Pirkko Kauppila (FI), Andres Jaanus (EE) & Jakob Walve (SE)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
River Fish Intercalibration group Coordination: D. Pont,Cemagref, France) N. Jepsen (JRC Ispra)
Advertisements

Temperature at the western boundary (T west ) required at each time-step Timestep 1: T west = 0 o C Timestep 2: T west = -1 o C Timestep 3: T west = -2.
Monthly Composites of Sea Surface Temperature and Ocean Chlorophyll Concentrations These maps were created by Jennifer Bosch by averaging all the data.
EEA 2012 State of water assessments Ecological and chemical status and pressures Peter Kristensen Project manager – Integrated Water Assessments, EEA Based.
Environmental Modeling Basic Testing Methods - Statistics III.
WG ECOSTAT meeting - Ispra, 20 Mar 2012 Maria Dulce Subida & Pilar Drake Experts for CW & TW benthic invertebrates SPAIN - Andalusia.
Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich.
NGIG lake fish IC ECOSTAT meeting, Ispra 21 March 2012 MIKKO OLIN 1, MARTTI RASK 2, FIONA KELLY 3, KERSTIN HOLMGREN 4 & TRYGVE HESTHAGEN 5 1 University.
Reference Conditions Cross-GIG Group Report on consistency in reference criteria application IC steering group.
Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Finland’s neighbouring countries. - The Republic of Finland is one of the Nordic countries. - The Nordic countries, sometimes also the Nordic region,
Finished IC No finished IC Typology. BT1 (PL-LT): PL and LT currently do not pass compliance check - Both countries state, their system is still under.
Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes Anne Lyche Solheim and Jannicke Moe, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre.
Lakes Intercalibration Results - July 2006 Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Comparability of the results of the intercalibration exercise – MS sharing the same method Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint.
Northern GIG Intercalibration of lake macrophytes Seppo Hellsten, Nigel Willby, Geoff Phillips, Frauke Ecke, Marit Mjelde, Deirdre Tierney.
FI: Ansa Pilke and Liisa Lepisto, Finnish Environment Institute NO: Dag Rosland, Norwegian National Pollution Control Authority Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian.
Baltic Sea GIG. Description of types that have been intercalibrated Type Salinity psu ExposureDepthIce daysOther Characteristics CW B Shelteredshallow.
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
ECOSTAT, Bristol Hotel, Brussels,
IC network selection process
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Results of the metadata analysis Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) March 4-5 , 2004, Ispra, Italy Peeter Nõges Anna-Stiina.
CW-TW Intercalibration results
CW-TW Intercalibration work progress
Working Group A ECOSTAT October 2006 Summary/Conclusions
Results of the Coastal and Transitional Waters Metadata Analysis
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Objectives & Agenda of the meeting March 2005
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Progress on Intercalibration COAST GIGs
Task 1 - Intercalibration WG 2A ECOSTAT - Intercalibration
4-3 (4-3CORR1) HELCOM MORS Environmental data compilation 2018
River GIGs: Checking and completing the Decision Annex Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Coastal waters – intercalibration of chlorophyll a
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
GWB delineation in Finland
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
Lake Intercalibration
Working Group A ECOSTAT Summary Milestone Reports: River GIGs Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Ecostat meeting - Ispra March 2006
Common Implementation Strategy for the
The effect of ship Nox deposition on cyanobacteria blooms
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
River Fish Intercalibration group ( )
CW-TW IC Work progress Fuensanta Salas Herrero, CW-TW IC Coordinator
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
WFD – CIS Working group A ECOSTAT
Typology and classification of coastal waters in Estonia
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
Water Framework Directive
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
Status of the measurement data checking process
NEA-GIG: Intercalibration Validation Meeting (Ispra, March 2012)
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
Baltic GIG Progress report
River Fish Intercalibration group D. Pont,Cemagref, France)
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2010
Reporting template for milestone reports
First issue: same classification system - different boundaries (1)
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
More difficult data sets
Intercalibration round 2: finalisation and open technical issues – RIVERS ECOSTAT October 2012.
EU Water Framework Directive
Fish intercalibration – rivers Progress and expected outcome
WG A Ecological Status Intercalibration: Where do we go from here ?
Baltic Sea GIG Status Ecostat 23 April 2013
Relationships for Broad & Intercalibration Types Geoff Phillips
The use of pressure response relationships between nutrients and biological quality elements as a method for establishing nutrient supporting element boundary.
Presentation transcript:

Pirkko Kauppila (FI), Andres Jaanus (EE) & Jakob Walve (SE) Intercalibration of chlorophyll a in BC1 and BC3, the northern Baltic Sea Pirkko Kauppila (FI), Andres Jaanus (EE) & Jakob Walve (SE) ECOSTAT meeting Ispra, March 20, 2012

Common types: BC1 & BC3 Sweden BC1 BC1: The Quark and the Bothnian Sea BC3: Outer parts of the Askö archipelago (SE), the Archipelago Sea FI) and the western Gulf of Finland (FI and EE). Finland BC3 BC3 Estonia

Note differences in depth relationships!

IC of chlorophyll a between FI and SE in BC1 in the Bothnian Sea and the Quark

Comments from JRC for BC1 Univariate test of Signif. for log Chl Based on GLM, the data did not reveal significant difference between FI and SE. EQR needs to be measured as a distance from the same reference value (mean value = 1.3 µg L-1). FI and SE have different boundary setting in Option 1, meaning that compliance checking was needed. SS Freedom MS F p Intercepth 0.57 1 3.26 0.075 Log TN 0.79 4.54 0.036 0.08 0.45 0.51 Error 11.8 68 0.17

Harmonized class boundaries in BC1 between SE and FI µg L-1 EQR Ref H/G G/M M/P P/B FI 1.3 2.0 2.2 3.3 6.5 0.65 0.59 0.4 0.2 SE 1.5 0.87 Finnish class boundaries are a little bit higher mainly due to differences in depth relationships, surface temperatures in July to August, and the main direction of surface currents. Comment from JRC: ”You can keep your proposed chlorophyll concentrations but you have to translate these into different EQR values.”

IC of chlorophyll a between FI and EE in BC3 in the outer parts of Archipelago Sea and the western Gulf of Finland

Comments from JRC for BC3 BC3 between FI and EE Parameter estimates (FI & EE) There is a significant difference between FI and EE. FI has 0.48 µg L-1 less Chl than EE for the same TN. At a reference value of 1.8 mg L-1 of EE, FI should get 1.32 µg L-1. Level of effect Chl param. Chl STD.ERR Chl - t Chl - p Intercept 1.55 0.55 2.80 0.005 TN, µMolL-1 0.25 0.02 10.6 0.00 MS FI 0.48 0.13 3.79

Harmonized class boundaries in BC3 between FI and EE µg L-1 EQR Ref H/G G/M M/P P/B FI 1.3 1.75 2.2 3.3 6.6 0.75 0.59 0.40 0.20 EE 1.8 2.7 4.5 8.8 0.82 0.67 Comment from JRC: The highest FI can go for G/M boundary is 2.24 µg L-1.

IC of chlorophyll a between FI, EE and SE in BC3 in the outer parts of Archipelago Sea, the western Gulf of Finland and Askö archipelago