Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. List of European standards that are relevant to the implementation of the WFD andthe intercalibration process.Reference Title Published CommentEN 25667-1 Water quality –Sampling- Part 1: Guidance on the design of 1993sampling programmes (ISO 5667-1:1980)EN 25667-2 Water quality – Sampling – Part 2: Guidance on sampling 1993techniques (ISO 5667-2:1991)EN 5667-3 Water quality – Sampling – Part 3: Guidance on the2003preservation and handling of water samplesEN 27828 Water quality – Methods of biological sampling - Guidance 1994on handnet sampling of aquatic benthic macro-invertebrates(ISO 7828:1985)EN 28265 Water quality – Methods of biological sampling – Guidanceon the design and use of quantitative samplers for benthicmacro-invertebrates on stony substrata in shallow1994Under revisionfreshwaters(ISO 8265:1988)EN ISO Water quality – Sampling guidance on the preservation and 1995Under revision5667-3EN ISO9391EN ISO5667-16EN ISO8689-1EN ISO8689-2handling of samples (ISO 5667-3:1994)Water Quality – Sampling in deep waters for macroinvertebrates– Guidance on the use of colonization,qualitative and quantitative samples (ISO 9391:1993)Water quality – Sampling – Part 16: Guidance on biotestingof samples (ISO 5667-16:1998)Water quality – Biological classification of rivers – Part 1:Guidance on the interpretation of biological quality datafrom surveys of benthic macro-invertebrates in runningwaters(ISO 8689-1:2000)Water quality – Biological classification of rivers – Part 2:Guidance on the presentation of biological quality datafrom surveys of benthic macro-invertebrates (ISO 8689-1:2000)1995199820002000EN 14184 Water quality – Guidance standard for the surveying of 2003aquatic macrophytes in running watersEN 13946 Water Quality – Guidance standard for the routine sampling 2003and pre-treatment of benthic diatoms from riversEN 14011 Water analysis – Sampling of fish with electricity 2003EN 14407 Water quality – Guidance standard for the identification,enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samplesfrom running waters2004EN 14614Water quality – Guidace standard for assessing thehydromorlogical features of rivers2004Under review106
Annex VII: WFD classification and intercalibration requirements1. In order to evaluate the biological methods in relation to the WFD requirements,we recall the relevant sections of the Directive and the common agreed interpretationsof these sections.2. In the WFD ecological status of surface waters is defined as ”…an expression ofthe quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated withsurface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V” (Article 2.21). This impliesthat the classification systems should reflect changes taking place in the structure ofthe biological communities and in the overall ecosystem functioning as response toanthropogenic pressures (e.g. nutrient loading, acidification).3. The WFD, also, stipulates that the ecological quality of water bodies should beclassified into five quality classes (high, good, moderate, poor, and bad) using anEcological Quality Ratio (EQR), defined as the ratio between type specific referenceconditions and observed values of the relevant biological quality elements (Table 1).Guidance on how to establish reference conditions, and on classification of ecologicalstatus was prepared within WFD-CIS working groups REFCOND (Anonymous,2003a) and ECOSTAT (Anonymous, 2004).Table 1. Biological quality elements and metrics required for the classification of the high,good, and moderate ecological quality status of different surface waters according to thenormative definitions described in the Annex V of the WFD. 1 = Taxonomiccomposition, 2 = Abundance, 3= Biomass, 4 = Plankton blooms, 5= diversity, 6=sensitive taxa (e.g. sensitive vs. insensitive species of organisms), 7 = age structure(from Heiskanen et al., 2004).Quality element Rivers LakesPhytoplankton 1, 2, 3*, 4 1, 2, 3, 4Aquatic flora 1, 2 1, 2Benthic invertebrates 1, 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 5, 6Fish 1, 2, 6, 7 1, 2, 6, 7*transparency as a proxy of phytoplankton biomass107
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 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 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?