Incorporation of Groundwater Ecology in Environmental Policy

CHAPTER 11.2

Incorporation of GroundwaterEcology in Environmental Policy

DAN L. DANIELOPOL,a CHRISTIAN GRIEBLER,b

AMARA GUNATILAKA,c HANS JURGEN HAHN,d

JANINE GIBERT,e F. MERMILLOD-BLONDIN,e

GIUSEPPE MESSANA,f JOS NOTENBOOMg AND BORISSKETh

a Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Limnology, Mondseestr. 9, AT-5310 Mondsee, Austria; b GSF-National Research Center for Environment andHealth, Institute of Groundwater Ecology, Ingolstadter Landstrasse 1, DE-85764 Neuherberg/Munchen, Germany; c Department of Ecotoxicology, Centerfor Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Strasse 10, A-1090Vienna, Austria; d Arbeitsgruppe Grundwasserokologie Universitat Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau Abt. Biologie, Im Fort 7, D-76829 Landau,Germany; e Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5023 EHF,Equipe d’Hydrobiologie et Ecologie Souterraines, Bat FOREL, 43 Bd 11/11/1918, FR-69622 Villeurbanne cedex, France; f Istituto per lo Studio degliEcosistemi CNR – ISE, Sede di Firenze, Via Madonna del Piano, IT-50019Sesto Fiorentino/Firenze, Italy; g Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau, NetherlandsEnvironmental Assessment Agency, Postbus 303, NL-3720 AH Bilthoven, TheNetherlands; h University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department ofBiology, Vecna pot 111, PP2995, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia

11.2.1 Introduction: Groundwater Science and the New

Order

In the European Community (EC) ca. 75% of the inhabitants use groundwater(GW) as drinking water, for food production and for domestic and/or indus-trial needs.1 Therefore information about the way high-quality GW originatesand/or can be protected is of interest for a broad spectrum of Europeans, fromlaypersons to policy- and decision-makers. The recent release of the EuropeanUnion (EU) Groundwater Directive (GWD)2 offers a new order which should

671

ensure the sustainability of the exploitation of GW reserves and at the sametime should protect this resource from overall pollution. Moreover, it isexpected to offer better protection of valuable to water storage sites, especiallywetlands, which strongly depend on GW.

The new GWD develops the legislative framework already mentioned inArticle 17 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)3 (see Chapter 3.1). It hasthree major objectives: (1) to maintain a good chemical status of GW exploit-able resources, (2) to prevent/limit GW pollution and (3) to develop studies onpollution trends in order to improve the water quality of GW bodies. Theimplementation of this ambitious long-term programme, as presented in thevarious contributions of this book, points out the need for new research anddevelopment strategies combined with adapted regulatory policies. From thisnew order a strong GW science accompanied by pragmatic policy decisions isemerging where hydrology, hydrochemistry and water planning are the majoractors. What is missing in the recent GWD is the integration of GW ecologyinformation as a useful complement to GW science even if this plea wasrepeatedly expressed.4,5 One could argue6 that this is due to a lack of data onthe functioning of groundwater ecosystems and on the practical use of ecolog-ical information for the monitoring and/or protection measures of GW bodies.However, this is not really correct because a whole corpus of knowledge whichforms the core of what is now called the ‘‘new groundwater ecology’’ exists (e.g.Refs. 7–9) and is being rapidly developed by various European scientificgroups. Research projects of these latter exist in various European countriesand were inter alia also financially supported by the EC, e.g. PASCALIS(Protocols for the Assessment and Conservation of Aquatic Life in the Sub-surface).10 Apparently, at the present time we suffer from lack of effectivecommunication between scientists dealing with ecological aspects of GW andwater planners and/or water policy-makers. The recent efforts of the Directo-rates for Environment and Research of the European Commission to improvecommunication between these various partners is therefore a welcome initia-tive,11 strongly supported by many specialists12–14 and reinforced through thevarious contributions of this book (e.g. Chapters 1 and 2.1).

In the following, we offer some practical ideas of how ecological informationcan be usefully integrated in future European GW management policies.

11.2.2 The New Groundwater Ecology: Its Interest for

Water Management Projects and/or Water

Policy Planners

Groundwater ecology deals with structural and functional aspects of theorganisms which inhabit the subsurface and with the relationships betweenthese organisms and their surrounding aquatic environment.7 Groundwaterecology emerged at the beginning of the 20th century from natural historyresearch dealing with descriptive aspects of subterranean organisms, theiradaptive morphology, their physiology, systematics and biogeography as well

672 Chapter 11.2

as from observation on the hydrology, geomorphology and geochemical char-acteristics of various parts of the subsoil.

The ‘‘new groundwater ecology’’ has existed for about 25 years.15–20 It dealswith the study of ecosystems (structure and processes), with organismic assem-blages and their dynamics, with relationships between subterranean and surfaceecosystems, with the biological diversity of subterranean animals observed atvarious temporal and spatial scales and with the impact of anthropogenicpollution. A very important aspect of the new groundwater ecology is theemphasis put on ecosystem management with its instrumental aspects onmonitoring and remediation schemes as well as with protection measures.Scientists involved in this new approach, as compared to the previous gener-ation of naturalists, try to enforce the link between their research and thesocioeconomic aspects of water management. Groundwater ecosystems arenow more and more valued through their capacity to provide services andgoods indispensable for the well being of human society and for the functioningof natural ecosystems (Table 11.2.1).

Within the new groundwater ecology, students are in a very favourableposition to use not only scientific arguments for environmental regulation and/or political decisions but also ethical criteria (for instance when planningstrategies for conservation of GW habitats and their unique organisms).21,22

Groundwater is an invaluable resource, which should be enjoyed by present

Table 11.2.1 Services and goods provided by groundwater ecosystems (mod-ified from Ref. 4).

