Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. European methods for monitoring and assessment of macrophytes in watercourses.Method Country ReferenceWFD method for macrophytes Austria no referenceMacrophyte monitoring Denmark Skriver 1999Macrophyte monitoring Estonia no referenceIndice Biologique Macrophytes en RivièreAFNOR (Association FrançaiseFrance(I.B.M.R.)de Normalisation) 2002PHYLIB Germany Schaumburg et al. 2004Method for the survey of aquaticmacrophytes in running watersLatvia Cimdins et al. 1995KRW-Maatlatten for Aquatic FloraTheNetherlandsMolen et al. 2004Macrophyte assessment Norway no referenceMacrophyte monitoringMean Trophic Ranking (MTR)SwedenUnitedKingdomSwedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency 2000Holmes et al. 199932. Composition and abundance of in-stream macrophytes are recorded in the field byvisual inspection from the banks or by wading in the stream. Larger watercourses areinvestigated by boat or diving. In some countries aqua-scopes are employed, whichare specifically designed tools to survey the plant growth underneath the watersurface. Rakes or grapnels are used to remove macrophytes for abundance estimationor further taxonomic identification.33. Sampling area differs between individual methods. In the Nordic countriesseparate transects of 0.25 * 0.25 m² are sampled. The French and Latvian methodsspecify to survey an area of at least 100 m². Other schemes prescribe the investigationof stream reaches of 100 m or 500 m.34. Latvia and Norway follow the standard EN 14184:2003 Water quality: Guidancestandard for the surveying of aquatic macrophytes in running waters.35. Most commonly macrophytes are identified to species level, which is usually donein the field. Uncertain identifications are verified in the laboratory by referring toherbarium species.36. Two different schemes to record macrophyte abundance are in use. In mostcountries the relative coverage of the macrophyte community is measured. Methodsapplied in Austria and Germany specify the ‘plant mass estimate’ which accounts forthe three-dimensional extension of the plant stand. In both options abundance is74
expressed in classes. For most methods the number of classes and the defined rangesdeviate.37. The numerical evaluation of macrophyte composition and abundance is done inassessment methods of France, Germany, Latvia, The Netherlands and UnitedKingdom. Quality appraisal is mainly based on a single biotic index integratingindicator species and their abundance. Most indicator species included in the indicesof the French and British schemes are sensitive to the trophic state of the water andthe sediment. In Latvia macrophytes are part of the Saprobic System to detect organicpollution.38. Multimetric assessment based on macrophytes is done by Germany and TheNetherlands. Dependent on the stream type assessed by the German method, mossesand phanerogams are separately evaluated, or further metrics (e.g. evenness,percentage of Sparganium emersum etc.) are added to the results of the main index.Besides the assessment of general degradation, the method comprises modules for thedetection of acidification in base-poor mountain streams. The Dutch method considersthe percent coverage of plant growth forms and the abundance of stream type-specificindicator species to assess general stream degradation. In both methods the overallquality of the watercourse is derived on the basis of the analysis of the entire aquaticflora including phytobenthos.39. The number of quality classes, in the methods discussed ranges from four toseven. The quality classification for sites analysed by the British method is indicatedbut a three class system has been proposed based on MTR. Here, onlyrecommendations for the interpretation of the index value are given.BENTHIC INVERTEBRATESA. Summary of the national assessment methods for rivers usingbenthic invertebrates40. The overview of biological assessment methods using benthic invertebratescomprises 44 schemes applied in 32 European countries. Besides methods which willbe used in WFD-compliant monitoring programmes by the EU Member Statesadditional assessment methods of specific interest have been included. The range of75
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?