Potential contribution of the STAR and AQEM projects to the Intercalibration process

1. Potential contribution of the STAR and AQEM projects to the Intercalibration process Andrea Buffagni, CNR - IRSA, Water Research Institute, Italy ECOSTAT and INTERCALIBRATION WG 2A, JRC- Ispra (I), 15-17 October 2003

2. STAndardisationofRiverClassifications:Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive WFD philosophy: to use all pertinent sources of environmental and ecological information to determine the Ecological Status of a waterbody TAXONOMIC GROUPS STUDIED IN STAR FISH RIVER CORRIDORS MACRO-INVERTEBRATES MACROPHYTES DIATOMS

3. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF STAR • Inter-calibration of European methodologies • Improved quality control throughout Europe • Better quantification of errors in Europe • Integration of multi-source ecological data • Complementarity and redundancy of data sources • Cost effective monitoring

4. INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS The STAR Project will assist the inter-calibration exercise in the following respects; • Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the standard protocol established in FP5 Project AQEM • Sampling workshops to compare faunal lists obtained and errors associated with six national sampling protocols • Audit of performance and analysis of sample variation associated with selected national protocols • The establishment of error models associated with the allocation of sites to classes of ecological status in a range of Member States

5. Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the STAR/AQEMprotocol EBEOSWA HOLLAND NORDIC SWEDEN STAR/AQEM RIVPACS GB IBE ITALY IBGN FRANCE Photo: Cécile Ardouin, WWF-France

6. Audit of performance Sampling variation Measurement errors Identification errors Sorting bias

7. STAR COUNTRIES SWEDEN UK DENMARK HOLLAND FRANCE CZECH REPUBLIC GERMANY CEN NAS COUNTRIES AUSTRIA PORTUGAL ITALY GREECE

8. CORE&ADDITIONAL SITE SAMPLING MACRO-INVERTEBRATES > 10 stream types > 180 sampling sites Two national protocols at most sites Two/Three seasons’ samples > 700 samples

10. STAR – Additional stream types

11. The Development and Testing of an Integrated Assessment System for the Ecological Quality of Streams and Rivers throughout Europe using Benthic Macroinvertebrates www.aqem.de

15. STAR - Data analysis What do we have to do?  Project Deliverables In the meantime, try to derive information/results for other (direct) uses  e.g. Intercalibration process A high number of STAR papers will be (presumably) published on a Hydrobiologia special issue In the end, the (extended) Deliverables might be combined in a Book (?) STAR data (spring season) will be available (into database) at the beginning of 2004

16. Invertebrates National and STAR/AQEM methods Comparison of results obtained with different macro-invertebrate sampling methods Comparison of taxa and metrics obtained with different macro-invertebrate calculation methods Comparison of efficiency of methods, metrics variability “Conversion formulae” from each method to the others Development of multimetric indices and validation. Common Metrics(for the Intercalibration process but not only): use only the metrics already selected by countries in the AQEM Project think about new metrics covering different situations to define the scales (whole Europe, stream types, etc.) Anyway  there are so many differences around Europe (e.g. for taxonomic identification, sampling, sorting, geographic) that no metrics will work well everywhere.

17. Development of error modules – including audits Sorting bias & Identification errors Replicate sampling What is the uncertainty associated to different multimetric systems and metrics. Type I and II errors Errors in general terms Sample effectiveness Small (minority) habitats (<5%) Intercalibration - Correlation analysis of Transboundaries indices (using regression analysis among neighbouring countries) - To intercalibrate boundaries (biological first, phisico-chemical later on) and final classification - Testing different methods to set boundaries, comparing different options, e.g. how to normalize, to cut classes, what gets 1, how to treat 0, equallly spaced classes, etc, - Matrices for class boundaries for National methods;

