intercalibrating the national classifications of ... -...
TRANSCRIPT
EUR 29334 EN
Frauke Ecke, Marit Mjelde,
Jukka Aroviita
Edited by Sandra Poikane
2018
Intercalibrating the national classifications of
ecological status for Northern rivers
Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes
JRC112698
EUR 29334 EN
PDF ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/484237
Print ISBN 978-92-79-92964-9 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/973926
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
© European Union, 2018
The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised,
provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The
European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or
reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from
the copyright holders.
All content © European Union, 2018
How to cite: ECKE F, MJELDE M, AROVIITA J, POIKANE S, Intercalibrating the national classifications of
ecological status for Northern rivers: Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes, EUR 29334 EN, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6, doi:10.2760/484237, JRC112698
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication.
EU Science Hub
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
1
CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................... 2
1. Description of national assessment methods .................................................... 3
2. IC Feasibility checking .................................................................................. 8
3. Collection of IC dataset ............................................................................... 10
4. Common benchmark or reference conditions .................................................. 11
5. Comparison of methods and boundaries ........................................................ 12
6. Description of reference or alternative benchmark communities ....................... 13
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 14
References .................................................................................................... 14
List of tables .................................................................................................. 15
List of figures ................................................................................................. 15
Appendix I .................................................................................................... 16
Appendix II. .................................................................................................. 18
2
Abstract
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications
of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this
exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are
harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of
the national assessment methods.
Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing
on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures
and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises were carried out in
Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member
States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the
WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration
process (European Commission, 2011).
The Technical reports are organized in volumes according to the water category
(rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and
Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the
Northern River GIG Macrophyte ecological assessment methods.
Three countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) participated in the intercalibration exercise
and harmonised their river macrophyte systems. The results were approved by the
WG ECOSTAT and included in the EC Decision on intercalibration (European
Commission, 2018).
3
1. DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODS
In the beginning of the intercalibration, no national assessment methods were finalised
yet (Table 1).
Table 1. Overview of the national assessment methods.
MS Method
Sweden No national assessment method, yet. However, the Norwegian trophic index (TIc) originally developed for lakes will be tested
Norway No national assessment method, yet. However, the Norwegian trophic index (TIc) originally developed for lakes will be tested
Finland No national assessment method, yet. However, preliminary assessment metrics have been tested (O/E, BC, AB) nationally. The Tic index will be tested within as
part of this NGIG IC work
Overview of the macrophyte metrics included in the national assessment methods at present are shown in Table 2. Norway is testing the TIC – index, developed for lakes (Penning et al. 2008), however with separate lists of sensitive and tolerant macrophyte species for rivers. The index is calculated by using the number of sensitive and tolerant species along a Tot-P gradient according to the formula:
100
N
NNTI TS
c
,
where TIc is the trophic index, Ns is the number of sensitive species, Nt is the number of tolerant
species and N is the total number of species. The list of sensitive and tolerant macrophyte taxa
is presented in Appendix I.
For Finland, testing of preliminary metrics (O/E-taxa ratio, BC-index, AB-index) have been done
and described in Rääpysjärvi et al. (2016).
Table 2. Overview of the metrics included in the national assessment methods.
Member
State Full BQE method
Composition# Abundance
Disturbance sensitive
taxa
Diversity Biomass
Taxa indicative
of pollution
Combina-tion rule of
metrics
SE * - - - - - - - -
NO * MP
Species composition
index based on
presence/absence of
taxa
Not included yes yes
FI * MP O/E-taxa, BC, AB
AB takes into
account
relative
abundance
O/E-taxa
O/E-
taxa,
BC
yes,
indirectly
by AB
O/E-
taxa, BC,
AB
not
decided
* None of the countries has an official assessment method. Overview of sampling methods is given in Table 3a and 3b.
4
Table 3a. Overview of the sampling and data processing of the national assessment methods. *
Information as provided in the online WISER project assessment method
questionnaires
Sweden** Norway Finland
- Sampling/survey device Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope
- How many sampling/survey occasions (in time) are required to allow for ecological quality classification of survey site or area?
