The Link Between the Exceedance of Acidity Critical Loads for Freshwaters,Current Chemical Status and Biological Damage: A Re-Interpretation

Critical loads have for several years been employed bypolicymakers to aid in the development of strategies for aciddeposition abatement. They provide an effects-based approachwhereby an acid deposition flux greater than the critical load(known as critical load exceedance) implies that long-termharmful effects on a selected target organism will occur.Implicit in this approach are two assumptions: first, theexceedance of a critical load will harm the target organism,and second, the severity of biological impact is related to themagnitude of exceedance. However, static models give noindication of when the predicted damage might occur. One suchmodel, the Steady-State Water Chemistry (SSWC) model, employs aseries of empirical relationships to derive the pre-industrial,baseline leaching rate of base cations from measured waterchemistry using the so-called `F-factor'. The SSWC model setsthe critical load relative to pre-industrial base cationleaching (a permanent buffer of acid deposition) and a selectedacid neutralizing capacity (ANC) value which corresponds with aknown likelihood of damage to a biological target organism.Here we interpret the meaning of critical load exceedance as aprediction of steady-state ANC, and explore the relationshipbetween exceedance of the critical load and current chemistry. We demonstrate that a critical loadexceedance with the SSWC model does not necessarily indicatethat the critical chemical threshold (zero ANC) has alreadybeen crossed, and there may be no correlation betweenexceedance and biological status. A reformulation of the SSWCmodel is proposed which provides a direct link between currentdeposition and current chemical conditions, and is thereforemore likely to indicate current biological damage. Thereformulation illustrates the discrepancy between currentchemical status and that predicted by the SSWC model atsteady-state, which is a function of the `F-factor'.     

The Applicability of National Critical Loads Data in Assessing Designated Sites

Critical loads have been successfully used within Europe in the development of effects-based policies for pollution abatement, including the Second Sulphur Protocol and the Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone (CLRTAP, 1979). This success has encouraged the UK Environment Agency and Conservation Agencies to use the national critical load maps as a screening tool in assessing the threats from acidification and eutrophication to designated (Natura 2000) sites. The UK maps of critical loads are based on national-scale data sets appropriate for national-scale assessments, and were never intended for use at the site-specific level. Site-based assessments are often targeted at Special Areas of Conservation, a sub-set of the UK Natura 2000 sites. The spatial data available includes the boundaries of the sites but not the location of the designated features. Ancillary data is variable from one site to another; habitat types may be described in detail with cross-reference to classes of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC: Rodwell, 1991 et seq), but information available on soils and geology is generalised and has not been related to the habitats or species being protected. Hence it can be difficult to relate the individual sites to the national maps, even where appropriate to do so. This paper examines the underlying uncertainties in the national critical load maps showing how the maps could give misleading results if used for site-specific assessments. It also includes advice on how to determine when the national data may be appropriate as a policy-tool at the site-level.     

The ecological basis for simulating phytoplankton responses to environmental change (PROTECH)

The theory and mathematical development of a model, called PROTECH, are presented. The model simulates the dynamic responses of up to eight species of phytoplankton to environmental variability in lakes and reservoirs. PROTECH models were developed originally to fulfil a commercial, decision-support role in the management of industrial water quality, where plankton growth is an issue. The progressive refinements to the model nevertheless have a robust ecological basis. This makes PROTECH a promising tool for researching plankton community ecology. The model calculates exponents describing growth and attrition, from a base of the maximum growth rates of algal species in culture. Subject to defined thresholds, growth integrates variability in the fluxes of light and nutrients. The paper develops this philosophy and its embodiment into the structure of the model. Examples of its authenticated, validated and sensitivity-tested outputs are presented.     

A Comparison of Single and Multiple Habitat Protocols for Collecting Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams1

Abstract: In 2003, we compared two benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods that are used for rapid biological assessment of wadeable streams. A single habitat method using kick sampling in riffles and runs was compared to a multiple habitat method that sampled all available habitats in proportion of occurrence. Both methods were performed side‐by‐side at 41 sites in lower gradient streams of the Piedmont and Northern Piedmont ecoregions of the United States, where riffle habitat is less abundant. Differences in sampling methods were examined using similarity indices, two multimetric indices [the family‐level Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) and the species‐level Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII)], their component metrics, and bioassessment endpoints based on each index. Index scores were highly correlated between single and multiple habitat field methods, and sampling method comparability, based on comparison of similarities between and within sampling methods, was particularly high for species level data. The VSCI scores and values of most of its component metrics were not significantly higher for one particular method, but relationships between single and multiple habitat values were highly variable for percent Ephemeroptera, percent chironomids, and percent Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Hydropsychidae excluded). A similar level of variability in the relationship was observed for the MBII and most of its metrics, but Ephemeroptera richness, percent individuals in the dominant five taxa, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores all exhibited differences in values between single and multiple habitat field methods. When applied to multiple habitat samples, the MBII exhibited greater precision, higher index scores, and higher assessment categories than when applied to single habitat samples at the same sites. In streams with limited or no riffle habitats, the multiple habitat method should provide an adequate sample for biological assessment, and at sites with abundant riffle habitat, little difference would be expected between the single and multiple habitat field methods. Thus, in geographic areas with a wide variety of stream types, the multiple habitat method may be more desirable. Even so, the variability in the relationship between single and multiple habitat methods indicates that the data are not interchangeable, and we suggest that any change in sampling method should be accompanied by a recalibration of any existing assessment tool (e.g., multimetric index) with data collected using the new method, regardless of taxonomic level.