1. Lake Intercalibration
Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Outline Lake IC results – state of play Updates of accepted results
Expected results
Open issues

3. IC results In theory – all Milestones In practice –
June and Oct 2011,,,, Dec 2011
In practice –
Arrived 31 Dec 22:00
Still (many) problems - common:
Use of calculation sheets
Benchmarking – complicated
Incomplete reporting, no conclusions
Exclusion/ inclusion of methods
Final adjustments of methods/ boundaries

4. Solving of problems 17 GIG – 17 list of problems
Feb-March: solving of problems – create new problems
In total, 80% solved
NOR, CB, ALP, cross-Phytobenthos – no serious issue left
Thanks to very efficient communication/ collaboration
MED - 1 issue left (discovered yesterday)
East Cont - more work needed

5. 21 report: current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 4
Presented / not agreed 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report - 2
Work will be continued - 4

6. 21 reports – current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 6
Presented / not agreed 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report
Work will be continued - 4

7. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
June 2011
October 2011
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

8. Accepted IC results – CHANGES 1
CB Phytoplankton:
the final change made by NL
to bring the LCB1 lakes into the harmonisation band

9. Accepted IC results CHANGES 2
MEDITERRANEAN Phytoplankton:
Substantial changes ! Why ?
Problems:
RO method – relaxed, WFD-compliance
FR method – very strict
Few ref sites, benchmarking
Lakes - small dataset
a lot of work, 4 new versions of Milestones

10. Accepted IC results CHANGES 2
MEDITERRANEAN Phytoplankton:
Romanian method – excluded
French method: strict boundaries are kept (additional analyses)
Lake results – not robust enough to be included in the EC Decision
Substantial changes !
New Milestone report, new TR

11. Accepted IC results CHANGES 2
MEDITERRANEAN Phytoplankton
Problem: FR disagrees with conclusions
The IPLAC (FR) appears as stricter than the rest of boundaries
but FR should not lower the boundary
the ecological characteristics of the FR «good» sites are similar to other «good» sites
This is contradiction !

12. Accepted IC results CHANGES 3
Northern Benthic fauna
Technical issues:
Calculations (use of benchmark standardization)
Selection of benchmark sites
Results: different boundary adjustments
For eutrophication (FI, SE)
For acidification (SE, UK, NO)

13. Accepted IC results remaining problems ?
Central Baltic Phytoplankton AND Macrophytes :
NO RESPONSE FROM LATVIA AND LITHUANIA
Phytoplankton – blank cells
Macrophytes – boundaries not confirmed by LV and LT

14. 21 reports – current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 6
Presented / not agreed - 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report
Work will be continued - 4

15. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
October 2011 (n.a.)
Phyto
benthos
October 2011 (not agreed)

16. Presented / not agreed IC results
Phytobenthos IC
Oct 2011: new and not clear results
Now: improved reporting
HA : BE, DE, HU, IE, PL, SE, SI, UK
MA : BE, IE, SE, UK,
LA: UK, IE
No major problems
Except Method descriptions needed !

17. Phytobenthos: problem
IC– WFD compliant full-BQE methods
BQE = Macrophyte + Phytobenthos
Macrophyte IC –as a separate BQE:
Macrophyte methods
Macrophyte metrics (for example, DE)
Phytobenthos part usually excluded
Phytobenthos IC – disagree
Not correct to assess the WFD-compliance for phytobenthos methods on their own !
Usually Phytobenthos metrics= diatom trophic indices (so only composition)

18. Presented / not agreed IC results
Alpine Fish fauna – AT, DE, IT
Some problems (eg, validation)
A lot of improvements
Validation (expert judgment quantified)
Detailed description of setting RC
Description of high and good status communities
Sampling issue clarified

19. Presented / not agreed IC results
Alpine Fish fauna – AT, DE, IT
GIG agreement (all MS) that the results are reliable and thus good enough
FR and SI - invited to participate
FR (method too late), SI (no method)
Tech Report – on CIRCA
JRC – scientific review committee
Still not perfect, but all the possible things are done (Fish BQE – specific)

