Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW"— Presentation transcript:

1 Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW
COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS INTERCALIBRATION VALIDATION WORKSHOP ISPRA 17 nov 2011 E. Van den Bergh (BE), Joao Neto (PT), Jose Juanes (ES), Robert Wilkes (IE)

2 1. Compliance of methods DE – EM (WISER ID 130): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Metrics: Abundance: SM extent compared to historical reference Taxonomic composition: Relative representation of SMzones compared to reference Combination rule:Mean NL – TSM (WISER ID 259, to be adapted): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Combination rule: One out All out UK – SM (under construction): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Abundance: Saltmarsh extent compared to historical reference Saltmarsh extent compared to intertidal Taxonomic composition: Number of zones compared to maximum Maximum zone area Number of species/zone compared to reference Combination rule: Weighted mean

3 1. Compliance of methods Abundance = extent
Calculation rule for abundance differs Disturbance sensitive taxa = vegetation zones Definition of zones differs Calculation rule for zonation differs No species information for NL-DE REFCOND: historical interpretation and expert judgement, no near natural sites UK adds species representation for taxonomic composition All methods comply

4 2. Feasability Biotypes:subtypological variants based on physical and chemical xtics

5 3 Data DE – EM 5 NWB 5 EQR NL – TSM 1 NWB 1 HMWB 2 years each 4 EQR
UK – SM 9 HMWB, 5 NWB SM extent + SM ZONES 5 HMWB 16 NWB SM extent only 14 EQR 21 EQR abundance only TOTAL 11 NWB + 10HMWB 23 Complete EQR

6 4 Pressures Method Pressure Remarks DE – EM Physical disturbance
hydro-morphological changes habitat loss Not tested NL - TSM UK - SM Tested

7 Common approach: Pressure Table for Saltmarsh(CW)
4 Pressures Common approach: Pressure Table for Saltmarsh(CW) Method Pressure category Pressure indicators Remarks DE – EM NL – TSM UK – SM Hydromorphological Land Claim Shoreline re-enforcement Hydromorphological risk assessment Resources use change Dredging area & volume Disposal area & volume Marina development Tourism & recreation

8 4 Pressure Indicators Hydromorpological pressure
Landclaim % intertidal Shoreline % reinforcement Dredge disposal area % subtidal Summed up as Total HMP Maximum value as Maximum HMP For UK only tested on surveillance sites with info on SM extent AND zonation (5wb)

9 4 Pressure EQR response

10 5 Assessment concept Method Assessment concept DE – EM NL – TSM
Extent of saltmarsh compared to historical reference relative extent of vegetation zones Vegetation mapping with aerial photos and ground truthing (GPS) UK-SM Same elements + species presence OPTION 2 Similar concepts Different measurements and metrics DATA Quality Classes covered across GIG, not at MS level

11 6 Common Metrics CM 1: SM extent as proportion of reference, truncated at 1 CM 2: H’ of 4 predefined vegetation zones: pioneer, low, mid, high marsh, normalised to values between 0 and 1 CM 3: (CM 1 + CM 2)/2

12 6 Common Metrics/ EQR response
Selection of CM3

13 6 Common Metrics Pressure response
40 Max pressure 60 Total pressure G/H Reasonable response to total and max hydromorphological pressure

14 7 REFCOND-BENCHMARK No unimpacted reference sites in DB
Defined Ref cond SM extent > 100% Ref H’ >3,75 Defined G-H boundary: SM extent is > 80% Ref Ref and H’>3,25 (nearly all zones present, no real dominance of one zone) Total pressure < 60%, max pressure < 40% Not sufficient alternative benchmark sites in dataset: one dummy added to DB for each MS: EQR=1; CM3=1

15

16 8 Boundary setting and adjustment
OPT 2 DIV UK-SM NL-TSM DE-EM Max 1,000 H/G 0,779 0,820 0,818 G/M 0,616 0,758 M/P 0,400 P/B 0,200

17 Common metric selection: the common metric combining a diversity and abundance metric was concluded not to be appropriate, since the abundance metric was taking into account different Member State views on the reference condition. 9 workshop conclusions CM3 combining diversity and abundance takes MS views on RC Take H’ instead; relationship with pressures still to be illustrated. Continuous benchmarking instead of dummy

18 Later remarks (W. Bonne)
H’ no good response to pressure Different appreciation between MS related to a national view or to existing differences in nature?

19

20 Way forward? Continue with a common metric by using the way of derivation how one Member State did it and apply this to all: already done The outcome of the calculation sheets probably reflects the good relation of a national view with the national view, IS SURFACE ACCEPTABLE AS MEASURE FOR ABUNDANCE?


Download ppt "Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google