ECOSTAT Ispra, 20.-21. March 2012 Eastern Continental GIG Phytoplankton.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
Advertisements

Rivers Intercalibration Phase 2 Key Cross-GIG activities  Refining Reference Conditions  Intercalibrating Large River Ecological Status  Initial.
Bacterial production and Microsystin in Lake Taihu GUANG GAO Nanjing Institute of Geography & Limnology, CAS
Anne Lyche Solheim (NIVA/JRC) – team leader for ETC Water Joint NRC Freshwater and SoE drafting group meeting EEA Copenhagen – 3 rd October 2007 SoE Guidance.
Lake Intercalibration: status of ongoing work Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT meeting – Ispra (IT), July of 14 CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration.
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.
25 oktober nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje.
Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 5 Reports (M5R) Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Water Bodies in Europe: Integrated Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Funded under FP7, Theme 6: Environment (including Climate Change) Contract.
Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration.
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.
1 Intercalibration in the Eastern Continental Region 1 Dr. Ursula Schmedtje International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
Water Framework Directive Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community.
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.
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.
Mediterranean Lakes and Reservoirs Phytoplankton Intercalibration Caridad de Hoyos José Pahissa Jordi Catalán Presented by: Irene Carrasco.
Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Pragmatic combination of BQE results into final WB assessment in Norway Anne Lyche.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration Option 3 results: what is acceptable and what is not ? Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
11 juni 2007 Ecological classification in the Netherlands1 Diederik van der Molen Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management CIS workshop.
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.
Summary of progress of AGIG Summary by: Jim Bowman PARTICIPANTS: Bailie, R., Burns, C., Caroni, R., Davies, S., Donnelly,
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.
Comparison of freshwater nutrient boundary values Geoff Phillips 1 & Jo-Anne Pitt 2 1 University of Stirling & University College London 2 Environment.
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Lapland1 Classification and monitoring of the surface waters of Finland National.
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG 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
ALPINE RIVER GIG Update: Macroinvertebrates Phytobenthos.
Working Group A ECOSTAT October 2006 Summary/Conclusions
ECOSTAT WG 2A, JRC - Ispra (I), 7-8 July 2004
RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets
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.
Alpine GIG - Rivers Gisela Ofenböck
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
Intercalibration of lake phytoplankton – Northern GIG
Intercalibration of Opportunistic Algae Blooms
Lake Intercalibration
Lake Macroinvertebrate IC EC-GIG
Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW
ECOSTAT, JRC April 2007 MEDiterranean RIVers GIG Report
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Typology and classification of coastal waters in Estonia
Lakes Northern GIG Phytoplankton (comp) / Eutrophication
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
Angel Borja Coordinator of the Group
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.
Milestone 6/Final report
EU Water Framework Directive
Working Group on Reference Conditions
Relationships for Broad & Intercalibration Types Geoff Phillips
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

ECOSTAT Ispra, March 2012 Eastern Continental GIG Phytoplankton

Countries involved IC common types Dataset available IC option National methods Pressure selection Boundary setting Pressure-response relationships Country effect investigation Results of comparability analysis Reference community description IC feasibility and compliance check Flaws Explanations Outline

HU RO BG Eastern Continental GIG (established in February, 2008)

Countries and experts involved Bulgaria: Mina Asenova, Boril Zadneprovski, EEA (Maya Stoineva) Hungary: Gábor Borics (GIG lead), CER Romania: Gabriel Chiriac, Stefan Miron, Levente Nagy, R OWATER )

Common IC typeType characteristicsMS sharing IC common type EC1 Lowland very shallow hard water Altitude (m. a.s.l.) <200m Depth (mean depth, m) <3m Conductivity (uS/cm) Alkalinity (meq/l) 1-4 Surface area (km 2 ) <10 Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania EC2 Lowland very shallow, very high alkalinityhard water Altitude (m. a.s.l.) <200m Depth (mean depth, m) <3m Conductivity (uS/cm) >1000 Alkalinity (meq/l) >4-5 Surface area (km 2 ) <10 Hungary EC3 Middle altitude shallow Altitude (m. a.s.l.) m Depth (mean depth, m) <6m Conductivity (uS/cm) Alkalinity (meq/l) 1-4 Surface area (km 2 ) <10 Bulgaria, Romania EC4 Middle altitude deep Altitude (m. a.s.l.) m Depth (mean depth, m) <6m Conductivity (uS/cm) Alkalinity (meq/l) 1-4 Surface area (km 2 ) <10 Bulgaria, Romania EC5 High altitude deep Altitude (m. a.s.l.) >800m Depth (mean depth, m) >6m Conductivity (uS/cm) Alkalinity (meq/l) 1-4 Surface area (km 2 ) <10 Bulgaria, Romania Common IC types

Pressure dataHUROBG GroupParameter TP ChemistryTN COD LakeuseIntensity of fishing 2080 (fish stock) Lakeyears Database Bulgaria could not provide phytoplankton and stressor data, therefore, BG did not participate in the phytoplankton intercalibration.

Option 3: direct comparison of the HU and RO national metrics IC Option

Composition metric: Biomass metric (Chl-a): Multimetric index: Hungarian phytoplankton index Romanian phytoplankton index Number of taxa (TAX)5% Relative biomass abundance of cyanobacteria (CYANO)20% Total biomass (BIO)20% Chlorophyll-a (CHL) 50% Diversity index /Shannon-Wiener/ (ID)5% The calculation formula: 0.05×TAX+0.2×CYANO+0.2×BIO+0.5×CHL+0.05×ID = ROmultimetric index National methods

Bloom metric Since neither the evenness nor the relative abundance of cyanobacteria seemed to be applicable in the EC-GIG as bloom metric, the use of absolute abundance of cyanobacteria is proposed. Cyanobacteria biomass < 10mg/l: the values of the national metrics should be applied Cyanobacteria biomass > 10mg/l: National EQR > 0.6 The EQR should be reduced by 0.2 National EQR < 0.6 No change

TP CHL-a relationship for Hungarian standing waters Stressor selection

TP: 94 and 250µgl -1 TN: 1310 and 2370µgl -1 COD: and 50mgl Calculation of the multimetric stressor 1: Benchmark 2: Impacted 3: Heavily impacted Pressure selection

Benchmark selection criteria 1.absence of major point sources in catchment, 2.no (or insignificant) artificial modifications of the shore line, 3.complete zonation of the macrophytes in the littoral zone, 4.no mass recreation (camping, swimming, rowing), 5.no or low fishing activity ( fishstock < 50kg/ha )

Latitude Longitude Atkai-Holt Tisza alsó vége, Algyő46 o 23' "20 o 11' " Egyek-Kócsi Tározó, Górés47 o 34' "20 o 56' " Morotvaközi holt meder, Egyek47 o 39' "20 o 56' " Snagov 44 o 42' "26 o 09' " Szelidi-tó 46 o 37' "19 o 02' " Szöglegelői Holt Tisza48 o 04' "21 o 27' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Darab Tisza48 o 01' "21 o 11' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Falu-Tisza48 o 01' "21 o 10' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Malom-Tisza kanyar48 o 01' "21 o 11' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Malom-Tisza úszóláp48 o 00' "21 o 12' " 10 lakes with 25 lake-year data Benchmark lakes

Chlorophyll-a in the benchmark, impacted and heavily impacted lake populations Bad Poor Moderate Good High

Setting boundaries for the HU composition metric Boundary setting

HGMPBHGMPB Setting boundaries for the Romanian metric

Pressure-response relationships

Significant country effects were not found in relationships between national EQR data vs pressure (MAS), Country effect investigation

The average absolute class difference is The average class difference is Results of the comparison using the calculation sheet proposed by the JRC are shown below. The level of acceptable bias is smaller than proposed +/-0.25 value, therefore no additional boundary harmonisation is needed. Results of comparability analysis

