Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

122. It is acknowledged that standardisation of WFD methods within CEN isresource limited. Where ECOSTAT and the GIGs identify priority work for CEN, itwould seek a mandate for this work through the representatives of DG Environment(RECOMMENDATION 4)123. Proposed and completed research in support of WFD has the strong potentialnow, and in the future, to encourage a wider level of method development andstandardisation than currently exists. ECOSTAT needs to take a lead in value addingto the outputs in terms of finalization of ecological methods. The HarmonisationGroup could lead in this area (RECOMMENDATION 5)RECOMMENDATIONSI. The harmonization group should continue to monitor the development ofWFD compliant methodologies for ecological assessment and classificationand report to ECOSTAT regularly.II. The harmonization group should assume responsibility for collatingscientific developments relevant to the WFD and ensuring that these are madewidely available through the internet.III. Methods and metrics which are used in a wide geographical scale andhave the potential for standardization should be identified by ECOSTAT andthe GIGs as a basis for priority areas for technical standardization. This couldbe managed by the ECOSTAT WG in contact with CEN. A start-up workshopcould be facilitated by the JRC.IV. The harmonisation group would take the lead in establishing priority areasfor standardization within CEN and through ECOSTAT recommend areas ofwork requiring a mandate from DG Environment.V. The Harmonisation Group on behalf of ECOSTAT could identify areas ofecological research relevant to the implementation of the WFD and ensuredissemination.30
ReferencesAFNOR (Association Française de Normalisation) 1992. Essais des eaux. Détermination de l'indicebiologique global normalisé (IBGN). NF T 90-350.AFNOR, (Association Française de Normalisation) 2000. Norme française NF T 90-354. Qualité del’eau. Détermination de l’Indice Biologique Diatomées (IBD), Paris, 63 pp.AFNOR (Association Française de Normalisation) 2002. Détermination de l’indice oligochètes debioindication des sédimentes (IOBS). NF T 90-390.Alba-Tercedor, J. and A.M. Pujante, 2000. Running-water biomonitoring in Spain: opportunities for apredictive approach. In: Wright, J.F., Sutcliffe, D.W. & M.T. Furse (eds.) Assessing the biologicalquality of fresh waters-RIVPACS and other techniques. Ambleside (FBA).Appelberg, M., 2000. Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets.Fiskeriverket informerar 2000:1AQEM Consortium 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM system. A comprehensive methodto assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the WaterFramework Directive. Version 1.0.Armitage, P.D., Moss, D., Wright, J. and M.T. Furse, 1983. The performance of a new biological waterquality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-watersites. Water Research 17: 333-347.Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves and R.W. Wisseman, 1992. Evaluation ofEPA’s rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among referencestream sites. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 437-449.Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols forUse in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, SecondEdition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington,D.C.Belpaire, C., R. Smolders, I. Vanden Auweele, D. Ercken, J. Breine, G. Van Thuyne and F. Ollevier,2000. An index of biotic integrity characterizing fish populations and the ecological quality ofFlandrian water bodies. Hydrobiologia 434: 17-33.Birk, S., 2003 Überblick über die Methoden zur Fliessgewässerbewertung in Europa. DGLTagungsbericht 2002 (Braunschweig).Birk, S. and U. Schmedtje (in print). Towards harmonisation of water quality classification in theDanube River Basin: Overview of biological assessment methods for running waters. Large Rivers.Boon, P.J., N.T.H Holmes, P.S.Maitland, T.A. Rowell and J. Davies, 1997. A System for EvaluatingRivers for Conservation (SERCON Development, Structure and Function. In: Boon, P.J. (ed.Freshwater quality - defining the indefinable? The Stationery Office, Edinburgh: 299-326.Bourelly, P., 1981. Les algues d’eau douce. Tome II. Algues jaunes et brunes. Boubee Ed. & Cie Paris517pp.Brabec, K., S. Zahrádková, D. Nemejcová, P. Paril, J. Kokeš and J. Jarkovský, 2004. Assessment oforganic pollution effect considering differences between lotic and lentic stream habitats.Hydrobiologia 516: 331-346.Braukmann, U. and R. Biss, 2004. Biologische Indikation des Säuregrades in Fließgewässern anhanddes Makrozoobenthos, Limnologica 34 (4): 433-450.Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964. Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzuge der Vegetationskunde. Springer. Wien-NewYork.Buffagni, A., 1997. Mayfly community composition and the biological quality of streams. In: Landolt,P. & M. Sartori (eds.) Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera: Biology-Ecology-Systematics. MTL, Fribourg:235-246.31
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: group should update its primary fin
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?