Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Phytoplankton: Yes; Clorophyll as alga biomass measure.• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: No• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: No• Pressure criteria: NoFrance• WFD compatible? No• Based on trophic level.• Phytoplankton: No• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: No• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; nutrients, chlorophyll, transparency.• Pressure criteria: NoUnited Kingdom• WFD compatible? Yes (13 sites); NO (19 sites)• The 13 compatible sites: SEPA's Standing Water Classification Scheme (1994,SEPA Internal <strong>Report</strong>). Sediment diatoms to assess the degree of floristicchange (diatom species turnover) between core bottom and surface sedimentsample using chord distance dissimilarity measure.• The non-compatible sites: mostly, based on definitions given in Annex V forthe biological elements - expert opinion (9 sites). Several differentcombinations of these definitions, expert judgement, pressure information,ratio of reference to current lake total phosphorus concentration and sedimentdiatoms used to assess the degree of floristic change (diatom species turnover)between core bottom and a surface sediment sample.• Boundary criteria have been based on an interpretation of the normativedefinitions, which have been related to monitoring methodologies used in theUK.• Phytoplankton: Yes21 out of 32; fossil diatom assemblages (14 sites) andOccasional blooms (7 sites).• Phytobenthos: Yes 22 out of 32 sites; fossil Diatom record (14 sites) andabsence of bacterial tufts, but occasional algal mats of Cladophora agg (8sites).• Macrophytes: Yes 11 out of 32 sites; absence of indicator species typical oftype and abundances lower than expected for a good quality lake of this type,species presence and absence and relative abundance DAFOR, speciescomposition.118
• Macroalgae; 8 out of 32 sites; periodic growths of Cladophora mats,presence of nuisance growths of indicators such as Cladophora agg.(2 sites).• Benthic invertebrates: 8 out of 32 sites; family level invertebrates and logabundance - presence and absence of pollution sensitive/tolerant taxa.• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: 28 out of 32 sites; current total phosphorus,hindcast total phosphorus, current acid neutralising capacity and hindcast acidneutralising capacity (13 sites), OECD classification based on totalphosphorus (8 sites), Total Phosphorus (7 sites).• Pressure criteria: 25 out of 32 sites; presence / absence / significance of fishfarms, other point sources, hydromorphological, recreational and land usepressures (16 sites), Catchment land-use, improved grassland/evergreenforestry (8 sites), expert opinion based on knowledge of lake (1 site).Ireland• WFD compatible? No• Ireland’s interpretation of normative definitions in Annex V of Waterframework Directive.• Several combinations of the elements macrophytes, macroinvertebrates,phytoplankton species composition and quantity, total phosphorus and otherphysico-chemical data are used for classification,• Phytoplankton: Yes; 19 out of 24 sites; species composition, biomass andabundance (11 sites), species composition and abundance (4 sites),Phytoplankton abundance as measured by chlorophyll (3 sites).• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: Yes; 14 out of 24; species composition and abundance.• Macroalgae: Yes; 11 out of 24 sites; species composition (6 sites) andabundance (4 sites), Presence or absence (1 site).• Benthic invertebrates: Yes; 10 out of 24 sites; species composition andabundance.• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; 22 out 24sites; total Phosphorus only (8sites), H+, alkalinity, non-marine sulphate, nitrate, cations and heavy metalsconcentrations (4 sites), several combinations of nutrients, pH, H+, alkalinity,non-marine sulphate, nitrate, cations and heavy metals concentrations,chlorophyll (9 sites).• Pressure criteria: NoLithuania (4expert knowledge on level of acid deposition in the catchment/regionsites)• WFD compatible? No• Pressure screening, historical and existing monitoring data, expert judgement• Maximum allowable concentrations, existing biological classification systemfor macroinvertebrates (biotic integrity index)• Phytoplankton: No• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No119
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 114 and 115: 114
Page 116 and 117: • An integrated holistic evaluati
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?