quality criteria. Report 5050.

12. US EPA (1998) Lake and reservoirs bioassessment and biocriteria. Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

13. Heegaard E, Birks HH, et al. (2001) Species environmental relationships of aquatic macrophytes in Northern Ireland. Aquatic Botany 70: 175-223.

14. Coops H, Hanganu J, Tudor M, et al. (1999) Classification of Danube Delta lakes based on aquatic vegetation and turbidity. Hydrobiologia 415: 187-191.

15. Kanninen A, Leka J, Vallinkosk V-M, etal. (2003) Aerial photograph interpretation and field surveys of aquatic macrophytes in assessing the ecological status of small boreal lakes - preliminary results. In: Ruoppa M, Heinonen P, Pilke A, et al. (eds.) How to assess and monitor ecological quality in freshwaters. pp. 123-126. TEMANORD Report No. 547.

16. Schaumberg J, Scranz C, et al. (2004) Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators for ecological status in German lakes - Contributions to the implementation of the WFD. Limnologica 34(4): 302-314.

17. Dodkins I, Rippey B, and Hale P (2003) The advantage of metrics for aquatic macrophyte assessment in Northern Ireland. In Ruoppa M, Heinonen P, Pilke A, et al. (eds.) How to assess and monitor ecological quality in freshwaters. pp. 29-34. TEMANORD Report No. 547.

18. Wiederholm T (1980) Using benthos for lake monitoring. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 52: 537-547.

19. Lang C (1998) Using oligochaetes to monitor the decrease of eutrophication: the 1982-1996 trend in Lake Geneva. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 141: 447-458.

20. Brodin Y (1982) Paleoecological studies of the recent developments of the lake Vaxjosjon: Interpretetation of eutrophication process through analysis of subfossil chironomids. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 93: 313-326.

21. Heinis F and Crommentuijn T (1992) Behavioural response to changing oxygen concentration of deposit feeding chironomid larvae (Diptera) of littoral and profundal habitats. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 124: 173-185.

22. Saether OA (1979) Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarctic Ecology 2: 65-74.

23. Kansanen PH, Aho J, and Paasivirta L (1984) Testing the benthic lake type concept based on chironomid associations in some Finish lakes using multivariate statistical method. Annales Zoologici Fenici 21: 55-76.

24. Brodersen KP and Lindegaard C (1999) Classification, assessment and trophic reconstruction of Danish lakes using chironomids. Freshwater Biology 42: 143-157.

25. Dinsmore PW, Scrimgeour GJ, and Prepas EE (1999) Empirical relationships between profundal macroinvertebrate biomass and environmental variables in boreal lakes of Alberta, Canada. Freshwater Biology 41: 91-100.

26. King RS and Richardson CJ (2003) Integrating bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: An approach to developing numerical water-quality criteria. Environmental Management 31: 795-809.

27. Astrakhantsev GP, Minina, TR, Petrova NA, et al. (2003) Modeling Lake Ladoga zoobenthos and studying its role in phosphorus exchange at the water-bed interface. Water Resources 30: 209-220.

28. Jeppesen E, Jensen JP, Sondergaard M, et al. (2000) Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes: changes along a phosphorous gradient. Freshwater biology 45: 201-218.

29. Regier HA, Welcomme RL, and Steedman RJ (1998) Rehabilitation of degraded river ecosystems. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Canadian Special Publication of Fisheres and Aquatic Sciences 106: 86-97.

30. Navodaru I, Buijse AD, and Staras M (2002) Effects of Hydrology and Water Quality on the Fish Community in Danube Delta Lakes. International Review of Hydrobiology 87: 329-348.

31. Oosterberg W, Sataras M, Buijse AD, et al. (2000) Ecological gradients in the Danube Delta lakes. Present state and man-induced changes. Lelystad: RIZA.

32. Ligtvoet W and Grimm MP (1992) Fish in clear water. Fish-stock development and management in Lake Volkerak/Zoom. How an estuary changed into freshwater lake: The water management of Lake Volkerak/ Zoom. Hooghart JC and Posthumus CWS (eds.) Proceedings and Information, CHO-TNO, 46: 9-84.