Once per RBMP period. Once per RBMP period. Once per RBMP period.
- Sampling/survey months June-September July – mid September Late June - August.
- Which method is used to select the sampling /survey site or area?
Topographic, pressure and land use information is used to select a representative monitoring site within the water body.
Selection based on expert judgement, depending on the purpose, up- and downstream river branches, pollution sites, etc.
Pressure and land use information is used to select a representative monitoring site within the water body.
- How many spatial replicates per sampling/ survey occasion are required to allow for ecological quality classification of sampling/ survey site or area?
One site per river stretch, number of sites per river depends on the river
One site per river stretch, number of sites per river depends on the river length. Focus on slow to medium flow sites (fine substrate)
One spatial replicate which consists of a pool section and a riffle section within a water body.
- Total sampled area or volume, or total surveyed area, or total sampling duration on which ecological quality classification of sampling/survey site or area is based
200 m per waterbody,
divided into eight 25 m sections.
Random belt transect, 20-
50 m along the shore, and as deep as possible by wading and depending on width of stream. No fixed plots. Mostly medium-large rivers, only one side of the river are surveyed.
At each site a 100 m riffle
and 100 m adjacent pool section are surveyed. Each section is divided into five 20 m subsections (see below for details).
- Short description of field sampling/survey procedure and processing (sub-sampling)
Macrophytes include vascular plants and bryophytes growing under water or above the water surface on rocks in the stream channel. In each waterbody a stretch of in total 200 m is sampled divided into eight 25 m sections. The abundance of the species is recorded at a five-graded scale (1-5) representing classes of percentage cover. The 25 m sections are either continuously located after each other or with an interdistance of up to 100 m.
Each river site is visited once between July and September. The plants are recorded using an aqua scope and rake. The abundance of the species is scored by a semi-quantitative scale (1-5). (In some earlier surveys only presence and absence data are available). The macrophytes are identified to species level. All true aquatic macrophytes, belonging to the life form groups isoetids, elodeids, nymphaeids, lemnids & charophytes, are included. Some macrophyte species can occur in both helophyte and true aquatic forms, e.g. Juncus bulbosus, Sagittaria sagittifolia and
Macrophytes include vascular plants with underwater roots and bryophytes growing under water or above the water surface on rocks in the stream channel. At each site a 100 m riffle and 100 m adjacent pool section are surveyed. If only either habitat is present then a 200 m section of that habitat is surveyed. Each section is divided into five 20 m subsections, where abundance and frequency of macrophyte species are visually estimated. Abundance of vascular plants is estimated by percent coverage in one square meter of a typical stand of each species,
5
Information as provided in the online WISER project assessment method questionnaires
Sweden** Norway Finland
Hippuris vulgaris. These are also included in the analyses. Helophytes (emergent aquatic plants) are excluded completely from the analyses, so are aquatic bryophytes and filamentous algae.
and their frequency by dividing the subsection to 100 equally-sized quadrats and then counting the number of quadrats in which the species is observed. Abundance of bryophyte species is estimated as percentage coverage at two 1x2 m plots within each 20 m subsection placed at 10 m intervals starting at 5 m distance from the lower edge of
the section. The frequency of bryophyte species is counted as the number of plots where the species occurs. The taxa are identified to species level, with the exception of some sterile shoots e. g. from Sparganium and Callitriche genera.
Reference - Mjelde & Edvardsen 2013. Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunnsrapport. NIVA-Report 6505-2013 (in Norwegian).
Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016. Meissner, et al. 2016.
* More details on sampling methods and procedures is given in Table 3b.
