1. Lakes Intercalibration Results - July 2006 Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Thank You !  Alpine GIG – George Wolfram  Atlantic GIG – Deirdre Tierney  Central/Baltic GIG – Marcel van den Berg  Mediterranean GIG – José Ortiz-Casas  Northern GIG – Ansa Pilke

3. Outline  Results  Plans

4. ATLALPC/BMED reservo NORD CHL2006 PHY20072006200720062007 MACR2007 StartNot applica ble 2007 BENT HIC Start (acid.) 2007 (acid.) FISH

5.  Results

6. Chlorophyll boundaries

7. All GIGs have set :  Reference values  High/Good boundaries  Good/Moderate boundaries (ATL has not agreed)

8.  What will reference values look like ?

10. Alpine GIG below H/G is ref Atl GIG Central GIG Calcareous Lakes < 3 m Med GIG Photic depth 2.5 Secchi Nor GIG Ranges of values Calcareous Lakes < 3 m

11.  What will H/G values look like ?

12. Alpine GIG Atl GIG Med GIG Photic depth 2.5 Secchi Calcareous Lakes < 3 m Central GIG Nor GIG Ranges of values Humic lakes with mod alk

13.  How REF and H/G boundaries were set ?

14. 243 NORD 7 ATL 40 C/B 60 ALP 9 MED 360 ref lakes

15. How ref lakes were selected ?  Evolution of ideas  Expert judgment  QualityData  Pressure criteria list We know that this is a ref lake – it is our best !!! This is ref lake because there are low P and chl >80–90% natural forest, wasteland, moors, meadows, pasture No direct inflow of (treated or untreated) waste water No introduction of fish where they were absent naturally (last decades) No fish-farming activities No mass recreation (camping, swimming, rowing)

16. Reference conditions:  (Slightly) Different approaches  Alpine GIG – lack of REF values  Is it acceptable ?  (My personal opinion – yes)  Common understanding ’’what is the reference lake ?’’  Common approach ’’how to set reference values ? ’’

17.  How G/M values look like ?

18. Alpine GIG Med GIG Photic depth 2.5 Secchi Calcareous Lakes < 3 m Central GIG Nor GIG Ranges of values Humic lakes with mod alk

19.  How G/M boundary were set ?

20. Different G/M approaches:  Secondary effects (C/B, ATL)  Phytoplankton composition shift (NORD, C/B, in some extent – ALP)  Expert judgment and equal classes on a log scale (ALP, NORD)  G/M sites – 90th or 95th percentile (MED)

21. Theory - practice  Why there are so different approaches ?  Why BSP was not followed ?

22. Boundary setting procedure 1. Degradation of the biological quality element along a pressure gradient 2. Agree rules for deriving high-good and good-moderate biological values

23. Real life: High variability (or the lack of data):  Relationship BQE – pressure : more complicated  Different sampling/analyses methods

24. Solutions:  Expert judgement  To find new ways, new approaches, new methods of analyses

25. The question is…  Are these different approaches comparable ?

26. Pluses  C/B has used different approaches to set G/M boundaries with comparable results (esp LCB1) ,,, as well as Northern GIG LCB1 – 11-13  g/l LCB2 – 21-28  g/l LCB1 – 11-13  g/l

27. Pluses  Comparison - reasonable (very shallow lakes - “outlier”) LCB2 – 21-28  g/l

28. Questions:  MED GIG –only one year data, relatively small dataset –G/M boundary approach – different –Selected G/M sites 90 or 95th percentile –Provisional values ?

29. Questions:  C/B GIG : different approaches give different boundaries –is it acceptable to use average ? –or to use “precautionary principle” and to choose the lowest of G/M boundaries ?

30. More questions  EQR – different ways  IC types – MS types  Evaluation of uncertainty  How to proceed ?

31. Plans :

32. ATLALPC/BMED reservo NORD CHL2006 PHY20072006200720062007 MACR2007 StartNot applica ble 2007 BENT HIC Start 2007 FISH

33. 1. Improve/update the results  Results cant be considered as final, has to be updated/validated in future work –Typology (refinement and extension of lae types) –Reference sites –Assessment of the uncertainty –Comparison of new data (monitoring programnmes starting 2007)

34. 2. What can be achieved until summer 2007 ?

35. 2007 summer  Phytoplankton composition metrics – ATL, C/B, NORD  Macrophyte metrics - ATL, ALP, NORD  Benthic fauna for acidification – NORD

36. 3. What will happen beyond 2007 ?

37. Beyond 2007  Fill the gaps  Data from new monitoring programmes  New expert groups  No clear detailed plans yet !

38. Summary:  2006 - Chlorophyll boundaries – Setting ref and H/G – (quite) similar approaches – Setting G/M – different approaches  2007 – considerable progress foreseen– phytoplankton composition metrics, macrophyte metrics  Clear need to continue

39. In the end,,,  We have set reference conditions and quality aims for European lakes ! Eutrophication – most important pressure Chlorophyll – simple and reliable measure of eutrophication (The best possible) base for RBMP