Ecosystem services Ecosystem goods

1. Self-purification: purification of wa-ter (through microbiological andphysicochemical processes)

2. Attenuation/or elimination of chem-ical contaminants (natural organiccompounds, organic pollutants)where soil functions as a filter andbiodegradation medium; has astrong link to long-term resourceavailability

3. Provision of water for the environ-ment as a conditions for the func-tion of surface ecosystems (springs,brooks, lakes, wetlands, wet grass-lands, estuarine and near-shore ma-rine ecosystems).

4. Sets hydrogeochemical conditionsfor subterranean and/or surfaceaquatic communities

5. Maintain structural complexitythrough the landscape

1. High-quality, safe drinking waterfor human consumption and theavailability of a reliable water source

2. Stable supply of water for other hu-man needs (agriculture, industry,domestic needs)

3. Water supply for the myriad of sub-surface GW organisms

4. Water for sustainability of GDEs

5. Cultural value through the supportfor the maintenance of highlyadapted GW organisms, a uniquepart of Europe’s biodiversity

6. GW organisms indicate ecologicalconditions in GW (e.g. the hydro-logical and biogeochemical status ofthe GW system)

673Incorporation of Groundwater Ecology in Environmental Policy

and future generations of humans. The unique organisms living in subsurfacehabitats are the product of a long evolution and their potential loss is seen as aprejudice to our cultural heritage. This opinion may be in contrast to those ofwater policy planners who favour socioeconomic criteria (see the recentlyreleased GWD).2

Ecological information on GW environments, when compared to the chem-ical data, is apparently less precise and its inferential power is generally low.This is partly due to the nonlinear processes which dominate organismicactivities and occur in many cases also in non-living systems, e.g. karstsystems.23 However, considerable research has recently focused on generalaspects of ecological theory and praxis, which point out the linkages betweenbiodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services24,25 or which use experimentalapproaches to quantitatively assess these relationships.26 These concepts canalso be applied to the subterranean organisms, which may increase in this waythe predictive power of various environmental models.

In order to make the argumentation for the necessity to make better use ofecological information for GW management and/or environmental regulationsmore persuasive we will focus our attention to the following three topics: (1) theGW ecosystem approach, useful for planning environmental policies; (2) thediversity of GW habitats and organisms with their potential interest forenvironmental monitoring programmes; and (3) GW-dependent ecosystemsas constituents of global surface/subsurface environmental units.

11.2.3 The Groundwater Ecosystem Approach as a

Framework for Planning Pollution Prevention

and/or Environmental Protection Strategies

The European WFD3 only indirectly deals with the ecology of GW ecosystemsas it states: ‘‘the status of a body of groundwater may have an impact on theecological quality of surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems associated withthat groundwater body’’. There is an improvement in the new GWD2 as it ismentioned in its introductory presentation the importance of protection meas-ures for GW ecosystems. This requirement was frequently mentioned byecologists (e.g. Refs. 4–6, 27). It represents an important success of the newregulation and merits to be quoted in extenso: ‘‘Research should be conductedin order to provide better criteria for ensuring groundwater ecosystem qualityand protection. Where necessary, the findings obtained should be taken intoaccount when implementing or revising this directive. Such research, as well asdissemination of knowledge, experience and research findings, needs to beencouraged and funded’’.2 However, within the various articles of the GWD(e.g. Articles 1 and 3) only the term ‘‘body of groundwater’’ is mentioned whichmakes logical reference to the volume of subsurface water, including itsquantitative and qualitative aspects. Moreover, Article 1 starts with theemphasis on ‘‘the assessment of good groundwater chemical status’’. Anyspecialist dealing with various aspects of the subterranean aquatic environment

674 Chapter 11.2

knows that the quality and quantity of ‘‘good groundwater’’ depends on thebiogeochemical processes in the subsoil, with its connectivity and strength ofexchanges between the subsoil system and the surrounding earth layers andwith its dependence on the multiple human activities which negatively impactthe water. Hence, it becomes inescapable to improve the meaning of the term‘‘body of groundwater’’ with the scientific content of what we ecologistsunderstand as ‘‘GW ecosystem’’. The interest of this switching of meaning isnot a matter of semantics but one of paramount importance for the strategicplanning of water policies (a major concern also in the present book!).

An ecosystem is generally defined as the integration of various aspects of thephysicochemical and biological units which dynamically interplay. Groundwa-ter ecosystems are open subsurface systems through which energy and matter istransferred and further processed. It is delineated by external boundaries thatcan be recognised as a material reality or can be conceptually defined.28 Foropen systems (GW systems belong to this type) one has to identify the inputand the output areas which allow the contact with the surrounding system.Figure 11.2.1 shows a conceptual model of a GW ecosystem. One can recognisethree structural components: (1) the sediment matrix with various types ofvoids depending on the sediment or rock type (porous, karstic, fractured types);(2) the circulating GW; and (3) the living organisms. The first two unitsrepresent the habitat used by the living component of the system.

It is to the merit of Castany29 to have pointed out that the major services ofGW systems rely on three functions of aquifers: (1) the capacity to store water;(2) to transport with the water through the subsoil energy and matter; (3) toallow chemical and biological changes in water and in the solid substrate. Forthe third function the biological role of subsurface organisms is of paramountimportance, especially that of microbial communities.30

The domain of GW within the earths’ crust is gigantic; metaphorically it canbe represented as a ‘‘groundwater arena’’ (Figure 11.2.2). Therefore there is ahigh diversity of micro- and macro-environments or niches within the subsur-face. We know that subsurface water exists in both saturated and unsaturatedsediment layers and the water can penetrate deep into the earth down to severalthousand metres. Even at more than 1000 m deep GW microorganisms can bedetected.31 Exchange activities between surface water and the GW decreasewith depth. Figure 11.2.2 depicts schematically the decrease in biological and

Figure 11.2.1 Schematic representation of an ecosystem (from Ref. 28).


chemical activities related to the water circulation and the depth of the subsoillayers.

Close to the surface water (shown in Figure 11.2.2 as the white area withundulating lines) matter and organisms penetrate in high concentration and/ornumber (the surface water is the source of energy and matter penetrating belowthe soil’s surface); they can be stored there for different periods of time (thesubsoil layer acts as ‘‘sink’’ compartment); it can be further released either tothe deeper layers or returned to the surface environment. Therefore thissuperficial GW layer forms a dynamic source–sink ecotone.32 Beneath thesezones, GW contains less and less high-value energetic matter, the environmentbecomes oligotrophic and organisms are strictly specialised to hypogean life(they are called stygobites). This is the domain of GW ecosystems where leakysink processes dominate. Finally in the very deep layers of GW systems (inporous granular aquifers this should correspond to layers located deeper thanseveral hundred metres below the surface of the soil or in confined aquifers), theGW circulation is very slow, organic matter is scarce and refractory and theaquatic domain is generally hypoxic or anoxic. There is only a minimal returnof the water and matter to the surface from this area. One could name thisextreme environment metaphorically the zone of the black-hole sinks (an ideaof L. Kornicker, personal communication to D.L.D.).

Groundwater systems within the sediment layers relevant for human waterconsumption (in unconfined aquifers this lies, generally, 25–200m deep belowthe soil surface) display permanent physical, chemical and biological

Figure 11.2.2 Conceptual view of the GW domain (see text for details).

676 Chapter 11.2

fluctuations, they are far from equilibrium and they can switch when disturbedfrom one dissipative state to another. The facility with which the systems canreturn to a previous state marks their resilience capacity. It is well accepted nowthat GW systems as compared to those of surface waters are more prone tochange their ecological state when perturbed by pollutants; also, the resiliencetime is longer. Hence, it is considered that the vulnerability of many GWecosystems is greater as compared to surface water systems and therefore GWbodies need better protection measures33 (see Chapter 2.1).

Aquifers which are located within landscapes, or hydroscapes, with a hugediversity of both physicochemical and biological attributes have a high capacityto naturally restore their ecological state. Such GW systems display a highfunctional adaptedness and their quality in terms of providers of ecologicalservices and goods are very much appreciated by water managers.29

Groundwater ecosystems are both objective and subjective entities. It is thisdual aspect which causes apparently an insuperable difficulty to water manag-ers. In some cases we can materially define the boundaries of aquifers and wecan recognise the input and the output areas.28 In other cases we have to setartificial boundaries especially when we model our system. Groundwaterecosystems as defined above can be investigated at various spatial and temporalscales depending on the interests of scientists or of water managers.

A grain of sand with a well-developed assemblage of microorganisms(Figure 11.2.3) covered by pelicular water and a thin layer of organic matter,surrounded by a laminar layer of GW flowing along its surface, alreadyrepresents a ‘‘minimal’’ GW ecosystem. The granular sandy sediments in slowfiltration columns with their biofilms and interstitial meio- and macrofaunarepresent an artificial small ecosystem which is useful in the laboratory forsimulation of various chemical and biological processes which exist in the fieldbut are difficult to observe.28 For GW management purposes one investigateslarge areas we call aquifers, ‘‘GW bodies’’ or ‘‘subsurface hydroscapes’’.

Considering field situations we have to differentiate between deep GWecosystems where the exchange with the surface water is reduced and superficial

Figure 11.2.3 A ‘‘minimal’’ GW ecosystem: microbial biofilm on a grain of sand(from Ref. 30).


systems where the environmental conditions represent a mixture between thosedominating the surface waters and those of remote or deep water layers. Wecall these superficial systems ecotones (Figure 11.2.4) and a whole package ofinformation on their ecology is available.15,34

Porous (granular) aquifers in alluvial sediments along running water systemsbuild within their superficial layers very dynamic ecosystems. Hydrologists andwater managers appreciate those systems as they act as ‘‘bank filtration’’ unitsand produce large volumes of high-quality water for human consumption.35 Thehabitat is called in the ecological literature ‘‘hyporheal’’ and the organismicassemblages are of ecotonal type. A large number of insect larvae and crusta-ceans live here beside typical blind hypogean crustaceans. They can locallystimulate microbial activity and change the structure of the sediment throughbioturbation processes.36 The dynamics of hyporheic systems are very intensive,closely related to the evolution of surface water fluctuations. Strongly pollutedsurface water has a negative impact on hyporheic systems, and therefore theirdegree of vulnerability can increase at fast rates.37 The terrestrial-GW systemin porous (granular) sediments is a poorly investigated ecotone. It is commonin riparian (wetland) landscapes. Within this transition zone we distinguishboth unsaturated and saturated sediments on which rich microbial bio-films, stimulated by the arrival of a large amount of organic matter, maydevelop. Aquatic interstitial invertebrates like insect larvae or worms which livenormally in sediment layers fully saturated with water are also able to colonise

Figure 11.2.4 The main types of aquifers with their ecotones (from Ref. 32).

