120 likes | 252 Views
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses. WISER method database - http://www.wiser.eu/results/method-database/. Method overview: Which human pressures are detected?. http://1.bp.blogspot.com.
E N D
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressuresIntroduction and overview of questionnaire responses
WISER method database - http://www.wiser.eu/results/method-database/
Method overview:Which human pressures are detected? http://1.bp.blogspot.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication Figure from Birk et al., 2012
Questionnaire on biological methods MS were asked to identify biological methods to detect the effects of hymo pressures for the four water categories Name of method Identify pressures to which the method responds Has the method been intercalibrated? Is the method included in the WISER methods overview? Additional information from intercalibration was considered for this presentation
9 MS provided information on biological methods: Rivers – 7 MS (AT. BE/W, DE. IT, NL, NO, SI) Lakes – 5 MS (AT, DE, NL, NO, SI) Coastal waters – 2 MS (ES, NL) Transitional waters – 3 MS (IT, NL) Questionnaire responses
Focus on invertebrates and fish; both hydrology and morphology pressures; multimetric indices responding to multiple pressures Methods intercalibrated, but not specifically for hymo Invertebrates mostly “general pressure” methods Only few methods specifically aimed at hymo (SI: SMEITH) Fish Response to hymo and other pressures well documented Not specifically targeted at hymo (but see AT - FIA) River methods
Focus on fish, benthic fauna, phytoplankton Fish fauna – AT, NL, NO IC: Validation only with expert judgement or other pressures Benthic fauna - DE, SI, NL IC: All 3 methods validated for HM pressures (sign pressure-response relationships with lake shore modification metrics and indices) Macrophytes - AT, NL, NO AT, NL – validation and IC only for eutrophication NO – new method for HM pressures Phytoplankton/ Phytobenthos NL – method validated/ IC only for eutrophciation Lake methods
Only 4 methods reported: Benthic fauna (2x), Macroalgae/Sea Grasses, Phytoplankton Benthic fauna (ES, NL) IC: validation with multipressure index Sea Grasses (NL) IC: response to hymo not specifically demonstrated Phytoplankton (ES) Residence time Coastal waters methods
Benthic fauna (ES, IT, NL) IC: validation with multipressure index Fish (ES, NL) IC: no specific information on response to hymo pressures (validation with multipressure index) Macroalgae / Sea Grasses (IT, NL) IC: response to hymo pressure not specifically demonstrated Transitional waters methods
Rivers – AT (Gisela Ofenboeck) Lakes – NO (Odd Terje Sandlund) Coastal/Transitional – ES (Angel Borja) Presentations:
Questions for session B – Biological Methods • Are current biological assessment methods appropriate to pick up hydromorphological alterations? • Has response to hymo pressures been demonstrated? If not, why not? • What features of method design make a biological method suitable or unsuitable for hymo pressures? • What further method development is ongoing/needed? • Now (for next RBMP) • Longer term