Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• An integrated holistic evaluation of data and information guided by expertjudgment was applied. The sites were classified in two categories representingecological conditions in the range of high-good; and good-moderate. Formalmethods are not yet operational. Expert agreement made, a subjective method.• The classification was mainly based on synthetic evaluation of a) 226physicochemical /biological parameters integrated into 9 indices b) onhydrological regime and c) the existing pressures (mainly based on existingregister and Nitrate level)• Phytoplankton: No• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae: No• Benthic invertebrates: Yes; The Benthic Saprobity index (BSI) .It isevaluated according to the method of the Biological Monitoring Workingparty (BMWP). The Biological Diversity index (BDI). It is quantifiedaccording to the Sequential Comparison index (SCI) methodology.• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; All mentioned in paragraph 5.3 except for theSalinity, Secchi depth, Total Nitrogen and Suspended Matter. Within thescheme of an Integrated Pollution Evaluation Organic and inorganic pollutantsand toxicity were investigated.• Pressure criteria: Yes; data from the register of population and the activitiesin catchments zones (1996) and to partially amended in 2003 the results of theIndices. Nutrient loading and organic loading.GermanyWFD compatible? Yes 19 out of 24• Trophic method according to LAWA-AK 'Gewaesserbewertung - stehendeGewaesser' (1999). Assessment system according to 'PHYLIB' (BayerischesLandesamt fuer Wasserwirtschaft, Schaumburg et al., 2003. Macrophytes anddiatom Index, Schaumburg et al., 2003).• Trophic and biological criteria (total P, chlorophyll a, Secchi depth) expressedas Trophic Index. Trophic and biological criteria (phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos), pressure criteria. Results from macrophytes Index, diatomindex; chloroph,yll a, phytoplankton biovolume, secchi depth, totalphosphorus, total nitrogen and chloride differ only slightly from those valuesin reference lakes. One site unknown.• Phytoplankton: Yes; Species composition and abundance (quantitative),chlorophyll a. Or Secchi depth, chlorophyll a. Or epilimnetic chlorophyll aconcentration/, phytoplankton biovolume; diatom remains in the surfacesediment from the deepest point.• Phytobenthos: Yes; 14 out of 24; Benthic diatoms: species composition andabundance, diverse indices. 3 lakes: littoral diatoms• Macrophytes: Yes; 19 out of 24; Species composition and abundance,macrophyte index according to MELZER, reference index (see Schaumburg etal., 2003).Or ecological groups of macrophytes indicating the trophic level ofthe lake; abundance of the macrophytes (Kohler, 1978); structure of the lake116
shore (map); aquatic spermatophyta, pteridophyta, characeae, Bryophyta. 3lakes no information on method.• Macroalgae: Yes; 4 out of 24; Characeae only: same as in Macrophytes. 3lakes no information on method.• Benthic invertebrates: Yes; 8 out of 24; Characeae only: same as inMacrophytes. Abundance of the profundal fauna and boundarylittoral/profundal-fauna (FITTKAU). Species composition. 1 lake with noinformation on method.• Fish: No• Physicochemical quality: Yes; Temperature, conductivity, secchi depth, TP,Ca. Or Secchi depth, temperature, oxygen, pH, conductivity, total phosphorus,soluble phosphorus, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, silicic acid. Total phosphorus(TP), total nitrogen (TN), chloride (Cl) (2 lakes)• Pressure criteria: Yes; 16 out of 24; Waste water load, tourism, diffuse loads.Or landuse, waste water load, structure of lake shore. In one 1 site noinformation on method.Estonia• WFD compatible? Yes• Classification based on TP as main pressure and biol. and physical-chemicalparameters correlating with it. RC for TP are estimated basing on morphoedaphicindex (Vighi and Chiaudani, 1985). Long-term changes in biota wereestimated using similarity with 1911-• Depite of very poor surrounding sand soils, diminished water transparency andopulent macrovegetation refers to human impact. Estonian team worked outquality limits for different quality classes; species composition of charophytes,relative abundance, coverage, distribution depth• Phytoplankton: Yes; community structure, chl-a concentration• Phytobenthos: No• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae: Yes 9out of 12; similarity coefficient with 1911-13 data; orspecies composition, relative abundance, coverage, distribution depth• Benthic invertebrates: Only for 1 site• Fish: Yes;Only for 1 site• Physicochemical quality: Yes; pH, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, Secchitransparency; in one site also BOD7• Pressure criteria: NoSpain• WFD compatible? Yes• OCDE mean Chlorophyll (µg/l) boundary values for trophic classification(OECD, 1982).• Annual mean chlorophyll values between 3,5 and 7 were selected for thegood/moderate class boundary sites (19 sites); annual mean chlorophyll valuesbetween 1 and 3 (µg/l) were selected for the high/good class boundary sites(Secchi disk, TP around 10 µg/l) (2 sites); annual mean chlorophyll values inthe oligotrophic level selected for the high/good class boundary site. (1site)117
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 110 and 111: development of typologySweden Yes,
Page 112 and 113: one or other option depends on the
Page 114 and 115: 114
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?