Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration

the questions to answer :  Which metrics to measure ?  Which are the best quality elements/indicators to assess each pressure?  and for each type ?  Overview on IC results

Information utilisation Water management Laboratory analysis Data handling Data analysis Assessment and reporting Information needs Sample collection Assessment strategy Monitoring programme Water Management cycle

Succesive steps should be designed based on required information product

Information utilisation Water management Laboratory analysis Data handling Data analysis Assessment and reporting Information needs Sample collection Assessment strategy Monitoring programme Water Management cycle (UN ECE, 2000)

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton Abundance and species composition MONITORING How to measure ? : Abundance Chlorophyll a Biomass mg/l Cell counts number/ml When ? Where ? ASSESSMENT How to assess ? Abundance Chlorophyll a Biomass mg/l - Cell counts number/ml

How to measure phytoplankton ?

Phytoplankton – abundance Chlorophyll a concentration (average growth season):  Relevant and reliable an effective indicator of trophic status  Easy to measure and not too costly to measure  Most of MS have WFD compliant assessment systems based on chl

Chlorophyll a: - success story of IC exercise - 5 GIGs incl 28 MS and 14 types have set chl boundaries

Phytoplankton – abundance  Phytoplankton biomass – can be used as measure of phytoplankton  Alpine GIG has developed boundaries using phytoplankton biomass

Phytoplankton – species composition – different approaches  some – AT, DE - have developed phytoplankton indices based on total biovolume and indicator species;  several countries are descriptors like biomass and % of of main groups (BE, NO, DE)  UK and HU have developed classification tools based on phytoplankton functional groups

Phytoplankton – species composition  Another reliable, meaningful and easy-to-use indicator is the contribution of Cyanobacteria to the total biomass of phytoplankton (and the biomass of Cyanobacteria).  an indicator of eutrophication;  serious water quality and animal and human health problems;  Most of the MS (for example, Belgium, Germany, Estonia, France, Netherlands, UK, Hungary, Lithuania) use the proportion of Cyanobacteria in their assessment systems

Phytoplankton  Eutrophication  All lake types  Seasonal succession  Interaction with macrophytes  Frequency – 6 months ?

Macrophyte vegetation  Depth limit or maximal macrophyte colonization depth is –an important characteristic of lake –of particular importance in connection with lake eutrophication

Macrophyte vegetation  Macrophyte coverage can be used for the assessment of the status of lakes,  it will depend on macrophyte survey approach and method  % of lake area, describing all vegetation zones

Macrophyte vegetation  Other potential indicators of the state of lake are the abundance of sensitive (for example, Chara sp for hard-water lakes and Isoetes sp for soft-water lakes) and impacted state taxa  Assessment methods under development  Alpine GIG (AT, DE) and Atlantic GIG (UK, IE) – results in 2006

Benthic fauna  Only Nordic GIGs and 3 countries have decided to start the Intercalibration exercise of benthic fauna assessment methods;  Benthic fauna assessment methods are used only for evaluation of acidification pressure;  Metrics used – Raddum and NIVA acidification indices (NO), MILA multimetric index (SE), Medin index (UK)  Based on proportion on sensitive/tolerant taxa

Benthic fauna  Other countries – complaining about the lack of data, impossible to carry out intercalibration  Hope that monitoring will provide the data for the development of assessment methods  Communication between monitoring and Intercalibration necessary !

Fish fauna  No information about WFD compliant assessment methods  Norway, Sweden – in development  Acidification, eutrophication, habitat changes  Based on sensitive and tolerant species  Again – hope monitoring will provide necessary data

Rivers – benthic fauna  All MS have well-established assessment methods  For example –Multi-metric Indices for General Degradation (AT); –Multi-metric Index Flanders (BE-F); –Saprobic Index (AT, RO, SL); –IBGN (FR, BE-W, L); – IBE – Extended Biotic Index (IT); –RIVPACS (UK); –various modifications of BMWP (ES, HU, PL, PT);

Rivers – benthic fauna  abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa, family or species level  multihabitat sampling using agreed standards  allows to calculate a variety of indicators  assessment results can be compared using ICMi – Intercalibration Common Metrics  can be used for organic matter, nutrients, hydromorphological pressure, acidification

Summary on benthic fauna  MS keep their traditional methods  Intercalibration through ICM enables harmonization of boundaries  Benthic fauna – the key biological element of rivers answering all pressures

Rivers – benthic algae  A lot of work going on :  For example: –Austrian Assessment Method for Phytobenthos; MAFWAT (BE-F); IPS (ES, BE-W); –Trophic index, saprobic index and some additional metrics based on reference conditions (AT); IBD – for diatoms (FR); –DARES - for diatoms (IE, UK); –Diatoms multimetric composed by 7 metrics (ES); –EPI – for diatoms only (IT); – Simple 4-abundance level scheme – for filamentous algae (IE); – for phytobenthos without diatoms – reference Index (DE); –IPS/PSI (L).

Rivers – benthic algae  current focus on diatoms  CEN standards existing for sampling and handling  Organic matter, nutrients  Other taxonomic groups could be included, but methods need to be developed  Central and Alpine GIG have started IC on diatom methods

Rivers – fish fauna  AT, UK, SW have developed methods, some countries are working: –Austrian Multi-metric Index for fish assessment (AT); –EFI (LT, UK); –IBI fish index (BE-F); –IP-Indice Poisson (FR); FAME (ES); Fish Q- value (IE); SEPA methods (SW).

Rivers - fish  electrofishing  species composition and age distribution  hydromorphological pressure (especially river continuity), but also other pressures  No IC in this round  Lack of data in many countries

Rivers - macrophytes  in development  organic matter, nutrients, hydromorphological pressure  especially applicable in large rivers  Start of IC in Central GIG (AT and FR have developed their assessment methods)

RIVERS - IC  Result of the first Intercalibration exercise will be boundary setting for macroinvertebrates for all GIGs;  Alpine and Central/ Baltic GIGs plan to come up with boundary setting for phytobenthos/ diatoms QE;

Conclusions - 1  Link between monitoring program and assessment systems : 1. Assessment systems in place  Lakes - Chlorophyll concentration, Some metrics for phytoplankton and macrophyte vegetation  Rivers - Benthic fauna, Diatoms  Monitoring provide appropriate data for assessment

Conclusions National assessment methods are often still under development  Lakes – benthic fauna, fish, rivers – macrophytes, fish  Monitoring will provide data for development of assessment systems

Conclusions - 3  Isn’t the Water Framework Directive a wonderful piece of legislation?