** Sweden has not yet decided on an official sampling and processing method, yet. All information given is preliminary.
6
Table 3b. Summary table on description of field sampling methods. Descriptor Sweden* Norway Finland
Sites
Number of sites per river
1 Some-many 1
No. of stretches per site
1 1 2
Flow type (slow, medium, fast)
Slow, medium & fast
Slow & medium Slow & fast
Length of stretch (m) 100/200 20-50 100
Transects (Y/N) Yes (25 cm wide) Yes (belt) Yes (belt)
No. of transects per stretch
Depends on width of stream/-
Several random 5
Width of transects (m)
Depends on width of stream/-
Depends on width of stream
Depends on width of stream
Number of plots 100/No plots are used
No plots are used 10 in fast-flowing (only mosses)
Plot size (cm) 25 x 25 No plots are used 100x200 (only for mosses)
Both sides of the streams included (Y/N)
Yes (mostly) No. If narrow river, both sides might be sampled
Yes
Wading (W)/snorkeling (S)/boat (B)
W, B W (B) W (S)
Survey device Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope
Survey period June-September July – mid September
Late June-August
Biological data
Vascular plants (only hydrophytes) (Y/N)
Yes Yes Yes
Bryophytes Yes (Yes) occasionally Yes
Helophytes Yes (Yes) occasionally Yes
Filamentous algae Yes No Yes
Vegetation data
Presence/absence Yes Yes Yes
Abundance or frequency per species
Calculating frequency per stretch in the office/abundance
Semi-quantitative (1-5)
Abundance & frequency per transect
Other information
Habitat description Yes (Yes) Yes, including HYMO
Substrate Yes Yes Yes
Information on discharge
Modelled by SMHI No (only available for whole river)
Part of HYMO
Approved as official method
Approved, but to be revised
Not yet Yes
Comment Too time consuming. Many species are overlooked/new suggested method
Reference Naturvårdsverket 2003. Handbok för miljöövervakning. Undersökningstyp:
Makrofyter i vattendrag.
Mjelde & Edvardsen 2013.
Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016 Meissner, et al. 2016.
* Information before “/” relates to sampling method that was used for parts of the Swedish dataset according to the reference given above. Information given after “/” relates to the new suggested method
7
Table 4. Overview of the methodologies used to derive the reference conditions for the national
assessment methods.
Member
State
Type and period of reference or
alternative benchmark conditions
Number of reference or
benchmark sites
Location of reference/bench
mark sites
Reference criteria used for selection of reference or benchmark sites
SE 2010-2013 45 Sweden
Reference benchmark stream selection done
based on pressure and stressor data (land use, water quality, hydro-morphological
quality). <10 % agricultural area, no invasive species (according to VISS), urban
area <1 %.
NO 1959-2013 145 Mostly in Southern Norway
Includes sites with <5% agriculture (in upstream catchment area). Heavily acidified
sites and sites with tot P > 10 µg/l are excluded
FI 2009-2013 49 Finland
Reference benchmark stream selection done based on pressure and stressor data (land use, water quality, hydro-morphological quality). In peatland and mineral land
streams benchmark sites have agriculture < 10 % of the upstream catchment. In streams draining clayish catchments benchmark sites
have agriculture< 15 %.
Table 5. Explanations for national boundary setting of the national methods.
Member
State
Type of boundary setting: Expert judgment – statistical – ecological discontinuity – or mixed for different boundaries?
Specific approach for HG boundary
Specific approach for GM boundary
BSP: method tested against
pressure
SE No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
-
NO No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
FI No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
No boundaries existed before IC was started
Table 6. List of the WFD compliance criteria and the WFD compliance checking process and
results of the national methods included in the IC exercise
Compliance criteria Compliance checking conclusions
8
1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad).
Yes
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure)
Yes
3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance)?
Yes (Taxonomic composition and abundance)
4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT?
Yes
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions?
Yes; R-N3 and R-N9 were merged due to insufficient amount of data.
6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs?
Yes
7. Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time?
Yes
8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure?
Yes
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification?
Yes
Conclusion on compliance checking: WFD-Compliance is achieved.
2. IC FEASIBILITY CHECKING
Intercalibration was carried out for two common river types (Table 7).
