Search

Monitoring programs at sub-national and national scales lack coordination, harmonization, and systematic review and analysis at continental and global scales, and thus fail to adequately assess and evaluate drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation and loss at large spatial scales. Here we review the state of the art, gaps and challenges in the freshwater assessment programs for both the biological condition (bioassessment) and biodiversity monitoring of freshwater ecosystems using the benthic macroinvertebrate community. To assess the existence of nationally- and regionally- (sub-nationally-) accepted freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate protocols that are put in practice/used in each country, we conducted a survey from November 2022 to May 2023. Responses from 110 respondents based in 67 countries were received. Although the responses varied in their consistency, the responses clearly demonstrated a lack of biodiversity monitoring being done at both national and sub-national levels for lakes, rivers and artificial waterbodies. Programs for bioassessment were more widespread, and in some cases even harmonized among several countries. We identified 20 gaps and challenges, which we classed into five major categories, these being (a) field sampling, (b) sample processing and identification, (c) metrics and indices, (d) assessment, and (e) other gaps and challenges. Above all, we identify the lack of harmonization as one of the most important gaps, hindering efficient collaboration and communication. We identify the IUCN SSC Global Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Sampling Protocols Task Force (GLOSAM) as a means to address the lack of globally-harmonized biodiversity monitoring and biological assessment protocols.

A global survey of 179 restoration practitioners spanning 65 countries identified the extent of stakeholder engagement as a key factor determining the success or failure of restoration projects. Lack of support across sectors and for funding, policy, monitoring, governance and knowledge assessment of pressures and their effects were most frequently cited as factors contributing to restoration failure. The responses indicate that, although nutrient enrichment is perceived to be the primary issue for lakes globally, the impacts of climate change, hydrological modifications and invasive species are widely recognized as pervasive anthropogenic pressures of global importance. Practitioners recognized that the ecosystem services most impacted by these pressures were recreation and tourism, although in low income countries the provisioning service, aquaculture, was considered most impacted. Ecology-based and/or pressure-related restoration targets had been set for most restoration programs in our survey. However, the strength of the evidence underpinning these targets was often weak and the effects of climate change were rarely considered when setting targets. The most effective and widely used restoration measures target nutrient loading (both catchment and in-lake) while hydrological modifications and the implementation of nature-based solutions are used to a lesser extent. Measures for the control of non-native invasive species are rarely applied and are viewed as being largely ineffective. The results of the survey provide direction for future work. New and emerging pressures, singly and in combination, may require new approaches to lake restoration: for both setting restoration targets and devising restoration strategies. The future of lake restoration depends on joined-up thinking that better integrates science into policy and practice and, most importantly, ensures strong and inclusive stakeholder engagement and collaboration across multiple sectors.

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is an ambitious legislation framework to achieve good ecological and chemical status for all surface waters and good quantitative and chemical status for groundwater by 2027. A total of 111,062 surface waterbodies are presently reported on under the Directive, 46% of which are actively monitored for ecological status. Of these waterbodies 80% are rivers, 16% are lakes, and 4% are coastal and transitional waters. In the last assessment, 4% (4,442) of waterbodies still had unknown ecological status, while in 23% monitoring did not include in situ water sampling to support ecological status assessment. For individual (mainly biological) assessment criteria the proportion of waterbodies without observation data is much larger; the full scope of monitoring under the WFD is therefore still far from being realised. At the same time, 60% of surface waters did not achieve ‘good’ status in the second river basin management plan and waterbodies in Europe are considered to be at high risk of having poor water quality based on combined microbial, physical and physicochemical indicators.

Recent technological developments have increased the number of variables being monitored in lakes and reservoirs using automatic high frequency monitoring (AHFM). However, design of AHFM systems and posterior data handling and interpretation are currently being developed on a site-by-site and issue-by-issue basis with minimal standardization of protocols or knowledge sharing. As a result, many deployments become short-lived or underutilized, and many new scientific developments that are potentially useful for water management and environmental legislation remain underexplored. This Critical Review bridges scientific uses of AHFM with their applications by providing an overview of the current AHFM capabilities, together with examples of successful applications. We review the use of AHFM for maximizing the provision of ecosystem services supplied by lakes and reservoirs (consumptive and non consumptive uses, food production, and recreation), and for reporting lake status in the EU Water Framework Directive. We also highlight critical issues to enhance the application of AHFM, and suggest the establishment of appropriate networks to facilitate knowledge sharing and technological transfer between potential users. Finally, we give advice on how modern sensor technology can successfully be applied on a larger scale to the management of lakes and reservoirs and maximize the ecosystem services they provide.

