10
Template for the milestone reports
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / Lakes / X-GIG / PhytobenthosInformation provided by: / Martyn Kelly
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:
Lead country: UK (Martyn Kelly)
Participants:
BE-F: Luc Denys
DE: Joerg Schoenfelder; Ilka Schoenfelder
FI: Satu Mararia Karjalainen
FR: Vincent Bertrin, Soizic Morin
HU: Eva Acs, Gabor Borics
IE: Bryan Kennedy
IT: Aldo Marchetto
NL: Herman van Dam
PL: Joanna Picinska-Fałtynowicz; Tomasz Zalewski
SE: Maria Kahlert, Frauke Ecke
SI: Gorazd Urbanic
UK: Martyn Kelly, Geoff Phillips, Helen Bennion, Amy Burgess
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:
See above
Methods for BE-F, DE, HU, IE, PL, SI and UK are officially adopted; other methods are under development.
AT, BE-W, EE, LT, LI, CZ, SK, LU, NO, RO, BU, ES, PT, GR, MT, CY did not submit phytobenthos methods; NL participated in the early part of the exercise but later withdrew.
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
Start-up / planning meeting: January 18-19 2010, London
Progress meeting #1: Reinsberg, Germany, May 17-19 2011
Progress meeting #2: Brussels, 6-7 September 2011
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. intercalibratable finalized method,
3. method under development,
4. no method developed
Member State / Method / StatusBE-F / Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD) / 1
DE / PHYLIB / 2
FI / Preliminary classification is based on IPS; moving to Finnish Littoral Diatom Method in future / 3
FR / Indice Biologique Diatomées (IBD) / 3
HU / MIL- Multimetric Index for Lakes / 1
IE / Lake Trophic Diatom Index; LTDI) mark 1 / 2
IT / Plans to adopt ICM at end of exercise / 3
PL / PL IOJ (multimetryczny Indeks Okrzemkowy dla Jezior = multimetric Diatom Index for Lakes) / 2
SE / IPS / 2
SI / Trophieindex (TI) / 1
UK / DARLEQ mark 2 / 1
Make sure that the national method descriptions meet the level of detail required to fill in the table 1 at the end of this document !
The collective view of the phytobenthos experts group is that an MS without a phytobenthos method cannot be considered to be compliant with the normative definitions for macrophytes and phytobenthos if they only possess a macrophyte method. There are situations (e.g. where the lake is subject to hydromorphological stresses, navigation etc) where macrophtyes will not give a reliable indication of the impact of nutrients on littoral flora, and also that the two elements react at different rates to changes in their environment.
It is possible that assessments may be based on either macrophytes or phytobenthos if there is evidence that both elements give similar assessment results within a MS but this such assumptions should be based on evidence.
3. Checking of compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements
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)
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 conclusions1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Yes. See Note 1
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / Yes. See table below. Exceptions are IT (will set boundaries as median of other national boundaries) and FI (preliminary system based on expert judgement)
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. / See Note 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 / Yes
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / Type-specific near-natural reference conditions are not available for all types or all MS (see section 8 below)
6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Yes
7. Sampling procedure allows for represent-tative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time / Yes. Practices vary from MS to MS: in some cases, a single sample is used to characterize a water body for an assessment period; other MS use multiple samples in either space or time.
8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / See Note 2
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Yes
10. Other criteria 1
11. Other criteria 2
12. Other criteria 3
Note 1: IT does not yet fulfil compliance criteria. It will adopt the ICM as national metric, along with median positions of intercalibrated boundaries.
Note 2: This exercise intercalibrates one component of the BQE “Macrophytes and phytobenthos”. Appendix 1 summarises compliance checking for the BQE as a whole.
Summary of boundary setting procedures
MS / Methodology used to set class boundariesBE-F / Type-specific values for the H/G boundaries were derived from the 90th percentiles of the relative abundance of impact-sensitive diatoms in historical assemblages predating 1940 (best 10%) and G/M boundaries from the 90th percentiles of the relative abundance of impact-associated diatoms in such assemblages (best 90%); the latter were cross checked against the 75th percentiles for actual assemblages from sites with TP and chl a below G/M, as inferred from modelling. For lake types with few historical data, the minimum relative abundance of impact-sensitive diatoms was set to the 90th percentile observed for sites with TP and chl a below G/M, as inferred from modelling (best 10%), whereas G/M was based on the 75th percentiles of the relative abundance of impact-associated taxa (best 75%). Lower boundaries were obtained by linear interpolation between the relative abundance of impact-associated diatoms corresponding to the G/M boundary and 100%, assuming equal class intervals. All percentages serving as boundary values were rounded to the nearest 5.
DE / At first reference conditions were investigated spatially based at a lot of reference sites (littoral sites with no biological and no hydromorphological and no trophic status impacts). It was found, that reference trophic status was somewhat different among national lake types. Reference conditions were derived for each lake type separately, spatially based and validated by sediment cores, using diatom - TP transfer functions.At second the class boundaries were assigned for each type equidistantly at trophic index intervals of 0,500, beginning at the H/G boundary. This means, that all class boundaries are type specific, but all classes have the same witdth along the logTP scale (main pressure gradient, explored by CCA).
FI / Preliminary method uses “expert judgment”: streams were first classified into five classes according to land use and alteration of water chemistry: 1) near pristine streams with only minor degree of human activities in drainage area, 2) good quality streams with some forestry activities and low degree of agriculture, but with low load of nutrients or suspended materials, 3) moderate quality streams with moderate degree of agriculture and forestry or/and more dense populated areas, 4) poor quality streams with more intense agriculture and forestry, fish farming or small waste water plants, 5) bad quality streams loaded with effluents from different sources. However, none of the studied sites were heavily polluted. Boundaries for ecological quality classes for IPS were then derived from this classification
FR / H/G boundary : 25th percentile of reference values for IBD (for every diatom-derived biotype covering all the national river types)
G/M boundary : H/G boundary – [(H/G – minimum note)/ 4] +1 (for every diatom-derived biotype covering all the national river types)
HU / High/good boundary is the 25th percentile of alternntive benchmark sites good/moderate
boundary is the “crossover” between sensitive and tolerant tax a based onindices values.
Moderate/poor and poor/bad are arithmetical divisions of the remaining EQR
scale.”
IE / H/G: Similar to the UK but calibrated to fit better to Irish reference data.
G/M: The cross over between nutrient sensitive and nutrient tolerant.
M/P/B: Equal divisions of the remaining scale.
IT / Will adopt median boundaries at end of exercise.
PL / PL H/G: the median value of reference sites;
G/M: median value of the remaining (non-reference) sites
SE / High status: River/stream fulfils the national reference criteria, e.g.Tot-P < 10 µg/l, no acidification, land use: < 20 % farming, < 0,1 % urban area.
The G/M boundary was set to the IPS value where the nutrient tolerant and pollution tolerant species exceed a relative abundance of ca. 30 % (and the amount of sensitive species falls below ca. 30 %).
SI / High/good boundary is the 25th percentile of EQR reference sites. Good/moderate, moderate/poor and poor/bad are arithmetical divisions of the remaining EQR scale.
UK / High/good boundary is the 25th percentile of EQR reference sites for the type;good/moderate boundary is the “crossover” between sensitive and tolerant taxa. Moderate/poor and poor/bad are arithmetical divisions of the remaining EQR scale.
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information.
Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking:
Compliance checking should be performed at the level of the BQE, rather than just the “macrophyte” or “phytobenthos” sub-element. No phytobenthos method submitted to this exercise fulfils all the requirements of the normative definitions; however, in some cases, these methods are used alongside a complementary set of macrophyte metrics. Few MS evaluate bacterial tufts in standing waters but this is unlikely to affect classifications as these are rarely a problem in standing waters.
4. Methods’ intercalibration feasibility check
Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept? (Question 2 in the IC guidance)
4.1. Typology
Describe common intercalibration water body types and list the MS sharing each type
Common IC type / Type characteristics / MS sharing IC common typeHA / High alkalinity lakes
L-CB1, L-CB2, L-M1 / BE-F, DE, HU, IE, IT, PL, SE, SI, UK,
MA / Moderate alkalinity lakes
L-CB3, L-N8 * / BE-F, DE, FR, FI, IE, IT, SE, UK
LA / Low alkalinity lakes
L-N2, L-N3 / FI, IE, SE, UK
* IT has also submitted some moderate alkalinity lakes from ALP and MED GIGs which do not correspond to any IC types
What is the outcome of the feasibility evaluation in terms of typology? Are all assessment methods appropriate for the intercalibration water body types, or subtypes?
Method / Appropriate for IC types / subtypes / RemarksMethod A / IC type 1
IC type 2
Method B / IC type 1
IC type 2
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology ?
All methods, with the exception of BE-F, DE and PL are based on generic weighted average equations (IPS, LTDI, TI) or related concepts (IBD) and are, thus, suitable for all IC types so long as an estimate of the “expected” value of the metric is available. BE-F, DE and PL have methods which depend wholly or partly on comparisons with type-specific reference communities; however, these methods generally correlate with the ICM.
4.2. Pressures
Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods
All MS methods assess trophic status; some metrics were designed for rivers and address “general degradation”; however, there is an assumption that nutrients are the key factor determining outcomes in lakes. There is some evidence of a confounding influence of acidity in LA lakes. The implications of this will be discussed later in the report. Salinity is a possible confounding factor in a few HA lakes in HU but these are not included in this intercalibration exercise. .
4.3. Assessment concept
Do all national methods follow a similar assessment concept?
Examples of assessment concept:
- Different community characteristics - structural, functional or physiological - can be used in assessment methods which can render their comparison problematic. For example, sensitive taxa proportion indices vs species composition indices.
- Assessment systems may focus on different lake zones - profundal, littoral or sublittoral - and subsequently may not be comparable.
- Additional important issues may be the assessed habitat type (soft-bottom sediments versus rocky sediments for benthic fauna assessment methods) or life forms (emergent macrophytes versus submersed macrophytes for lake aquatic flora assessment methods)
Method / Assessment concept / RemarksMethod A
BE-F / Littoral assemblages are sampled in summer from hard substrates (preferably reed; choice of alternative substrates and sampling procedures are fixed by rules) after a sufficiently prolonged period of submergence at 9 spatially separated sites. The proportions of type-specific impact-sensitive and impact-associated diatoms are estimated from a fixed count of 500 valves in a sample. Identifications are at species or lower taxonomic level. Lake classification is based on results for at least 3 samples from the same season (the number of samples increases with the divergence in assessment results). The presence of cyanobacterial films and abundance of filamentous algae are considered in the macrophyte method.
DE / Each lake is sampled during summer at 5 to 40 fixed sites, the number of sites depends on lake size. Sampling is replicated after 3 years to monitor changes. The sampling sites are distributed more or less equidistantly along the shore line, to support averaging the results of all sites within a water body.Littoral diatom samples are sampled from the natural (type specific) bottom, preferabely at 0,3 ... 1.5 m depth. Stones are preferred, but sampling on sand, mud or dead stalks of Phragmites and Typha from the last year is allowed, if stones are absent.The assessment is based on 2 Metrics, one is a trophic index and the second is a ratio, expressing the degree of disturbance of the assemblage at the species level. At least 500 valves are determined at species and variety level to calculate a Trophic Index, especially desiged separately for each