DIRECTORATE GENERAL JRC
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
Institute of Environment and Sustainability
WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 5 report
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / Rivers/Cross GIG/phytobenthosInformation provided by: / Martyn Kelly/Cathy Bennett
1. Organisation
1.1. Responsibilities
Indicate how the work is organised, indicating the lead country/person and the list of involved experts of every country:
Phase 11 activities are a mix of cross-GIG initiatives (e.g. checking reference conditions), checking intercalibrated boundaries from phase 1 and completing intercalibrations for MED and EC GIGs. All Member States were invited to participate. The working is being led by Martyn Kelly (UK) – cross GIG phytobenthos lead. MED and EC GIGs will report their activities separately. The following have played an active role in X-GIG work:
Adrienne Mertens NL
Andrea Vogel DE
Berg, Marcel van den NL
Brian Kennedy IE
Christine Schranz DE
Christine Keulen Be-W
François Delmas FR
Gabriela Konečná CZ & Eastern Continental GIG
Herman van Dam NL
Isabel Pardo ES
Jean-Pierre Descy BE-W
Joanna Picińska-Fałtynowicz PL
John Lucey IE
Juliette Rosebery FR
Laura Mancini IT
Luc Denys BE-F
Luc Ector LU
M Golub PL
Maria Kahlert SE
Martial Ferreol FR
Peter Pfister AT
Pierre Gerard Be-W
Salome Fernandes Pinheiro de Almeida PT & Mediterranean GIG
Satu-Maaria Karjalainen FI
Schaumburg, Jochen DE
Sebastian Birk DE
Sirje Vilbaste EE
Susi Schneider NO
Stefania Marcheggiani IT
Camilla Puccinelli IT
Teresa Ferreira PT
Tomasz Zalewski PL
Ulla Bertills SE
1.2. Participation
Indicate which countries are participating in your group. Are there any difficulties with the participation of specific Member States? If yes, please specify:
All Member States are invited to participate in the phase II cross-GIG work. The following Member States have been involved thus far: AT, BE-F, BE-W, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, UK.
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
March 2009 / Phytobenthos group meeting, Utrecht, NetherlandsNovember 2009 / Taxonomic workshop, Luxembourg
April 2010 / Workshop, Erken, Sweden – examination of reference dataset, derivation of workable diatom typology
May 2011 / Central Baltic GIG-led meeting, Prague, Czech Republic – macro-invertebrate, phytobenthos and macrophyte representatives.
2. Overview of Methods to be intercalibrated
Identify for each MS the national classification method that will be intercalibrated and the status of the method
1. finalized formally agreed national method,
2. intercalibrated finalized method,
3. method under development,
4. no method developed
Phase 1 intercalibration has been completed for CB GIG and N GIG phytobenthos. Refer to tables 2.1 & 2.2 below for CB GIG and N GIG national methods.
Table 2.1: Member State (MS) national metric/assessment methods for CB GIG phytobenthos intercalibration.
AT / Multimetric method consisting of 3 modules/metrics:
A) trophic status module (based on TI: Rott et al. 1999)
B) saprobic status module (based on SI: Rott et al. 1997)
C) reference species module (portion of defined reference and bioregion-specific species in total abundance and species number)
Ecological status is evaluated separately for each of the modules and overall phytobenthos classification is equivalent to the worst of the three results (worst-case-scenario).
BE-F / Proportions of negative (impact-associated) and positive (impact-sensitive) indicator taxa (Hendrickx & Denys, 2005)
BE-W / IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982; Lenoir & Coste, 1996)
DE / Diatom Module: WFD Diatom Index = Average of the sum of abundances of type specific reference species (following Schaumburg et al. 2005) and Trophic Index (Rott et al., 1999) or (in one special case) Saprobic Index (Rott et al., 1997). Additional metrics are available for cases of acidification or salinisation.
Non Diatom Module: WFD Reference species Index depends on type specific taxa and abundances (following Schaumburg et al. 2005)
Macrophyte Module: WFD Reference species Index depends on type specific taxa and abundances (following Schaumburg et al. 2005). Additional metrics are available for cases of mass growth stands of special taxa.