33. Gassner H, Tischler G, and Wanzenbock J (2003) Ecological integrity assessment of lakes using fish communities - Suggestions of new matrix development in two Austrian prealpine lakes. International Review of Hydrobiology 88: 635-652.

34. Carvalho L, Benninon H, Darwell A, et al. (2002) Physico-chemical conditions for supporting different levels of biological quality for the Water Framework Directive for freshwater. Edinburgh: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

35. EIFAC 1973 Water Quality Criteria for European Freshwater Fish. Report on Dissolved Oxygen and Inland Fisheries. EIFAC Tech. Paper 86, pp. 19.

36. US EPA 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Freshwater). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

37. US EPA 1997 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

38. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Lakes and Watercourses: Environmental Quality Criteria. Report 5050, 102 pp.

39. Busnita T and Brezeanu G (1967) Ihtiofauna. In: Limnologia sectorului romanesc al Dunarii, pp. 325-370. Romania, Bucuresti.

40. Nikolski GV (1962) Ecologia pestilor. Bucuresti. 362 pp.

41. Diudea M, Tudor S, and Igna A (1986) Toxicologie acvatica. Cluj Napoca. 183 pp.

Acidification

General introduction Acidification of soils and surface waters as a result of elevated sulphur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition has been widely documented from many sites in Europe and North America, and more recently in Southeaste Asia and parts of southern Africa. The acidification process is related to leaching of atmospheric-derived sulphate (SO43) and excess nitrate (NO3) from soils to surface waters. In acid-sensitive ecosystems with slow-weathering bedrock and limited or depleted pools of base cations, SO4~ and NO3 in runoff will to a large extent be accompanied by acidifying hydrogen ions (H+) and inorganic aluminium (Ali) that are toxic for many aquatic organisms.

In Europe and eastern North America emissions of S and N oxides increased steadily from the second half of the 19th century due to accelerating industrialization with extensive burning of fossil fuels. The highest S emission levels were reached in the late 1970s, whereas N emissions peaked about ten years/ a decade later. The reduction of S and N emissions over the last few decades has largely been a result of international efforts and legislation aiming at reducing the problem of acidification of soil and surface waters.

Rapidly growing economies in parts of southern and eastern Asia have led to large increases in S and N emissions during the past 20 years, and further large increases are expected. Acidification problems have been reported in several areas and these can be expected to grow unless emission reduction measures are introduced.

In response to the reduced deposition of acidifying compounds in Europe and eastern North America, many acid-sensitive freshwater ecosystems have started to recover from acidification damage. The regional differences are large, however, and the response of water chemistry to changes in acid deposition often includes time lags of years to decades, depending on site history and its physical-chemical characteristics. Biological recovery, often requiring several generation times for recolonization and readaptation after several keystone species might have been lost, usually requires longer time.

Criteria for assessment There is no global and harmonized approach on lake management criteria related to acidification. In Europe, the Critical Loads concept has been widely accepted as a basis for negotiating control strategies for transboundary air pollution. Critical loads have been defined as: 'the highest load that will not cause chemical changes leading to long-term harmful effects in the most sensitive ecological systems.' Critical loads are the maximum amount of pollutants that ecosystems can tolerate without being damaged. In freshwater ecosystems critical limits are often defined for brown trout and invertebrates (Table 4).

Key chemical parameters related to biological effects are pH and concentrations of inorganic labile aluminium (Ali), calcium and Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANC; defined as the equivalent sum of base cations minus the sum of strong acid anions). The most widely used criterion for modeling and assessment has been ANC, which shows good empirical relationships to, for instance, brown trout. The critical limits for brown trout can be modified in water with extremely low solute concentrations and high concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC).

In many surface waters, especially rivers, there can be large differences between 'average water chemistry' and the chemistry during acidification episodes. The potential damage to aquatic organisms during episodes is often a function of 'intensity' and 'duration.' Many organisms can recover and survive after short acid episodes, but the probability of serious damage or death increase with acidity level and the duration of the acidification event. The water quality requirements vary not only between species, but also between different life stages of the same species. An example here is the smolt stage of Atlantic salmon, which is extremely sensitive to pH and Ali before and during migration from the river to the sea.

