Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex III: River biological assessment methods from WaterviewDatabase (2004)Table 1. River biological assessment methods from Waterview Databaseincluded in this review.method country status referenceAssessment of saprobiological quality of rivers Austria u Moog et al. (1999)WFD method for macroinvertebrates (Multimetric Index) Austria d no publicationBelgian Biotic Index (BBI) Belgium uDe Pauw andVanhooren (1983)Biotic Sediment Index (BSI) Belgium nDe Pauw and Heylen(2001)Biotic Index based on 'Quality Rating System' Bulgaria uMCgarrigle et al.(1992)Pantle and BuckDetermination of Saprobic Index according to Pantle andBulgarian (1955), RothscheinBuck and Rothschein(1962)Evaluation of BSI according to BMWP and quantification ofuCyprusBDI according to SCI methodologyCairns et al., 1968PERLA Czech Republic ? Kokes et al. (2003)Saprobiological Monitoring Czech Republic ? CSN 757716 (1998)DSFI (Danish Stream Fauna Index) Denmark u Skriver et al. (2000)Quality Assessment of Estonian Watercourses using BenthicMacroinvertebratesEstonia u SEPA (2000)I.B.G.N. - Indice Biologique Global Normalisé France u AFNOR (1992)I.O.B.S. - Indice Oligochètes de Bioindication des Sédiments France n AFNOR (2002)Ecological classification of benthic fauna in rivers Germany u Meier et al. (in print)Potamon-Characterisation-Index (PTI) Germany u*Schöll and Haybach(2001)AQEM Greece Greece nSkoulikidis et al.(2004)Hellenic Evaluation System (HES) Greece nLazaridou-Dimitriadouet al. (2004)BMWP - HY (adapted to Hungarian conditions) Hungary ? Just et al. (1998)Quality Rating System Ireland uMCgarrigle et al.(1992)Extended Biotic Index - IBE ('Indice Biotico Esteso')modified according to GhettiItaly u Ghetti (1997)Operative Evaluation of the Biological Quality of SmallLatvian Standard LVSStreams by Saprobic Index of MacrozoobenthosLatviau240 (1999)CommunitiesWater Quality Assessment Liechtenstein n Moog et al. (1999)Operative Evaluation of the Biological Quality of SmallStreams by Biotic Integrity Index of Macrozoobenthos Lithuania u no informationCommunitiesI.B.G.N. - Indice Biologique Global Normalisé Luxembourg u no publicationAMOEBE - general method for ecosystem description andassessmentNetherlands n Ten Brink et al. (1991)Ecological classification system for rivers Netherlands u Molen et al. (2004)Acidification Index Norway n Raddum (1999)Invertebrate Monitoring Norway n no informationBMWP - PL (Biological Monitoring Working Party scoreWATERVIEWPolanddadapted to Polish conditions)DATABASE (2004)BMWP’ (Biological Monitoring Working Party scoreAlba-Tercedor andPortugaluadopted to Iberian conditions)Pujante (2000)Determination of Saprobic Index according to Pantle and Romania n Marcoci (1984)43
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 44 and 45: method country status referenceBuck
Page 46 and 47: Sampling frequencyNOMEECCEBAAT1x2-6
Page 48 and 49: 6. Some countries (Cyprus, Latvia,
Page 50 and 51: Sampling frequencyNOMEECCEBAAT1x yr
Page 52 and 53: 12. Table 2 shows that sampling met
Page 54 and 55: Phytobenthos per GIG1008060%40200AL
Page 56 and 57: Table 3. Phytobenthos sampling and
Page 58 and 59: Sampling period%120100806040200AL A
Page 60 and 61: PLEENLGBcameras; recording of abund
Page 62 and 63: Sampling frequencyNOMEECCEBAATAL12-
Page 64 and 65: CY replicate samples with hand net
Page 66 and 67: density. The age structure or size
Page 69 and 70: Annex V: Analysis of river biologic
Page 71 and 72: enthic algae in the reach, but resu
Page 73 and 74: y filtered reactive phosphorus and
Page 75 and 76: expressed in classes. For most meth
Page 77 and 78: Bulgaria44. In Bulgaria, the Danube
Page 79 and 80: three (or ten, respectively) indivi
Page 81 and 82: ased on increasing temporal (sampli
Page 83 and 84: 73. In preparation of WFD implement
Page 85 and 86: Table 2. Percentage of assessment m
Page 87 and 88: This inevitably influences the degr
Page 89 and 90: 97. The use of range values to reco
Page 91 and 92: presentation (Liebmann, 1962), calc
Page 93 and 94:
national level in 2005. In Luxembur
Page 95 and 96:
values for correlated metrics were
Page 97 and 98:
In non-wadable or large rivers, the
Page 99 and 100:
iverin order to obtain a representa
Page 101 and 102:
155. Fish sampling is performed mai
Page 103 and 104:
Annex VI: Standardization process a
Page 105 and 106:
8. Standards, which receive positiv
Page 107 and 108:
Annex VII: WFD classification and i
Page 109 and 110:
Annex VIII: Compatibility of the na
Page 111 and 112:
Annex IX: WFD Common Metric1. In or
Page 113 and 114:
8. For the purpose of the WFD inter
Page 115 and 116:
Annex X: Summary of the national bi
Page 117 and 118:
shore (map); aquatic spermatophyta,
Page 119 and 120:
• Macroalgae; 8 out of 32 sites;
Page 121 and 122:
• Total phosphorus and chlorophyl
Page 123 and 124:
Annex XI: Harmonisation drafting gr
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?