1. ECOSTAT, Bristol Hotel, Brussels,
Progress on
Intercalibration
COAST GIGs
ECOSTAT, Bristol Hotel, Brussels,
12-13 October 2006
Dave Jowett, Coast Group Chair and NE Atlantic GIG Co-ordinator

3. Results schedule - Codes
Results agreed September 2006
Results agreed June 2007
Results agreed AFTER June 2007
Metric/Method not applicable in MS or type

4. Summary of outputs 2006/7
Baltic

5. PL(1)
DK(1), PL(1)
Phytoplankton: Chlorophyll a
Eutrophication
CW B14
Salinity 6-22,sheltered, shallow lagoons
EE(1), LV(1), PL(1)
DK(1), LT(1 CW), LT (1 TW), PL(1)
Benthic Fauna: National indices
CW B13
Salinity 6-22, exposed, shallow
DE(2), DK(2), EE(1), SE(1)
Angiosperms: Eelgrass depth limit (DK + DE)
CW B12
Salinity 6-22, sheltered, shallow
FI(2)
FI(2), SE(2)
Macro algae: Depth limit Fucus
CW B3
Salinity 3-6, sheltered, shallow, ice days
FI (2), SE (2)
CW B2
Salinity 3-6, sheltered, shallow, >150 ice days
SE(2)
FI (1), SE(1)
CW B0
Salinity 0.5-3, sheltered, shallow, >150 ice days
Countries involved (number of sites)
Quality element
Pressure
Type

6. Intercalibration approach Phytoplankton
Common metric:
Summer mean of chlorophyll a from May/June to September.
Intercalibration was performed by comparison of the results from the national assessment.
b) Relation between TN conc and Chl. A konc.
A data set (summer mean of chlorophyll a from May/June to September) from most member states participating in the Baltic GIG has been compiled and an overall relation between chl. a and TN established ( in process).

8. Boundaries Chlorophyll a, g/l
*Baltic GIG – summer mean May/June – September
**NEA GIG – summer mean 90percentile March - September
< 0.5
3** -
1,5**
< 1.5**
<1.5**
NEA 8
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
0.56
1.6
0.82
1.1
0.9
Baltic B 14
0.63
0.58
0.74
1.9*
0,80
0,93
1.5*
1.1*
1.2*
< 1.1*
1.4*
Baltic B 12
Germany
0.75
1.6*
0,92
1.3*
Baltic B 13
0.62 & 0.38
0.67 & 0.69
2.9 & 4.0 *
1.8 & 1.9 *
0,82 & 0,58
0.80 & 0,81
2.2 & 2.6 *
1.5 & 1.6 *
1.5 & 1.8*
1.2 & 1.3*
Baltic B 3
Finland
0.54
0.61
2.6*
2.3*
0,78
1.8*
Baltic B 2
0.48
0.52, 0.55 & 0.61
2.7*
2.0 & 2.3*
0,72
0.67, 0.73 & 0.78
1.1, 1.2 & 1.4*
Baltic B 0
Good/Moderate (EQR)
Boundary
Good/Moderate
µg/l
High/Good
(EQR)
Reference conditions
GIG Type
Country

9. Intercalibration approach Benthic fauna
Intercalibration was performed in three steps:
comparison of species sensitivity classifications
comparison of indices
comparison of classification of water bodies based on national methods for assessment

11. Boundaries - Benthic Fauna

12. Intercalibration approach Macro algae
Reference levels for the benthic vegetation indicator have been set using:
historical data,
old literature
best available expert judgement
The class borders are based on expert judgement.

13. Boundaries Macroalgae - Fucus depth limit, m.

14. Intercalibration approach Angiosperms
Angiosperms: Hybrid between option 2 and 3.
Bilaterally between Denmark and Germany
Reference levels are based on historical data, expert judgment and
modeling. Two approaches have been used for classification:
percent deviation (3 scenarios) 15%, 20% and 25 %
2) modeling - dose-response relationships between physico-
chemical variables (nutrient concentration, transparency) and vegetation metrics.

15. Boundaries Angiosperms - Eelgrass depth limit, m.

16. Baltic - Summary Some results now in all quality elements
Not all countries completed in any type/QE matrix
More results expected by June 2007
Will be some gaps - e.g. Latvia?

17. Summary of outputs 2006/7
Black Sea

18. Black Sea - Draft Boundaries
e.g. Phytoplankton biomass
Bulgaria
Romania

19. Black Sea - Draft Boundaries
e.g. benthic invertebrates - diversity
Bulgaria
Romania

20. Black Sea - Next Steps
National boundaries are being developed for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates
These are not that far apart
Agreement needed on standard sampling and analytical methodologies
Results ARE possible for June 2007
A workplan is in place - post GIG meeting Varna September 2006

21. Summary of outputs 2006/7
Mediterranean

22. BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE FAUNA
QE 2: Benthic Invertebrate Fauna
Assessment Method
Status
EQR setting?
Cyprus
Bentix C
yes
France
Multimetric approach (AMBI, Shannon Diversity, BQI Trophic In.) D no
Greece
Italy
AMBI with factor analysis
Spain - Catalunya
Multivariate analysis
Spain- Balearic is.
Italy needs additional data
France has just started collecting data
Slovenia will produce data in the near future
Croatia is willing to participate

23. BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE FAUNA CONCLUSIONS
Collect additional data
Consider different subregions, for different habitats (e.g. muddy/sandy bottoms) in the Mediterranean
Need of standardized methods
Reference Conditions
There is no common view/agreement on RC: some MS have identified existing reference sites/conditions, others consider virtual reference conditions.
Needs to consider different sub-regions and differences in the reference values for different habitats (e.g. muddy/sandy bottoms, within each typology).
Boundaries setting
Only Greece and Cyprus have already completed the BSP, no common agreement has been achieved by others.

24. PHYTOPLANKTON CONCLUSIONS
Reference Conditions
Reference conditions will be different according to different water types (two or more coastal types significant for phytoplankton are under development)
Sites at high status, based on expert judgement and data on pressures, will be considered.
Boundaries setting
No clear correlation between pressures and chl a was found: so class boundaries could not be defined by discontinuities in the pressure vs. chl a diagram.
Procedure for setting the H/G boundary has been agreed upon. The boundary between H and G will be set according to the 90th percentile for chl a data.

25. Tentative classification systems are under development in some MS:
PHYTOPLANKTON
More:
Tentative classification systems are under development in some MS:
Ex: Spain (Catalunia)
(Vila et al, 2005)
Freq. (%) >70
X>6
Bad
25 < Freq. (%)≤ 70
4<X≤ 6
Poor
15 <Freq. (%)≤ 25
2<X≤ 4
Moderate
2 < Freq. (%)≤ 15
1<X≤ 2
Good
Freq. (%)≤ 2
X ≤1
High
Freq. HA (%)
Chl a-mean
Status
chl a concentration
define algal blooms
link their occurrence with Chl a concentration

26. Summary of outputs 2006/7
Mediterranean

27. AQUATIC FLORA: Macroalgae CONCLUSIONS
- IC was completed between the 2 classification methods (EEI and BENTHOS-CARLIT), that Greece and Spain proposed.
- Italy and France agreed on the possibilities to apply them on their coastal waters (present or future available data)
- Common agreement on the use of these 2 methods for all MED-GIG
Reference Conditions
Reference sites have been identified according to the low pressures and impacts they receive.
In both methods (EEI and BENTHOS/CARLIT) the reference conditions are real sites (existing)
Boundaries setting
Boundaries are set according to expert judgement and/or combined with the results of multivariate analysis.
No statistical analysis exclusively to set boundaries.
No discontinuities. Continuum of possibilities with gradual disappearance/appearance of different indicator species

28. AQUATIC FLORA- Angiosperms: Posidonia oceanica
CONCLUSIONS
Reference Conditions
Common view on RC:
RC are type independent
RC are defined at sub-ecoregional level (east/west, insularity,…)
RC are depth dependant (shallow & deep meadows ) and for some metrics seasonality has to be considered
RC have been defined with:
existing sites, where pristine areas are present (ex: PosWare)
virtual sites, using the best existing values for each parameter (ex: POMI)
Boundaries setting
No agreement could be reached concerning the BSP.
Common agreement only on the Good / Moderate Boundary: through a joint exercise of EQR comparison for this boundary. Preliminary EQR of 0.55 agreed.
No further agreement about other class boundaries  

29. MED-GIG CONCLUSIONS
- Classification approches at BQEs level: not yet integrated approach
Large amount of data but not for all BQEs and all countries
Most promising BQEe for MED-GIG: macroalgae and angiosperms
Need of continuation of the IC exercise
- Resources (?!)
PHYTOPLANKTON
1 commom metric
tentative data analysis on establishment of main water types
(vertical stability)
ANGIOSPERMS:
P. oceanica
special case:
1 species
many methods
different metrics
Agreements:
- different RC
(sub-ecoregional)
- G/M boundary
MACROINVERTEBR
3 classification methods
Problems:
- data lack
- comparability
No agreements among participants
MACROALGAE
2 classification methods
IC: ok
Agreement on: - RC
- species ecological values

30. Mediterranean - Summary
No FINAL results now
Some results in all quality elements by June 2007
Major gap will be benthic inverts where only CY/GR expect to complete
Phytoplankton (chlorophyll) and angiosperms (Posidonia) most promising
Further work definitely needed after June 2007 and resources still be big issue

31. Summary of outputs 2006/7
North East Atlantic

32. Setting of Boundaries e.g. Benthic Invertebrates

33. National boundaries - Benthic Invertebrates
NEA1/26
NEA8/9/10

34. Fish - Method Comparison

35. Fish - Boundaries

36. Chlorophyll - Regional Boundaries

37. Chlorophyll - Thresholds based on freshwater influx - correlation

38. Example of Regional boundaries within a type - chlorophyll

39. Summary of outputs 2006/7
North East Atlantic

40. Indicator Taxa - Phaeocystis cells > 106 per litre

41. Indicator Taxa - Phaeocystis cells > 106 per litre - sampling

42. Single Taxa - cells > 105 per litre

43. Summary of outputs 2006/7
North East Atlantic

44. Macroalgae - Perennial Intertidal algae

45. Macroalgae - Perennial Intertidal algae

46. Macroalgae - Opportunistic macroalgae

47. Summary of outputs 2006/7
North East Atlantic

48. Angiosperms - Intertidal Seagrass

49. Angiosperms - Intertidal Seagrass

50. NE Atlantic - Summary
Only results agreed now are for benthic invertebrates
Many more results expected by June 2007 e.g. phytoplankton
There will still be some gaps - particular problem is Transitional Waters
More work needed after June 2007 on these gaps plus other metrics and habitats

51. ISSUES
Calculation of EQRs - how are they calculated? Common approach needed?
One out all out - QE level or metric level?
QE with little data - does this have same weight in final classification?
Can small waterbodies be classified differently from type area?

52. ISSUES Large waterbodies classification
Monitoring and assessment methods - documentation and harmonization
Monitoring in 2007/8 and first status evaluation - use of “old” data - what is the historic limit?
Physico-chemical and hydromorphological QEs

53. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTON!
END
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTON!