Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

size of the net range between 250 to 750 µm. The models currently applied in variousnational watercourse monitoring programmes differ in sampled area (0.01 to 0.12 m²)and mesh-size (100 to 500 µm).84. In deeper streams benthic macroinvertebrates are taken using grabs, dredges andartificial substrates. The application of these devices is standardised in ISO 9391(1993) or EN ISO 9391 (1995). These are the same standards, as are the previousones, as a result of adoption by ISO and CEN. The difference in dates is caused by thedifferent dates of publication by the two organisations:85. In many European countries large rivers are monitored by utilisation ofquantitative bottom samplers: Different types such as Ponar Grab, Van Veen Grab,Petersen Grab, Birge-Ekman Grab and core samplers are used. All devices sampledefined areas of the river bottom ranging from 100 to 500 cm².86. To obtain a qualitative sample of the river bed community, dredges representadequate tools in deeper watercourses. Dredges are particularly applied in severalcountries in the Danube catchment (Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro) using mesh-sizes of 225 and 500 µm.87. The use of artificial substrates allows comparability of different sites by providingsimilar habitats is not widely used for monitoring purposes. In monitoring programsonly Moldova (Saprobiological assessment based on various metrics), Austria(Assessment of saprobiological quality of rivers) and France (I.B.G.N.) employ thesecolonisation devices.88. Note that the ISO and CEN standards for sampling invertebrates are currentlyunder revision. This should make them more WFD compliant, but the timescale forpublication will inevitable be several years.Sampling frequency89. Sampling frequency in biomonitoring programmes using benthic invertebrates asindicators of watercourse quality varies from seasonal collections to proceduresconducted every five years. Annual sampling is the most common interval applied inriver monitoring. In particular, programs observing the saprobiological water qualityin Latvia, Moldova, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro as well as the national Italianmonitoring programme based on IBE take seasonal samples of macroinvertebrates.86
This inevitably influences the degree of uncertainty of the resulting ecologicalclassifications i.e. the likelihood of the banding allocated being accurate.MetricsLevel of taxonomical resolution90. The level of taxonomical resolution used in watercourse assessment methodsbased on macroinvertebrates differs.91. Nearly 60 percent of the bioassessment methods applied in Europe determine atleast selected orders of benthic invertebrates to species- or species groups-level. Thelatter intends to preserve some of the species-level information without the necessityto identify to species (Buffagni, 1997). The remaining approximately 40 percent ofmethods, identify organisms to genus or family. Table 3 provides an overview oftaxonomical resolution required in various quality assessment methods applied inEurope.Table 3. Taxonomical resolution required by various watercourse assessment methodsapplied in Europe.species-/species groups-levelgenus- and higher levelSaprobic Indices (applied in Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania,Serbia-Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia)Multimetric Indices (e.g. Austria, Germany andNetherlands)Functional Indices (PTI – Schöll and Haybach, 2001;LIFE Index – Extence et al., 1999)Acidification Indices (Germany - Braukmann and Biss,in print; Norway – Raddum, 1999)IOBS (AFNOR, 2002)PERLA (Kokeš et al., 2003)Swedish Benthic Fauna in Lake Littorals and RunningWater (SEPA, 2000)Acidification Index (Rutt et al., 1990)Belgian Biotic Index (De Pauw and Vanhooren, 1983)BMWP-ASPT Index (Armitage et al., 1983; Alba-Tercedor and Pujante, 2000) applied in Cyprus,Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Poland, United KingdomDanish Stream Fauna Index (Skriver et al., 2000)Extended Biotic Index (Ghetti, 1997)IGBN (AFNOR, 1992)Quality Rating Scheme (McGarrigle et al., 1992)Hellenic Evaluation System (Lazaridou-Dimitriadou etal., 2004)92. Several methods demand the identification of genera only for particular groups oforganisms (Table 4). The Italian as well as the Belgian index includes all genera ofthe orders Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata and the class Hirudinea amongstothers. The identification of selected genera of stoneflies, gammarids and chironomidsis required by the Danish and Irish schemes primarily mayflies to genera in the latter.In addition, the DSFI comprises indicators of the orders megaloptera and coleoptera,and the genus Ancylus. The Irish Quality Rating Scheme considers individuals of a87
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 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 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?