Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58. Most commonly macrophytes are identified to species level, which is usually donein the field. Uncertain identifications are verified in the laboratory by referring toherbarium species. Abundance is recorded in most countries as the relative plantcoverage or specifies the ‘plant mass estimate’ accounting for the three-dimensionalextension of the plant stand. In both options abundance is expressed in classes, but formost methods the number of classes and the defined ranges deviate.59. The numerical evaluation of macrophyte composition and abundance is based on asingle biotic index integrating indicator species and their abundance, and is includedin assessment methods of 5 countries.60. A multimetric assessment based on macrophytes is done by 2 countries. Oneassessessment method is dependent on the stream type, is based on a separatelyevaluation of mosses and phanerogams to which further metrics (e.g. evenness,percentage of Sparganium emersum etc.) can be added to the results of the mainindex. Besides the assessment of general degradation, the method comprises modulesfor the detection of acidification in base-poor mountain streams. The other methodconsiders the percent coverage of plant growth forms and the abundance of streamtype-specific indicator species to assess general stream degradation. In both methodsthe overall quality of the watercourse is derived on the basis of the analysis of theentire aquatic flora including phytobenthos.61. The number of quality classes ranges from four to seven.RIVER BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES62. The biodegradable organic pollution represents the main focus of the biologicalassessment in European rivers.63. The sampling procedure of a large number of methods applied in monitoringprogrammes using benthic invertebrates is based on the International Standard ISO7828 (1985) or the adopted European Norm EN 27828 (1994) Water quality. Methodsof biological sampling: Guidance on handnet sampling of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates.Several methods which do not directly referring to these internationalstandards carry out ‘kick and sweep’ sampling that is regulated by national norms/methods.16
64. In general, this technique is the most common sampling procedure and applied in30 methods using a hand-net. The nets used differ in size of the opening and mesh.Net-openings specified by the assessment methods vary between approximately 600and 900 square centimetres. In half of the schemes, animals are retained by meshsizesof about 500 µm.65. The procedure of quantitative sampling is standardised by the guidance ISO 8265(1988) or EN 28265 (1994) Methods of biological sampling: Guidance on the designand use of quantitative samplers for benthic macro-invertebrates on stony substratain shallow freshwaters. Surber samplers are most commonly used for quantitative,area-related sampling. The recommendations of this standard for maximum aperturesize of the net range between 250 to 750 µm. The models currently applied in variousnational watercourse monitoring programmes differ in sampled area (0.01 to 0.12 m²)and mesh-size (100 to 500 µm).66. In deeper streams benthic macroinvertebrates are taken using of grabs, dredgesand artificial substrates. The application of these devices is standardised in ISO 9391(1993) or EN ISO 9391 (1995). These are the same standards as the previous ones.The difference in dates is caused by the different dates of publication by the twoorganisations.67. ISO and CEN standards for sampling invertebrates are currently under revision tomake them more WFD compliant, but the timescale for publication will be severalyears.68. Sampling varies from seasonal collections to procedures conducted every fiveyears. Annual sampling is the most common interval applied in river monitoring. Insome monitoring programs observing the saprobiological water quality sampling isseasonal. This inevitably influences the degree of uncertainty of the resultingecological classifications, i.e. the likelihood of the banding allocated69. Nearly 60 percent of the methods applied determine at least selected orders ofbenthic invertebrates to species- or species groups-level. The remainingapproximately 40 percent of methods, identify organisms to genus or family. It mustbe noted that in several assessment methods taxa are identified to lower levels thanrequired to adequately compute the respective quality index.17
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: 53. The identification and enumerat
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?