Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

103. For macrophytes only a few methods presented are WFD compliant. This isbecause the methods developed prior to the implementation of the WFD are generallylacking in the definition of stream type-specific reference conditions. This does nothold for schemes specifically designed for WFD monitoring purposes (Austria,Germany, The Netherlands). Sweden and UK intend to implement a predictive habitatapproach (a RIVPACS-type system for aquatic plants) in the near future to modelmacrophyte reference communities.104. For benthic invertebrates, only a small number of methods included in thisoverview fulfill the WFD classification demands at least partially. In particular,recently developed methods of the categories predictive and multimetric assessmentmethods incude stream type-specific evaluation based on reference conditions. Somecountries have modified their traditional methods (e.g. Saprobic System) and/ orcombined them with new assessment methods (e.g. for morphological degradation) tomeet the requirements of the WFD (Rolauffs et al., 2004). Furthermore, it is plannedto adjust the site-specific reference of the UK RIVPACS system by consideration ofstream morphology (Nixon et al., 1997).105. Integrated assessment of all indicative parameters of macrozoobenthoscommunities is done by multimetric indices. Besides the overall appraisal ofecological quality, their modular structure enables indication of the cause ofdegradation by providing individual metric values. Full ecological evaluationaccounting for several biota is carried out by the ecosystem component’s assessmentsystems described above.106. More than 50 percent of the methods present results in five classes of quality.Some of these banding schemes represent recent amendments with respect to thedemands of the WFD. In this context it has to be noted that the numbering of qualityclasses is performed conversely. Some schemes label the highest class with ‘1’ andincrement the number according to increasing deterioration. Other classificationsdenote high quality levels with ‘5’ and count down. This anomaly has to beconsidered and resolved in connection with the exchange and comparison of qualityresults derived by different methods.107. Another 12 percent of the methods use seven classes of water qualityoriginating from the classification of saprobity introduced by Liebmann (1962).26
Evaluation of the suitability of current metrics as ‘common metrics’108. In Annex IX is summarised the common understanding of the WFDintercalibration process and the significance of common metric in this context.A. Lakes109. On the basis of the overview above of the assessment methods we concludethat it is currently not possible to identify a common metric satisfying therequirements for an intercalibration common metric. Independent of the biologicalelement measured, sampling and assessment methods (metrics and classification arenot shared by the countries in a GIG. Also, there are few methods that are incompliance with the WFD. This information would have to be collated in order topossible identify Intercalibration common metrics.B. Rivers110. The situation that applies to lakes also holds for the river phytoplankton,phytobenthos and macrophytes. At the time the information for this report wasgathered Member States were developing WFD compatible methods and thus with thecurrent information it is not possible to identify common metrics for this elements.111. The overview above of the benthic invertebrate assessment methods can showwhich metrics are most commonly used to evaluate the quality of running waters inEurope. These metrics are likely to meet the above specified requirements since equalpremises have to be fulfilled in different countries (e.g. level of determination, recordof abundance etc.) to calculate the metric results.112. In 15 countries saprobic indices for water quality classification are in usage.Despite of many country-specific modifications the efforts made towards harmonisedapplication of the saprobic system in the Danube River Basin (Knoben et al., 1999;Sommerhäuser et al., 2004) are promising. Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Poland,Portugal, Sweden, Spain and United Kingdom use the BMWP score or BMWP-ASPTIndex in water quality assessment. The indicator list of this metric operating at familylevelhas been modified by Hungary, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Based on theoriginal table BMWP scores are part of multimetric indices of the AQEM systems inthe Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy and Sweden.27
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: 100. The information received from
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?