678 Chapter 11.2

semi-terrestrial environments (the vadose zone of aquifers).28 Many plants, i.e.the so-called phreatophytes, and meadow trees send their roots into this transi-tory ecosystem and play an important role in the elimination of nutrients, likenitrates and/or other chemical compounds.38

Groundwater ecosystems in deep aquifers, as mentioned above, have more orless diverse organismic assemblages, their biological activity is reduced and theenvironmental fluctuations are attenuated. Once such a system is perturbed itneeds a longer recovery time. Hence the vulnerability of such systems toanthropogenic pollution is higher than in the shallow ecotonal systems. Oneshould consider the pollution of deeper layers of porous granular aquifers withorganic chemicals and thereafter difficulties encountered to restore them backto a pristine quality.39

Finally, one is entitled to ask as to what the best strategy is to protect aporous alluvial aquifer against pollution. The answer depends on the scale atwhich we need to manage the water resources and on the location within a riverbasin. Our experience with the ecology of alluvial ecosystems along large riverslike the Danube40 suggests that the most important areas to be protected arethe river banks and the river bottom in the areas recognised as major inputwater zones to the aquifer. The cover land area above the aquifer, and hereespecially recharge zones and areas where the GW table is close to the surface,have to be better protected against diffused pollution.

Karst (ground)water is partly stored in carbonate massifs within largesubterranean voids and further circulates through conduits of various dia-meters, from microcrevices to large tunnels. Precipitation and surface waterwhich infiltrates into the karst systems traverses in many cases a non-saturatedsuperficial layer called epikarst. Further it arrives within the saturated zone andwill exfiltrate again through karst springs or karst streams. The aquatic faunaof the epikarst is represented mainly by surface-dwelling organisms; there arefew stygobiotic elements.

Within the saturated zone of a karst system the water can flow at highvelocity through large conduits or can be stored in accessory large voids. Thewater flows in a coherent way through a whole complex of voids which definesthe karst system as a drainage unit.23 The organismic assemblages of karsticsystems reflect the hydrological system; the main conduits are traversed bysurface-dwelling animals displaying also low abundances in pristine waters. Inthe annex voids where water is stored and only slowly further released, animalassemblages are well diversified and dominated by stygobiotic species. One canuse karstic fauna, especially small crustaceans, like the copepods, as ecologicaltracers for the identification of the origin of the water41 (see Section 4).

The vulnerability of the karst water to pollution events is well known. Goodexamples are the karst areas in northern Italy and in Austria which havefocused attention in the past because of epidemic diseases due to drinking watercontaminated with pathogenic microbes.

The principle of prevention and protection of karst systems differs partlyfrom those of the porous granular aquifers. One has to identify in the karst, inaddition to the zone of infiltration of the water, also the major pathways of


water travelling through the subterranean systems and the exfiltration points.Polluted water in karst spreads rapidly and can be intercepted by householdwells located at the surface of the karst massif, or can be collected at the karsticspring outlets. Therefore the protection strategy is more related to the localmountainous massif and to the pathways of the water circulation as comparedto those of porous granular aquifers located within river basins.

Finally, it is important to mention here the proposal of de Marsily42 to create‘‘hydrogeological nature reserves’’, in a similar way that ecologists develop‘‘natural parks’’ for the protection of valuable landscapes and their ecosystems.Here we advocate the idea of erecting ‘‘nature reserves’’ including both surfaceand subterranean ecosystems which allow not only the maintenance of pristineGW reserves but also intact assemblages of organisms related to a widespectrum of habitats.

11.2.4 Diversity of Groundwater Habitats and

Organisms: Their Usefulness for Environmental

Monitoring Programmes

We mentioned in the previous section that a ‘‘groundwater body’’ has to beviewed as an ecosystem incorporating not only the water but also the sedimen-tary substrate and the organisms that live within. Therefore for the specialistsdealing with GW monitoring it appears necessary to map not only the GWquality but also the characteristics of the subsurface habitats and their livingorganisms. For instance alluvial sediments along streams not impacted byorganic pollution display diverse animal assemblages which develop withindifferent types of habitats.43 The situation can be completely different inchronically polluted sediments, e.g. those which become anoxic over a widearea, and where one finds a monotone type of sediments inhabited by fewanimal species.44

At the European scale, three major biogeographical regions have to bedistinguished for GW fauna, which are mainly the result of the Pleistoceneglaciation:45 (1) in those parts of northern and central Europe, which werecovered by ice shields, GW diversity within the meio- and macrofauna is lowand endemic species are nearly absent; (ii) in western, central and easternEurope, several endemic and relictual species survived, and regional biodiver-sity is generally higher than in the north; and (iii) in contrast to these, insouthern Europe, where the climate stayed moderate during the various glaci-ation periods, most of the old Tertiary fauna still persists. These regions arecharacterised by a diverse endemic, exclusively subterranean dwelling fauna.Here, endemism and diversity are highest in the karstic areas, where evolu-tionary drift is generally enhanced by the high fragmentation of biotopes. Inconsequence, more than 50%, sometimes up to 90%, of the hypogean speciesare strongly restricted in their distribution, with many species recorded fromone single site only.46,47

680 Chapter 11.2

Considering the microbial biodiversity both cultivation dependent and inde-pendent investigations have revealed that microbial communities are dominatedby diverse heterotrophic bacteria. Furthermore, modern molecular studies havefrequently identified members of several mostly uncultivated lineages as well asphyla totally devoid of cultured representatives.48 An ongoing research project onthe ecological assessment of GW ecosystems, funded by the German FederalEnvironmental Agency, at the Institute for Groundwater Ecology, in Munich,shows that in special cases the subsurface microbial communities are distinctfrom those found in surface soil and aquatic environments. This distinctionbecomes apparent at the level of the specific assembly of GW microbial com-munities and by their special physiological capabilities and/or ecological require-ments. Specialised microbial groups, well adapted to the prevailing environmentalconditions (e.g. to the availability of electron donors and acceptors) can be usedfor monitoring GW habitats or for bioremediation programmes.48

