1. Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 5 Reports (M5R) Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Contents of the presentation State of the art in each GIG/BQE intercalibration process:  Methods development, compliance, validation, IC option, common metrics & benchmarking  Highlighting of problems, open issues & questions (in yellow)  Recommendations from ECOSTAT are expected  Estimation of probability to achieve results by October 2011

3. Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) for TW  Phytoplankton  Angiosperms  Macroalgae  Benthic invertebrate fauna  Fish

4. Phytoplankton - Baltic 1 type shared by PL & LT The same approach is followed as in coastal waters Only Chl-a is assessed Justification for not covering other parameters is not sufficient There are 1 st phase results that will be reviewed but only for Chl-a Results for Chl-a may be achieved but the consideration of only Chl-a is questionable

5. Phytoplankton - NEA MS with full participation (methods and data): IE, PT, ES, UK NL= method + only few data SE= method (same as CW) but no data – no possibility for IC 1 type NEA 11 Option 2 full methods comparison – CM: median & 90%ile Chl-a Benchmarks will be probably identified using a risk index Results could be possible for October 2011if some issues will be solved

6. Phytoplankton – NEA- compliance Waiting for more justification from ES for only assessing Chl-a in Andalusia Taxonomic composition not covered by: IE, FR, ES, PT, NL. Justifications received by IE & ES (Basque Country) arguing mainly that: The response of phytoplankton communities to nutrients is not well studied and much affected by inherent variability The response of phytoplankton communities to nutrients is not well studied and much affected by inherent variability An approach by WISER to relate pigments concentration (as a proxy of composition) with P in coastal waters provided very low correlations. An approach by WISER to relate pigments concentration (as a proxy of composition) with P in coastal waters provided very low correlations.  FR, IE & ES are working to find suitable and responsive composition metrics but maybe they won’t be developed until the end of the 2 nd IC phase  Proposal: to accept methods that do not include composition as long as they include more metrics than just Chl-a

7. Phytoplankton – NEA- validation Most methods (CM included) are validated versus a risk index (RI) (not recommended by ECOSTAT) and not with pressures or pressure indicators. Justification for non validation with pressures: Variability of phytoplankton community can be huge and cannot currently be adequately explained, particularly in estuaries (“we are still in the descriptive natural history phase of phytoplankton research”) Variability of phytoplankton community can be huge and cannot currently be adequately explained, particularly in estuaries (“we are still in the descriptive natural history phase of phytoplankton research”) Many factors affecting phytoplankton variability, many more than season and nutrients: turbidity due to changing flow of suspended solids, flashing rates, grazing pressures, weather during spring bloom e.t.c. Many factors affecting phytoplankton variability, many more than season and nutrients: turbidity due to changing flow of suspended solids, flashing rates, grazing pressures, weather during spring bloom e.t.c. Particularly dynamic BQE: 12 samples per year only represent 12 seconds per year! Particularly dynamic BQE: 12 samples per year only represent 12 seconds per year!

8. Phytoplankton – NEA -validation Weaknesses of validation with RI:  Estimated in a non harmonized way in each country  Includes a lot of expert judgment  Only 3 risk classes (not continuous scale) Linear regression (R2=0.52; p<0.01; n=47) between chlorophyll concentrations and the scale of risk, from low (1) to high (3)

9. Phytoplankton – NEA -validation Strengths for validating with RI:  Nutrient loads have been quantitatively considered together with other factors such as turbidity and flushing rate (in a semi-quantitative or qualitative manner)  Overall risk assessment may better represent the response of phytoplankton to nutrients than nutrients alone  Chl-a and cell counts medians for WB in 3 different risk classes do not significantly overlap (Mood test, p=0.000)  In the GIG dataset RI correlates well with status classification and CM

10. Phytoplankton – NEA - validation Possible options:  Exclude phytoplankton from IC in the 2 nd IC phase due to high natural (not seasonal) variability until better understanding of its relation with nutrients will be achieved.  JRC proposal: Accept validation with RI as best available and sufficiently reasonable approach ECOSTAT recommendation?

11. Phytoplankton - MED ES, FR & IT full participation (methods and data): GR= no method, no data  4 common types based on salinity and confinement  Considerations for Option 2 with Chl-a as CM  Common quantification of pressures for benchmarking has been considered but no agreed  Limited hope for achieving results

12. Phytoplankton – MED - compliance ES does not cover blooms because:  Blooms detection needs high frequency of sampling – too costly for the numerous and small Spanish lagoons  Chl-a could be considered a proxy for the assessment of blooms as blooms will result in elevated Chl-a values Proposal: request for better justification based on data, graphs and/or publications demonstrating that a bloom metric would not result in a more accurate Eco status assessment. FR does not cover taxonomic composition – will develop a metric in 2012 FR wishes to IC now with the incomplete method and do the calculations again with the complete method in 2012. Boundaries will be changed in 2012 only if they are more stringent than the ones calculated in 2011. Is this acceptable by DG ENV & ECOSTAT?

13. Macroalgae - NEA MS with full participation (methods and data): PT, FR, UK, IE – 1 type BE, NL= macroalgae do not naturally grow in their TW/ DE= ? Validation lacking for FR All methods only assess abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (OM) (representative of the whole BQE). It seems an established practice in many MS.

14. Macroalgae - NEA Taxonomic composition not directly assessed. Cover and biomass of algal mats is assessed and when they cover more than 5% of the available habitat (RefCon) it is considered that there is a bloom of opportunistic algae. These mats tend to consist of certain taxa and indicative list exist but there is no explicit need for taxonomic identification. Cover and biomass is enough for the calculation of EQRs.

15. Macroalgae - NEA Justification (1):  Taxa richness, as a proxy for taxonomic composition, is not sensitive to pressures (documented by several documents)  A review of the available data showed that for NEA taxonomic composition was not likely to give a good measure of ecological pressure to justify the investment of the limited resources to develop metrics based on taxonomic composition just to show that they are not useful.  In TW MED tax. comp is considered to be assessed by the relative abundance of groups of different sensitivity. Macroalgae & Angiosperms are assessed together (in the NEA separately) and the abiotic and biological differences of MED lagoons and NEA estuaries are too big to consider adapting and adopting a MED method.

16. Macroalgae - NEA Justification (2):  The assessment of the over-representation of particular groups of algae could in itself indirectly be considered an assessment of taxonomic composition. Proposal: to accept methods in IC Results could be possible for October 2011, if compliance issues will be solved, as methods are very similar

17. Saltmarshes (Angiosperms) - NEA MS with full participation (methods and data): BE, DE, ES, NL, PT, UK IE= no data All methods cover all required parameters, at least sensu lato Validation lacking for: DE, ES, NL, PT UK: validation with risk index Lack of abiotic/pressure data for several countries: benchamrking problematic Option 2: in search of common metric Limited hope for achieving results

18. Angiosperms (Seaweeds) - NEA MS with full participation (methods and data): DE, ES, FR, IE, NL, PT, UK All required parameters are covered, at least sensu lato No method is validated On going work on common pressures quantification that may be useful for both validation and benchmarking Option 3 seems possible Possible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed up

19. Macroalgae & Angiosperms - MED   MS with full participation (methods and data): IT, FR, GR   ES: initial participation with method and data for HMWB. No participation for natural TWBs  Macroalgae & Angiosperms assessed together   All required parameters are covered, at least sensu lato   Attempt to validate Greek method

20. Macroalgae & Angiosperms - MED  Uncertainty on common pressures quantification  Few sites – uncertainty on how to proceed with benchmarking  Good practices exists in CW Possible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed up

21. Macrozoobenthos - NEA All MS participate with methods and data BE= no delegate currently & FR= no EQR calculations – no meetings attendance Validation of methods is not fully demonstrated for FR, DE, BE ES method (Andalusia) is revised and can now be considered compliant, at least sensu lato IC is expected in 3 common types Option 3 will be followed in all types There is a common dataset for each type where all MS sharing the type provided data

22. Macrozoobenthos - NEA A common pressure index was proposed to be used for benchmarking and benchmark standardization. All MS calculated the above pressure index for their sites except of FR & BE. Preliminary testing with the MS that have provided EQRs and pressure info for benchmarking has been done. Should the GIG proceed to final results without the MSs that lack pressure index calculation? Results can be expected by October 2011

23. Macrozoobenthos - MED  MS with full participation (methods and data): ES, FR, IT, GR - 4 common types  Most methods are compliant and validated  Still uncertainty about the application of m-AMBI in Greece: work on adaptation & validation is on-going  Promising on-going work on common pressure quantification  Good chances for results, at least for types where there are no sampling devices differences (option 3)

24. Macrozoobenthos - MED Assessment concept issue for some types: some methods use grabs while others use hand nets. Hand nets: scientist with a fresh water background (Spanish methods) Grabs: scientists with a marine background (IT, FR & GR methods) Q: Do hand nets really and exclusively collect zoobenthos? A: Zoobenthos is caught (mainly epifauna & an some not deep infauna) together with some zooplankton and animals that are not considered typically benthic (e.g. Artemia). In shallow ecosystems typically planktonic animals behave as benthic ones. Proposal to accept both sampling devices On-going work on a possible common metric to surpass this difference

25. Fish - NEA All TW MS are participating with methods and data –except SE (will develop a method in the coming years) All methods are compliant but most still not validated  4 types related to size  Feasibility issue: different gears in different methods sampling different component of the fish community. Option 3 not possible – biological metric for option 2 not yet feasible Consideration on using a pressure CM and to check if boundaries correspond to similar amount of pressure. On-going work on this together with N. Willby Results could be achievable depending on how well this approach will work (a correlation of all methods with this CM is not fully demonstrated yet)

26. Fish - MED No Milestone 5 Report The group will continue its work after 2011 as at the moments no method is finalized

27. Situation June 2011 BalticNEAMED PhytoplanktonOnly for Chl-a Macroalgae & Angiosperms Benthic invertebrate fauna Fish

28. Issues for ECOSTAT recommendations NEA phytoplankton methods: 1.No tax. composition 2.Validation with a RI MED phytoplankton: 3.Spanish method without blooms for phytoplankton 4.FR incomplete method: to IC or not? 5.NEA macroalgae: no tax. composition 6.NEA zoobenthos: continue without FR & BE? 7.MED zoobenthos: different devices – are hand nets acceptable?

29. Thank you for your time and attention