Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

21. Some countries like France, Estonia and Sweden use the OMNIDIA software fortaxonomic identification (Lecointe et al., 1993), which allows the calculation of agreat number of diatom indices and contains a systematic and an ecological database.Consultation of other literature is also recommended for the algal identification, likefloras, identification guides and iconographs appropriated to the habitats andgeographic region under consideration.22. The recording of abundance is usually expressed as the number of cells per taxonper sample on occasions using abundance classes. Relative coverage of the river bedis also mentioned by Norway.23. With respect to the non-diatom group, Austria estimates abundance in microscopepreparations and estimates coverage of channel bed by macroalgae. Germany is alsodeveloping a method which includes an abundance specification in 5 classes based ina verbal descriptions.24. Three different categories of assessment methods were identified in this review:biotic indices, assemblage/community assessment and multimetric indices.25. For phytobenthos, biotic indices are the most common assessment methodincluding 5 different approaches all based in diatom assemblages, applied to 9countries. Only one country is using assemblage/community assessment (Austria) andtwo are using multimetric indices (Estonia and Germany).26. The Biological Diatom Index’ (IBD- Indice Biologique Diatomées; AFNOR,2000) is the only standardized method applied on a national level. This has been usedin France as part of a monitoring program since 1999. Other countries, like Spain andEstonia are also using IBD as their assessment method, while Sweden use “TheGeneric Diatom Index” (Bourrelly, 1981) and the “Specific Pollution SensitivityIndex” (Cemagref, 1982). Both are diatom indices of French origin, and assess thegeneral quality of the watercourses. The IBD is used to assess different pressures likeorganic pollution, eutrophication, acidification and toxic substances.27. Another index commonly used is the British Trophic Diatom Index (TDI - Kellyand Whitton, 1995; Kelly et al., 1998). This index is based on diatoms and provides amonitoring tool that separates the influence of nutrients from that of other constituentsof sewage discharges. Its application comprises both an indication of eutrophication72
y filtered reactive phosphorus and determination of the percentage pollution tolerantvalves (%PTV) to estimate the influence of organic pollution (Birk, 2003). This indexis used in United Kingdom and in Estonia and has been applied in Ireland.28. As stated above, besides Romania and Hungary, Slovenia also uses a saprobioticanalysis in its monitoring programme, including phytobenthos samples in addition tothe benthic invertebrates samples. This method is based in the Saprobic Index (Pantleand Buck, 1955) modified by Zelinka and Marvan (1961), in a seven scheme qualityclassification from unpolluted/very slightly polluted to excessively polluted. The sameindex is used in Czech Republic but is presented in five quality classes.29. In Austria, a single metric is used in a diatom based trophic state indicator, whichallows a classification of sites according to total phosphorous and nitrogencompounds.30. Concerning multimetric indices, only Estonia and Germany have a multimetricassessment method under development. Estonia uses both IBD and TDI indices toevaluate the biological quality of the watercourses, while Germany is still developinga method based in non-diatom and diatom groups.MACROPHYTES31. Macrophytes are monitored in ten countries of the European Union also includingNorway (Table 1). All methods comprise the investigation of watercourse vegetationby means of regular visual surveys to record the taxonomic composition andabundance of water plants. Assessment of the ecological quality of watercourses isdone by five schemes using numerical evaluation on the basis of metrics. Austria,Germany and The Netherlands have recently developed macrophyte methods to meetthe requirements of the WFD.73
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 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?