During the last few years we have noticed that more and more ecologicalinformation on GW habitats and their organisms is used for environmentalregulations. For instance the Swiss Water Protection Ordinance not onlydefines water quality standards, but also ecological goals: ‘‘the biocenosis ingroundwater should be in a natural state adapted to the habitat and charac-teristic of water that is not or only slightly polluted’’.49,50

A GW environmental assessment system requires per definition the identifica-tion of the ‘‘pristine reference status’’ of GW bodies (as habitats). Additionallythe organismic communities can be used as biological indicators. For instancebased on the hydrological exchange and the availability of organic matter andoxygen at a subsurface site, Hahn51 described three types of GW habitats withspecific animal communities. These types are called (1) oligo-alimonic, i.e. oneswith poor supply of organic matter (OM) resulting in an extremely poor fauna(mainly stygobiotic); (ii) meso-alimonic, i.e. ones with medium OM supplysupporting an abundant and diverse stygobiotic fauna; and (3) eu-alimonicassemblages, i.e. ones with a high OM supply resulting in a very abundant anddiverse fauna, but in this case dominated by surface-dwelling fauna (stygoxenes)and ubiquitous species. There are also examples for a complete community shiftfrom a stygobiotic (exclusively subterranean dwelling organisms) to stygoxenicfauna (surface-dwelling organisms colonising temporarily the subsurface habitats)resulting from organic pollution.52–54 Metazoan fauna nicely reflect structuralconditions such as hydraulic conductivity, heterogeneity of habitats in an aquiferand/or provide information on surface/subsurface hydrological exchanges. Thecomposition of the meio- and macrofauna can further be used in many cases as anindicator for organic pollution. Hence this type of information can be used as anearly warning system for the environmental quality of areas were drinking waterproduction plants are located or may be considered in licensing procedures forwater extraction or the evaluation of wetlands.27,54–56,71,72

Due to their omnipresent distribution, microorganisms and microbial com-munities may represent an attractive target for biological assessments,57,58 andmay serve as reliable bioindicators for GW ecosystems.50,59,60 Microbes arecharacterised by short generation times and comparably high metabolic rates


providing a fast reaction to changes in environmental conditions, mainlyreflected by changes in their activity and shifts in the community composition.Today, these effects may be resolved by means of cultivation-independentmolecular methods. Based on the central hypothesis that in low energetichabitats with stable environmental conditions (such as most GW ecosystems)the microbial communities nicely reflect the in situ environmental conditions,the composition of microbial communities and their physiological status canserve as (bio)indicators for the assessment of the ecological situation.

Molecular fingerprinting techniques used in microbial community analysis ofGW offer information on changes in the community composition, which arerelated to environmental conditions including anthropogenic pollution. As anexample RNA/DNA sequence analysis may deliver information on the indi-vidual members of the microbial community from which environmental con-ditions can be deduced. The analysis of functional genes on DNA bases revealsthe potential for individual processes within communities and groups. Com-parative analysis of microbial communities (bacteria, archaea, protozoa andfungi) in pristine and anthropogenically impacted GW ecosystems will, in thenear future, provide the foundation for the selection of microbial species orgroups indicative for a ‘‘healthy’’ and/or ‘‘impacted’’ status.50,59,60 A selectionof valuable bioindicators will subsequently be collected and with the help ofmodern molecular tools, such as DNA microarray techniques, easy-to-handleassessment tools may be developed.58

Another important aspect of GW monitoring schemes is related to theartificial recharge of aquifer in urban zones. It is known that the increaseddemand for water in cities has motivated the search for replenishment of GWreserves through artificial recharge of the aquifers. Urban GW is commonlyrecharged by rivers, lakes and storm water runoff.61 Monitoring the quality andquantity of the water in urban sectors is a complex activity because it needs toobserve many different parameters. Therefore new observation facilities wereinstalled. The French Field Observatory in Urban Hydrology (OTHU), forinstance, has offered an integrated research programme since 1999. Its long-term objective is to acquire reliable data on urban effluents during rainfalls andtheir impact on surface water and GW. An important activity of the OTHU isto monitor the impact of artificial storm water infiltration on GW ecosystems.62

Present data show that storm water infiltration leads to an increase of the localsubsurface water temperature, of the OM content and of various other chem-ical nutrients.63,64 The OM enrichment of GW was positively linked to thedensity and diversity of GW assemblages of microorganisms and of inverte-brates. Hence, the biotic subterranean communities represent useful biologicalindicators for urban GW quality. With this knowledge, and methodologies, it ispossible to assess the sustainability of GW demand in the area of Lyon.Moreover it helps specialists dealing with urban water policies.62

In conclusion, we should point out here that the development of a biologicalassessment system within environmental programmes is not intended to replacetraditional hydrological and physicochemical standard protocols, but rather tocomplement them.

