Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

procedures, for any of the biological elements, have some degree of standardization ata national level, and when international standards are available these are oftenfollowed. The biological material collected have generally a good taxonomicresolution with identification of many organisms to species. For the majority of thecountries, the metrics estimated for the biological elements do not respect the WFDrequirements. Type specific reference conditions, are only known for some benthicinvertebrate metrics in two countries, i.e. Sweden and UK. Also, there are somepreliminary reference conditions (mostly lake specific) for fish metrics also forSwedish lakes. The UK and Germany have developed multimetric indexes based onmacroinvertebrates and aquatic plants in small lakes, for which reference conditionsare derived from a wide range of environmental conditions and geology. It is asappears to have good applicability to the WFD. However, only 2 national assessmentmethods based on benthic invertebrates are considered to be WFD compatible (seeAnnex VII).21. A more detailed comparison of the lake methods can be found in Annex IV.BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: CHLOROPHYLL22. In the GIGs the percentage of lakes for which chlorophyll a is measured variesbetween 40% (Eastern Continental, EC) and 100% (Mediterranean, ME), with anoverall average of 82.5%. However, there is great heterogeneity both within GIG andbetween GIGs in terms of the sampling and analytical methods.23. The most frequent sampling method in all the GIGs involves the collection ofsurface samples between 2 and 12 times per year (whole year (monthly) orconcentrated during spring, summer, or vegetation periods) at only one station.24. The extraction methods vary widely within GIGs, among GIGs and even within asingle country. These can explain considerable variance in the measurement ofchlorophyll a concentration.25. Only 4 countries have informed to employ international standard methods for thedetermination of chlorophyll a, and 2 other countries make use of nationalstandardized methods.10
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: PHYTOPLANKTON26. Most countries include in their biological monitoring systems some metric forphytoplankton. The lowest number of lakes for which phytoplankton is monitored isin the NO GIG (54%), in all other GIGs at least 60% of the lakes are monitored forphytoplankton. However, there is great heterogeneity both within GIG and betweenGIGs in terms of the sampling and metrics estimated.27. The most frequent sampling method in all the GIGs involves the collection ofsurface samples between 2 and 12 times per year (spring and summer) at one station.28. The metrics used in the assessment differ both within and among GIGs, but mostcountries measure abundance and biomass and successively less countries record alsobloom occurrence, size composition and primary productivity. There are no countriesthat completely fulfill the WFD metric requirements.BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: PHYTOBENTHOS29. Most countries do not use phytobenthos in their biological monitoring. Thehighest number of lakes monitored for phytobenthos is found in the EC GIG followedclosely by CE and AL GIGs, while in the NO GIG countries this biological element isnot used at all at intercalibration sites. Like for other elements, there is greatheterogeneity both within GIG and between GIGs in terms of the sampling andmetrics estimated.30. In cases where phytobenthos is sampled, the most frequent sampling frequency isbetween 2 and 6 times per year, and the number of sampling stations in each lake varyin the GIGs from one lake station (all lakes in the AT and EC GIGs), 2-10 stations(most lakes in the BA and CE GIGs), or more than 10 stations (all lakes in the MEGIG and most in the AL GIG).31. As with chlorophyll a and phytoplankton, sampling is held during the vegetationgrowth period, spring and summer. The habitats sampled differ, some countriessample epilithic and others epiphytic phytobenthos. The composition metrics arespecies composition, presence or absence of species and indicator taxa. The quantitymetrics are the relative abundance of species, indicator taxa and excessive growth ofnuisance species such as Cladophora. Most countries include in their assessment both11
Page 1 and 2: Institute for Environment and Susta
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSBackground and purpose of t
Page 5 and 6: Background and purpose of the docum
Page 7 and 8: States and candidate countries. Inf
Page 9: classification, each of these being
Page 13 and 14: indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 15 and 16: 53. The identification and enumerat
Page 17 and 18: 64. In general, this technique is t
Page 19 and 20: RIVER BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: F
Page 21 and 22: 84. The development of specific sta
Page 23 and 24: practice guides for identification
Page 25 and 26: 100. The information received from
Page 27 and 28: Evaluation of the suitability of cu
Page 29 and 30: group should update its primary fin
Page 31 and 32: ReferencesAFNOR (Association Franç
Page 33 and 34: EN ISO 8689-2 Water quality - Biolo
Page 35 and 36: Lazaridou-Dimitriadou, M., C. Kouko
Page 37 and 38: Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver, 1949.
Page 39: Annex I: Composition of the Geograp
Page 43 and 44: Annex III: River biological assessm
Page 45 and 46: Annex IV: Analysis of lake biologic
Page 47 and 48: Number of sampling stations10080%60
Page 49 and 50: IT 90% acetone spectrophotometricPT
Page 51 and 52: 10. The sampling depth and volume s
Page 53 and 54: PTESFIIE5667-2/98 Romanianstandardi
Page 55 and 56: Sampling stations%1008060402001 2-1
Page 57 and 58: MACROPHYTES16. The aquatic Macrophy
Page 59 and 60: Plants sampled per GIG1008060%40Eme
Page 61 and 62:
NO qualitativ method species number
Page 63 and 64:
indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 65 and 66:
26. The sampling frequency is varia
Page 67:
CEN/TC 230/WG 2/ TG 4 N28, 2 nd wor
Page 70 and 71:
programs are based only on the diat
Page 72 and 73:
21. Some countries like France, Est
Page 74 and 75:
Table 1. European methods for monit
Page 76 and 77:
countries also covers Non-EU Member
Page 78 and 79:
49. The Danish Stream Fauna Index i
Page 80 and 81:
Hungary58. Since 2002 a modificatio
Page 82 and 83:
Acidification Index, based on the s
Page 84 and 85:
Identification is predominantly to
Page 86 and 87:
size of the net range between 250 t
Page 88 and 89:
water bug genus (Aphelocheirus) and
Page 90 and 91:
Table 5. Common abundance classific
Page 92 and 93:
108. Process Assessment focuses on
Page 94 and 95:
Austria120. MuLFA: Ecological Integ
Page 96 and 97:
Sweden126. Swedish fish Index: Appe
Page 98 and 99:
ut comparisons have been made with
Page 100 and 101:
seasons for sampling are summer and
Page 102 and 103:
102
Page 104 and 105:
Consultation open to ECOSTAT &inter
Page 106 and 107:
Table 1. List of European standards
Page 108 and 109:
108
Page 110 and 111:
development of typologySweden Yes,
Page 112 and 113:
one or other option depends on the
Page 114 and 115:
114
Page 116 and 117:
• An integrated holistic evaluati
Page 118 and 119:
• Phytoplankton: Yes; Clorophyll
Page 120 and 121:
• Macroalgae: No• Benthic inver
Page 122 and 123:
• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae:
Page 124:
Mission of the JRCThe mission of th
show all

Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?