1 / 33

Lakes

Lakes. Evaluation of the metadata for the draft intercalibration register. WG 2A ECOSTAT - 15-17 October 2003. Lakes by quality class and country. Country Number of sites HG GM Total AT 15 - 15 BE - 5 5 CY 2 2 4 DE 16 8 24 EE 6 6 12

wallacecharles
Télécharger la présentation

Lakes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lakes Evaluation of the metadata for the draft intercalibration register WG 2A ECOSTAT - 15-17 October 2003

  2. Lakes by quality class and country Country Number of sites HG GM Total AT 15 - 15 BE - 5 5 CY 2 2 4 DE 16 8 24 EE 6 6 12 ES 2 20 22 FR 2 3 5 GB 15 17 32 IE 13 11 24 LT 2 2 4 LV 4 2 6 NL 3 3 6 N0 17 29 46 PL 17 8 25 PT 8 7 15 SE* 8 6 14 SI 1 1 2 • 14 October 17 countries had submitted sites: 10 MS, 6 CC and NO • 130 sites at the class boundary HG • 126 sites at the class boundary GM • A total of 256 lakes registered

  3. Northern/ Nordic Lakescommon intercalibration types In blue sites declared by lake experts in sequence of the meeting of 18-19 September 2003 • An additional type may be included at request of UK to accommodate deep lakes either siliceous or low alkalinity

  4. Northern/ Nordic LakesPressures • 3 types impacted by eutrophication; 3 types with sites impacted by eutrophication and other by acidification, 1 type impacted by acidification • There are no confounding pressures • 3 types (L-N3a), L-N5 and L-N6) have sufficient number of sites/ pressures

  5. Northern/ Nordic LakesBiological elements and Boundaries • Scarce biological data for agreed elements: • Phytoplankton data available for eutrophied sites, in some of these sites also macrophyte data • Invertebrates and fish available for acidified sites • Assessment methods are mostly comparable • Comparability of the class boundaries to be seen but GIG is optimistic in coming to a common view – methodologies are similar and based on reference conditions

  6. Northern/ Nordic LakesRecommendations • Collect more data for missing sites for types/ boundaries and missing biological elements • Further analysis is need to evaluate comparability of data sets • If not comparable then there should be agreement on common sampling methods before new data is collected

  7. Atlantic Lakes common intercalibration type NEW *Portugal will not be able to contribute to the 2 types initially identified

  8. Atlantic Lakes • It is not yet clear: • if Portugal and Spain have intentions to participate in the GIG • If Portuguese and Spanish types are comparable with those of IE and UK • There are possible new sites for types L-A1 and A2 from Northern Ireland

  9. Atlantic LakesPressures • There are no confounding pressures • The one type shared is impacted by different pressures in IE and UK • Number of sites per class boundary is even but only few sites

  10. Atlantic LakesBiological elements • Different methods IE and UK: • Phytoplankton identified to species and genus for IE sites; one UK site with phytoplankton data (abundance and bloom occurrence) • Benthic invertebrates both IE and UK but identified to species and genus in IE and to genus in UK • Macrophyte for IE and UK, identified to species • No fish data

  11. Atlantic LakesClass boundaries • Sites selected based on reference conditions: • IE reference sites • UK modeling background concentration for P and expert judgment of the invertebrates • Comparability of HG and GM needs further checking • Good possibilities to come to a common view

  12. Atlantic LakesRecommendations Due to non-comparability and gaps of sites in GIG: • Collection of additional data on biological and supporting quality elements according to an agreed methodology • New data collection to start no later than 2005

  13. Baltic Lakes common intercalibration type

  14. Baltic Lakes • Should the Baltic GIG be maintained? • PL is considering to move all Baltic lakes to the Central GIG; at the time there were only few sites • As the GIG is now comparability is low: • differences in size and mixing type of sites now in types L-B4 and L-B5 • Alkalinity and colour are not known in several lakes • It is evaluated that there may be no need for a separate Baltic GIG; all proposed Baltic types would fit the Central lake types if a extra type is added for Lobelia lakes

