Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: Yes; biotic integrity index• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; BOD7, total N, total P• Pressure criteria: Yes; Land use (%), wastewater discharges (approximateamount of discharges), recreational useLatvia• WFD compatible? No• Use of reference physico-chemical conditions (? But reference conditionquestions were all answered with no), statistical analyses of physico-chemicalvalues.• Criteria (P total, N total, BOD5, N/NO3, N/NO2, N/NH4, P/PO4, Chlorophylla) the lowest and the highest quartiles were used for approximate defininghigh/good or the good/moderate class boundaries + expert judgement• Phytoplankton: No 5 out of 6 sites• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: No• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; P total, N total, BOD5, N/NO3, N/NO2,N/NH4, P/PO4, Chlorophyll a• Pressure criteria: NoNetherlands• WFD compatible? Yes• Modification of method presented in Van den Berg et al., (2002). Boundaryhigh/good: statistical variation in data, 90% percentile of reference values• good/moderated: class width of good is assumed to be similar as class widthfor high.• Phytoplankton: Yes; mean chlorophyll a concentration (summer period).• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: Yes; 3 out of 3 sites; area covered by submerged macrophytes,1 site including charophytes.• Macroalgae: only 1 site; Charophytes were included in area covered bysubmerged macrophytes.• Benthic invertebrates: No• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; total P• Pressure criteria: NoNorway• WFD compatible? No• National classification system (SFT-guidance 1997:04) combined with expertjudgement120
• Total phosphorus and chlorophyll a combined with expert judgement ofreference conditions for these parameters for the type relevant for the site• Phytoplankton: Yes; 21 out of 46; mean chlorophyll a concentration(summer period)• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: Yes; only 1 lake;• Macroalgae: only 1 site• Benthic invertebrates: yes; 9 out of 46; species composition, acidificationindex based upon indicator taxa sensitive to acidification• Fish: Yes; 8 out of 46; species composition, CPUE and age structure(primarily trout populations)• Physicochemical quality: Yes; 44 out of 46; pH, ANC. Total phosphorus• Pressure criteria: 24 out of 46; expert knowledge on level of acid depositionin the catchment/regionPoland• WFD compatible? No• Lake Quality Evaluation System - method used in routine monitoring of Polishlakes Kudelska et al. (1997). Two types of criteria: water quality criteria(mainly eutrophication parameters), morphometric, hydrographic andwatershead criteria.• Phytoplankton: Yes; 22 out of 25 sites; quantitative and qualitativecomposition, indicator taxa (in 10 sites) + biomass (chlorophyll a content) (in11 sites) + number of taxons, indicator taxa, dominance structure (1 site).• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: Yes; 17 out of 25 sites; taxonomic composition, area coveredby particular plant community, max. depth of plant growth (15 sites),quantitative and qualitative composition, indicator taxa, biomass (chlorophylla content) (1site), indicator taxa only (1 site).• Macroalgae: Yes; 13 out of 25 sites; presence of Characeae, area covered byChara community, max. depth of plant growth.• Benthic invertebrates: 0nly 1; composition, indicator taxa.• Fish: No; 20 out of 25 sites; qualitative composition and 1 site also withindicator taxa.• Physicochemical quality: Yes; mainly eutrophication parameters (oxygenconditions, N and P compounds, Secchi disc reading, chlorophyll a) and COD-Cr, conductivity.• Pressure criteria: Yes; land use in catchment area, presence of humansettlements, presence of sources of pollution, tourism.Portugal• WFD compatible? No• Concentration of chlorophyll a.• Statistical approach based on historical data of chlorophyll a.• Phytoplankton: Yes; Chlorophyll a.• Phytobenthos: No121
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 118 and 119: • Phytoplankton: Yes; Clorophyll
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?