Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
Advertisements

EEA 2012 State of water assessments Ecological and chemical status and pressures Peter Kristensen Project manager – Integrated Water Assessments, EEA Based.
Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway Workshop on ”In situ trialing for ecological and chemical studies in support of.
CEN TC 230 WG2 “Biological Methods” Work Programme October 2008.
Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective
Lake Intercalibration: status of ongoing work Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
National typologies - reports Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Resolution 147 (Vienna-2) WG 2 welcomes the proposal for future standardisation activities and collaboration between CEN, DG Environment and ECOSTAT and.
Water Bodies in Europe: Integrated Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Funded under FP7, Theme 6: Environment (including Climate Change) Contract.
Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration.
WG 2A ECOSTAT 4-5 MARCH 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Progress Report Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso Joint Research Centre.
WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Status Report AC Cardoso and A Solimini Harmonisation Task Team: JRC.
Lake Intercalibration Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Böhmer, J. Birk, S., Schöll, F. Intercalibration of large river assessment methods.
Methods Compliance Checking Which methods can be included in the final intercalibration results?
Water Bodies in Europe: Integrated Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Funded under FP7, Theme 6: Environment (including Climate Change) Contract.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration CB GIG River Macroinvertebrates Final Report ECOSTAT June 2011 Isabel Pardo Roger Owen.
Intercalibration Option 3 results: what is acceptable and what is not ? Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Lapland1 Classification and monitoring of the surface waters of Finland National.
ECOSTAT workshop “Hydromorphology and WFD classification Oslo, Norway, October 2015 (back-to-back with ECOSTAT) Organised in close collaboration.
Thematic assessments based on results from RBMPs Coastal and transitional ecological status & related presures Inland surface waters Hydromorphological.
Hümeyra BAHÇECİ (Expert)
GIG plan updates GIG leads were requested to update their work plans
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods
Intercalibration results 2006/2007
Intercalibration Results 2006
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Results of the metadata analysis Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) March 4-5 , 2004, Ispra, Italy Peeter Nõges Anna-Stiina.
Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 4 Reports (M4R) Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
CW-TW Intercalibration results
Working Group A ECOSTAT October 2006 Summary/Conclusions
Results of the Coastal and Transitional Waters Metadata Analysis
Progress on Intercalibration COAST GIGs
GEP vs. GES.
Draft Commission Decision on Intercalibration
EU Water Framework Directive
Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
Alien species and classification under the WFD
The normal balance of ingredients
Ecostat meeting - Ispra March 2006
CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
NE Atlantic GIG ECOSTAT April 2013 Summary of NE ATLANTIC GIG Workshop held in Lisbon (24th-25th January 2013) The Next Phase.
Working Group A ECOSTAT Update on intercalibration Prepared by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
Activities of WG A Ecological Status
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Harmonisation Ecostat 2014
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
IC remaining gaps: overview and way forward
ECOSTAT meeting, June 28th, 2011
Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 22 Febraury 2006 Progress Report.
Lake Intercalibration
Beate Werner & Bo N. Jacobsen EEA
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Intercalibration round 2: finalisation and open technical issues – RIVERS ECOSTAT October 2012.
Ad-hoc Task Group on Hydromorphology
Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group Dr. Ursula Schmedtje.
Intercalibration of very large rivers in Europe
Seppo Hellsten & Teemu Ulvi
ECOSTAT nutrient work : Brief update February 2017
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us?
Presentation transcript:

Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses

WISER method database - http://www.wiser.eu/results/method-database/

Method overview: Which human pressures are detected? http://1.bp.blogspot.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication Figure from Birk et al., 2012

Questionnaire on biological methods MS were asked to identify biological methods to detect the effects of hymo pressures for the four water categories Name of method Identify pressures to which the method responds Has the method been intercalibrated? Is the method included in the WISER methods overview? Additional information from intercalibration was considered for this presentation

Questionnaire responses 9 MS provided information on biological methods: Rivers – 7 MS (AT. BE/W, DE. IT, NL, NO, SI) Lakes – 5 MS (AT, DE, NL, NO, SI) Coastal waters – 2 MS (ES, NL) Transitional waters – 3 MS (IT, NL)

River methods Focus on invertebrates and fish; both hydrology and morphology pressures; multimetric indices responding to multiple pressures Methods intercalibrated, but not specifically for hymo Invertebrates mostly “general pressure” methods Only few methods specifically aimed at hymo (SI: SMEITH) Fish Response to hymo and other pressures well documented Not specifically targeted at hymo (but see AT - FIA)

Lake methods Focus on fish, benthic fauna, phytoplankton Fish fauna – AT, NL, NO IC: Validation only with expert judgement or other pressures Benthic fauna - DE, SI, NL IC: All 3 methods validated for HM pressures (sign pressure-response relationships with lake shore modification metrics and indices) Macrophytes - AT, NL, NO AT, NL – validation and IC only for eutrophication NO – new method for HM pressures Phytoplankton/ Phytobenthos NL – method validated/ IC only for eutrophciation Lake methods

Coastal waters methods Only 4 methods reported: Benthic fauna (2x), Macroalgae/Sea Grasses, Phytoplankton Benthic fauna (ES, NL) IC: validation with multipressure index Sea Grasses (NL) IC: response to hymo not specifically demonstrated Phytoplankton (ES) Residence time

Transitional waters methods Benthic fauna (ES, IT, NL) IC: validation with multipressure index Fish (ES, NL) IC: no specific information on response to hymo pressures (validation with multipressure index) Macroalgae / Sea Grasses (IT, NL) IC: response to hymo pressure not specifically demonstrated

Presentations: Rivers – AT (Gisela Ofenboeck) Lakes – NO (Odd Terje Sandlund) Coastal/Transitional – ES (Angel Borja)

Questions for session B – Biological Methods Are current biological assessment methods appropriate to pick up hydromorphological alterations? Has response to hymo pressures been demonstrated? If not, why not? What features of method design make a biological method suitable or unsuitable for hymo pressures? What further method development is ongoing/needed? Now (for next RBMP) Longer term