1. Summary of progress of AGIG Summary by: Jim Bowman (j.bowman@epa.ie)j.bowman@epa.ie PARTICIPANTS: Bailie, R., Burns, C., Caroni, R., Davies, S., Donnelly, K., Free, G., Gallagher, M., Gibson, J., Hale, P Little, R., McGarrigle, M., O'Neill, I., Phillips, G. Pitt, J., Tierney, D., Wilby, N.

2. Membership and principal contact Republic of IrelandJim Bowman ( GIG coordinator ) England, Scotland and WalesGeoff Phillips Northern IrelandPeter Hale TYPOLOGY L-A1 = 1 meq/l < 50 ha L-A2 as above > 50 ha L-A3 = < 200m altitude, 3-15m mean depth, Peat < 50 ha

3. Date Main outputs Sep. 04Discussed current data availability and compatibility Decided to run sampling programme on intercal lakes to fill data gaps in 2005 Agreed option 3 with possibility of option 1 with time Circulation of compiled data for physicochemistry, macrophyte taxa and % Biovolume of Cyanophytes and Chrysophytes Jan. 05Decided to join L-A1 and L-A2 for analysis Discussed reference condition assignment by GIG participants Application of ROI macrophyte metric to AGIG data Examined usefulness of % Biovolume of Cyanophytes and Chrysophytes Disagreement on boundary for supporting elements - Problem of marl lakes? Typology problem Mar. 05Multivariate stats analysis of data sets by EHS Addition of non-marl lakes to AGIG dataset Discussion of Geoff Phillips's descriptive approach to status of biological elements Disscusion of boundary setting protocol Comparison of UK and Ireland macrophyte metrics

4. Initial intercalibration test Jan 2005 – promising relationship between TP and % Cyanophytes -Analysis from Geoff Phillips

5. Figure 3 Relationship between the ROI macrophyte index and transformed (Log x + 1) TP  g l ‑ 1 in LA-1 (●) and LA-2 (○) lakes submitted for intercalibration. 2. Disagreement on boundary for supporting elements (TP) - Problem of marl lakes? Typology problem 1. Initial intercalibration test Jan 2005 – trial of ROI metric on AGIG lakes

6. Generic rock types in Ireland (Collins & Cummins, 1996) Relative frequency (%) of selected macrophyte groups in 58 reference lakes by alkalinity band.

7. Lough Bane – Marl lakes not compatible?

8. Solution – Additional input of 12 non marl-precipitating lakes from the ROI within the typology (3-15 m mean depth > 1 meq/l)

9. Reference conditions ROI - Reference sites available. Selected by expert opinion, validated by palaeolimnology. – Some additional validation also provided by examining metric response to pressure gradient. UK – None available – predicted reference TP using Morphoedaphic index validated by palaeolimnology.

10. Two boundary setting approaches: UK and Ireland Boundary setting protocol approach - ROI 1.Select boundaries of the suporting elements (TP) based on macrophyte diversity 2.Use TP boundaries to define boundaries in linear macrophyte multimetric 25 ug/l = G/M boundary = macrophyte index of 0.5 3.Test meaningfulness of TP boundaries across range of biological metrics.

11. 1. Set boundary of supporting element (TP) in terms of macrophyte diversity Selection of TP bands (- - -) based on the lowess smoothed relationship (──) between Simpson’s diversity index and transformed (Log x+1) TP. Smoothed relationship of chlorophyll a with transformed (Log x+1) TP is overlain (green line). Graph refers to lakes > 20 mg l -1 CaCO 3 only, TP values were mostly measured in Spring. Boundary setting protocol approach - ROI

12. 2. Used TP boundary to define boundary in linear macrophyte multimetric: 25 ug/l = G/M boundary = index of 0.5 0.5 Macrophyte index 25 ug/l TP = G/M boundary Boundary setting protocol approach - ROI ○ = reference lakes (n = 22) ● = (non reference lakes (n = 71).

13. 3. Test meaningfulness of TP boundaries across range of biological metrics (L-A1&2 type) Boundary setting protocol approach - ROI

14. Boundary setting protocol approach – UK 1.G/M boundary defined by error band on intersection of impact and reference macrophyte species. 2.Select boundaries of the suporting elements (TP) based on the intersection Boundary setting protocol approach - UK From work by Nigel Wilby H/GG/M

15. Relationship between UK (NW’s) ref-impact species and ROI macrophyte index. r 2 = 0.74, y = -1.54635+2.56359x. Marl lakes (x), n = 24 ROI lakes only.

16. y = -1.546+2.564x UK macrophyte metric value of -0.26 = ROI G/M macrophyte metric value of 0.5 But more data to be added in and discussion needed to achieve consensus In terms of macrophyte metrics there seems to be good agreement on good/moderate boundary. BUT conundrum is that same biological boundary infers different concentrations of TP in England and ROI. The same macrophyte composition in Ireland appears to be found at 10-20 ug/l TP lower than in England? Why? - Methodological differences?

17. Further work Fill data gaps Try to apply additional phytoplankton metrics Further discussion on G/M boundaries of biological metrics and supporting elements Potential for intercalibrating acidification for L-A3 type