The concept of Critical Loads is a good example of how water quality criteria can form the basis for international negotiations on the reduction of longrange transported air pollution, as evidenced by the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution with the Second Sulphur Protocol in 1994, and the Multi-pollutant, Multi-effect Protocol (the Gothenburg protocol) in 1999. In addition,

Critical Loads and more simple water quality criteria are often used when defining restoration targets for, for example, liming of acidified lakes and streams.

Hazardous Substances

General introduction Hazardous substances are substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate, and other substances or groups of substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern.

Priority substances in terms of water management are those which present a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, including such risks to waters used for the abstraction of drinking water. For those pollutants, measures should be aimed at their progressive reduction. Among these substances the European Community (EC) legislation distinguishes priority hazardous substances, which means substances of concern undertaken in the relevant Community legislation or relevant international agreements. For those pollutants, measures are to be aimed at the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses.

Derivation of quality standards (QS) for hazardous substances is intended concomitantly to protect human beings from all impacts on health by drinking water uptake or ingestion of fishery products as well as ecosystems in inland, transitional, coastal, and territorial waters from adverse effects. Further, all relevant modes of toxicity both for ecosystems and man must be considered, such as direct toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutage-nicity, and adverse effects on reproduction for humans or effects on endocrine regulation in other animals.

Criteria for assessment Quality criteria for priority substances in the context of the EU WFD.

The WFD (2000/60/EC) set out a 'Strategy against pollution of water,' the first step of which was the establishment of a list of priority substances. The preparation of the priority list of substances included a combined monitoring-based and modeling-based priority setting (COMMPS) procedure in which about 820 000 monitoring data from waters and sediments from all Member States were evaluated and data for more than 310 substances on production, use and distribution in the environment were used for modeling where the available monitoring information was insufficient.

The Directive setting environmental QS for the priority substances adopted by the European Commission on 17 July 2006 (C0M(2006)397) sets environmental QS for surface waters for 41 dangerous chemical substances including 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants (Table 5). Within this list,

Table 4 Some example studies on effects of acidification on aquatic biota

Species/functional Region group

Note

Source

Phytoplankton

Periphyton Macrophytes

Zooplankton

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Brown trout

Atlantic salmon

North America Europe and North

America Sweden North America North America North America North America North America North America

Europe

North America North America Czech Republic and

Slovakia Norway Sweden Europe

Norway Norway

North America Norway

Nordic countries

Canada

Norway

Phytoplankton community responses to acidification 1

Diatom-based pH reconstruction studies of acid lakes in Europe and North America 2

Acidification and phytoplankton development in West-Swedish lakes 3

Phytoplankton succession during acidification with and without increasing aluminium levels 4

Responses of phytoplankton and epilithon during acidification and early recovery of a lake 5

Effect of stream acidification on periphyton composition, chlorophyll, and productivity 6

Early responses of periphyton to experimental lake acidification 7

Changes in epilithon and epiphyton associated with experimental acidification of a lake to pH 5 8

Patterns of species composition in relation to environment 9

The effects of lake acidification on aquatic macrophytes (review) 10

The effect of acidification, liming, and reacidification on macrophyte development, water quality, and sediment 11

characteristics of soft-water lakes

Effects of experimental acidification on zooplankton population and community dynamics 12

Lake acidification: Effects on crustacean zooplankton populations 13

Acidification of lakes in Sumava (Bohemia) and in the High Tatra Mountains (Slovakia) 14

Monitoring of acidification by the use of aquatic organisms 15

Acid-stress effects on stream biology 16

Critical limits of acidification to invertebrates in different regions of Europe 17

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) status and chemistry from the Norwegian Thousand Lake survey 18 A critical limit for acid neutralizing capacity in Norwegian surface waters, based on new analyses of fish and invertebrate 19 responses

Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States: Effects on fish populations 20

Assessment of damage to fish populations in Norwegian lakes due to acidification 21 Fish status survey of Nordic lakes: Effects of acidification, eutrophication, and stocking activity on present fish species 22 composition

A summary of the impact of acid rain on atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Canada 23

Water quality requirement of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in water undergoing acidification or liming in Norway 24 Low concentrations of inorganic monomeric aluminum impair physiological status and marine survival of Atlantic salmon 25

Sources 3

1. Findlay DL and Kasian SEM (1986) Phytoplankton community responses to acidification of lake 223, experimental lakes area, northwestern Ontario. Water Air Soil Pollution 30: 719-726. 4

2. Battarbee RW and Charles DF (1986) Diatom-based pH reconstruction studies of acid lakes in Europe and North America: A synthesis. Water Ar Soil Pollution 30: 347-354.

