1 / 50

ECOSTAT meeting, October 5 th , 2010

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, October 5 th , 2010. Contents. Progress of WISER Method database

reif
Download Presentation

ECOSTAT meeting, October 5 th , 2010

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, October 5th, 2010

  2. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  3. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  4. 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

  5. Degradation: lakes and coastal waters (modules 3 and 4) • Field work finalized • Databases mainly finished • Database tools available • Some draft common metrics available • Uncertainty estimation started • General data evaluation started Lakes 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 2.1 Data service 2.2 Review Coastal/trans. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

  6. Fieldwork coastal / transitional waters

  7. Fieldwork: Number of samples in database (for WP3.2 number of stations is given)

  8. Data flow Workpackage datasets Partners'datasets WP5.1 WP3.1 WP4.1 WP5.1 WP6.1 51-L-C Central database WP3.2 WP4.2 WP5.2 WP6.2 53-LR-C WP3.3 WP4.3 WP5.3 WP6.3 78-L-NC WP3.4 WP4.4 WP6.4 Newdata Meta-database Metadata for each dataset

  9. Data from existing sources 16,576 54,239 13,305

  10. Data evaluation: main tasks • Modules 3 (lakes) and 4 (coastal / transitional waters) • Develop or improve methods to assess ecological status • Support intercalibration • Estimate uncertainty of bioassessment methods

  11. Recovery (module 5) • Databases mainly finished • Conceptual models developed • Case studies selected and elaborated • Data evaluation started • Some tools already available Rivers 5.1 Effects of management and global change Lakes 5.2 Effects of management and global change Coastal/trans. 5.3 Effects of management and global change

  12. Conceptual models and literature databases

  13. LakeLoadResponse (LLR) – internet tool • http://lakestate.vyh.fi/cgi-bin/frontpage.cgi?kieli=ENG • TN model for Finnish data is functioning – more is under construction.

  14. Integration (Module 6) • Data sources identified • Conceptual models developed • Some tools generated • Data evaluation started 6.1 Uncertainty 6.2 Combination of organism groups 6.3 Cross water categories comparison 6.4 Comparison of recovery processes

  15. Sampling scheme for phytoplankton Sub-sample 1 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 2 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 3 (expert # 2) Sample 1 Station 1 (Deep point) Sample 2 Sub-sample 1 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 1 (expert # 2) Sub-sample 2 (expert # 2) Sub-sample 3 (expert # 1) Sample 1 Lake 1 Station 2 (Centre) Sample 2 Sub-sample 1 (expert # 2) Sub-sample 1 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 2 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 3 (expert # 2) Sample 1 Station 3 (Near outflow) Sample 2 Sub-sample 1 (expert # 1)

  16. Uncertainty estimation • Resulting from the WISER field data (replicate sampling programme) • Individual design for workpackages 3.1-4.4 (guided and discussed with WP6.1)

  17. WP6.4: Recovery processes

  18. Cooperation with GIGs and ECOSTAT • Cooperation with River Basin managers • General dissemination 7 Dissemination

  19. Dissemination • www.wiser.eu • 3 newsletters • 1 internal newsletter • > 60 presentations on stakeholder meetings

  20. www.wiser.eu • Google page rank: 5

  21. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  22. Method database • Questionnaire on biological assessment methods - joint activity of IC Steering Group and WISER (Part of the “Guidance on the Intercalibration Process 2008-2011”)

  23. Response to questionnaire • 278 Methods described, covering • 26 countries • 96 river methods • 78 lake methods • 107 coastal and transitional water methods • 65 plankton methods • 93 macrophyte / angiosperm / macroalgae methods • 79 invertebrate methods • 44 fish methods

  24. Method database

  25. Method database

  26. Method database

  27. Method database

  28. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  29. Means of WISER contribution to intercalibration • Method database • Common databases (and common personnel) with GIGs • Joint method development and method comparison with GIGs • Development of common metrics

  30. Mismatch of intercalibration and WISER schedules • Intercalibration: Decision of IC option and common metrics by April 2010 • WISER: Most assessment methods to be developed by February 2012 • Solution: All WISER workpackages suggest (draft) common metrics (or other suited methods) by 2010 • WISER will then continue to further • evaluate and refine these metrics

