Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods
Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods
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
classificati<strong>on</strong>, each <strong>of</strong> these being the source <strong>of</strong> an independent variati<strong>on</strong> to the finalresult <strong>of</strong> the assessment c<strong>on</strong>tributing the uncertainty <strong>of</strong> the final classificati<strong>on</strong> (Fig. 2).Sampling/Surveying, labprocessingMetricClassificati<strong>on</strong>Intercalibrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>biological</strong>assessment methodHarm<strong>on</strong>isati<strong>on</strong>: comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>biological</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring systemsFigure 2. The three steps in the <strong>biological</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring systems c<strong>on</strong>sidered for comparis<strong>on</strong> inthe harm<strong>on</strong>isati<strong>on</strong> task.A. Lake17. The comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>biological</strong> m<strong>on</strong>itoring systems for lakes uses theintercalibrati<strong>on</strong> metadata and compares approaches in the GIGs (see compositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the lake GIGs in Annex I).18. The intercalibrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> lake <strong>biological</strong> assessment <strong>methods</strong> is c<strong>on</strong>fined to theeffects <strong>of</strong> eutrophicati<strong>on</strong> and acidificati<strong>on</strong>, focusing <strong>on</strong> the quality elementsc<strong>on</strong>sidered most relevant for the selected pressures:• Nutrient loading - Eutrophicati<strong>on</strong>:Phytoplankt<strong>on</strong> (including. Chlorophyll-a): necessary for all lake types andwidely used in Member States• Acidificati<strong>on</strong>:Macroinvertebrates: necessary for all lake types, widely used in MemberStates19. Thus, the informati<strong>on</strong> analysed may be biased towards <strong>methods</strong> respecting theabove combinati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> pressures and quality elements, even if the intercalibrati<strong>on</strong>metadata questi<strong>on</strong>naire gather informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the other <strong>biological</strong> elements.20. In general terms, every country has different sampling procedures for each <strong>of</strong> the<strong>biological</strong> elements. Even within a country there may be different samplingprocedures adopted for different lakes or lake areas m<strong>on</strong>itored. Most sampling9
Change language