1 / 44

Lake Intercalibration Results: Overview and Impact on Ecological Standards

This document outlines the current results and implications of the Lake Intercalibration process, including changes in geographical IC groups and proposed adjustments to boundaries and reference values for different lake types. Key topics include the classification of IC types, country participation, chl values, and Ecological Quality Ratios.

ccrossley
Download Presentation

Lake Intercalibration Results: Overview and Impact on Ecological Standards

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. Lake Intercalibration : Results Sandra PoikaneECJoint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and Sustainability

  2. Outline: • What results we have by now ? • Final outcome – Milestone 6 reports • Agreed in principle in July ECOSTAT meeting • Slight changes since July • How to use these results ? • Lake IC Results - IC Decision

  3. Atlantic GIG: • Agreed on G/M (following C/B approach) • Agreed to use ranges

  4. Alpine GIG: • Reference values added • EQR calculation modified

  5. Central/Baltic GIG: • Slight adjusting of G/M boundary • Agreed to use ranges

  6. Mediterranean GIG, Northern GIG : No substantial changes work on description of procedure

  7. Mediterranean GIG

  8. Mediterranean IC work • Based on the sites of IC register • 5 sites ( s.a. type) - 16 sites per type • Afraid that values are too stringent and too premature • PT – doesn’t agree to “siliceous arid” type • Should be taken as PROVISIONAL • In July it was decided to publish ! • To update as soon as possible ! • To publish the results, excluding PT • To publish the results, excluding “siliceous arid” type

  9. Outline: • What results we have by now ? • How to use these results ? • Lake IC Results - IC Decision

  10. DRAFT : Annex to IC Decision: • Description of IC types • Countries participated • Results • chl values • EQR

  11. Results: • Chl boundaries expressed in absolute values (mg/l): • Strict boundaries • Ranges of values

  12. Strict boundaries – Ranges of values Atlantic Northern Central/Baltic Alpine • Why ? • Geographical IC Groups - LARGE Nordic GIG - natural variability • Geographical conditions – bedrock, relief • Climate – ice cover, water T • Basic water chemistry Alpine GIG - geographical differences • in latitude (Northern vs Southern Alps) • differences between the Western and the Eastern Alps

  13. 4 -6 month ice coverage 1 day - 1 month ice coverage

  14. Strict boundaries – Ranges of valuesWhy ? • Common IC types – very broad • LCB1: • Depth 3-15 m, alkalinity > 1 meq/l • No background turbidity, residence time • Most Member states have several sub-types within the current common typology

  15. Germany : IC type = 5 subtypes

  16. Solution – range of values

  17. Advantage of range of values MS can use the range to set the most suitable boundaries for their national types LCB1 3.8 2.6 DE2 DE3 DE1

  18. GIG should provide guidelines: • Reason: why range is needed ? • Guidance - how lake characteristics determine the use of minimum or maximum values of the common type LCB1 3-15 m 3.8 2.6 deeper shallow

  19. Strict boundaries – Ranges of values Proposal : • To include range of values • GIG provide explanation + guidelines • Because GIG and IC types are broad • Member states can adjust their national types to Common IC types

  20. Annex to IC Decision: • Includes IC types • Countries participated • Results • chl values • EQR • Include or not include ? • How to calculate ?

  21. Range of values + EQR

  22. Range of values + EQR • Range of reference values • + fixed EQR • MS set ref value • MS calculate boundaries using EQRs • = ensure the same deviation from reference conditions for all types and all MS

  23. Range of reference values + fixed type specific EQR

  24. Different EQR approaches • REFCOND approach: • EQR = reference value / boundary value • For example 3 / 6 = 0.5 • H/G – 0.5 G/M – 0.3 • Problems - different metrics within the BQE with different EQR scales

  25. Example – Phytoplankton 3 metrics in 1 BQE • Transformation approach: • to hold the same EQR scale for each parameter

  26. Transformed to get equidistant boundaries Logarithmic equations Needed for averaging with other parameters within the same BQE Transformation approach: to hold the same EQR scale for each parameter

  27. EQR - Alp, Med GIG approach To calculate a regression between EQR boundaries and biovolume boundaries

  28. Proposal: • To include EQRs (?) • Use Refcond procedure (dividing) • To discuss “transformed EQR” in Lake IC meeting

  29. Annex to IC Decision: Description of IC types Countries participated Countries participated Results chl values EQR

  30. IC types • Changes in IC types all GIGs (deleted, merged, split, specified) • especially ATL, MED, NORD • Initially 19 – now 16 • These types better describe the reality (hopefully)

  31. Annex to IC Decision: Includes IC types Countries participated Results chl values EQR

  32. Participation: Country – GIG – Lake IC type • Seemed trivial and obvious :

  33. Participation: Country – GIG – Lake IC type • Tables included in Milestone 6 report • Alp and Atl – all participated • C/B, North, Med – lots of blank cells and question marks • Why ? What does it mean ?

  34. We just don’t have data for this lake type Country has not delivered data Probably we don’t have this lake type This type is not relevant ……… no answers Actually I am not sure,,, Our typology doesn’t fit We don't agree to the results

  35. Problems • Some countries – marginal in the IC • Do we have this type ? • I think our lakes are different • These issues should be solved 5 years ago ! • Communication IC experts – ECOSTAT members • Country participation – MS common opinion • Common types vs national types • Common types should be broader • It`s not global tragedy • It`s an issue possible to solve

  36. Alpine GIG - scheme - how common types - national types Common IC lake type L AL-3

  37. Countries provide to the GIGs their national types GIGs make “compliance table” as the Alp GIG We need to get consensus: How GIG types comply to MS types Otherwise endless dicussions “this type is not relevant” Compliance GIG - MS types Proposal:

  38. Proposal : To agree between IC experts, ECOSTAT members, GIG To do this as soon as possible !

  39. Annex to IC Decision: 3. Do we agree to new IC types ? Do we agree to make GIG – MS type comparison ? • Description of IC types • Countries participated 3. Results • chl values • EQR 4. How we define “participation of country” ? IC lake type L AL-3 1.Do we agree include ranges of chl values ? 2. Do we agree to include EQR values (Refcond way) ?

  40. Lake Intercalibration Meting • 26-27 October, Barza, Italy • 4 sessions Future plans and comparability The last possibility to join sandra.poikane@jrc.it

  41. Thank you !

More Related