  31. Expected results for round 2 IC (lakes) Intercalibration finalized in 1st IC round Intercalibration to be finalized in 2nd IC round Intercalibration not finalized in 2nd IC round

  32. Expected results for round 2 IC (coastal) Intercalibration finalized in 1st IC round Intercalibration to be finalized in 2nd IC round Intercalibration not finalized in 2nd IC round

  33. Expected results for round 2 IC (transitional) Intercalibration finalized in 1st IC round Intercalibration to be finalized in 2nd IC round Intercalibration not finalized in 2nd IC round

  34. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Other databases • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  35. Harmonized documentation of common metrics

  36. Harmonized documentation of common metrics

  37. Status of common metric development: Lakes BQE Common metric selected GIGs covered Phytoplankton • Chlorophyll • Phytoplankton Taxonomic Index • Morpho-Functional Group index • Evenness • Cyanobacterial bloom metric All lake types (except alpine GIG) Macrophytes • Water level fluctuation metric • Maximum colonization depth • Taxonomic richness metric N-GIG, CB-GIG (EC-GIG, Med-GIG) Invertebrates • lbfICM (# EPTCBO taxa, ASPT, % Odaonata; % ETO, % Crustacea , % habitat preference lithal L-CB1 L-CB2 Fish • Catch per unit efford (number) • Biomass per unit efford • Number of omniv. per unit efford All GIGs, in particular N-GIG and CB-GIG

  38. Example: Lake phytoplankton • Countries participating: BE, BU, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, NO, PL, PO, RO, SE, UK • Underlying data: WISER WP3.1 database – constituted from 4 GIG datasets (CB, EC, M & N GIGs) • Software to calculate: Access / Excel tool unter preparation

  39. Example: Lake phytoplankton

  40. Example: Lake invertebrates • Countries participating: B, DK, EE, F, D, LI, LV, NE, P, UK • 742 sampling sites in 196 lakes • Specific software not available, metrics can be calculated with ASTERICS

  41. Schedule for refining common metrics (lakes) • Phytoplankton: Reviewed by the GIGs for finalization in October 2010 • Macrophytes: Draft report by end of October (to be circulated to the GIGs), final version in February • Invertebrates: Final version to be agreed on by all countries at the group meeting end of October • Fish: Common metric forms to be delivered by mid October

  42. Status of common metric development: Transitional waters BQE Common metrics / common methods selected GIGs covered Macroalgae, angiosperms • Furcellaria depth limit • Metrics under development • Community based metric (SPA) • No activities • Baltic-GIG • NEA-GIG • Med-GIG • Black Sea Invertebrates • “Common method”; comparison of several national assessment methods and other metrics NEA-GIG (may be also MED-GIG) Fish • “Common method”; comparison of several national assessment methods and other metrics NEA-GIG Grey: Development outside the WISER project

  43. Status of common metric development: Coastal waters BQE Common metrics / common methods selected GIGs covered Phytoplankton • Multi-metric index of size-spectra (P-ISS index) • Phytoplankton Surface Index (PSI) Baltic-GIG, NEA-GIG?Black Sea-GIG? Macroalgae, angiosperms • Total cover macroagae, Z. marina depth limit • Total cover macroalgae • Intercalibration common metric available • Development in progress • Baltic-GIG • NEA-GIG • Med-GIG • Black Sea Invertebrates • “Common method”; comparison of several national assessment methods and other metrics NEA-GIG (may be also MED-GIG) Grey: Development outside the WISER project

  44. Example: Invertebrates in coastal and transitional waters • No common metrics, but “common method” • Comparison of 8 national indices (representing 16 countries) • Relation to pressure gradients • Response of indices largely coherent, multimetric indices with stronger relation to degradation

  45. Contents • Progress of WISER • Method database • Other databases • Contribution to intercalibration: Summary • Common metrics • Next steps

  46. Next steps • Finalization of Central Database (merger of individual workpackage databases) • Development and refinement of assessment methods • Uncertainty estimation • Modelling the response of BQEs to restoration • Comparing the response of BQEs to degradation and restoration

More Related