Table 7. Description of common intercalibration water body types
Common IC type Type characteristics MS sharing IC common type
R-N3 Small/medium lowland organic
SE, NO, FI
R-N9 Small – medium mid-altitude siliceous low
alkalinity organic (humic)
SE, NO, FI
TIc was used as common metric since none of the MSs has an official national assessment
method and no other known metric worked for the common dataset. Tic is appropriate for IC
types R-N3 & R-N9.
Classification of reference streams according to factors not affected by human activity (latitude,
catchment size, flow, latitude, longitude) were tested, but the outcome was of limited value.
Therefore, the established typology groups (R-N3 and R-N9) were chosen for IC.
Table 8. Pressures addressed by the national methods included in the IC exercise and
overview of the relationship between national methods and the pressures.
Member
State
Method/ Metrics tested
Pressure Pressure indicators
Amount of data Strength of relationship
9
SE, NO,
FI TIc
Agricultural land-use/Eutrophication
Tot-P
N = 84 – combined dataset
SE: N = 5 NO: N = 22 FI: N = 57
r2 = 0.399 for common dataset
SE: r2 = 0.309 NO: r2 = 0.420 FI: r2 = 0.336
Figure 1. Relationship between the metric TIc and Tot-P (log10). Regression formulas: Sweden: TIc = 93.799-63.2012*x, Norway: TIc = 114.3807-59.3223*x, Finland: TIc = 99.5425-79.9352*x. The vertical line indicates a reference threshold for Tot-P = 12.5 g l-1,
corresponding to TIc = SE: 24.47, NO: 49.31, FI: 11.86. The reference threshold for the Tot-P was estimated based on the visually identified sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of
macrophyte species along the Tot-P gradient (see chapter Comparability Criteria).
Conclusion: The relationship is strong. However, the levels of TIc at the reference Tot-P = 12.5
g l-1 (see Fig. 1 and chapter Comparability Criteria) differ considerably and systematically
among MSs, likely due to biogeographical differences. At reference Tot-P values, Norway shows
on average the highest TIc (49.31), Finland on average the lowest (11.86) and Sweden
intermediate TIc values (24.47). Therefore, we conducted the benchmark standardisation for
reference conditions. Hence, class boundaries can be established based on the relationship
between the metric and the pressure.
10
Table 9. Assessment concepts used by the national methods included in the IC exercise
Method Assessment concept Remarks
TIc All MSs intercalibrate using the same metric.
The trophic index TIc is calculated as:
With NT = number of sensitive species, NT = number of tolerant species and N = number of total species. Sensitive species: 75th percentile less than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P, Tolerant species: 75th percentile more than 20 and 25th percentile more than10 µg l-1 Tot-P, Indifferent species: 75th percentile more than20 µg l-1 Tot-P and 25th percentile less than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P.
Conclusion: Intercalibration is feasible in terms of assessment concepts as all MS follow the same approach by using the same metric, i.e. the trophic index TIc.
3. COLLECTION OF IC DATASET
Table 10. Overview of the number of sites/samples/data values. Number of
intercalibrated sites are given, total number of sites are given in parentheses.
Member State Number of sites or samples or data values
Biological data Physico- chemical data Pressure data
SE 5 (121) 5 (121) 5 (121)
NO 22 (310) 22 (310) 22 (310)
FI 57 (129) 57 (129) 57 (129)
Table 11. Overview of the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control.
Data acceptance criteria Data acceptance checking
Data requirements (obligatory and optional) Only data according to the field methods described above were included.
The sampling and analytical methodology If data from multiple samplings (years) were available, only the most recently sampled data were included in the
analysis. For the Finnish sites, riffle and pool sections were combined to one section. Sweden did not distinguish between riffles and pools. Norway didn’t sample riffles.
Level of taxonomic precision required and
taxa lists with codes
Only taxa at the species level included. For IC, only
hydrophytes incl. charophytes but excl. bryophytes were
used. However, for identification of sudden drops also bryophytes and helophytes were used.