682 Chapter 11.2

11.2.5 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems: A Holistic

Representation

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are hydroscapes or landscapesthat must have access to GW in order to maintain their ecological structure andfunction.65

The implementation of the WFD3 requires the provision of an adequateamount of water for the individual ecosystem types. In trying to adapt anintegrated river basin management (IRBM) concept as envisaged by the WFD,in most cases much attention is given to the maintenance of riparian and in-stream habitats. In many instances it has been the principal concern of waterallocations under environmental flow considerations. Here, the sum of esti-mated environmental flows over a year is the total annual water volume, whichcan be allocated for environmental purposes.66 However, providing water forthe environment is more than mere allocation of GW to river flow and riparianhealth. The assessment of environment flow requirements at river basin scalebecomes more complex especially if all downstream fluvial and coastal require-ments have to be considered.67,68,69 The following are some examples:

� arid and semi-arid regions, such as in Mediterranean countries (Greece,Italy, Spain), which are characterised by long dry periods interrupted byshort periods of high rainfall intensities and where running waters aremost of the year driven by baseflow, i.e. the portion of streamflow that iscontributed by GW;

� wetlands depending on GW influx at all times of the year;� terrestrial ecosystems that show seasonal or episodic reliance on GW;

and� estuarine and near-shore marine ecosystems that use GW discharge.

The impact of the exploitation of GW resources on GDEs is a major concernfor water supply companies70 as the proportion of GW in drinking water isgenerally high in Europe1 and one of the best places to extract huge volumes ofsubsurface water for human needs are the riverine aquifers. In view of theseimportant economic aspects of GDEs, new research should be developed in thefuture combining ecology with hydrological studies,16 and/or using Castany’sconcept of the ‘‘global aquifer/river system’’.29

So finally, if GW policy and management systems intend to appropriatelyconsider and protect GDEs a better understanding will be needed of (1)identification of likely GDEs and assessment of the nature of the dependency,(2) analysis of the respective ecosystem dependency on GW and timing of thedependency, (3) GW regime required to meet the water requirements of theecosystem and (4) the impacts of change in key GW attributes on thatecosystem. By providing water managers and policy-makers with recommen-dations to the above, scientists can help managers to understand what will berequired for sustainable management of GDEs and to integrate them in theirplans.


11.2.6 Overview: The Expanded Order (Achievements

and Future Needs)

The information presented here should convince the reader that GW is not onlyan important resource needed for the well-being of humans but also a livingmedium for the diversified forms of life below the surface soil; it fuels water andenergy to various kinds of subsurface, and even surface ecosystems. The mul-tifarious activity of subterranean organisms offers valuable (but mostly unrec-ognised) services to nature and humans. Hence, we are sure that GW ecology is anew important aspect in modern GW research. However, we still need todevelop new pathways for the communication between the various partnersinvolved in GW science. Once this important initial step is achieved we have tofurther transmit our combined GW knowledge to a broad spectrum of interestedparties. Beside laypersons, stakeholders, water managers, providers for researchand technology development as well as the policy decision-makers need to beinformed about the advancement in GW ecological research. Figure 11.2.5portrays this idea, inspired from Ref. 11 and from Chapter 2.1.

Within this ‘‘expanded order’’, it is important to offer some hints about whatecology in the future may offer for improved management and protection of theGW domain.

1. Groundwater ecology is a useful tool for water management. Stakehold-ers, operational managers and policy-makers will profit from the use ofecological knowledge and from the experience of GW ecologists.

2. GW ecology should contribute to programmes which unify the problemsof resource sustainability with those of the maintenance of GW ecosystemintegrity.

Figure 11.2.5 Flowchart of the way scientific knowledge is communicated to layper-sons, water managers and policy-makers (from Ref. 12).

684 Chapter 11.2

3. GW organisms are especially important for the self-purification processesof GW systems; hence the maintenance of a healthy diversity of organ-isms is extremely important. We need early warning and ‘‘alarm bell’’technologies which are able to rapidly detect pollution threats or trends inGW ecosystem stress. Micro- and/or macrobiota may selectively be usedas indicator organisms for giving more complete information about thequalitative state of GW ecosystems. However, the diversity of theseorganisms should be first better mapped, bioindicators identified andsubsequently tested for monitoring purposes. The same applies for thehabitats in which the GW organisms live. The EC 7th FrameworkResearch Programme can provide a good basis for the development ofsuch new technologies in ecological monitoring.

4. The project PASCALIS (funded within the EC 6th Framework ResearchProgramme)10 offers important recommendations for the way we shouldprotect the aquatic subterranean biodiversity and how we should use thediverse organisms for water management and for protection policies. It isproposed inter alia: (a) the establishment of priority lists of GW animalspecies and GW habitats (aquifers) to be protected; (b) the application ofbiodiversity data to the evaluation of the ecological status of GW bodies;and (c) the development of a European network of nature reserves for theGW domain, which will protect not only the quality and quantity ofsubsurface water but also diverse subterranean organismic assemblages.

5. An interesting aspect of the new GWD is the flexibility offered to the EUmember states for deciding on the practical measures for monitoring and/or protection of the GW environment. Hence, member states couldindependently, where possible or useful, integrate GW ecology in theirwater policies. Especially the Mediterranean countries (e.g. Italy, Spain,Greece, Portugal) with their chronic problems of water shortage andeconomic problems to fund environmental monitoring schemes couldprofit from existing GW ecological knowledge.

6. The WFD and the GWD will have to account for the large differencesbetween karstic and porous granular aquifers (e.g. self-purification po-tential, water residence time, vulnerability). Hence, one needs differentstrategies for their management and protection.

7. GW ecology should be horizontally linked with other strategic EUframeworks and directives (like Natura 2000, the Birds and HabitatsDirective or the Thematic Soil Strategy).

8. We have to raise more public awareness on the ecology of subterraneanwaters and its importance for both humans and nature. Hence, it will benecessary to undertake systematic campaigns highlighting the ‘‘yet un-recognised’’ and positive contribution of the GW ecosystem serviceswithin the broad umbrella of the advantages offered by GW science.