3. Morling G and Willen T (1990) Acidification and phytoplankton development in some West-Swedish lakes 1966-1983. Limnologica 20: 291-306. a>

4. Havens KE and Heath RT (1990) Phytoplankton succession during acidification with and without increasing aluminium levels. Environmental Pollution 68: 129-145. e

5. Findlay DL, Kasian SEM, Turner MT, et al. (1999) Responses of phytoplankton and epilithon during acidification and early recovery of a lake. Freshwater Biology 42: 159-175.

6. Mulholland PJ, Elwood JW, Palumbo AV, etal. (1986) Effect of stream acidification on periphyton composition, chlorophyll, and productivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1846-1858. 3

7. Turner MA, Jackson MB, Findlay DL, et al. (1987) Early responses of periphyton to experimental lake acidification. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 135-149. R

8. Turner MA, Howell ET, Summerby M, et al. (1991) Changes in epilithon and epiphyton associated with experimental acidification of a lake to pH 5. Limnology and Oceanography 36: 1390-1405. ®

9. Jackson ST and Charles DF (1988) Aquatic macrophytes in Adirondack (New York) lakes: Patterns of species composition in relation to environment. Canadian Journal of Botany 66: 1449-1460. ®

10. Farmer AM (1990) The effects of lake acidification on aquatic macrophytes - A review. Environmental Pollution 65: 219-240.

11. Roelofs JGM, Smolders AJP, Brandrud T-E, etal. (1995) The effect of acidification, liming and reacidification on macrophyte development, water quality and sediment characteristics of soft-water lakes. Water Air Soil Pollution 85: 967-972.

12. Locke A and Sprules WG (1993) Effects of experimental acidification on Zooplankton population and community dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1238-1247.

13. Havens KE, Yan ND, and Keller W (1993) Lake acidification: Effects on crustacean Zooplankton populations. Environmental Science Technology 27: 1621-1624. JT

14. Fott J, PraZakova M, Stuchlik E, et al. (1994) Acidification of lakes in Sumava (Bohemia) and in the High Tatra Mountains (Slovakia). Hydrobiologia 274: 37-47. ®

15. Raddum GG, Fjellheim A, and Hesthagen T (1988) Monitoring of acidification by the use of aquatic organisms. Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, Verhandlungen J 23:2291-2297. g

16. Herrmann J, Degerman E, Gerhardt A, et al. (1993) Acid-stress effects on stream biology. Ambio 22: 298-307. e

17. Raddum GG and Skjelkvâle BL (1995). Critical limits of acidification to invertebrates in different regions of Europe. Water Ar Soil Pollution 85: 475-480. 3

18. Bulger AJ, Lier L, Cosby BJ, et al. (1993) Brown trout (Salmo trutta) status and chemistry from the Norwegian Thousand Lake Survey: statistical analysis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: ^ 575-585. '

19. Lien L Raddum GG Fjellheim A and Henriksen A (1996) A critical limit for acid neutralizing capacity in Norwegian surface waters, based on new analyses of fish and invertebrate responses. Science of Total O Environment 177: 173-193.

20. Baker JP, Van Sickle J, Gagen CJ, et al. (1996) Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States: Effects on fish populations. Ecological Applications 6: 422-437.

21. Hesthagen T, Sevaldrud IH, and Berger HM (1999) Assessment of damage to fish populations in Norwegian lakes due to acidification. Ambio 28: 112-117.

22. Tammi J, Appelberg M, Beier U, et al. (2003) Fish status survey of Nordic lakes: Effects of acidification, eutrophication, and stocking activity on present fish species composition. Ambio 32: 98-105.