The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type
Nine (R-N9). R-N3 included 74 sites.
Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type
For IC, sufficient data were available to identify the HG and GM boundary, but not boundaries of MP and PB.
-
𝑇𝐼𝐶 = 𝑁𝑆 − 𝑁𝑇
𝑁 × 100
11
4. COMMON BENCHMARK OR REFERENCE CONDITIONS
In section 1 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be included on the derivation of reference conditions for the national methods. In section 3 the checking procedure and derivation of reference conditions or the alternative benchmark at the scale of the common IC type has to be explained to ensure the comparability within the GIG.
-
Benchmark standardization serves to homogenize the EQR results of common datasets where needed, minimising typological and methodological differences between the Member states which may otherwise influence the comparability of their classifications. For each MS, the median TIc was calculated using the benchmark sites that met the agreed pressure criteria (Tot-P ≤ 12.5 g l-1 ): SE: TIcMedian = 33.3, NO: TIcMedian = 63.3, FI: TIcMedian =
25.0.
The benchmarked EQRTIc was then calculated as: EQRTIc = 𝑇𝐼𝑐𝑀𝑆+100
𝑇𝐼𝑐𝑀𝑆,𝑀𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛+100 ,
where TIcMS is the observed TIc calculated from the common dataset and TIcMS, Median = the median TIc value calculated for each MS.
In the next step, we plotted the benchmarked EQRTIc against Tot-P (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Relationship between the benchmarked EQR TIc and Tot-P (log10).
Since no national assessment methods were established for FI, NO and SE before IC started, the relationship between the benchmark EQR TIc and Tot-P (y = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x; Figure 2), together with commonly agreed class boundaries, was used for the intercalibration. The class boundaries were set based on visually identified sudden drops of frequency occurrence of individual species along the Tot-P gradient (see chapter Comparability Criteria).
12
5. COMPARISON OF METHODS AND BOUNDARIES
Option 3 was chosen since benchmark standardization had to be performed and boundary values had to be back-calculated for each MS from the benchmarked EQR TIc using the following formula: TIc = (EQRTIc (TIcMs, Median + 100)) – 100.
Table 12. Correlation coefficient (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each method with the common metric (see Annex V of IC guidance).
Member State/Method rs p
- - * - *
* Not applicable since common metric was used and none of the MSs has a national assessment
method. Assessing level of boundary bias: No national boundaries were available during IC. Bias for class boundary setting of TIc was reduced by applying visually identifiable sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of certain macrophyte taxa (sensitive and tolerant) along Tot-P gradient.
Assessing class agreement: Two main groups of sudden drops were identified (see Figure 3 for some examples; see also Appendix II):
Figure 3. Sudden drop in the frequency occurrence of four example macrophyte species along Tot-P gradient. See Appendix II for histograms of all species that showed visually identifiable sudden drops.
13
Group I: Species showing sudden drops at Tot-P of ca. 12.5 µg l-1: Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia vulgaris, Isoëtes echinospora, I. lacustris, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Lobelia dortmanna, Nitella opaca, Eleocharis acicularis, Callitriche palustris, C. hamulata, Subularia aquatica, Ranunculus reptans, R. peltatus, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Juncus bulbosus. 12.5
µg l-1: was agreed as common threshold for the IC work for minimally impacted benchmark (reference) sites (i.e. H/G boundary). Group II: Species showing sudden drops at Tot-P of 35-40.0 µg P l-1: Calla palustris, Fissidens pusillus, Dichelyma falcatum, Potamogeton natans, Scapania undulata. 40 µg P l-1 was agreed as common threshold for the IC work for G/M boundary. Finland has also identified 40 µg P l-1
as nutrient criteria boundary for G/M in naturally humic rivers (Aroviita et al. 2012). Applying the thresholds 12.5 µg P l-1 (H/G) and 40.0 µg P l-1 (G/M), we first calculated the corresponding benchmarked EQR TIc-values using the regression model from Figure 2:
The H/G boundary (12.5 µg P l-1; log10 = 1.0969) corresponds to EQR TIc = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x = 0.889. The G/M boundary (40.0 µg P l-1; log10 = 1.6020) corresponds to EQR TIc = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x = 0.610. The back-calculated boundary TIc values for each MS were then calculated according to:
TIc = (EQRTIc (TIcMs, Median + 100)) – 100
H/G: TIcSE = (0.889 (33.3 + 100)) – 100 = 18.50
TIcNO = (0.889 (63.3 + 100)) – 100 = 45.17
TIcFI = (0.889 (25.0 + 100)) – 100 = 11.13
G/M: TIcSE = (0.610 (33.3 + 100)) – 100 = -18.69
TIcNO = (0.610 (63.3 + 100)) – 100 = -0.39
TIcFI = (0.610 (25.0 + 100)) – 100 = -23.75.
6. DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE OR ALTERNATIVE BENCHMARK
COMMUNITIES
Description of the biological communities at reference sites or at the alternative benchmark,
considering potential biogeographical differences:
Reference communities are characterized by species representing Group I: Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia vulgaris, Isoëtes echinospora, I. lacustris, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Lobelia dortmanna, Nitella opaca, Eleocharis acicularis, Callitriche palustris, C. hamulata, Subularia aquatica, Ranunculus reptans, R. peltatus, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Juncus bulbosus. However, not all species occur frequently in all MSs.
Description of IC type-specific biological communities representing the “borderline”
conditions between good and moderate ecological status, considering possible biogeographical
differences :
14
Communities at the GM border include rarely Group I species, can include some Group II species,
but also include Group III species (Calla palustris, Fissidens pusillus, Dichelyma falcatum, Potamogeton natans, Scapania undulata).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Final results are presented at Table 13.
Table 13. Overview of the IC results for the national methods included in the IC exercise.
Member state
National classification system intercalibrated
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Ecological Quality Ratios
SE-NO-FI Not valid since no national classification
system was established prior to start of IC 0.889 * 0.610 *
Corresponding TIc-values
SE 18.50 -18.69
NO 45.17 -0.39
FI 11.13 -23.75
* Figure 2 shows the regression equation used to calculated the EQRs.
REFERENCES
Meissner, K., et al. 2016. Biological monitoring of rivers and lakes in Finland – from sampling to data base (Jokien ja järvien biologinen seuranta – näytteenotosta tiedon tallentamiseen). in Finnish (http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Pintavesien_tila/Pintavesien_tilan_seuranta/Biologisten_seurantamenetelmien_ohjeet)
Naturvårdsverket 2003. Handbok för miljöövervakning. Undersökningstyp: Makrofyter i
vattendrag.
Mjelde, M. & Edvardsen, H. 2013. Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunns-rapport. NIVA-Report 6505-2013 (in Norwegian).
Penning, W. E., Mjelde, M., Dudley, B., Hellsten, S., Hanganu, J., Kolada, A., van den Berg, M., Maemets, H., Poikane, S., Phillips, G., Willby, N., & Ecke, F., 2008. Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquatic Ecology 42:237-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y
Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016. Macrophytes in boreal streams: Characterizing and predicting native occurrence and abundance to assess human impact. Ecological Indicators 64: 309–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.014
15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of the national assessment methods.
Table 2. Overview of the metrics included in the national assessment methods.
Table 3a. Overview of the sampling and data processing of the national assessment
methods.
Table 3b. Summary table on description of field sampling methods.
Table 4. Overview of the methodologies used to derive the reference conditions for the
national assessment methods.
Table 5. Explanations for national boundary setting of the national methods.
Table 6. List of the WFD compliance criteria and the WFD compliance checking process
and results of the national methods included in the IC exercise
Table 7. Descriptio of common intercalibration water body types
Table 8. Pressures addressed by the national methods included in the IC exercise and
overview of the relationship between national methods and the pressures.
