CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview

Slides:



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

ECOSTAT meeting – Ispra (IT), July of 14 CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration.
DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont, Cemagref.
25 oktober nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje.
Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration.
1 Intercalibration in the Eastern Continental Region 1 Dr. Ursula Schmedtje International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Status Report AC Cardoso and A Solimini Harmonisation Task Team: JRC.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Böhmer, J. Birk, S., Schöll, F. Intercalibration of large river assessment methods.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 River GIGs: Future intercalibration needs/plans Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration CB GIG River Macroinvertebrates Final Report ECOSTAT June 2011 Isabel Pardo Roger Owen.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 2 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) – 3+4 July 2006, Stresa (IT) Eastern Continental GIG Draft final report on the results of.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
NE ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (NEA GIG)
Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
Intercalibration Results 2006
Results of the Intercalibration in the ALPINE RIVER GIG
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
CW-TW Intercalibration results
ALPINE RIVER GIG Update: Macroinvertebrates Phytobenthos.
Working Group A ECOSTAT October 2006 Summary/Conclusions
ECOSTAT WG 2A, JRC - Ispra (I), 7-8 July 2004
WG 2A Ecological Status Drafting group: Guidance on the process of the intercalibration excercise 2nd meeting WG2A, 15-17/10/03.
Central Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group
Intercalibration Report on State - of - play and way forward Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre The Institute for Environment.
Task 1 - Intercalibration WG 2A ECOSTAT - Intercalibration
RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
Lakes - Central GIG progress report July 2004
Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Development of a protocol for identification of reference conditions, and boundaries between high, good and moderate status in lakes and watercourses (REFCOND)
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
Seppo Rekolainen Finnish Environment Institute
London Water Directors Meeting
Working Group A ECOSTAT Summary Milestone Reports: River GIGs Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Questionnaire Results
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
River Fish Intercalibration group ( )
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
Activities of WG A Ecological Status
ECOSTAT, JRC April 2007 MEDiterranean RIVers GIG Report
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2009
Water Directors meeting Mondorf-les-bains, June 2005
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration 2nd round
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Baltic GIG Progress report
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 22 Febraury 2006 Progress Report.
River Fish Intercalibration group D. Pont,Cemagref, France)
Lake Intercalibration
Angel Borja Coordinator of the Group
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
2nd phase intercalibration
Baltic Sea GIG Status April 2009
Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group Dr. Ursula Schmedtje.
Working Group on Reference Conditions
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

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.