1 / 37

Integrated Assessment of Water Bodies in Europe for Ecological Recovery

Addressing the ecological status and recovery of European water bodies, focusing on rivers, lakes, and transitional waters through common metrics and data analysis for effective management. Explore the impact of global change and disseminate findings.

palmisano
Download Presentation

Integrated Assessment of Water Bodies in Europe for Ecological Recovery

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. Water Bodies in Europe: Integrated Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Funded under FP7, Theme 6: Environment (including Climate Change) Contract No.: 226273 www.wiser.eu ECOSTAT meeting, March 30th, 2011

  2. 1 Management, coordination and reporting Rivers Rivers 6.1 Uncertainty 5.1 Effects of management and global change 6.2 Combination of organism groups Lakes Lakes 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 5.2 Effects of management and global change 2.1 Data service 2.2 Review 6.3 Cross water categories comparison Coastal/trans. Coastal/trans. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 6.4 Comparison of recovery processes 5.3 Effects of management and global change 7 Dissemination

  3. Contents • Common metric update • Report “How likely is a successful intercalibration?” • Progress in other workpackages • Final conference

  4. Contents • Common metric update • Report “How likely is a successful intercalibration?” • Progress in other workpackages • Final conference

  5. Common metrics on www.wiser.eu

  6. Phytoplankton in lakes • Common metric: • Phytoplankton Taxonomic Index (PTI) • FunctionalTraits Index (FTI) • Evenness • Cyanobacterialblooms • GIGs / types: Central-Baltic, Northern, Mediterranean • Stressor: Eutrophication • Data: WISER WP3.1 database – constituted from 4 GIG datasets (CB-GIG, EC-GIG, Med-GIG and N-GIG)

  7. Makrophytes in lakes • Common metric: • Maximum colonization depth • Taxonomic richness (total no of taxa, no of submerged taxa, no of functional groups) • No of charids and no of isoetids • Taxonomic composition metric • Ellenberg-Index • Water level fluctuations (relation of taxa sensitive and tolerant to water level fluctuations) • GIGs / types: CB-GIG, N-GIG • Stressor: Eutrophication, HyMo • Data: 16 countries, up to 2,000 lakes

  8. Benthic invertebrates in lakes • Common metric: Multimetric Index • Number of EPTCBO taxa • ASPT • % Odonata • % ETO • % Crustacea • % habitat preference lithal • GIGs / types: CB-GIG, AL-GIG • Stressor: Eutrophication • Data: 742 sampling sites in 196 lakes

  9. Fish in lakes • Common metric: • CPUE (number of fish caught per unit effort expressed in h.m2 of gillnets) • BPUE (biomass of fish caught per unit effort) • GIGs / types: N-GIG, CB-GIG, AL-GIG • Stressor: Eutrophication/general degradation • Data: Denmark 41, Estonia 21, Finland 77, France 27, Germany 69, Ireland 34, Italy 1, ROI/ NI 3, • Sweden 146 • Comments: Updated version with composition metrics in summer based on more data

  10. Common metrics on www.wiser.eu

  11. Phytoplankton in coastal waters • Common metric: (Size spectra) • GIGs / types: Med-GIG • Stressor: Eutrophication • Data: WISER field data • Comments: No common metrics in taxonomic composition identified – impact by salinity • and temperature always larger than by • nutrients.

  12. Macroalgae / angiosperms in TraC • Common metric: IC-Med Angiosperms • GIGs / types: Med-GIG • Stressor: Eutrophication • Data: France (PREI method) 36 sites, Spain (POMI method) 14 sites, Spain (CS method) 35 sites • Comments: Under development: - NEA macroalgae - NEA angiosperms - Baltic angiosperms - Med macroalgae

  13. Benthic invertebrates in TraC • Common metric: „Pseudo common metric“, i.e. metrics of all other relevant methods • GIGs / types: NEA, Med, Black Sea • Stressor: Eutrophication, general degradation • Data: WISER field data • Comments: IC is mainly tried with direct comparison. Approach most likely applicable also to other GIGs.

  14. Fish in transitional waters • Common metric: Transitional Water Fish Pseudo Common Metric • GIGs / types: NEA • Stressor: Correlation against 16 stress parameters • Data: Data from Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Netherland, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland • Comments: “Pseudo common metric”; IC is mainly tried with direct comparison.

