Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

113. Further analysis of the metrics or metric groups integrated in the variousAQEM multimetric indices reveals common use of metrics listed in Table 3.Table 3. Metrics/metric groups most commonly used by the different AQEM systems(AQEM Consortium, 2002).metric/metric groupsnumber of stream typeswhere metric/metric group is appliedfeeding types (scrapers, shredders, predators, …) 11zonation preference (crenal, rhithral, potamal, …) 10number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera taxa 10individuals of certain taxonomic groups 10number of taxa in individual taxonomic groups 6microhabitat preference (pelal, argyllal, psammal, akal, …) 6saprobic index (Zelinka and Marvan) 6114. About Fish metrics, an extensive list of metrics from IBI index, was presentedto be tested on the FAME project. (Kestemont, P. and Goffaux, D., 2002). Themetrics are not distributed among the four categories of the original IBI, but classifiedwithin the 3 major categories of the WFD, i.e. species composition (including metricsrelated to trophic composition, reproduction and condition), fish abundance and agelengthstructure.Concluding remarks and recommendations115. This review of the harmonization of biological monitoring systems is based ondata gathered and collated over the drafting period. Many of the outcomes reportedcontinue to be valid but others have been and will continue to be influenced byscientific developments supporting the implementation of the WFD. These include theoutcomes of national and European research programmes, the finalisation of relevantCEN standards and the trialing of recently developed or modified ecologicalassessment methodologies at the national level. Further, as the intercalibration processprogresses within the GIGs, new approaches and the possible need for methodstandardization will be identified.116. In order to ensure that these rapid developments are taken into account, whichwill aid the WFD implementation process it is recommended that the harmonization28
group should update its primary findings on an annual basis. The outcome wouldinform ECOSTAT, the Commission and other partners as to the state-of-the-art, aswell as demonstrating progress and identifying gaps that need to be filled by targetedresearch at a European level. (RECOMMENDATION 1)117. This review clearly demonstrates that at present, lakes and rivers biologicalmonitoring systems in Europe differ widely in terms of the biological elementssampled, sampling methods, metrics and classification schemes adopted. Thesedifferences probably reflect varying monitoring objectives, the pressures impacting onthe water bodies and technical, economic and cultural features of each country. Theyare not only obvious at the national level, but also within some countries.118. It is, however, possible to find European wide a common pattern. For mostlakes, quality assessment includes chlorophyll a and phytoplankton monitoring andfor most rivers, quality assessment includes benthic invertebrates monitoring. This isnot to say that the methods are identical, as in many instances this is clearly not thecase, and direct comparisons of data using differing sampling and analytical regimesmay be problematical. The work within the GIGs will inform this process119. It is also clear from this review of harmonization that many countries have yetto develop monitoring and classification programmes that are WFD compliant,although it is clear that progress continues to be made through national and Europeanresearch and development programmes. In order to manage the implementationprocess it is essential to collate this information and make it widely available. TheHarmonisation Group could be central to this process (RECOMMENDATION 2)120. The report show that the development many methods are still need or areunderway at the moment. For this reason it is too early to demand the standardizationof special metrics. In this respect ECOSTAT should liaise closely with the work ofCEN, with the Harmonisation Group representing the obvious focal point(RECOMMENDATION 3).121. The previous recommendation should be facilitated through a workshopinvolving the CEN task group convenors, the Harmonisation Group and otheridentified ECOSTAT members. This could be facilitated by JRC.29
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: Evaluation of the suitability of cu
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 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?