Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

one or other option depends on the degree of compliance of the national assessmentmethods with the WFD requirements, the nature of the methods for determiningreference conditions, and the possibility for identifying a common metric.5. Given the state of development of the national methods and their possibledivergences it is expected that the most viable option involves the use of a commonmetric identified specifically for the purposes of the intercalibration exercise and towhich the national methods will be compared with and then adjusted.What is a metric and what is a intercalibration ‘common metric’6. A metric is defined in Karr and Chu (1999) as a measurable part or process of abiological system empirically shown to change in value along a gradient of humaninfluence. It reflects specific and predictable responses of the community to humanactivities, either to a single factor or to the cumulative effects of several or allactivities within a watershed.7. Several metrics types can be distinguished by definition addressing comparableaspects of a community, regardless of the stressor to which the metrics areresponding. The following metric types are distinguished:- Composition / abundance metrics: all metrics giving the share of a taxon ortaxonomic group in relation to the total number of individuals counted; allmetrics giving the abundance of a taxon or taxonomic group.- Richness / diversity metrics: all metrics giving the number of taxa within acertain taxon (including the total number of taxa), all diversity indices.- Sensitivity / tolerance metrics: all metrics giving the ratio of taxa sensitive andinsensitive to stress in general or to a certain stress-type, either usingpresence/absence or abundance information.- Functional metrics: all metrics addressing the characteristics of taxa otherthan their sensitivity to stress (species traits, taxa traits, ecological guilds):feeding types, habitat preferences, ecosystem type preferences, currentpreferences, life-history parameters, body-size parameters. These can be basedon taxa abundance.112
8. For the purpose of the WFD intercalibration exercise it may be necessary toidentify common metrics (see option 2 of the Guidance on the IntercalibrationProcess 10 ). This is the case when Member State’s assessment methods are not directlycomparable, and involves the agreement on a common WFD method by the MemberStates in a GIG.9. The common metrics should be indicative of the relevant biological qualityelement and sensitive to the pressure that is assessed. These may be selected from oneof the Member State’s existing assessment methods, if acceptable for the otherMember States in the GIG, but also can be specifically developed in the GIGs. For thecommon metric, type-specific good status boundary values need to be established inthe GIGs following the application of an agreed boundary setting procedure using adata set assembled for the purposes of the intercalibration exercise. The results of thecommon assessment method will be used as the basis for adjusting the boundary EQRvalues of the national assessment methods.10. The applicability of a common metric is dependent of the availability of a suitabledata set from which the common metric(s) can be calculated to enable reliableapplication of the agreed boundary setting procedure, and the availability of a meansof estimating and taking into account differences in the bias of the methods whenapplied to the data set referred to above.11. In general, common metrics are biological metrics widely applicable within alarger geographical region, which can be used to derive comparable informationamong different countries and waterbody types. Basic features are the ability indiscriminating different quality classes and the possibility of calculating them from awide range of geographical contexts, i.e. where different effort is placed on themonitoring exercise and different expertise is available for taxonomic identification(Buffagni and Erba, 2004).10‘Guidance on the Intercalibration Process’ available at http://113
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 and 10:
classification, each of these being
Page 11 and 12:
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: PHYTOPL
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 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?