Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Intercalibration 2nd round
River Fish IC Results Coordination Cemagref (France) Didier Pont Olivier Delaigue
2
25 Participants / Member States
Austria Belgium-Wallonia Belgium-Flanders Czech Republic Denmark England-Wales Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Netherland Northern Ireland Norway Portugal Romania Scotland Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden 2nd Round (2008 – 2011) 4th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Ispra, Italy Apr 2008 5th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Sharfling, Austria Nov 2008 6th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Dublin, Ireland May 2009 7th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Edimburg, Scotland Oct 2009 Technical River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Dusseldorf, Germany Jan 2010 Technical River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Paris, France Apr 2010 8th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Langenargen, Germany Jun 2010 9th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Bratislava, Slovakia Feb 2011 10th River-Fish Intercalibration Meeting Ljubljana, Slovenia May 2011
3
18 national methods compliant with the WFD
4
Regional Groups Common Methodology Common database
Common Reference conditions - Common metrics computation (Cemagref) - IC Feasilibity Check & Harmonisation (Cemagref) Common database Environm. variables Pressure types - Fish data - Common metrics - National methods 4515 sites Discussion Agreements INTERCALIBRATION General meetings Regional Groups Definition Harmonisation procedure
5
5 Regional groups 4515 sites Nordic Mediterranean FI IR SC ES PT GR
N-IR SE NO 5 Regional groups Mediterranean ES PT GR “Danubian” RO CZ SVK Lowland Midland NL DE LT BE-F BE-W FR ENG-W DN ES LV LX Alpine-type Mountains AT DE FR SI 4515 sites AT BF BW CZ DE DK ES ET EW FI FR GR IR LT LU LV NI NL NO PT RO SC SE SI SK
6
LIST OF PRESSURES – REFERENCE CONDITION CRITERIA
7
589 reference sites (green)
used for all EQR computation: Only sites classified as undisturbed AND national reference sites 589 reference sites (green)
8
Common metrics Derived from EFI+ project results
Modelling procedure: standardisation of « natural environment » Reference sites Functional Metric ~ Natural Environment Residual Impacted sites Functional Metric ~ Natural Environment Pressure impact + Residual LOWLAND-MIDLAND(except BE-FL) , NORDIC and DANUBIAN GROUPS - Abundance of Oxygen Intolerant species - Richness of Reproductive rheophilic habitat species MEDITERRANEAN GROUP - Richness (relative) of Reproductive rheophilic habitat species - Density (relative) of Lithophilic species ALPINE GROUP: No common metrics
9
Comparison of reference conditions between all national methods
BF BW CZ DE ES FI FR IR LT NL PT RO SC SE SI SK 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Reference sites per national method Common metrics in EQR
10
Common metrics: responses to global pressure index
1.0 0.8 Common metrics in EQR 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1-high 2-good 3-moderate 4-poor 5-bad Global Pressure index
11
Common metrics in EQR Common metric responses to pressures
Water quality alteration Impoundment Channelisation 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Common metrics in EQR 1-no 2-low 4-high 1-no 2-low 4-high 1-no 2-low 4-high 3-medium 3-medium Water Abstraction Instream habitat alteration Riparian Vegetation alteration 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1-no 2-low 4-high 1-no 2-low 4-high 1-no 2-low 4-high 3-medium 3-medium 3-medium Pressure intensity
12
OPTION 2 HARMONISATION PROCEDURE LOWLAND MIDLAND
Common metrics OPTION 2 H_G_fit NL_index LT_LFI_index H/G FR_FBI_index DE_FIBs_index BW_IBIP_index G_M_fit NL_index LT_LFI_index FR_FBI_index G/M DE_FIBs_index BW_IBIP_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mean class agreement:
13
HARMONISATION PROCEDURE LOWLAND MIDLAND (Case of BE-Flanders)
Pseudo-common metrics OPTION 3a H_G_fit NL_index LT_LFI_index H/G FR_FBI_index DE_FIBs_index BW_IBIP_index BF_IBI_index G_M_fit NL_index LT_LFI_index FR_FBI_index G/M DE_FIBs_index BW_IBIP_index BF_IBI_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
14
Case of England-Wales method
correlation too low with other methods and with common metrics no reference sites Next steps ( from England-Wales) A detailed analysis of the outputs based on data from England and Wales will be undertaken to determine the reasons behind the poor correlations observed. If necessary, FCS2 will be further developed to resolve these issues, after which we will again attempt to intercalibrate. If, however, it is concluded that the model is performing correctly, we will submit a report to ECOSTAT explaining the position and justifying our decision to continue with the original model. We plan to complete both options by the end of 2011, but will provide a more detailed response for the next (final) milestone report in October.
15
OPTION 2 (only 3 methods) HARMONISATION PROCEDURE DANUBIAN
Common metrics OPTION 2 (only 3 methods) H_G_fit SK_FIS_index RO_EFIplus_index H/G RO_EFIplus_index CZ_index G_M_fit SK_FIS_index RO_EFIplus_index G/M RO_EFIplus_index CZ_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mean class agreement:
16
OPTION 3a HARMONISATION PROCEDURE ALPINE Mean class agreement: 0.785
Common metrics OPTION 3a H_G_fit SI_SIFAIR_index FR_FBI_index H/G DE_FIBs_index AT_FIA_index G_M_fit SI_SIFAIR_index FR_FBI_index G/M DE_FIBs_index AT_FIA_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mean class agreement:
17
OPTION 2 HARMONISATION PROCEDURE NORDIC Mean class agreement: 0.792
Common metrics OPTION 2 H_G_fit SE_VIX_index SC_FCS2_index IR_FCS2_index FI_FIFI_index H/G FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index G_M_fit SE_VIX_index SC_FCS2_index IR_FCS2_index FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index G/M FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index FI_FIFI_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mean class agreement:
18
OPTION 2 HARMONISATION PROCEDURE MEDITERRANEAN
Common metrics OPTION 2 H_G_fit PT_F_IBIP_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index G_M_fit PT_F_IBIP_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index ES_IBIMED_index 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mean class agreement:
19
HARMONISATION PROCEDURE MEDITERRANEAN
Justification related to the class agreement criterion When applying 2a Option at regional level, the class agreement was over 1 while all other feasibility criteria were met, possibly resulting from the intercalibration sites being located within regions corresponding to two geographical extremes of the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean region of Eastern Spain, and the westernmost region represented by Portugal. a value only slightly below 0.5 of correlation found between the two indices.
20
Results approved by all countries (except Sweden, waiting till end 2011)
Large rivers: not included (few sites with upstream drainage area over 10,000 km²) A priori: same national methods for main channel of large rivers (same sampling methods and fish communities than for medium size rivers) - national methods not tested in general for floodplain water bodies Other countries / Methods improved in the future recent contacts with Poland, Italy new methods / upgrade : e.g. France, Eng-Wale, … In general option 2 used Datebase available for future IC work Possibility to compute common metrics for new sites (R script) R scripts available to harmonise methods (options 2 and 3a)
Similar presentations
