Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

70. Nearly 50 percent of macroinvertebrate methods record the abundance in numberof individuals per area. In fact, purely quantitative data require area-related samplingprocedures by means of quadrate samplers, grabs or similar devices. Since theserequirements are only met by a few schemes, abundance statements based on semiquantitativehand-net sampling are in most cases of restricted reliability but they arecheap, practical and effective.71. There are different abundance classification schemes in use, the most commonare: i) 3-class scheme, derived from Pantle and Buck (1955) applying the SaprobicIndex; ii) 5-class scheme, there two systems in Europe: one based on a logarithmicscale of organisms’ abundance (Murray-Bligh, 1999) and the Quality Rating System;iii) 7-classes scheme, established by Knöpp (1955) this classification has beenincluded in the German standard DIN 38 410 (1990, 2003): Determination ofSaprobic Index of Running Waters.72. Assessment methods operating on the basis of presence/absence data ofmacroinvertebrate taxa do not necessarily need to record taxa abundance. Many bioticindices like I.B.G.N., IBE, BMWP-ASPT or BBI are not designed to includeabundance information. Their outputs may be biased by single organisms drifting intothe sample from upstream reaches. Therefore, the individual systems prescribe toinclude only taxa that exceed a certain threshold of abundance to avoid false results.73. Seven different categories of assessment methods can be distinguished among themethods currently used according to the type and scope of measured parameters(“metrics“) (Knoben et al., 1995; Verdonschot, 2000):− Saprobic Indices (represent specific modes of biotic scores)− Diversity Indices− Predictive Assessment− Process Assessment− Rapid Bioassessment− Multimetric Assessment− Ecosystem Components Assessment18
RIVER BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: FISH74. In November 2004 the European –FAME (Fish-based assessment method for theecological status) project was completed– This was aimed at developing, evaluatingand implementing a new fish based assessment method for the ecological status ofEuropean rivers in direct support to the WFD. This project, included the participationof twelve European countries, and has delivered recommendations concerning fishsampling and data interpretation.The results of the project are being considered forCEN standardization and has potential to be included in the future WFD monitoringplans.75. Currently, different fish based methods are used throughout Europe to assess theecological status of rivers.76. A short description of the methods currently in use and those developed within theFAME project is given in Annex V.77. In Europe, fish sampling methods differ greatly between countries, and evenbetween regions or states belonging to the same country. As a corollary, nationalsampling methods rarely exist. However, in some European countries, fish monitoringprogrammes have been designed to assess the ecological quality of rivers based onfish assemblages. These monitoring programmes have, to some extent, led to thestandardisation of sampling procedures, at least at the regional level. At the nationalor international levels, the development of fish based methods of river qualityassessment are limited by the diversity of fish sampling procedures, and consequentlythe fish databases were restricted to sampling sites for which similar fish samplingmethods were applied.78. The majority of the procedures and devices described in the WFD intercalibrationmetadata base consist of electric fishing and occasionally hand nets.ISO and CEN Methods79. In Annex VI is described the CEN standardisation process and are listed thepublished standards of relevance in relation to the WFD.19
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: 64. In general, this technique is t
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?