River macrophyte indices: not the Holy Grail

Summary 1. Recent studies have demonstrated that there is generally no unambiguous relationship between plant species composition and specific environmental conditions in rivers. Nevertheless, indices of environmental pressures based on macrophytes are flourishing, because of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). 2. We first reviewed nine such indices against 13 criteria for bioindicators. Then, using data from France and England, we tested whether the IBMR (Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers) and LEAFPACS (predictions and classification system for macrophytes) methods could reliably indicate nutrient and hydromorphological pressures. Finally, we used an improved bootstrapping method to estimate accuracy. 3. Currently, most indices lack ecological meaning for a variety of reasons, including partial sampling (backwaters are excluded); reliance on list of taxa (there are identification difficulties) rather than structure and functions; correlation rather than causation; application within a limited biogeographical area; reliance on ‘expert’ judgement; high precision but poor accuracy; poorly defined reference conditions; lack of independent tests; and an inability to discriminate reliably between the target pressures of interest from confounding background variables. 4. IBMR was a far better indicator of pH (or HCO3‐pCO2) than it was of soluble reactive phosphorus, SRP (or SRP‐NH4). While there was a highly significant correlation between IBMR and SRP after removing the effect of pH, the relationship was weak (r2 = 0.08, n = 215, P