9. Finally, by incorporating ecology in the policies dealing with watermanagement we insert positive values of nature besides the existingsocioeconomic values, those dealing with the quantity and quality aspectsof the water. Our efforts to communicate these ideas to a broad spectrum


of people, if accepted and further developed, should enrich GW scienceand in the long term improve the economics of GW resources.

Acknowledgements

Professor Ph. Quevauviller is acknowledged for the productive exchange ofideas concerning our topic and for his support and patience duringthe preparation of this contribution. One of us (D.L.D.) acknowledges theAustrian Foundation for Research (FWF) which gave financial support duringthe years of his groundwater ecology research. Many colleagues helped withinformation and logistical support, a few are here mentioned, M. Bakalowicz,L. Kornicker, T. Luders, A. Mangin, R. Rouch, F. Schiemer, C. Schweer,K. Minati, J. Knoblechner, M. Pichler and H. Ployer, who helped during theproduction of the manuscript. J.G. and F.M-B. acknowledge the UrbanCommunity of Lyon and the Rhone-Alpes Region for their financial supportof the OTHU projects for many years. C.G. is indebted for financial support tothe Helmholz Society, to the German Ministry of Education and Research(BMF, contract KORA 02 0462) and to the German Research Foundation(DFG, contract ME-2049/2-1) and the Federal Environmental Agency (UBAproject ‘‘Biological assessment of groundwater ecosystems’’).

References

1. A. Aureli and J. Ganoulis, UNESCO project on international sharedaquifer resources management,2005 (http://www.inweb.gr/)..

2. Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council onthe protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, OJ ofthe European Communities, L 372, p. 19.

3. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the fieldof water policy, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 327,22.12.2000, p. 1.

4. D. L. Danielopol, J. Gibert, C. Griebler, A. Gunatilaka, H. J. Hahn,G. Messana, J. Notenboom and B. Sket, Environ. Conserv., 2004, 31, 185.

5. Deutsche Naturchutzring, Bund, Grune Liga, Position of German Environ-mental NGOs on Amendments No. 1-227 of the draft report by Christa Klass,29.10.2004 and 20.12.2004, Berlin, 2005 (http://www.wrrl-info.de/docs/DNR-Position Klass-Reportfinal.pdf).

6. S. Scheuer, EU Environmental Policy Handbook: A Critical Analysis ofEU Environmental Legislation, European Environmental Bureau (EEB),Brussels, 2005, p. 125.

7. J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol and J. A. Stanford, Groundwater Ecology,Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994.

8. H. Wilkens, D. C. Culver and W. F. Humphreys, Subterranean Ecosystems,Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000.

686 Chapter 11.2

9. C. Griebler, D. L. Danielopol, J. Gibert, H. P. Nachtnebel and J. Noten-boom, Groundwater Ecology: A Tool for Management of Water Resources,Office for Publications of the EC, Luxembourg, 2001.

10. J. Gibert, World Subterranean Biodiversity, University Claude BernardLyon 1, Laboratory of fluvial hydrosystems ecology, Villeurbanne, France,2005. p. 13.

11. Ph. Quevauviller, P. Balabanis, C. Fragakis, M. Weydert, M. Olivier,A. Kaschl, G. Arnold, A. Kroll, L. Galbiati, J. M. Zaldivar andG. Bidoglio, Environ. Sci. Pol., 2005, 8, 203.

12. D. L. Danielopol, J. Gibert and C. Griebler, ESPR, 2006, 13, 138.13. Umweltbundesamt, European Groundwater Conference 2006, Proceedings,

Umweltbundesamt, Vienna, 2006.14. R. Cunningham, S. Scheuer, D. Eberhart and C. Schweer, A Critical

Assessment of Europe’s Groundwater Quality Protection Under the NewGroundwater Directive, Berlin, 2006 (http://www.bund.net/lob/redot2/pdf/groundwater directive assessment 20006/212.pdf).

15. J. Gibert, J. Mathieu and F. Fournier, Groundwater/Surface Water Eco-tones:Biological and Hydrological Interactions and Management Options,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.

16. J. A. Stanford and T. Gonser, Freshwater Biol., 1998, 40.17. J. Gibert and L. Deharveng, BioScience, 2002, 52, 473.18. C. Griebler and F. Mosslacher, Grundwasser-Okologie, Facultas, Vienna,

2003.19. A. Boulton, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 2005, 15, 319.20. A. Baba, K. W. F. Howard and O. Gunduz, Groundwater and Ecosystems,

Springer, Dordrecht, 2006.21. D. L. Danielopol, C. Griebler, A. Gunatilaka and J. Notenboom, Environ.

Conserv., 2003, 30, 104.22. D. L. Danielopol,and P. Pospisil, World Subterranean Biodiversity, Uni-

versity Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Laboratory of fluvial hydrosystems ecol-ogy, Villeurbanne, 2005, p.29.

23. M. Bakalowicz, Hydrogeol. J., 2005, 13, 148.24. M. Loreau, S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtssoon, J. P. Grime, A. Hector,

D. U. Hooper, M. A. Huston, R. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman andD. A. Wardle, Science, 2001, 294, 804.

25. S. Naeem and J. P. Wright, Ecol. Lett., 2003, 9, 567.26. A. M. Lohrer, S. F. Thrush and M. M. Gibbs, Nature, 2004, 431, 1092.27. H. J. Hahn and E. Friederich, Grundwasser, 1999, 4, 147.28. D. L. Danielopol, P. Pospisil, J. Dreher, F. Mosslacher, P. Torreiter,

M. Geiger-Kaiser and A. Gunatilaka, Subterranean Ecosystems, Elsevier,Amsterdam, 2000, p. 481.

29. G. Castany, Principes et methodes de l’hydrogeologie, Dunod, Paris, 1982.30. C. Griebler, Groundwater Ecology: A Tool for Management of Water

Resources, Office for Publications of the EC, Luxembourg, 2001, p. 81.31. F. H. Chapelle, Ground-water Microbiology and Geochemistry, J. Wiley,

New York, 1993.


32. J. Gibert, F. Fournier and J. Mathieu, Groundwater/Surface Water Eco-tones: Biological and Hydrological Interactions and Management Options,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997, p. 3.

33. J. Notenboom, Groundwater Ecology: A Tool for Management of WaterResources, Office for Publications of the EC, Luxembourg, 2001, p. 247.

34. W. K. Jones, D. C. Culver and J. S. Herman, Epikarst, Special Publication9, Karst Waters Institute Inc., Charlestown, WV, 2004.

35. H. Frischherz, Wiener Mitteilungen, Wasser-Abwasser-Gewasser, 1979,29, 1.

36. D. L. Danielopol, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 1989, 8, 18.37. J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholl, Streams and Ground Waters, Academic Press,

San Diego, CA, 2000.38. M. Tremolieres, D. Correll and J. Olah, Groundwater/Surface Water

Ecotones: Biological and Hydrological Interactions and ManagementOptions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997, p. 227.

39. M. Alexander, Biodegradation and Bioremediation, Academic Press, SanDiego, CA, 1994.

40. D. L. Danielopol, P. Pospisil and J. Dreher, Hydrological Basis of Ecolog-icaly Sound Management of Soil and Groundwater, IAHS Publication 202,1991, p. 215.

41. R. Rouch, Mem. Soc. Geol. France, 1980, 11, 109.42. G. de Marsily, Ground Water, 1992, 30, 658.43. J. W. Ward, G. Bretschko, M. Brunke, D. L. Danielopol, J. Gibert,

T. Gonser and A. G. Hildrew, Freshwater Biol., 1998, 40, 531.44. D. L. Danielopol, Int. J. Speleol., 1976, 8, 322.45. A. Thienemann, Verbreitungsgeschichte der Sußwassertiere Europas. Ver-

such einer historischen Tiergeographie der europaischen Binnengewasser,Springer, Stuttgart, 1950.

46. B. Sket, Biodiv. Conserv., 1999, 8, 131.47. D. C. Culver and B. Sket, J. Cave Karst Stud., 2000, 62, 11.48. C. Griebler and T. Lueders, Freshwater Biol., submitted.49. GSchV, Water Protection Ordinance, SR 814.201, Swiss Federal Law,

Bern, 1998.50. N. Goldscheider, D. Hunkeler and P. Rossi, Hydrogeol. J., 2006, 14, 926.51. H. J. Hahn, Limnologica, 2006, 36.52. B. Sket, Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Speleol. Olomouc, 1977, 5, 253.53. B. Sket, Biodiv. Conserv., 1999, 8, 1319.54. F. Malard, J. Mathieu, J.-L. Reygrobellet and M. Lafont, Hydrobiologia,

1999, 58, 158.55. P. Dumas, C. Bou and J. Gibert, Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 2001, 86, 619.56. T. Pipan, A Brancelj, Zool. Stud., 2004, 43, 206.57. H. W. Pearl, J. Dyble, P. H Moisander, R. T. Noble, M. F. Piehler, J. L.

Pinckney, T. F. Steppe, L. Twomey and L. M. Valdes, FEMS Microbiol.Ecol., 2003, 46, 233.

58. K. Lemarchand, L. Masson and R. Brousseau, Crit. Rev. Microbiol., 2004,30, 145.

688 Chapter 11.2

59. C. Griebler, T. Luders and J. Liebich, European Groundwater Conference2006, Proceedings, Umweltbundesamt, Vienna, 2006, p. 130.

60. D. Hunkeler, N. Goldscheider, P. Rossi and C. Burn, Biozonosen imGrundwasser: Grundlagen und Methoden der Charakterisierung vonmikrobiellen Gemeinschaften, Bundesamt fur Umwelt, Bern, 2006.

61. R. D. G. Pyne, Groundwater Recharge and Wells, Lewis Publishers, BocaRaton, FL, 1995.

62. S. Barraud, J. Gibert, T. Winiarski and J.-L. Bertrand-Krajewski, WaterSci. Technol., 2002, 46, 203.

63. T. Datry, F. Malard and J. Gibert, Sci. Total Environ., 2004, 329, 215.64. T. Datry, F. Malard and J. Gibert, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2005, 24, 461.65. B. Murray, G. C. Hose, D. Eamus and D. Licari, Austral. J. Bot., 2006,

54, 221.66. V. Smakhtin, C. Revenga and P. Doll, Water Int., 2004, 29, 307.67. M. Sophocleous, Hydrogeol. J., 2002, 10, 52.68. D. Eamus, R. Froend, R. Loomes, G. Hose and B. Murray, Austral.

J. Bot., 2006, 54, 97.69. W. F. Humphreys, Austral. J. Bot., 2006, 54, 115.70. J. Petersen and U. Sutering, Wasser & Boden, 2003, 55, 58.71. F. M. Butterworth, A. Gunatilaka and M. E. Bonaparte, Biomonitors

and Biomarkers as Indicators of Environmental Change, Plenum Press,New York, 2001, vol. 2.

72. A. Gunatilaka and J. Dreher, Water Sci. Technol., 2003, 47, 53.


Documents

Incorporation of Groundwater Ecology in Environmental Policy