Reference community description Phytoplankton composition of the lakes in reference status can be characterised by the frequency distribution of the functional groups having higher factor numbers (F7-9) These functional groups (F=9) are A: Urosolenia longiseta, Cyclotella comensis; B: Aulacoseira subarctica, A. islandica; N: Cosmarium spp., X2 Rhodomonas; X3: Chrysococcus spp.; U Uroglena spp. (F=7) D: Fragilaria acus, Stephanodiscus hantzschii, Y: large size cryptomonads; Lo: dinoflagellates; MP: meroplanctic diatoms; K: Aphanothece spp. The relative abundance of these taxa has to be higher than 80%. Algae that belong to functional groups that have factor values F=5; C: Stephanodiscus neoastraea, Aulacoseira ambigua; W2 Trachelomonas spp.; P: Aulacosira granulata, Fragilaria crotonensis; Q: Goniostomum semen, G, latum can also be present but rarely dominate the phytoplankton. The ratio of those taxa that are considered as undesirable in this lake type lower than 30% These groups are the J: Chlorococcalean green algae, the bloom-forming cyanobacteria like M: Microcystis, H1: Anabaena and Aphanizomenon spp. Sn: Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, S1: Limnothrix spp. Planktothrix spp. S2: Spirulina spp. Arthrospira spp. Biomass expressed in chlorophyll-a can fluctuate during the vegetation period, but the annual mean Chl-a maxima does not exceed 50µgl -1. The mean Chl-a value in the growing season is less than 25 µgl -1. Secchi transparency usually higher than 1.5ms. Blooms do not occur. Decrease of the oxygen concentration might occur towards the deeper layers, but oxygen depletion never develops. Normalised value of the HLPI > 0,8.

IC feasibility check Typology -intercalibration is feasible for EC1 lake-type Assessment concept -comparable in terms of habitats, (photic layer is sampled) Relationship with pressure -both national methods have good relationship with pressure (when applying national methods to IC dataset)

Representative sampling ✓ All relevant data covered by the sampling ✓ Taxonomic level meets adequate confidence and precision ✓ Five classes of ecological status ✓ All parameters indicative of the BQE ✓ WFD-compliant national boundary setting ✓ Adapted to common intercalibration types ✓ Results in EQR ✓ Type-specific near-natural reference conditions? Compliance criteria

Contradiction Contradiction: there are not reference lakes but most of the lakes are assessed as good or high quality. T here are reference lakes, or boundaries are not set correctly. Identification of the alternative benchmark lakes on the gradient of impact is not clear. Separation of the alternative benchmark lakes from reference lakes is not clear. Good status boundary is closer to the median of heavily impacted lakes as to the median of benchmark lakes.

Tasks in EC-GIG Data collection (more data for the lower quality classes.) Overview of the H/G and G/M boundaries. Setting more stringent boundaries. Clear separation of the bechmark and reference lakes needed. Updating reference community description.

Stressor response relationship with more stringent boundaries

Stressor response relationship ( with more stringent boundaries)

Reference lakes are separated

Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the HU Ministry of Rural Development, the RO Ministry of Environment and Water Hungarian Academy of Sciences BG – Mina Asenova BG – Maya Stoineva HU – Gábor Várbíró RO – Gabriel Chiriac RO – Stefan Miron RO – Levente Nagy

Thanks for your attention!

Relationship between the secchi transparency and the depth of oxigen depletion (<2mg/l)

Relationship between the chl-a and Secchi transparency 40ugl -1

Number of taxa (TAX)5% Relative biomass abundance of cyanobacteria (CYANO)20% Biomass (BIO)20% Chlorophyll-a (CHL) 50% Diversity index Shannon-Wiener (ID)5% The calculation formula is: 0.05×TAX+0.2×CYANO+0.2×BIO+0.5×CHL+0.05×ID = ROmultimetric index Correlation matrix (MAS and different metrics)

Latitude Longitude Egyek-K ó csi T á roz ó, G ó r é s47 o 34' "20 o 56' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Falu-Tisza48 o 01' "21 o 10' " Tiszadobi Holt-Tisza, Malom-Tisza ú sz ó l á p48 o 00' "21 o 12' " Lakes considered reference

Relationship between the landuse categories and the Chl-a EQR

2-5 years’ average Pressure-response relationship