20. 21 reports – current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 6
Presented / not agreed - 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report
Work will be continued - 4

21. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
Only methods
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

22. “Single” methods Med Macrophytes: ES, IT, FR Med Benthic fauna: ES
Different pressures
Different zones
Very little data
Med Benthic fauna: ES
Only 1 method

23. “Single” methods - ca 11 Med Macrophytes: ES, IT, FR
Med Benthic fauna: ES
Northern Benthic fauna: SE (eutrophication, littoral)
Northern Fish fauna: SE, NO (pressures different)
Alpine Benthic fauna: FR, DEsubl, IT (?)
Alpine Fish fauna – FR

24. 21 reports – current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 6
Presented / not agreed - 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report
Work will be continued - 4

25. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
March
2012
MACROPH
March 2012
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

26. New IC results will be presented today
Phytoplankton
Eastern Continental – HU, RO
Macrophytes:
Northern - IE, FI, SE, NO, UK
Benthic fauna
Alpine – DE, SI
Central Baltic –BE, DE, LT, EE, NL, UK
Eastern Continental - HU, RO

27. East Cont GIG
GIG states that “No reference sites, all lakes are impacted”
From data:
<50% of sites in “high status”
<80% in “high+good” status
Alternative benchmark sites used as reference sites
HU said that problem is solved !

28. 21 reports – current state-of-the-art
Old results:
Presented / agreed June
Presented / agreed October 2011 – 6
Presented / not agreed - 2
New results
March 2012 – 6
Only methods in the report
Work will be continued - 4

29. GIG WORK Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean
Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
work
Only methods
BENTHIC
FISH
WORK
Phyto
benthos

30. Central Baltic Fish
Already close to the final results
So far led by Germany (David Ritterbusch)
Need for a new coordinator

31. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
June 2011
October 2011
March
2012
MACROPH
In progress
Only methods
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

32. Thanks you
So much !

33. Check for problems (8th March)
Major problems – 4 (1 – not officially submitted)
Some issues of concern - 5
Good results - 7

34. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

35. Fish fauna
Only 2 GIGs

36. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
October 2011 (n.a.)
In progress
March
2012
Phyto
benthos

37. Northern Fish GIG 4 methods started Good dataset, method validation
Only 2 IC (Ireland and Finland)
2 excluded (pressures)
Good dataset, method validation
Ref sites, Benchmarking and BS
Direct comparison
No boundary adjustment

38. Northern Fish GIG High variability of MS EQRs Only 2 methods
still acceptable (R>0.5, avg cld < 1)
No common communities desription
Biogeograohical differences
Only 2 methods
Statistical boundary setting
SE and NO methods
No IC due to different pressures
Inclusion in the Decision?

39. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
October 2011 (n.a.)
In progress
March
2012
Phyto
benthos

40. Alpine Fish fauna Presented ECOSTAT October, not accepted yet
3 countries – AT, IT and DE
Option 3 + pseudoCM
All 3 methods are comparable (good correlation between national EQRs)
the IC results formally correspond to the compliance criteria :
boundary bias < 0.25
class agreement < 1

41. Alpine Fish fauna Small dataset: 15 lakes, only 2 countries (no DE)
No pressure-response relationships (expert judgment)
Pressure gradients are not given
Methods based on equal distance boundary setting
No reference or benchmark sites, no benchmarking
BS not done - considered not necessary
So there are no any demonstration that RC setting is done in a comparable way  between Member States.
Biogeographical differences are not accounted for

42. Alpine Fish fauna GIG argues that benchmarking is done:
Methods - lake-specific RC, based on historical data
Lake-specific RC defined also for 15 IC lakes
Argument: Benchmark is historical species composition for each lake, and all 3 methods were tested on a set of 15 lakes.  

43. National methods Intercalibration Lake-specific RC
established for each lake in common dataset
German actual assessment 
Austrian actual assessment
Italian actual assessment
DE EQR
AT EQR
IT EQR

44. In defense of ALP Fish Very dedicated: a lot of work !
All what is possible is done
New explanations came today ,,,
GIG argues that Fish is specific and the common rules cannot be applied
Pressure-response
Reference conditions
FISH EXPERT ADVICE NEEDED !

45. Benthic fauna
All 5 GIGs

46. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
March
2012
Only methods
June 2011
FISH
Phyto
benthos

47. Alpine Benthic fauna 5 methods submitted
IC is feasible also for DEeut-SI
Option 2 + ICM
Continous benchmarking
Results acceptable:
Good correlation EQRs-PCM
Boundary bias was <0.25 class equivalent

48. Alpine Benthic fauna Italian method –
IT method – WFD compliancy questionable.
A formal request to have STG opinion has been done

49. CB Benthic fauna 6 countries, Option 2 + ICM
Continuous benchmarking applied to ICM
The R for  LT and UK is >0.5 (but explained)

50. CB Benthic fauna General problem Comparability criteria:
Very high bias for BE (> 1 class HG & GM)
Also high biases for other methods
Adjustments not clear (asked to provide)
Provided: BE method will adjust their RC
General problem
different understandings of RC between the Member States: BE vs EE
Methodological issue:
No ref sites, no benchmark sites
Continuous benchmarking

53. CB Benthic fauna Very high boundary differences
class difference (±0.25)
What is the reason ?
Only BE adjusted
Is WFD compliance / feasibility done properly ?
Geographical difference
Does it make sense ?

54. MED Benthic fauna Just one method – Spain
Good description of RC setting and RC communities (partly based on ref sites, partly on expert judgment)
No method validation (salinity, hydrology, inorganic turbidity)
Equidistant boundary setting
No description of good status communities  

55. EC Benthic fauna 2 methods HU vs RO Good progress achieved:
Dataset - 41 lake
Methods developed
Direct comparison via regression
Methods and boundaries comparable
BOUNDARY BIAS < 0.25 CLASS
AVG ABS CLASS AGREEMENT < 1

56. EC BF : HU EQRs vs RO EQRs

57. 3 clusters of problems Method development Comparison of assessments:
Pressure-response
RC and boundaries
Comparison of assessments:
benchmarking

58. EC BF : WFD compliance No clear conclusions
Metrics - Hungarian method does not include abundance
Reference condition setting - contradictory / unclear information how RC (eg least disturbed sites is not reliable method for RC setting)
Boundary setting – division of gradient

59. EC BF : Pressure response
Overall – preliminary analysis provided !

60. ROLN10
taxoni
new_tax
families
moluscs
SW_index
func_grp_index
Phosphrous
P_po4
n_nh4
N_no2
N_no3
permanganat
cco_cr
Alkalinity ph
Benefit STD vs normal 1
0.77
0.95
(0.39)
0.79
0.02
0.39
(0.06)
0.37
0.63
(0.41)
0.23
0.56
0.17
0.73
(0.38)
0.69
0.22
0.49
(0.05)
0.13
0.51
(0.54)
(0.52)
(0.10)
0.32
(0.47)
0.72
(0.00)
0.36
(0.01)
0.28
0.52
(0.31)
(0.34)
0.21
0.07
(0.04)
(0.29)
(0.14)
(0.27)
(0.03)
(0.26)
(0.28)
0.15
0.10
0.26
0.62
(0.53)
(0.46)
0.12
0.47
0.01
0.71
0.24
0.42
(0.50)
(0.45)
(0.13)
0.30
(0.59)
(0.71)
(0.20)
0.54
(0.22)
0.08
(0.30)
0.38
0.43
(0.36)
0.05
0.35
0.33
(0.73)
(0.78)
(0.21)
0.66
(0.11)
0.91
0.48
0.55
(0.49)
0.20
(0.08)
(0.09)

61. EC BF : Pressure response
Relationships not for all metrics and not for the total EQR (RO)
Some contradictory relationships
Number of families (HU) decrease along pressure gradient (HG -24, GM-18, MP-10)
significant positive correlation with N-NH4 and N-NO3
Relationships with pH and alkalinity (need more info to interprete)
Overall – preliminary analysis provided !

62. EC BF – benchmarking
all lakes are anthropogenic impacted, so benchmark sites used
benchmark sites not compared betw MS
benchmark standardization not done\
biogeographical differences not discussed
difficult with so low number of benchmark sites
Should be clarified where benchmark sites are located on the pressure gradient
29 % of sites are in high status (RO)

63. HU EQR
RO EQR

64. Ca 29%
Ca 17%
HU EQR
RO EQR

65. ca 76 %
HU EQR
RO EQR

66. No Families: benchmarks vs impacted sites
In RO classification H status 4-10

67. EC GIG Problems with all BQEs Fundamental lack of understanding:
Lake RC and good status ?
What pressures ?
What biological changes occur ?

68. Northern BF Acidification – NO, SE, UK Option 3 with PCM
Good dataset, ref sites,
2 subtypes, BS
Acceptable results

69. Northern BF Eutrophication – FI and SE Option 3 - direct comparison
BS only for FI
Boundary adjustments needed
Finland - G/M boundary from EQR=0.6 to EQR=0.627.
Sweden - G/M boundary from EQR=0.7 to EQR=0.679.
Sweden - H/G boundary from EQR=0.9 to EQR=0.851.

70. Northern BF – no major issues
Method compliance – diversity and abundance not included (explained)
Acidification:
SE low R with PCM (R 0,42 < 0,5)
SE and UK methods are not related (R2 0.07)
Eutrophication
Only 2 methods, equal boundary setting
boundary adjustments

71. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
October 2011
not accepted
Only methods
March
2012
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

73. Alpine - Macrophytes 5 countries
Pressures: eutrophication (sign relationships)
Ref sites all countries, except IT
Option 3a + PCM
FR: adjustment of the G/M boundary
Questions:
Benchmark standardization (not necessary, evidence to be provided)
Description of good/moderate boundary (incomplete)

74. CB macrophytes 10 countries Pressure – eutrophication (sign rel)
Ref sites- not all countries
Continuos benchmark standardization
Option 3a – direct comparison PCM
Boundary bias – adjustment for BE, LT
Class agreement - < 1 class
No problems
LV and LT not responding

75. MED macrophytes 3 countries - FR, IT, ES
Information: why it is not possible to carry out the Intercalibration (pressures, lake zones);
not information
pressure-response relationships
detailed description of boundary setting (and correspondence of boundaries to the WFD requirements);
description of good status communities.

76. EC Macrophytes Results not accepted The GIG 3 MS: HU, RO and BG
Adopted DE metric – RI
Option 1 - all countries use the same method, set the same boundaries

77. EC Macrophytes Macrophyte assessment method RC and boundary setting
Does it work in the EC lakes ?
Which pressures are detected?
species lists and indicator values
RC and boundary setting
Esp important because boundaries are set by the IC (not compared)

78. EC Macrophytes Macrophyte assessment method RC and boundary setting
Does it work in the EC lakes ?
Which pressures are detected?
species lists and indicator values
RC and boundary setting
Esp important because boundaries are set by the IC (not compared)

79. NOR macrophytes 5 countries Option 2 + ICM
Site-specific ref values (“expected ICM”)
Boundary bias < 0.25 class
Questions:
Macrophyte abundance not used (but explained)
Countries use different ref criteria/methods (but explained)

80. GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern
PHYTO
June 2011
October 2011
March
2012
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos

81. Alpine Phytoplankton 5 countries Ref sites- all countries ?
No benchmark stand (no differences)
Option 3 + PCM
Boundary bias – < 0.25
Class agreement - < 0,5 class
No problems !

82. CB Phytoplankton 11 countries Option 2 with IC common metric
Continuos benchmark standardization
Boundaries harmonised
Altogether – monumental work !
Problems:
.... Quite complicated !

83. EC Phytoplankton Are the boundaries set correctly ?
2 countries HU vs RO
Direct comparison no CM
No ref sites, so alternative benchmark sites selected
2 methods are quite comparable (high R2, p<0.01)
Boundaries are fine :
Low boundary bias
Low avg class difference
Are the boundaries set correctly ?

84. EC Phytoplankton
Ref lakes by RO method
Ref lakes by HU method

85. EC Phytoplankton
The Milestone says that “There are no reference lakes”  
But  still ca. 50% of lakes  (40% HU and 56% RO) have EQRs , so they are assessed as “high” status lakes by HU and RO assessment systems
So one of these statements is wrong:
or there are reference lakes (because RC=high status)
or class boundaries are not set correctly (so lake are not assessed correctly)
expert judgment has been used for setting RC. So there is no any guarantee that RC setting is done correctly!

86. EC Phytoplankton Ref lakes by RO method Good lakes by RO method
Ref lakes by HU method
Good lakes by RO method

87. EC Phytoplankton
The Milestone says that “There are no reference lakes”  
But 88 % of lakes high+good (RO)
How boundaries are set ?
Based on expert judgment, pressure response relationship and alternative benchmark sites (least disturbed sites)

89. EC Phytoplankton boundaries
High status range (1-1.6) roughly corresponds to “benchmark lakes” (which are not reference lakes but ”best available”)
Good status boundary - closer to the median of heavily impacted lakes as to the median of benchmark lakes
This explains why 79% from HU lakes and 88 % from RO are assessed as high and good status
Conclusion: boundaries are set (at least) 1 class too low !

90. RO phytoplankton

91. Mediterranean Phtoplankton
Haotic and not completed yet ....
6 MS for reservoirs, 2 for lakes
Option 3 + PCM
Ref sites not sufficient
Continuous BS (?)
Huge work invested (Milestone report 174 p)
Problems with the final results

92. Mediterranean Phtoplankton
Romanian method: WFD compliance
Pressure-response relationships
response of diversity and taxa number metrics –
it is positive to pressure which is in contrary to ecological knowledge.
Reference conditions and boundary setting

93. Mediterranean Phtoplankton
Romanian method: relaxed boundaries

94. Mediterranean Phtoplankton
French method: too strict boundaries

95. Northern Phytoplankton
5 countries
Ref sites- all countries
Continuos benchmark standardidstion
Option 3 + IC common metric
Boundary bias – < 0.25
Class agreement - < 0,5 class
Some harmonisation done before
Problems:
.... Quite complicated !

96. What about ,,,
Phytobenthos ?

97. Phytobenthos Cross-GIG comparisons for 3 types (different set of MS)
Option 2 with Common Metrics
Continuous BS
Acceptable results with some minor issues:
LA lakes 2 countries UK and IE, very similar systems, no BS

98. Phytobenthos: General problem
BQE = Macrophyte + Phytobenthos
Macrophyte IC –as a separate BQE:
Macrophyte methods
Macrophyte metrics (for example, DE)
Phytobenthos part usually excluded
Phytobenthos IC – disagree
Don`t assess WFD-compliance for phytobenthos methods on their own !
Usually Phytobenthos metrics= diatom trophic indices (so only composition)

99. Macrophytes & Phytobenthos
Macrophytes -IC
Diatom indices – IC
Is is a full BQE ?
Macroalgae – sometimes included in the Macrophytes
Combination and use of Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

100. Can we accept results of Alp Fish and EC GIG ?
Alpine
Central
Baltic
Eastern
Continen
Mediter
ranean
Northern
PHYTO
MACROPH
BENTHIC
FISH
Phyto
benthos
Can we accept results of Alp Fish and EC GIG ?
Med GIG – no IC

101. Ecological assessment
Statistics, rules, technicalities…
Do we measure the right things ?
Do we make the right decisions ?
Are these decisions comparable ?

102. To the scientific review: