1 / 18

Confidence rating of eutrophication assessment in the open Baltic Sea- a case study

Confidence rating of eutrophication assessment in the open Baltic Sea- a case study. CONFIRM-workshop, Copenhagen 6.3.2009 Hermanni Kaartokallio (Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen, Anna Villnäs, Alf Norkko). Background.

selene
Download Presentation

Confidence rating of eutrophication assessment in the open Baltic Sea- a case study

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. Confidence rating of eutrophication assessment in the open Baltic Sea- a case study CONFIRM-workshop, Copenhagen 6.3.2009 Hermanni Kaartokallio (Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen, Anna Villnäs, Alf Norkko)

  2. Background • Eutrophication assessment confidence rating presented here is mainly related to the first HELCOM thematic eutophication assessment of the Baltic Sea. • The work has been carried out in the Finnish Institute of Marine Research (SYKE Marine Centre as of 1.1.2009).

  3. Outline of the study • 7 Baltic sea open sub-basins: Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, Gulf of Finland, Northern Baltic Proper, Eastern Gotland Basin, Bornholm Sea, Arkona Sea. • Multiple indicators for cat. I, II and III eutrophication effects.

  4. Outline of the study • Status/confidence rating for three quality elements in northern sub-basins, two quality elements for central/southern sub-basins • Confidence rating for reference conditions, boundary setting (acceptable deviation) and actual status

  5. Indicators included • QE Plankton/Causative factors • Summer (Jun-Sep) surface chlorophyll-a • QE Invertebrate benthic fauna/Indirect effects • Average number of taxa • QE Physico-chemical features/Other possible effects • Summer (Jun-Sep) secchi depth • Winter (Dec-Feb) surface dissolved nutrients (NO2+NO3, PO4)

  6. Principles in confidence rating • Reference conditions and actual status: • Spatial and temporal representativeness of data • Time difference between oldest data and reference period/method used in reference setting • Boundary setting • Availability of information on functional relations between pressures and indicator responses • Specificity for eutrophication effects

  7. Chlorophyll-a: indicator outline • HELCOM COMBINE (at ICES) and FIMR summer (Jun-Sep) surface data • Four sub-basins (BoB, BoS, GoF, NBP) • RefCon: historical data/trend extrapolation back to 1940s, comparison to model results • AcDev: Normative maximum (50%) applied • AcStat: mean of summer observations 2001-2006

  8. Chlorophyll-a: Confidence rating • RefCon: Class II • Time gap between reference • period and oldest data • AcDev: Class II • Normative maximum AcDev used • AcStat: Class I • Representative data for open basins, • spatially corresponds the oldest data • No weighting • (only indicator in QE) Red= RefCon, Green=AcStat

  9. Average no. of BIF taxa: Indicator outline • Gamma diversity of BIF (basin scale) • All seven sub-basins (BoB, BoS, GoF, NBP, EGB, BS, AS) • FIMR data (>100 stations, 1964-2006)+ additional swedish data for BS and AS

  10. Average no. of BIF taxa: Indicator outline • RefCon: 10 % maximum from 1964-2006 data, (stations >40 m deep, an/hypoxia excluded) • AcDev: Relative standard deviation/year (limited to < 40%), reflect natural fluctuations. • AcStat: mean of 2001-2006 data/sub-basin

  11. Average no. of BIF taxa: RefCon/AcDev

  12. Average no. of BIF taxa: Confidence rating • RefCon: Class I/II • Data reliability (single source, • uniform methods, sufficient coverage) • AcDev: Class II • Direct eutrophication effect not fully • distinguishable, lack of data in south • AcStat: Class I/II • Spatial representativeness of • data (class II in EGB, BS and AS) • Weighting • 67/33% in EGB with areal contribution of S and C parts Red= RefCon, Green=AcStat

  13. Secchi depth: Indicator outline • HELCOM COMBINE (at ICES) and FIMR summer (Jun-Sep) data + additional data • All seven sub-basins • RefCon: median of historical data from 1903-1907 • AcDev: Normative maximum (-25%) applied, for some basins also functional relations known • AcStat: mean of summer observations 2001-2006

  14. Secchi depth: Confidence rating • RefCon: Class I • Sufficient historical data available • AcDev: Class I/II • Class I for N basins with an analysis • of secchi/chl-a functional relations • AcStat: Class I • Seasonally and spatially representative • data for open basins • Weighting • Equal weighting based on number of indicators in QE, except in BoB, where weighting of 40% (of three indicators) Red= RefCon, Green=AcStat

  15. HEAT vs. OSPAR COMP • Identical results both for status and confidence rating, except status classification in Bothnian Bay, due to QE ”physico-chemical features/other effects” • Confidence rating Class II for all areas except Arkona Sea (Class III)

  16. Summary of the results: HEAT

  17. Summary of the results: OSPAR COMP

  18. Conclusions • The study presents an example how different indicator features can be utilized in confidence rating. • Relatively simple, robust indicator features can be used in confidence rating. • Confidence rating with HEAT tool as a feasible and effective way to evaluate and display eutrophication assessment quality.

More Related