Phytoplankton constitutes a diverse array of short-lived organisms which derive their nutrients from the water column of lakes. These features make this community the most direct and earliest indicator of the impacts of changing nutrient conditions on lake ecosystems. It also makes them particularly suitable for measuring the success of restoration measures following reductions in nutrient loads. This paper integrates a large volume of work on a number of measures, or metrics, developed for using phytoplankton to assess the ecological status of European lakes, as required for the Water Framework Directive. It assesses the indicator strength of these metrics, specifically in relation to representing the impacts of eutrophication. It also examines how these measures vary naturally at different locations within a lake, as well as between lakes, and how much variability is associated with different replicate samples, different months within a year and between years. On the basis of this analysis, three of the strongest metrics (chlorophyll-a, phytoplankton trophic index (PTI), and cyanobacterial biovolume) are recommended for use as robust measures for assessing the ecological quality of lakes in relation to nutrient-enrichment pressures and a minimum recommended sampling frequency is provided for these three metrics.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) defines macrophytes as one of the biological groups required for the ecological assessment of European surface waters. Several indices for macrophyte assessment have been proposed or are currently in use by different European states. As a first step towards performing an intercalibration of these indices a common dataset was developed. This dataset contains abundance data on 789 macrophyte species from 316 different lake sites in ten European countries. Various common species and genera were identified as indicators of reference and impacted conditions within the dataset. Cluster analysis of macrophyte data, supported by non-metric multidimensional scaling, indicated that clusters formed were more reflective of their source country rather than lake type. This might be caused by differences in regional climate, biogeography, monitoring techniques, or a combination of these factors. A total of six national indices were applied to assign quality classes to the lakes. However, this produced results that often differed by one or two quality classes for the same site. We foresee that a more precise intercalibration exercise is necessary, and it should be based on more detailed data considering both seasonality and the latitudinal differences within the area covered., The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) defines macrophytes as one of the biological groups required for the ecological assessment of European surface waters. Several indices for macrophyte assessment have been proposed or are currently in use by different European states. As a first step towards performing an intercalibration of these indices a common dataset was developed. This dataset contains abundance data on 789 macrophyte species from 316 different lake sites in ten European countries. Various common species and genera were identified as indicators of reference and impacted conditions within the dataset. Cluster analysis of macrophyte data, supported by non-metric multidimensional scaling, indicated that clusters formed were more reflective of their source country rather than lake type. This might be caused by differences in regional climate, biogeography, monitoring techniques, or a combination of these factors. A total of six national indices were applied to assign quality classes to the lakes. However, this produced results that often differed by one or two quality classes for the same site. We foresee that a more precise intercalibration exercise is necessary, and it should be based on more detailed data considering both seasonality and the latitudinal differences within the area covered.

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., 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.

Defining the overall ecological status of lakes according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to be partially based on the species composition of the aquatic macrophyte community. We tested three assessment methods to define the ecological status of the macrophyte community in response to a eutrophication pressure as reflected by total phosphorus concentrations in lake water. An absolute species richness, a trophic index (TI) and a lake trophic ranking (LTR) method were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scales as well as by alkalinity category, using data from 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. Total phosphorus data were used to represent the trophic status of individual samples and were plotted against the calculated TI and LTR values. Additionally, the LTR method was tested in some individual lakes with a relatively long time series of monitoring data. The TI correlated well with total P in the Northern European lake types, whereas the relationship in the Central European lake types was less clear. The relationship between total P and light extinction is often very good in the Northern European lake types compared to the Central European lake types. This can be one of the reasons for a better agreement between the indices and eutrophication pressure in the Northern European lake types. The response of individual lakes to changes in the abiotic environment was sometimes represented incorrectly by the indices used, which is a cause of concern for the use of single indices in status assessments in practice., Defining the overall ecological status of lakes according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to be partially based on the species composition of the aquatic macrophyte community. We tested three assessment methods to define the ecological status of the macrophyte community in response to a eutrophication pressure as reflected by total phosphorus concentrations in lake water. An absolute species richness, a trophic index (TI) and a lake trophic ranking (LTR) method were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scales as well as by alkalinity category, using data from 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. Total phosphorus data were used to represent the trophic status of individual samples and were plotted against the calculated TI and LTR values. Additionally, the LTR method was tested in some individual lakes with a relatively long time series of monitoring data. The TI correlated well with total P in the Northern European lake types, whereas the relationship in the Central European lake types was less clear. The relationship between total P and light extinction is often very good in the Northern European lake types compared to the Central European lake types. This can be one of the reasons for a better agreement between the indices and eutrophication pressure in the Northern European lake types. The response of individual lakes to changes in the abiotic environment was sometimes represented incorrectly by the indices used, which is a cause of concern for the use of single indices in status assessments in practice.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), requires European Member States to assess the “ecological status” of surface waters. As part of this, many European countries have developed an ecological quality classification scheme for chlorophyll concentrations as a measure of phytoplankton abundance. The assessment of ecological quality must be based on the degree of divergence of a water body from an appropriate baseline, or ‘reference condition’. It is, therefore, necessary to determine chlorophyll reference conditions for all European lake types. This involves examining how chlorophyll concentrations vary by lake type, in the absence of any nutrient pressures from agriculture or wastewater. For this purpose, a dataset of 540 European lakes considered to be in a relatively undisturbed reference condition has been assembled, including data on chlorophyll concentration, altitude, mean depth, alkalinity, humic content, surface area, and geographical region. Chlorophyll was found to vary with lake type and geographical region, and was found to be naturally highest in low-altitude, very shallow, high alkalinity and humic lake types and naturally lowest in clear, deep, low alkalinity lakes. The results suggest that light and mineral availability are important drivers of chlorophyll concentrations in undisturbed lakes. Descriptive statistics (median and percentiles) of chlorophyll concentrations were calculated from populations of lakes in this reference lake dataset and used to derive lake-type specific reference chlorophyll concentrations. These reference conditions can be applied, through a comparison with observed chlorophyll concentrations at a site, in the assessments of ecological status and provide a consistent baseline to adopt for European countries.