18. Comparing different BQEs 12.1 WHICH GROUP IS BEST SUITED FOR A CERTAIN STRESSOR IN A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC REGION ? 12.2 HOW ARE THE DIFFERENT ORGANISM GROUPS/METHODS AFFECTED BY TYPE I AND II ERRORS? 12.3 WHICH ORGANISM GROUP CAN BE USED ON WHICH SCALE? 12.4 WHICH ORGANISM GROUP IS SUITED FOR EARLY AND LATE WARNINGS? 12.5 HOW CAN INFORMATION DERIVED FROM DIFFERENT TAXONOMIC GROUPS AND HABITAT SURVEYS BE INTER-CALIBRATED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SITES? 12.6 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE MADE FOR THE USE OF GROUPS FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES 12.7 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE MADE FOR THE DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF CLASS BOUNDARIES

19. More into details for BQEs (Papers) Integrated assessment using multiple BQEs Development of error modules Variability in Diatom sampling Variability in Macrophytes sampling Variability in RHS sampling Type I and II errors Compare the responses of different BQEs, Testing typologies (only or mainly on REF sites), scale dependent (results at the Ecoregion level) Fish (see FAME Project) Differentiation of signal and noise Early and late warnings and the conceptual model

20. Proposed CEN standard/guidance Potential new guidance documents: - Guidance on the choice of biological indicators for assessing the ecological status of running waters - Guidance on scope and selection of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in rivers Potential new standard: - Multi Habitat Sampling (MHS) - Guidance on the design of multimetric indices Potential contribution (not as standards at the moment) - to the Guidance on Biological Boundaries (CEN 230124) - to standards related to Quality Assurance (CEN /WG2/TG1/N77, CEN 230165, CEN 230156 and a possible new standard on quality assurance of macroinvertebrate data collection and processing) - to the testing of a new scoring system for the assessment of Hydromorphological features of rivers (with lik to the BQEs)

21. Notes on possible (very pragmatic) procedures for the Intercalibration process based on AQEM and STAR databases(especially for Benthic Invertebrates) Example a) Intercalibration of two SIMILAR assessment methods applied to one stream type (German and Czech Saprobic system). For harmonised class boundaries, the intersections of the respective boundaries should be located on the regression line. Transboundaries indices

22. Example b) Intercalibration between class boundaries of DIFFERENT assessment methods used in different countries/stream types (based on AQEM/STAR or other available databases). In the example, calibrating IBE boundaries. Italian National Standard method to assess ecological quality of rivers: IBE (Indice Biotico Esteso) (Ghetti, 1997) Reference NON Reference

23. Italian National Standard chemical parameters supporting Biological Elements (DL 152/’99)

24. Italian National Standard method to assess the overall ‘river functioning’ of rivers: IFF (Indice di Funzionalità Fluviale) (Siligardi et al., 2000)

25. Example b)To intercalibrate boundaries/final classification BQE response to pressure(s) Mod. Good High

26. No significant differences between reference sites defined by AQEM (BAC) and IBE ref. sites; no differences for good status sites too Best Available Classification (AQEM project) National Standard Classification

27. Original boundaries After calibrating BAC Boundary ref-good sites=0.74; IBE=9.6 IBE National method classification calibrated against European Common Metrics: Boundaries refined (here shown with the original method scale)  National method is safe..!!

28. General considerations Links and info exchange between Intercalibration WG and STAR STAR results will presumably support a better CIS Intercalibration process, but since the end of 2004 Even, STAR database will not be available for STAR partners before February 2004 Should the Intercalibration WG ask STAR for specific topics/problems to be addressed soon (before the fixed deadlines of the project) to support a more effective comparison of sites for selected GIGs? If yes, how can the very strict WG deadlines can be transferred to the STAR partners (going to overlap to the already very strict project deadlines)? Or, is it possible to ask for readily (??) answerable questions (i.e not possible to restructure the project..)? Maybe one helpful option can be to split the work into each GIG and ask one STAR partner to assist with AQEM/STAR data for that GIG (e.g. I might be involved in the Med rivers, D on Central rivers, etc.); this might leave flexibility to the process and help in many cases. Any other suggestions?