Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Austria120. MuLFA: Ecological Integrity Assessment Method of Melcher and SchmutzMethod proposed by Schmutz et al. (2000) as a multilevel concept for fish based,river-type-specific assessment of ecological integrity (EI) in Austria. This methodtargets the assessment of general degradation, through the following metrics: speciesdiversity (type-specific species, species with self-sustaining populations), speciescomposition (fish region, number of guilds, guild composition), population size(density and biomass), reproductive success and recruitment (population agestructure). Reference conditions are estimated from historical abiotic and fish data,data of reference sites and models. Five levels of ecological integrity (EI) and theirdegradation correspond to the normative definitions of ecological status developedwithin the WFD.Belgium121. IBIP (Wallonia): A fish based index developed for assessment of loticecosystem in Wallonia by Kestemont et al. (2000). This method retained the metricsof the original IBI (12 metrics) but modifying it to be applicable to the Meuse basin.The metrics were classified into 4 broad categories: species richness and composition,trophic composition, fish abundance, and reproductive function. For a given samplingsite, each metric received a score ranging from one to five points, according to thelevel of similarity (low = 1, high = 5) of its value to that expected for a fishassemblage experiencing little human influence. The total IBI score was the sum ofthe 12 metric scores and ranged from 12 (worst) to 60 (best). Rationale for theselection of the 12 metrics has been described in Didier (1997) and Kestemont et al.(2000).122. IBI (for upstream brooks used in Flanders): a method developed by Breine andBelpaire (submited) using a fish dataset from electric fishing surveys in Flandersduring the period 1994-2000. A total of 154 sites belonging to the grayling and troutzone were used to develop a multimetric index to assess upstream brooks in Flanders.All sites had a slope of at least 3‰ and a maximum width of 4.5 m. The developedIBI consists of a set of metrics scored from 0 to 5. These metrics were selected usingunivariate and multivariate analyses, taking into account ecological criteria. Some ofthe selected metrics correlate significantly with the slope of the river. Threshold94
values for correlated metrics were defined using the mean trend line through allmetric values. If no significant correlation existed scoring criteria were defined usingthe literature. Five integrity classes were defined. The IBI was tested internally bycomparing the IBI scores and the attributed habitat quality scores. A similarcomparison was done using an independent set of data of known habitat quality. Theindividual contribution of the selected metrics was assessed. The developed IBIclearly distinguishes good sites from impacted sites and can separate the heavilyimpacted sites from the fairly impacted. The IBI meets the criteria imposed by theEuropean Water Framework Directive.France123. FBI : Oberdorff et al. (2001) developed a 7 metrics index that can be appliedin different regions and river types of France despite the complex and heterogeneousgeology and climate of this country.Germany124. FiBS: A multimetric method for the assessment of the ecological status ofrivers using fish assemblages (Dussling et al. 2004). The method is based on thecomparison of recent fish samples with reconstructed type specific reference fishcommunities. For that purpose in total 18 metrics were selected, which can becategorized into six ecological quality features as follows: inventory of species andguilds; abundance of species and guilds; age structure; migration (index-based); fishregion (index-based); dominant species (index based).125. The assessment of the ecological river-status with FiBS comprises three steps.In a first step, all metrics are scored according to defined criteria following theapproach of the IBI (Karr, 1981). In a second step, an assessment of each of the sixecological quality features is carried out. Finally, in a third step, the overallclassification of the referring sampling site is performed by an algorithm calculating aweighted average from the six quality features assessed. Since 2004, FiBS is beentested nation-wide.95
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 90 and 91: Table 5. Common abundance classific
Page 92 and 93: 108. Process Assessment focuses on
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?