25 oktober nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 225 oktober 2011 Steps in intercalibration Data collection National methods development Choice of intercalibration option Reference sites / benchmark standardisation Relationships with pressure Harmonisation Issues remaining

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 325 oktober 2011 Data collection Member StateLCB1 LCB2LCB3 BE514 DK EE13 11 FR3 GE3218 UK2139 LT521 LV NL1436 PL7726 total Data collection

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 425 oktober 2011 Lake typology Common IC typeType characteristicsMS sharing IC common type LCB1 Shallow (3-15 m), alkalinity > 1 meq/l All countries except FR LCB2Very shallow ( 1 meq/l All countries except FR LCB3Shallow (3-15 m), alkalinity < 1 meq/l EE, LV & DK. UK has lakes of similar type in NGIG. FR has LCB3 lakes not comparable to the others due to large geographic differences.  Intercalibration for LCB3 not possible due to large geographical differences and lack of data.

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 525 oktober 2011 National methods Member StateStatus Belgium Fl1a Denmark2 (draft boundaries within range) Estonia1a France1b (LCB3) Germany1b Latvia1b Lithuania1b Netherlands1b Poland1b UK1b (draft boundaries within range) 1a: finalized formally agreed national method, 1b intercalibrated but not formally agreed (NOTE: we added this category) 2: intercalibration-ready finalized method 3: method under development 4: no method developed

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 625 oktober 2011 Compliance and feasibility checks Different methods use variety of indicators for taxonomic composition as well as macrophytes abundance All methods respond to eutrophication Several method were adjusted because of insufficient correlation (R<0.5) with the (pseudo) common metric FR method was not taken into account for comparisons (decision at June 2011 meeting Amsterdam) Nine methods to be intercalibrated: –BE-FL, DK, EE, GE, LT, LV, NL, PL, UK

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 725 oktober 2011 GIG explored options 2 and 3a Option 2 Common metric was developed based on (WISER): –trophic index for species composition –Max depth or cover for macrophyte abundance Attempts for boundary setting for the common metric Not all countries could apply common metric Not all countries have sufficient number of lakes for both LCB1 and LCB2  Option 2 comparison was not possible Option 3a  All methods could be applied to sufficient number of lakes for LCB1/LCB2  PL method was applied only to PL lakes (77 LCB1, 26 LCB2)  Option 3a was chosen Choice of intercalibration option

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 825 oktober 2011 LCB1LCB2LCB3total LV4149 LT22 PL415 NL11 EE213 UK11 FR22 total97723 BEno reference lakes GEno reference lakes DKno reference lakes Reference lakes/ benchmark standardisation Conclusion: -Insufficient number of true reference sites -Same problem for alternative benchmark sites  Choice for continuous benchmark standardisation

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 925 oktober 2011 Benchmark sites Sites for continuous benchmarking standardisation based on range of total-P from 0 to 0.2 mg P/l

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1025 oktober 2011 Benchmark standardisation factors method lakes GBGEPLLVNLBELTEEDK GB GE PL LV NL BE LT EE DK

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1125 oktober 2011 Relationships with pressures Relationship with pressure Pearson R LnUKGEPLLVNLBE- FL LTEEDK LCB1TP TN Chl-a LCB2TP TN Chl-a All relationships significant at p<0.001, except PL for LCB2 with TP (R=-0.32, n=26, p=0.112)

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1225 oktober 2011 Relationship of PCM with pressures Pearson R LCB1LCB2 ln(TP) ln(TN) ln(Chl-a)

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1325 oktober 2011 Harmonisation MS with largest deviations from accepted range of comparability criteria were adjusted first  several iterations This was achieved in two ways: –Adjustment of class boundaries for individual indicators (preferable from ecological point of view, but cannot be achieved for all member states) –Adjusting of standardised EQR class boundaries Band width was fixed at the CBGIG macrophytes Copenhagen meeting in September 2011

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1425 oktober 2011 Results Copenhagen meeting September 2011 LCB1 UKGEPLLVNLBE-FLLTEEDK R> Class agreement< HG_Bias GM_Bias LCB2 UKGEPLLVNLBE-FLLTEEDK R> Class agreement< HG_Bias GM_Bias LCB1 & LCB2 combined UKGEPLLVNLBE-FLLTEEDK R> Class agreement< HG_Bias GM_Bias

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1525 oktober 2011

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1625 oktober 2011 Adjustments after Copenhagen meeting BE-FL: -review of indicator species used in BE-FL metric -review of BE-FL lake types assigned to PL LCB1 lakes  further improve correlation with PCM and bring HG boundary bias within range for LCB2 and very close for LCB1 19/10/11Copenhagen LCB1R> Class agreement< HG_Bias GM_Bias LCB2R> Class agreement< HG_Bias GM_Bias

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1725 oktober 2011

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 1825 oktober 2011 Issues remaining LV: did not attend meetings, no representative was present to approve suggested (minor) changes in class boundaries LT: did not attend meetings, HG boundary bias not within range (GIG could not adjust method) Several MS need approval from national authorities for adjustments made during harmonisation phase  adjustment within agreed band width is still possible Narrative description of macrophytes communities at high, good, less than good status is in progress