Ecological status is calculated and classified from the average of the three module scores. If a module is absent, status class can be calculated with two moduiles or, exceptionally, with a single module. For this reason every module is classified separately and can be considered separately for intercalibration purposes. The national classification system needs all modules of the benthic flora occurring in a monitoring section of a water body.
EE / IPS (Lenoir & Coste, 1996)
ES / MDIAT multimetric composed by simple average addition of six diatom indices calculated using OMNIDIA (Delgado et al., 2010) (official method)
NORTIdiat (Spanish NORTh Indicators system for Diatoms), only river types 1 & 2. Is a single metric that measures the Bray-Curtis distance between the type reference community and any test site (Pardo, I., Abraín, R., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., García-Roselló, E. 2010. Tipología de ríos y conformidad con las comunidades biológicas en el ámbito de las Confederaciones Hidrográficas del Cantábrico y Miño – Sil. Convenio entre la Universidad de Vigo y las Confederaciones Hidrográficas del Cantábrico y Miño-Sil. 28 + xi pp . NIPO 783-10-003-9). (new method, not yet official)
FR / IBD2007 (Lenoir & Coste, 1996, Coste et al., 2008, french-normalized AFNOR NF T90-354, 2007)
FR / IBD (national routine index: Lenoir & Coste, 1996, french-normalized AFNOR NF T90-354, 2000)
IE / Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly et al., 2008)
IT / Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009). Mancini L, Sollazzo C. (Ed.). The assessment method of the ecologica status of running waters: diatom communities. (Metodo per la valutazione dello stato ecologico delle acque correnti: comunità diatomiche.) Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2009. (Rapporti ISTISAN 09/19).http://www.iss.it/binary/publ/cont/0919web.pdf
Environmental Ministerial Decree: n 260 of 8/ 11/2010 (O.J 7 febbraio 2011 n. 30)
LU / IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982)
NL / EKR (Van der Molen, 2004)
PL / Indeks Okrzemkowy IOdla rzek (Diatom Index for rivers). Picinska-Faltynowicz J. & Blachuta J. Wytyczne metodyczne do przeprowadzenia oceny stanu ekologicznego jedno litych cęści wód rzek i jezior oraz potencjału ekologicznego sztucznych i silnie zmienionych jednolitych części wód płynących Polski na podstawie badań fitobentosu. IMGW, Wrocław, 05.2010. Zlecenie GIOŚ, nr 22/2008/F.(see also Picińska-Fałtynowicz, 2009)
SE / IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982).
UK / Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly et al., 2008)
DK, CZ, LV, LI, SI and SK have not submitted phytobenthos methods for intercalibration in CB GIG.
CZ have a method close to completion and are taking an active role in EC GIG, the SI method has been intercalibrated in Alpine GIG.
Table 2.2: National metric/assessment methods for Northern GIG phytobenthos intercalibration.
MS / National metric /FI / SE / Indice de Polluosensibilité (IPS) (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982).
IE / UK / Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly et al., 2006b)
NO / Periphyton Index of Trophic Status (PIT) (Schneider & Lindstrøm, 2011)
3. Checking of compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements (April 2010 + update in October 2010)
Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive? (Question 1 in the IC guidance)
Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions? (Question 7 in the IC guidance)
Compliance checking was done informally in phase 1 for N and CB GIGs (Refer to Tables 3.1 & 3.2 below). Compliance checking will be done at the BQE level in phase II; questionnaires on macrophyte and phytobenthos national methods have been completed by Member States.
List the WFD compliance criteria and describe the WFD compliance checking process and results (the table below lists the criteria from the IC guidance, please add more criteria if needed)
Compliance criteria / Compliance checking conclusions /1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes – All MS
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / Refer to Tables 3.3 & 3.4
3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine para-meter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole. / Refer to Tables 3.1 & 3.2
4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the WFD Annex II and approved by WG ECOSTAT / N/A intercalibration common types not used. See notes under section 4.1
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / Yes. Reference screening questionnaires were completed by MS for phase 1 intercalibration. Refer to Tables 3.5 & 3.6 below. Also refer to Appendix 3 - this report describes the outcome of the reference conditions workshop in Erken (April 2010).
6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes – All MS
7. Sampling procedure allows for represent-tative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time / This has not been explicitly checked.
8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / All national metrics consider taxonomic composition and do not address absolute abundance, undesirable disturbances or bacterial tufts (although some of these are included in methods that fall outside the remit of this exercise). The relationship between the four components of the normative definition (taxonomic composition, abundance, undesirable disturbances, bacterial tufts) needs further examination. The view of the phytobenthos expert groups both in N GIG and Central Baltic GIG is that if a precautionary approach to boundary setting is taken using other properties (e.g. taxonomic composition), then the probability of undesirable disturbances and bacterial tufts should be minimal when ecological status is good or better.
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Yes. The phytobenthos group performed a ring-test to examine the comparability of data analysed in different member states, with the aim of establishing whether or not identification was a significant source of variability in phase I intercalibration results. Nine slides were circulated to 17 participants. Overall, reproducibility was good. Merging taxa within complexes known to cause problems for analysts did not change the value of the intercalibration common metric significantly; however, it did not reduce within-sample variability either, suggesting that other aspects of analytical procedure may be more important sources of variability than identification.
10. Other criteria 1
11. Other criteria 2
12. Other criteria 3
Table 3.1: CB GIG Phytobenthos methods: compliance with WFD normative definitions. 1 = assessed as part of national metric; 0 = not included in national metric; -1 = assessed but not included in intercalibrated components of national metric. Refer also to Appendix 1.
AT / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / All algal groups
or (in special cases)
diatoms only
Be-F / 1 / 0 / 1 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only. Filamentous algae are considered in macrophyte assessment / Good/moderate boundary relates to occurrence of average BOD values above 4 mg l-1, indicating that self-purification capacity is exceeded. / Included in macrophyte assessment.
Be-W / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms only
DE / 1 / -1 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms for all stream types; non-diatoms for four types / Non-diatoms: abundance assessed on semi-quantitative scale
EE / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only. Macroalgae are included in the macrophyte method. / Included in field inspection. (does not influence
classification)
ES / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms only
FR / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only. Macroalgae included in macrophyte assessment tool (IBMR) / Included in macrophyte assessment tool (IBMR)
IE / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only / Included in invertebrate assessment system (Q system)
16
MS / Taxonomic composition / Abundance / Undesirable disturbances / Bacterial tufts /IT / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms only. Macroalgae are included in the macrophyte method
LU / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms only
NL / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Comment / Diatoms only / .
PL / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only / Included in field inspection. (does not influence
classification).
SE / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only. / Noted in field protocol, used in expert assessment of status class.
UK / 1 / 0 / 0 / -1
Comment / Diatoms only. The relationship between diatoms and other algae has been tested (Kelly et al., 2006b; Kelly, 2006). Macroalgae are included in the UK macrophyte method. / There is a negative relationship between EQR and abundance (as chlorophyll a concentration) but abundance is not measured routinely and was not used to set status class boundaries – see Kelly et al. (2006b). / Method for field assessment of bacterial tufts will be implemented in near future.
Table 3.2: Northern GIG phytobenthos methods: compliance with WFD normative definitions. ü = assessed as part of national metric; X = not included in national metric; 0 = assessed but not included in national metric.
MS / Taxonomic composition / Abundance / Undesirable disturbances / Bacterial tufts /FI / ü / ü / X / X
Comment / Diatoms only. / Relative abundance of diatom taxa.
IE / ü / X / X / ü
Comment / See Table 3.1 / Included in invertebrate assessment system (Q system)
NO / ü / ü / X / ü
Comment / Non-diatoms only / Method is based on presence/ absence, but has been validated against assessments based on abundance (% cover) / Taxa responsible for these growths are included in PIT.
SE / ü / X / X / 0
Comment / See Table 3.1 / Noted in field protocol, used in expert assessment of status class.
UK / ü / X / X / X
Comment / See Table 3.1 / Method for field assessment of bacterial tufts will be implemented in near future.