  15. Contents • Common metric update • Report “How likely is a successful intercalibration?” • Progress in other workpackages • Final conference

  16. Aim • Scientific advice for the ongoing intercalibration exercise • To identify BQE/water type combinations where intercalibration will be difficult • If scientific knowledge is insufficient to develop WFD compliant biological assessment methods • If assessment methods are too different to be intercalibrated

  17. Procedure • Definition of criteria for identifying technical or scientific obstacles in intercalibration (WISER and DG Environment) • Questionnaire to relevant WISER partners • Summary by WISER coordinators

  18. Criteria • Insufficient scientific knowledge • The national and/or common metrics used for intercalibration have a poor dose-response relationship to the relevant human pressures. • Dataset is too small at present for the application of intercalibration options; an important part of the pressure gradient is missing. • Reference sites cannot be found, and benchmark sites are hard to define. • High degree of uncertainty • Assessment systems too different • Some national methods are based on too different assessment concepts or too different sampling methods. • The relation between common metric and national methods is too low. • Other criteria • Other BQEs show stronger dose-response relationship for the same pressure AND close correlation between the BQEs.

  19. Shortcomings • Different degrees of evidence supporting the statements • Gaps, as not all GIGs are covered by WISER work. • - EC-GIG and Med-GIG main gaps in case of lakes • - Lake phytobenthos not covered

  20. GIGs covered by WISER “advice to IC”

  21. GIGs covered by WISER “advice to IC”

  22. GIGs covered by WISER “advice to IC”

  23. EU = Eutrophication, HD = Habitat degradation, GD = General degradation Results for lakes no no evidence yes

  24. EU = Eutrophication, HD = Habitat degradation, GD = General degradation Results for transitional waters A M M no no evidence yes

  25. EU = Eutrophication, HD = Habitat degradation, GD = General degradation Results for coastal waters no no evidence yes

  26. Conclusions • No or only few obstacles for intercalibration: • Lake phytoplankton (N-GIG, CB-GIG, AL-GIG; EU) • Lake macrophytes (N-GIG, CB-GIG, Med-GIG, AL-GIG, EU/OP, HD) • Coastal water angiosperms (Mediterranean) • Coastal benthic invertebrates (NEA) • Transitional waters macroflora (Mediterranean) • Mixed picture: • Lake phytoplankton (Med-GIG, EC-GIG; EU) • Lake benthic invertebrates (N-GIG, CB-GIG, AL-GIG; EU/OP, HD) • Lake fish (N-GIG, CB-GIG, AL-GIG) • Transitional waters benthic invertebrates (all GIGs) • Transitional waters fish (NEA, Baltic) • Significant obstacles: • Lake fish (Mediterranean, EU/OP, GD) • Coastal water phytoplankton (Baltic, NEA, Black Sea) • Coastal angiosperms and macroalgae (Black Sea) • Transitional waters angiosperms (NEA) • Transitional waters macroalgae (NEA)

  27. Conclusions II • Cases not covered by WISER: IC likely not to be finalized in 2011; scientific obstacles can not be judged by WISER.

  28. Possible next steps • Filling the gaps, e.g. by contacting selected GIG coordinators • Validating the results, e.g. together with the GIG coordinators

  29. Contents • Common metric update • Report “How likely is a successful intercalibration?” • Progress in other workpackages • Final conference

  30. Update methods database

  31. Restoration flowcharts

  32. Uncertainty exercise • Lake phytoplankton May 2011 • Lake macrophytes April 2011 • Lake invertebrates Summer 2011 • Lake fish Summer 2011 • TraC phytoplankton Summer 2011 • TraC macroflora April to July 2011 • TraC invertebrates July 2011 • TraC fish May 2011

  33. Contents • Common metric update • Report “How likely is a successful intercalibration?” • Progress in other workpackages • Final conference

  34. WISER final conference • Aims: • To inform about the outcome of intercalibration • To inform about the status of assessment systems • To discuss experiences and strategies for restoration • To discuss the next steps of WFD implementation • Target group: • Environmental administration • River basin districts • Decision makers for future monitoring systems and river basin management plans

  35. WISER final conference: Arrangements • 25-26/1/2012 • Costs: ~ 300 € (incl. accommodation, meals, conference fees) • http://www.wiser.eu/news/final_conference

  36. WISER final conference, Day I • Overview of research needs after the end of WISER • Summary of ten years of intercalibration • State of the art assessment methods for lakes • State of the art assessment methods for TraC • Uncertainty in bioassessment • Combination of BQEs • Experiences from RBMPs • Future perspective of ecosystem assessment • Relation of WFD to other (marine) directives • Comparative analysis of BQEs and ecosystem types

  37. WISER final conference, Day II • Assessment/restoration in the US • State of the art in river restoration • State of the art lake restoration • State of the art coastal restoration • Comparing restoration success of different ecosystem types • Specific restoration case studies in light of changes in land use and climate

More Related