Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5. Common abundance classification schemes used in European watercourseassessment methods based on benthic invertebratesclass number of organisms description3-classscheme(Pantle andBuck,1955)1 1 – 10 sporadic3 10 – 100 frequent5 > 100 in massesBulgarian Standard Murray-Bligh (1999) McGarrigle (1992)5-class scheme1 1 – 5 1 – 9 usually absent2 6 – 20 10 – 99 sparse or absent3 21 – 50 100 – 999 present in small numbers4 51 – 100 1,000 – 9,999 common5 > 100 10,000 + well represented or dominant1 1 single2 2 – 20 sparse7-class schemeKnöpp (1955)3 21 – 40 sparse to medium4 41 – 80 medium5 81 – 160 medium to abundant6 161 – 320 abundant7 > 320 in massesAssessment102. The assessment of the biological quality of running waters is based on theanalysis of measurable attributes of the biotic environment. According to the type andscope of measured parameters (“metrics“) different categories of assessment methodscan be distinguished (Knoben et al., 1995; Verdonschot, 2000):103. Biotic Indices integrate taxa richness and pollution tolerance metrics. Thebasic principle of this approach is the assumption that taxa showing differentsensitivity to disturbance disappear in a certain order as the pressure increases. Inaddition, the number of taxonomic groups is reduced.104. Extended by abundance information Saprobic Indices represent specific modesof biotic scores. Based on the work of Kolkwitz and Marsson (1902; 1908; 1909)saprobic systems have been revised with regard to quality classification and90
presentation (Liebmann, 1962), calculation (Pantle and Buck, 1955), indication(Zelinka and Marvan, 1961) and general scientific framework (Sládeek, 1973). Dueto these modifications different specifications of the system exist. In Europe 15countries apply Saprobic Indices using different quality elements, class boundaries,indicator lists and calculation formulas. The Saprobic System has been a standardmethod in former COMECON countries. Thus, its application is especiallywidespread in the Danube River Basin.105. Apart from detection of organic pollution biotic indices are used to assessacidification of watercourses. The indices applied in Germany (Braukmann and Biss,in print), Norway (Raddum, 1999), Estonia and Sweden (SEPA, 2000) differentiatediverse macroinvertebrate groups of gradual sensitivity to acidification. Organismsbelonging to the same indicator group are summed to determine the acidity-class byexceeding a specific frequency-threshold.106. Diversity Indices combine measurement of taxa richness and abundance. Innon-multimetric assessment they are exclusively applied in connection with scientificmonitoring programmes to obtain an integrative picture of community structure.Especially, Shannon and Weaver (1949) and Simpson (1949) diversity are calculated.Results are not directly included in quality classification.107. Compared to Biotic Indices, which are usually stressor-specific and useful inmonitoring water quality changes when the cause of the disturbance is known(Johnson 1995), Predictive Assessment offers an evaluation focusing on shifts in thecomposition of entire species communities. Hence, it allows the detection of impactson stream biota caused by any kind of pressure, but provides no information on thetype of pressure acting. The British RIVPACS System (Wright et al., 2000) is aPredictive Assessment scheme based on multivariate analysis techniques. Toimplement the scheme, biological data of different reference sites have been classifiedaccording to their species assemblage. These classes have been related to a series ofenvironmental watercourse attributes. Based on these variables the undisturbedspecies community can be predicted at any site and compared to the communityobserved at this site. Results are presented as Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs). TheCzech PERLA system (Kokeš et al., 2003) represents a modification of RIVPACSadapted to Czech conditions.91
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 86 and 87: size of the net range between 250 t
Page 88 and 89: water bug genus (Aphelocheirus) and
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?