Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Number of sites300250200150100500LAKES LAKES (n = 314)TPData availableData usedPh-pl Ph-be Ang M-alg B inv Fish Chem PressQuality elementFigure 1. Elements (biological, chemical and pressure) used for ecological quality assessmentof the lakes submitted to the intercalibration metadata (January 2004). Ph-pl=Phytoplankton, Ph-be= Phytobenthos, Ang= Angiosperms, M-alg= Macroalgae,Binv= Benthic invertebrates, Chem= Chemical Parameter (Total phosphorus), Press=Pressures. Note that angiosperms and macroalgae together form the group of themacrophytes.13. The overview of biological monitoring systems using benthic invertebratescomprises 44 systems applied in 32 European countries. All methods discussed arelisted in the Annex III comprising data on status and literature references. Detaileddescriptions of most methods comprising the complete set of acquired data areavailable at http://starwp3.eu-star.at (Waterview Database).14. The overview of the river macrophytes monitoring systems includes theapproaches of 10 countries Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, TheNetherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK.15. The overview of fish monitoring systems focus on methods developed within theEuropean research project FAME that is designed to provide direct support to theWFD. This Project, included the participation of twelve countries, Austria, Belgium,France, Greece, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlandsand UK.Overview and Comparison of the national methods16. The comparison of the national biological monitoring systems is complete,wherever information is available, by considering three different steps in themonitoring process: sampling and laboratory processing, estimation of metric and8
classification, each of these being the source of an independent variation to the finalresult of the assessment contributing the uncertainty of the final classification (Fig. 2).Sampling/Surveying, labprocessingMetricClassificationIntercalibration biologicalassessment methodHarmonisation: comparison of biological monitoring systemsFigure 2. The three steps in the biological monitoring systems considered for comparison inthe harmonisation task.A. Lake17. The comparison of the biological monitoring systems for lakes uses theintercalibration metadata and compares approaches in the GIGs (see composition ofthe lake GIGs in Annex I).18. The intercalibration of lake biological assessment methods is confined to theeffects of eutrophication and acidification, focusing on the quality elementsconsidered most relevant for the selected pressures:• Nutrient loading - Eutrophication:Phytoplankton (including. Chlorophyll-a): necessary for all lake types andwidely used in Member States• Acidification:Macroinvertebrates: necessary for all lake types, widely used in MemberStates19. Thus, the information analysed may be biased towards methods respecting theabove combinations of pressures and quality elements, even if the intercalibrationmetadata questionnaire gather information on the other biological elements.20. In general terms, every country has different sampling procedures for each of thebiological elements. Even within a country there may be different samplingprocedures adopted for different lakes or lake areas monitored. Most sampling9
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: States and candidate countries. Inf
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?