Table 9. Assessment concepts used by the national methods included in the IC exercise
Table 10. Overview of the number of sites/samples/data values. Number of
intercalibrated sites are given, total number of sites are given in parentheses.
Table 11. Overview of the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control.
Table 12. Correlation coefficient (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each
method with the common metric (see Annex V of IC guidance).
Table 13. Overview of the IC results for the national methods included in the IC
exercise.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Relationship between the metric TIc and Tot-P (log10).
Figure 2. Relationship between the benchmarked EQR TIc and Tot-P (log10).
16
APPENDIX I
Classification of macrophyte species into sensitive, indifferent and tolerant and
species, respectively.
Sensitive species: 75th percentile less than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P. Tolerant species: 75th percentile more than 20 and 25th percentile more than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P. Indifferent species: 75th percentile more than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P and 25th percentile less than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P.
Sensitive species Indifferent species Tolerant species
Callitriche hamulata (CALL HAM)
Callitriche copocarpa (CALL COP)
Ceratophyllum demersum (CERA DEM)
C. hermaphroditica (CALL HER) C. stagnalis (CALL STA) Sparganium emersum x natans (EMERxNAT)
C. palustris (CALL PAL)
Hippuris vulgaris (HIPP
VUL)
Hydrocharus morsus-ranae (HYDR
MOR)
Crassula aquatica (CRAS AQU) Myriophyllum sibiricum (MYRI SIB) Lemna minor (LEMN MIN)
Elatine hydropiper (ELAT HYD) Nymphaea alba (NYMP ALB) Lythrum portula (LYTH POR)
Elodea canadensis (ELOD CAN) Potamogeton alpinus (POTA ALP) Nupha lutea (NUPH LUT)
Eleocharis acicularis (ELEO ACI) P. berchtoldii (POTA BER) Nymphaea tetragona (NYMP TET)
Isoetes echinospora (ISOE ECH) P. natans (POTA NAT) Persicaria amphibia (PERS AMP)
I. lacustris (ISOE LAC) Sagittaria sagittifolia (SAGI SFO) Sparganium emersum (SPAR EME)
Juncus bulbosus (JUNC BUL) Sparganium natans (SPAR NAT) Spirodela polyrhiza (SPIR POL)
Limosella aquatica (LIMO AQU)
Littorella uniflora (LITT UNI)
Lobelia dortmanna (LOBE DOR)
1
10
100
1000
ISO
E LA
CU
TRI M
INIS
OE
ECH
JUN
C B
UL
LOB
E D
OR
PO
TA P
OL
RA
NU
TR
IC
ALL
HER
LITT
UN
IU
TRI O
CH
UTR
I IN
TSP
AR
AN
GSU
BU
AQ
UN
ITE
OP
AR
AN
U A
QU
CA
LL H
AM
MYR
I ALT
RA
NU
RP
TP
OTA
GR
AEL
EO A
CI
ELO
D C
AN
RA
NU
PEL
CA
LL P
AL
ELA
T H
YDC
RA
S A
QU
LIM
O A
QU
UTR
I VU
LP
OTA
PER
PO
TA A
LPP
OTA
BER
HIP
P V
UL
SPA
R N
AT
PO
TA N
AT
CA
LL S
TAN
YMP
ALB
CA
LL C
OP
MYR
I SIB
SAG
I SFO
SPA
R E
ME
PER
S A
MP
LYTH
PO
RN
UP
H L
UT
CER
A D
EMN
YMP
TET
EMER
xNA
TH
YDR
MO
RLE
MN
MIN
SPIR
PO
L
tota
l P
17
Myriophyllum alterniflorum (MYRI ALT)
Nitella opaca (NITE OPA) Potamogeton gramineus (POTA GRA)
P. perfoliatus (POTA PER) P. polygonifolius (POTA POL) Ranunculus aquatilis (RANU AQU)
R. peltatus (RANU PEL) R. reptans (RANU RPT) R. trichophyllus (RANU TRI)
Sparganium angustifolium (SPAR ANG) Subularia aquatica (SUBU AQU) Utricularia intermedia (UTRI
INT) U. minor (UTRI MIN) U. ochroleuca (UTRI OCH) U. vulgaris (UTRI VUL)
18
APPENDIX II.
Sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of river macrophytes along the Tot-
P gradient. Only species with at least 30 observations were included.
Histogram of Calla palustris
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Calla palustris
0%
2%
5%
7%
10%
12%
14%
17%
Perc
ent of obs
Histogram of Fissidens pusillus
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Fissidens pusillus
0%
3%
7%
10%
14%
17%
20%
24%
Perc
en
t o
f ob
s
19
Histogram of Schistidium alpicola/agassizii
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Schistidium alpicola/agassizii
0%
3%
5%
8%
11%
13%
16%
18%
21%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Utricularia intermedia
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Utricularia intermedia
0%
9%
18%
27%
36%
45%
54%
63%
71%
80%
Perc
en
t o
f ob
s
20
Histogram of Isoetes echinospora
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Isoetes echinospora
0%
15%
31%
46%
61%
76%
92%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Isoetes lacustris
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Isoetes lacustris
0%
14%
29%
43%
58%
72%
87%
Perc
ent of obs
21
Histogram of Menyanthes trifoliata
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Menyanthes trifoliata
0%
3%
5%
8%
11%
13%
16%
19%
21%
24%
27%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Dichelyma falcatum
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Dichelyma falcatum
0%
2%
4%
7%
9%
11%
13%
15%
18%
20%
Perc
ent of obs
22
Histogram of Utricularia vulgaris
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Utricularia vulgaris
0%
11%
22%
33%
43%
54%
65%P
erc
en
t o
f ob
s
Histogram of Potamogeton perfoliatus
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Potamogeton perfoliatus
0%
8%
15%
23%
30%
38%
45%
53%
Perc
en
t o
f ob
s
23
Histogram of Potamogeton natans
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Potamogeton natans
0%
2%
5%
7%
9%
12%
14%
16%
19%
21%P
erc
en
t o
f ob
s
Histogram of Potamogeton gramineus
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Potamogeton gramineus
0%
9%
17%
26%
34%
43%
52%
Perc
en
t o
f ob
s
24
Histogram of Lobelia dortmanna
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Lobelia dortmanna
0%
9%
18%
26%
35%
44%
53%
61%
70%
79%
88%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Nitella opaca
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Nitella opaca
0%
13%
25%
38%
51%
63%
76%
89%
Perc
ent of obs
25
Histogram of Eleocharis acicularis
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Eleocharis acicularis
0%
6%
12%
19%
25%
31%
37%
43%
49%
56%
62%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Callitriche palustris
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Callitriche palustris
0%
9%
18%
27%
36%
45%
55%
Perc
ent of obs
26
Histogram of Subuluria aquatica
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Subuluria aquatica
0%
9%
19%
28%
37%
46%
56%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Scapania undulata
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Scapania undulata
0%
3%
5%
8%
11%
13%
16%
19%
Perc
ent of obs
27
Histogram of Ranunculus reptans
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Ranunculus reptans
0%
9%
17%
26%
34%
43%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Ranunculus peltatus
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Ranunculus peltatus
0%
6%
13%
19%
26%
32%
39%
45%
52%
58%
Perc
ent of obs
28
Histogram of Juncus bulbosus
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Juncus bulbosus
0%
7%
15%
22%
29%
37%
44%
51%
59%
66%
74%
81%P
erc
ent of obs
Histogram of Callitriche hamulata
N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c
510
1520
2530
3540
4550
5560
6570
7580
8590
95100
105110
115120
125130
135140
145150
155160
165170
175180
Callitriche hamulata
0%
10%
20%
31%
41%
51%
Perc
ent of obs
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
- by electronic mail via:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at:https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop
at:https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (seehttps://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en).
KJ-N
A-2
9334-E
N-N
doi:10.2760/484237
ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6