Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114
Annex X: Summary of the national biological assessment methods forlakes (WFD Intercalibration metadata January 2004)Austria• WFD compatible? No• Classification of ecological quality status based on the comparison ofreference with present-day trophic state.• The classification of the trophic state is based on physico-chemical andphytoplankton parameters. The ecological quality status was classified as'high' or as 'boundary high/good' with moderate to high certainty.• Phytoplankton: Yes; abundance, biomass, indicator taxa, group ratios,chlorophyll-a• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: Yes; 4 out of 15; indicator taxa, limit of vegetation• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: No• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; Total phosphorus, nitrate, ammonium,oxygen, secchi depth• Pressure criteria: Yes; Nutrient loadingBelgium• WFD compatible? No• Expert consultation, occasional research of diatoms, macro invertebrates,macrophytes and site specific physico-chemical parameters• Official methods are not yet operational. Expert agreement is the method, andis a subjective method.• Phytoplankton: No• Phytobenthos: Yes; relative abundance of indicator species; relativeabundance (counts of 500 valves)• Macrophytes: Yes; type specific species (abundance weighted), disturbanceindicators, growth forms, cover-frequency (Tansley), aquatic vegetation, shorevegetation• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: Yes; Taxonomic composition; numbers (Prestonscores)• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; temperature, salinity, pH, alkalinity, oxygen,absorbance (254 nm, 420 nm), DIC, N-t, P-t, nitrate-N, ammonium-N,phosphate-P, Kj-N, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, sulphate,chloride, silica, COD• Pressure criteria: NoCyprus• WFD compatible? No115
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 112 and 113: one or other option depends on the
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?