Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

metrics for the purpose of the intercalibration exercise, and 4) to identify a way ofinteraction amongst CEN, ECOSTAT WG2A and the WFD Committee allowing forprioritization of WFD relevant methods for standardization.Sources of information6. The following information was collected (Table 1) and analysed:• <strong>Report</strong>s of the methods currently in use, and in development, in the Member Statesand Candidate Countries (requested from the ECOSTAT WG 2A);• WFD-CIS Monitoring guidance fact-sheets on biological assessment methods;• WFD-Intercalibration Metadata base (January 2004) containing information on thebiological methods applied in the assessment of the intercalibration sites;• STAR, WATERVIEW database of river methods.Table 1. Information gathered on the biological national methods: sources of information andcountries represented.Source Lakes RiversECOSTAT WG2A 14 25WFD-CIS Monitoring WG 4 7Intercalibration metadata (January 2004)* 21 27STAR WATERVIEW Database NA All MS but Fin, CY and Malta,also countries in negotiationNA Non applicable* In Annex I is the distribution of countries by GIG for lakes and rivers.7. Altogether, the different sources of data provided a good geographic coverage ofthe biological monitoring systems used in assessing the quality of lakes and riversacross Europe. However, some methods are poorly described invalidating the use ofthe information for a comprehensive comparison, which thus in some cases can onlybe done in general terms.A. Lake8. The information on the lake biological methods reported in the fact sheetsprepared within the WFD-CIS Monitoring WG and information of the nationalmethods sent by the ECOSTAT WG2A is summarized in Annex II. Altogether thereis information from 14 countries, thus, information on the biological methods in usein Europe is incomplete.9. Also, it is worth noting that the monitoring fact sheets were compiled during 2002and therefore may soon not be representative of the methods available in the Member6
States and candidate countries. Information from ECOSTAT WG 2A members clearlyindicates that Member States and candidate countries are working on the developmentof WFD compatible biological methods.10. To establish the register of sites for the intercalibration exercise, Member Statesand Candidate Countries were asked to fill in a metadata questionnaire along with thesites submitted for the exercise. The returned answers give important information interms of compliance with the ecological assessment requirements of the WFD andcomparability of the national methods.11. In our evaluation, we have used data stored in the intercalibration metadata baseof January 2004 1 . At this date, the database contained the data used for assessment ofthe ecological quality of 314 lakes submitted by 21 countries. However, the lakeswere mostly assessed making use of physico-chemical paremeters (all countries, formost lakes) and phytoplankton (18 countries), followed by benthic invertebrates andMacrophytes (Fig. 1).B. River12. The overview of the river phytoplankton and phytobenthos monitoring systemsincludes the approaches of 18 countries: 4 methods for phytoplankton and 15 forphytobenthos. Only 4 countries (Estonia, Latvia, Romania and Hungary) usephytoplankton in their monitoring programs, and in one of these, Latvia, it is stillunder development. For phytobenthos, only a few countries have current monitoringprogrammes, i.e. Austria, France, Slovenia and Romania.1At the time the Harmonisation Task started and until the end of 2004 the metadata of the final registerwas not available. This contains information for one more country and more lakes than the previousdraft register. However, we considered that for the purpose of comparison of methods these are not soimportant changes and have decided to use the metadata of the intercalibration register as of January2004.7
Page 1 and 2: Institute for Environment and Susta
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSBackground and purpose of t
Page 5: Background and purpose of the docum
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 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?