  15. Baltic LakesPressures and Biological elements • Eutrophication proposed to be the only pressure • Phytoplankton, N, P and BOD the quality elements for comparison • Phytoplankton is available for all sites • If the Baltic GIG will merge with the Central GIG macrophyte data should be needed, at the moment is only available for LT and EE sites

  16. Central Lakes common intercalibration type *Only stratified lakes ** L-C8 was proposed to accommodate Baltic region Lobelia dominated lakes *** In blue the latest selections, including lakes selected for the Baltic GIG

  17. Central LakesPressures • L-C2 and L-C6 have sufficient number of sites for eutrophication • No sites for acidification – to be excluded • Hydromorphological pressures may be confounding, there are some heavily modified lakes amongst selected UK and NL sites

  18. Central LakesBiological elements • Data availability is country dependent: • UK - phytoplankton composition, some chl-a, few with macrophyte taxa lists • Germany - partly data on macrophytes • DK - some lakes with macrophytes • Comparability of methods poor, chl-a most likely useful metric, followed by macrophyte lists

  19. Central LakesBoundaries • Currently no possibility of a common view of the boundaries • MS in GIG would be prepared to work informally to compare possible boundary conditions • Reference conditions determined differently in all the GIG countries

  20. Central LakesRecommendations • Need to agree on the IC process before recommend additional data collection • Need to agree on common minimum datasets for each agreed biological element • Agree on sampling methods and taxonomic levels • Agree on a common yard stick (chl-a the mostly likely metric) • Helpful to have a common set of supporting chemical and hydromorphological parameters

  21. Alpine Lakes common intercalibration type NEW • * Type L-Al4 could be refined to include only stratified and polymitic lakes • In blue sites declared by the lake experts in sequence of the meeting of the 18-19 September 2003 but not submitted yet to the metadata base

  22. Alpine LakesPressures • L-AL3 and L-AL4 have a sufficient number of sites for the selected pressures; LAL8 is probably affected by different pressures in IT and ES • If macrophytes are to be used in the assessment of ecological status shore destruction will possible be a confounding pressure • Another possible confounding pressure is invasion by alien species • No need for new pressures

  23. Alpine LakesBiological elements • All countries use same metrics for phytoplankton but sampling techniques are different and there is concern over comparability • Macrophyte measured in AT,DE and SL but not always comparable • WFD compatible assessment methods in development in AT, DE and ES

  24. Alpine LakesBoundaries • No general agreement: • Some sites have high ecological status (AT) • Some countries submitted sites for the range from high to moderate ecological status (DE) • Some submitted sites in the class boundaries (ES) • Some could not evaluate based in reference conditions (IT) • Currently no possibility for a common view of boundaries

  25. Alpine LakesRecommendations • Important to agree on common sampling methods, analytical methods, taxonomic level, metrics for biological and physical-chemical elements • Probable that the GIG will be able to agree on a common phytoplankton data set

  26. Mediterranean Lakes common intercalibration type NEW

  27. Mediterranean LakesPressures • L-M5, L-M7 and L-M8 impacted by eutrophication but too few sites • No acidified sites - to be excluded • There may be confounding pressures: input of raw sewage, alien fish • Other pressures may be consider in the future

  28. Mediterranean LakesBiological elements • All countries in GIG have data on phytoplankton – composition and chl-a or only chl-a • No data for macrophytes, invertebrates or fish • No concern over comparability • WFD compliant assessment methods for phytoplankton in development

  29. Mediterranean LakesClass boundaries • Reference conditions were not considered in the classification • Confidence in identification of class boundary GM • It is though to be possible to achieve a GIG common view of the class boundaries

  30. Mediterranean LakesRecommendations • Strong recommendation for collection of a common data set for phytoplankton • Development of guidance on common sampling methods • Data collection dependent on availability of external funding

  31. Conclusions (1) • Most GIG’s a few types have a sufficient number of sites shared at least by two countries • Comparability of sites within types seem good, except Baltic GIG • Eutrophication is the main pressure not always well represented • There is lack of data and harmonisation of data collection for the for the biological elements

  32. Conclusions (2) • Sites represent MS views of the class boundaries or a quality range from High to Moderate • In some GIG it will be impossible to achieve a common view within the time to of the register • Additional funding would be necessary to proceed with collection of a common data set for IC

  33. Thank you!

More Related