| Water category: | River |
| Pressure categories | Not applicable |
| Pressure detail | Not applicable |
| WFD Indicators- R | Composition Phytoplancton Macrophytes and phytobenthos Composition Abundance Benthic invertebrate fauna Fish Community structure |
| Specific Index | Biological General Quality Assessment (GQA) |
| Brief text description | Categorization of biological quality using two metrices of ecological quality index (EQI). EQI ASPT (average score per taxon) and EQI N-Taxa(number of taxa) are combined to give six grades (very good, good, fairly good,fair, poor and bad) based on macroinvertebrate fauna. |
| Long text description | EQI ASPT and EQI N-Taxa are the ratio between oberved and predicted values. Values are predicted using the RIVPACS software. The comparison between frequency distributions of observed and expected results from ASPT and N-taxa were compared at a regional level. Differences between regions were shown and explain the difficulty in defining class boundaries applicable to all regions. Comparison of the EQIs and the values of regional indices (for all 8 regions of England and Wales) at the boundary limits help define the boundaries for the EQIs. Once the limit boundaries were defined for all regions, a classification based on the 2 EQIs was defined. Uncertainty in classification was explored. |
| History of development | 1977: commissioned project for a river typology and feasibility of predicting invertebrates. Output: RIVPACS 1978: Development of the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score system. 1990: introduction of Ecological Quality Index (EQI) 1995: advise use of EQI for N-taxa and ASPT |
| References | Clarke, R. T., Wright, J. F. and Furse, M. T. (2003) RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modelling. 160(3):219-233 Furse, M. T. (2000). The application of RIVPACS procedure in headwater streams - an extensive and important national resource. In Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and similar techniques. Freshwater Biological Association. pp: 79-92 Hemsley-Flint, B. (1997). Chapter 4: Classification of the biological quality of rivers in England and Wales. In Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters RIVPACS and other techniques. The Freshwater Biological Association. pp: 55-69 Johnson, R. K. (2000). RIVPACS and alternative statistical modelling techniques: accuracy and soundness of principles. In Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters. RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association. pp: 323-332 Resh, V. H., Rosenberg, D. M. and Reynoldson, T. B. (1997). Chapter 13: Selection of benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for monitoring water quality of the Fraser River, British Columbia: implications for both multimetrics approaches and multivariate models. In Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters - RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association. pp: 195-206 Turak, E. N., Flack, L. K., Norris, R. H., Simpson, J. and Waddell, N. (1999) Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models. Freshwater Biology. 41(2):283-298Wright, J. F., Sutcliffe, D. W. and Furse, M. T. (eds). (2000). Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and similar techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside. 373 p. |
| Geographical region (GIG) - R | RNO Northern RME - Mediterranean REC - Eastern Continental |
| Ecoregion - LR | 18. Great Britain |
| Country | D Germany B Belgium DK Denmark NL Netherlands P Portugal FIN Finland S Sweden UK United Kingdom BG Bulgaria CY Cyprus CZ Czech Republic EE Estonia HU Hungary LV Latvia LT Lithuania MT Malta PL Poland RO Romania SK Slovakia SI Slovenia TR Turkey NO Norway XX Other country |
| Geographical location of source data | Sub-national |
| Reference conditions | Considered |
| Development | Existing |
| Uncertainty | Considered |
| Link to document store | No |
| BMW Toolbox | No |
| Entry status | Unvalidated |