River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.2 Temporal trends River and stream water quality and ecology in the Wellington region: State and trends 4.2.1 Approach to analysis A selection of 14 water quality variables were analysed for temporal trends, utilising RSoE monitoring data collected monthly over the period July 2006 to June 2011. An initial assessment examined trends between September 2003 and June 2010 (see Ballantine & Booker 2011); the September 2003 start date represented a logical follow-on from the 1997 to 2003 trend period used by Milne and Perrie (2005) in the last river and stream SoE technical report. However, a change in Greater Wellington’s analytical laboratory (including detection limits for some variables) in July 2006 was deemed to have produced ‘step changes’ in some water quality variables (Ballantine & Booker 2011) 17 , confounding trend assessments. As a result, the data record for the five years ending June 2011 was used for temporal trend analysis in this report. Following methodology outlined in Ballantine and Booker (2011), temporal trends were analysed using the Seasonal Kendall trend test in NIWA’s Time Trends software (Version 3.20). Trend analysis was undertaken on both raw data and – for the 44 sites where flow values or estimates were available (see Appendix 4) – flow-adjusted data. Seasonal Kendall trend tests were undertaken using 12 ‘seasons’ (ie, reflecting monthly water quality sampling) and flow-adjustment was performed in the Time Trends software using LOWESS (Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing) with a 30% span. Prior to analysis, the nutrient data sets, which often contain a high proportion of censored values (ie, concentrations reported as below the analytical detection limit), were processed as follows: If a data set contained less than 10% censored data, the censored values were halved; For data sets containing between 10% and 80% censored data, censored values were estimated using Regression on Order Statistics (ROS); and For data sets with greater than 80% censored data, trend analysis was not undertaken due to the high level of uncertainty present in the dataset. For the remaining variables (eg, TOC and E. coli) censored values typically comprised well below 10% of the values in the data set for each site (in all cases they were below 17%) and the censored data were simply halved before undertaking trend analysis. While estimation of censored data using ROS is considered the best approach for dealing with censored data when undertaking water quality trend analysis (Ballantine & Booker 2011), it is important to note that as the proportion of censored data increases so too does any associated error. Ballantine and Booker (2011) advise that professional judgement is exercised when interpreting trend results that contain higher proportions of censored values. For this reason, only results for data sets that contained no more than 30% censored values are 17 This is despite analytical methods remaining constant for many variables. WGN_DOCS-#1100598-V3 PAGE 43 OF 160
River and stream water quality and ecology in the Wellington region: State and trends summarised and presented in this section (see Appendix 7 for the complete set of trend analysis results). A trend was deemed statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05. In addition to statistical significance, the relative rate of change was assessed by dividing the Median Annual Sen Slope (MASS) value by the raw data median. As per Scarsbrook (2006), a relative rate of change threshold of 1% per annum was set to denote a trend that may be ‘meaningful’ (although Scarsbrook (2006) noted that a 1% threshold is totally arbitrary and rates of change above 1% may still not be environmentally significant (and vice versa)). Trend analysis results were then categorised as outlined below: No trend (ie, p>0.05); Significant increasing or decreasing trend but not ‘meaningful’ (ie, p
Page 1 and 2: River and stream water quality and
Page 3 and 4: DISCLAIMER This report has been pre
Page 5 and 6: observed trends were unclear. The p
Page 7 and 8: 5. Periphyton - state and trends 57
Page 14 and 15: Figure 2.1: RSoE monitoring sites a
Page 16 and 17: 2.4.2 Biological variables River an
Page 72 and 73: TN (mg/L) Temperature ( 0 c) Shade
Page 80 and 81: Chlorophyll a (mg/m 2 ) 90 80 70 60
Page 82 and 83: 25th percentile summer time flow m
Page 90 and 91: RS06 Shade RS11 Habitat RS35 RS49 R
Page 102 and 103:
River and stream water quality and
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
IBI Score 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Water quality (n=24) Periphyton (n=
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138:
Appendix 1: Monitoring site details
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
show all

River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?