23. Watt WD (1987) A summary of the impact of acid rain on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Canada. Water Air Soil Pollution 35: 27-35.

24. Staurnes M, Kroglund F, and Rosseland BO (1995) Water quality requirement of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in water undergoing acidification or liming in Norway. Water Ar Soil Pollution 85: 347-352.

25. Kroglund F and Finstad B (2003) Low concentrations of inorganic monomeric aluminum impair physiological status and marine survival of Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 222: 119-133.

Table 5 Water quality criteria for priority polluting substances and other pollutants. Combined list based on EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Priority Pollutants and Nonpriority Pollutants1 (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html), and EU Environmental Quality Standards for Priority Substances and Other Pollutants.2 Values in the table should be taken with precaution as a number of explanatory remarks were removed. Hence, it is always recommended to consult the original data sources

CAS Name of pollutant numbera

EU priority EU EU other EPA

hazardous priority pollutant priority substance substance pollutant

EPA Non-priority pollutant

AA-EQS

MACEOS

2005

cercla mg r1)'

PRIORITY LIST score d

Human health for the consumption of water + organism

Human health for the consumption oforganism only

11D758

2-Chloroethylvinyl

+

-

Ether

91587

2-Chloronaphthalene

+

-

1000

1600

95578

2-Chlorophenol

+

-

81

150

534521

2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol

+

822.35

13

280

88755

2-Nitrophenol

+

-

595D7

3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol

+

-

1D1553

4-Bromophenyl Phenyl

+

-

Ether

7DD5723

4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl

+

-

Ether

1DDD27

4-Nitrophenol

+

566.D5

83329

Acenaphthene

+

729.63

670

990

2D8968

Acenaphthylene

+

-

1D7D28

Acrolein

+

1D57.7

190

290

1D7131

Acrylonitrile

+

528.D9

0.051g

0.25g

n.a.

Aesthetic Qualities

+

-

Narrative

Narrative

Narrative

Narrative

statement

statement

statement

statement

159726D8

Alachlor

+

D.3 D.7

-

3D9DD2

Aldrin

+

+

1116.9

0.000049g

0.000050g

6D571

Dieldrin

+

+

S = D.D1D n.a.

1153.2

0.24

0.056

0.000052g

0.000054g

722D8

Endrin

+

+

1D4D.9

0.086

0.036

0.059

0.06

465736

Isodrin

+

-

n.a.

Alkalinity

+

-

20000

319846

alpha-BHC

+

8D7.72

0.0026g

0.0049g

959988

alpha-Endosulfan

+

1DDD.8

0.22

0.056

62

89

74299D5

Aluminum pH 6.5-9.0

+

688.21

750

87

7664417

Ammonia

+

744.67

pH, temperature

pH, temperature

and life-stage

and life-stage

dependent

dependent

12D127

Anthracene

+ +

+

D.1 D.4

-

8,300

40,000

744D36D

Antimony

+

6D6.3

5.6

640

744D382

Arsenic

+

1668.6

340

150

0.018g

0.14g

1332214

Asbestos

+

842.16

7 million fibers

1912249

Atrazine

+

D.6 2

-

l

n.a.

Bacteria

+

-

For primary

For primary

For primary

For primary

recreation and shellfish uses recreation and shellfish uses regreation and shellfish uses 1DDD

2.2g

D.DDDD86g regreation and shellfish uses

744D393

71432

92875

recreation and shellfish uses recreation and shellfish uses

Barium

Benzene

Benzidine

1D 5D

812.12 1353.5 1114.1

regreation and shellfish uses 1DDD

2.2g

D.DDDD86g regreation and shellfish uses

51g 0.00020g

Continued

Table 5 Continued

CAS Name of pollutant EU priority EU EU other EPA EPA

number" hazardous priority pollutant priority Non-

substance substance pollutant priority pollutant

56553

Benzo(a)anthracene

+

50328

Benzo(a)pyrene

+

+

+

205992

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

+

+

+

207089

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

+

+

+

191242

Benzo(g,h,l)perylene

+

+

+

1

Project Earth Conservation

Project Earth Conservation

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save The Earth. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Recycle to Create a Better Future for Our Children.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment