Presented by

Sandra Poikane

EC Joint Research CentreInstitute 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: PhytoplanktonAbundance and species composition

MONITORING How to measure ? :

AbundanceChlorophyll a Biomass mg/lCell 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 Reference and High/Good boundariesCommon Intercalibration Lake Types

02468

101214161820

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 - 2

2. 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?