CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview

Content General overview Details on technical implementation Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) Approach to define common reference conditions Next steps General problem in macrophyte IC exercise

General overview Participants classification methods: Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), France, United Kingdom data: as above plus Denmark, Poland, Spain, Latvia, STAR Technical implementation until June 2007

Details on implementation Focus on nutrient pressure and hydromorphology Agreement on common macrophyte list exclusion of methods (or parts thereof) dealing with non-macrophytes Nomination of type-specific reference species and general disturbance indicating species possible extraction of common metrics  IC Option 2 ? IC Options type-specific selection of suitable option (direct comparison using single, common dataset; ICMs using national datasets)

Correlation analysis of UK, AT and DE indices Preliminary results of data analysis Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) Correlation analysis of UK, AT and DE indices

Determination of “best correlating” national index Preliminary results of data analysis Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) R-C3 - Spearman Rank Order Coefficients of Correlation best correlating AT-index_EQR DE-index_RI+ UK_index_EQR IBMR mean R 1,000 0,632 0,799 0,649 0,770 0,772 0,759 0,364 0,734 0,661 Determination of “best correlating” national index

AT index ranges within national quality classes Preliminary results of data analysis Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) high AT index ranges within national quality classes

AT index ranges within national quality classes Preliminary results of data analysis Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) good AT index ranges within national quality classes

AT index ranges within national quality classes Preliminary results of data analysis Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) moderate AT index ranges within national quality classes

Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3) Intercalibration for lowland types seems more difficult.

Approach to define common reference conditions Identification of common type-specific biological reference communities Collation of information about how references have been derived within national methods Assembly of abiotic and biotic data from national reference sites Finally checking whether macrophyte reference criteria comply with CB GIG reference criteria

Next steps Further data collection Analysis of common metrics and their relationship to pressures Definition of common reference conditions 2nd expert workshop in October 2006 (Bordeaux)

General problem in macrophyte IC exercise Next steps General problem in macrophyte IC exercise Lack of specific national expertise regarding WFD-compliant river macrophyte assessment, since several countries do not yet hold assessment methods.  IC progress relies on national collaboration.