Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

development of typologySweden Yes, for 3 types of lakes no, need a more detailedtypologyUK no inf. no noSlovenia no inf. no noPortugal no no no noSpain no inf. no noFishSpain no inf. no inf. no inf. no inf.Sweden yes not exactly, metrics andtheir reference values arederived using Nationaldatabaseneeds to be revised in terms ofboth metrics and type-specificreference valuesUK no no no basis for generating the requiredmeasures for the WFD. Not relatedto reference conditions and there isno classification scheme relating toquality status. Used in isolationwill not provide all data requiredby WFDNordiccountriesno inf. no inf. no inf. no inf.Macrophytes and phytobenthosGermany yes yes yes GoodAquatic plants and benthic invertebratesUK** Yes Yes Good* Eutrophication and acidification** MultistressorsNote all other methods target the classification of eutrophication impacts110
Annex IX: WFD Common Metric1. In order to ensure comparability of the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) scalesbetween the different EU countries and to obtain a common understanding of thegood ecological status of surface waters all over EU, the WFD requires for theintercalibration of the classification results of the biological monitoring systems. Inpractice, the intercalibration exercise must establish the values for the boundarybetween the classes of high and good status, and for the boundary between good andmoderate status, which shall be consistent with the normative definitions of thoseclass boundaries given in Annex V of the WFD.2. As in the WFD the intercalibration is a two-phase process, which starts with theestablishment of an intercalibration network consisting of sites representing theboundaries between the quality classes ‘High-Good’ and ‘Good-Moderate’, as basedon the WFD normative definitions. In a second phase each Member State’sassessment method must be calibrated both in the ecoregion and for the surface watertype to which the system is applicable. The results of the second phase must be usedto set (EQR) values for relevant class boundaries for each Member States biologicalassessment system.3. The intercalibration exercise will focus on specific type/biological qualityelement/ pressure combinations, which were selected based in data availability withinthe time constrains of the exercise. For rivers, the intercalibration will focus on sitesimpacted by organic and/or nutrient loading, river modification and acidification asassessed making use of macroinvertebrates, fish and benthic algae. For lakes, thefocus will be on eutrophication and acidification as assessed using, respectively, ofphytoplankton and macrophytes, and macroinvertebrates and fish respectively. Thedifferent combinations of pressures/ biological quality elements are, both for river andlakes, dependant of the GIG, the pressure and the type.4. Guidance on the intercalibration process was developed within a drafting groupthat is part of the ECOSTAT WG 2A. The guidance foresees an intercalibrationprocess based in the selection from three different options, and several hybrids ofthese options, all firmly based on the definition of a protocol for deriving goodecological status class boundary values from the normative definitions. The choice of111
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 106 and 107: Table 1. List of European standards
Page 108 and 109: 108
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?