330 likes | 355 Views
Lakes. Evaluation of the metadata for the draft intercalibration register. WG 2A ECOSTAT - 15-17 October 2003. Lakes by quality class and country. Country Number of sites HG GM Total AT 15 - 15 BE - 5 5 CY 2 2 4 DE 16 8 24 EE 6 6 12
E N D
Lakes Evaluation of the metadata for the draft intercalibration register WG 2A ECOSTAT - 15-17 October 2003
Lakes by quality class and country Country Number of sites HG GM Total AT 15 - 15 BE - 5 5 CY 2 2 4 DE 16 8 24 EE 6 6 12 ES 2 20 22 FR 2 3 5 GB 15 17 32 IE 13 11 24 LT 2 2 4 LV 4 2 6 NL 3 3 6 N0 17 29 46 PL 17 8 25 PT 8 7 15 SE* 8 6 14 SI 1 1 2 • 14 October 17 countries had submitted sites: 10 MS, 6 CC and NO • 130 sites at the class boundary HG • 126 sites at the class boundary GM • A total of 256 lakes registered
Northern/ Nordic Lakescommon intercalibration types In blue sites declared by lake experts in sequence of the meeting of 18-19 September 2003 • An additional type may be included at request of UK to accommodate deep lakes either siliceous or low alkalinity
Northern/ Nordic LakesPressures • 3 types impacted by eutrophication; 3 types with sites impacted by eutrophication and other by acidification, 1 type impacted by acidification • There are no confounding pressures • 3 types (L-N3a), L-N5 and L-N6) have sufficient number of sites/ pressures
Northern/ Nordic LakesBiological elements and Boundaries • Scarce biological data for agreed elements: • Phytoplankton data available for eutrophied sites, in some of these sites also macrophyte data • Invertebrates and fish available for acidified sites • Assessment methods are mostly comparable • Comparability of the class boundaries to be seen but GIG is optimistic in coming to a common view – methodologies are similar and based on reference conditions
Northern/ Nordic LakesRecommendations • Collect more data for missing sites for types/ boundaries and missing biological elements • Further analysis is need to evaluate comparability of data sets • If not comparable then there should be agreement on common sampling methods before new data is collected
Atlantic Lakes common intercalibration type NEW *Portugal will not be able to contribute to the 2 types initially identified
Atlantic Lakes • It is not yet clear: • if Portugal and Spain have intentions to participate in the GIG • If Portuguese and Spanish types are comparable with those of IE and UK • There are possible new sites for types L-A1 and A2 from Northern Ireland
Atlantic LakesPressures • There are no confounding pressures • The one type shared is impacted by different pressures in IE and UK • Number of sites per class boundary is even but only few sites
Atlantic LakesBiological elements • Different methods IE and UK: • Phytoplankton identified to species and genus for IE sites; one UK site with phytoplankton data (abundance and bloom occurrence) • Benthic invertebrates both IE and UK but identified to species and genus in IE and to genus in UK • Macrophyte for IE and UK, identified to species • No fish data
Atlantic LakesClass boundaries • Sites selected based on reference conditions: • IE reference sites • UK modeling background concentration for P and expert judgment of the invertebrates • Comparability of HG and GM needs further checking • Good possibilities to come to a common view
Atlantic LakesRecommendations Due to non-comparability and gaps of sites in GIG: • Collection of additional data on biological and supporting quality elements according to an agreed methodology • New data collection to start no later than 2005
Baltic Lakes • Should the Baltic GIG be maintained? • PL is considering to move all Baltic lakes to the Central GIG; at the time there were only few sites • As the GIG is now comparability is low: • differences in size and mixing type of sites now in types L-B4 and L-B5 • Alkalinity and colour are not known in several lakes • It is evaluated that there may be no need for a separate Baltic GIG; all proposed Baltic types would fit the Central lake types if a extra type is added for Lobelia lakes
Baltic LakesPressures and Biological elements • Eutrophication proposed to be the only pressure • Phytoplankton, N, P and BOD the quality elements for comparison • Phytoplankton is available for all sites • If the Baltic GIG will merge with the Central GIG macrophyte data should be needed, at the moment is only available for LT and EE sites
Central Lakes common intercalibration type *Only stratified lakes ** L-C8 was proposed to accommodate Baltic region Lobelia dominated lakes *** In blue the latest selections, including lakes selected for the Baltic GIG
Central LakesPressures • L-C2 and L-C6 have sufficient number of sites for eutrophication • No sites for acidification – to be excluded • Hydromorphological pressures may be confounding, there are some heavily modified lakes amongst selected UK and NL sites
Central LakesBiological elements • Data availability is country dependent: • UK - phytoplankton composition, some chl-a, few with macrophyte taxa lists • Germany - partly data on macrophytes • DK - some lakes with macrophytes • Comparability of methods poor, chl-a most likely useful metric, followed by macrophyte lists
Central LakesBoundaries • Currently no possibility of a common view of the boundaries • MS in GIG would be prepared to work informally to compare possible boundary conditions • Reference conditions determined differently in all the GIG countries
Central LakesRecommendations • Need to agree on the IC process before recommend additional data collection • Need to agree on common minimum datasets for each agreed biological element • Agree on sampling methods and taxonomic levels • Agree on a common yard stick (chl-a the mostly likely metric) • Helpful to have a common set of supporting chemical and hydromorphological parameters
Alpine Lakes common intercalibration type NEW • * Type L-Al4 could be refined to include only stratified and polymitic lakes • In blue sites declared by the lake experts in sequence of the meeting of the 18-19 September 2003 but not submitted yet to the metadata base
Alpine LakesPressures • L-AL3 and L-AL4 have a sufficient number of sites for the selected pressures; LAL8 is probably affected by different pressures in IT and ES • If macrophytes are to be used in the assessment of ecological status shore destruction will possible be a confounding pressure • Another possible confounding pressure is invasion by alien species • No need for new pressures
Alpine LakesBiological elements • All countries use same metrics for phytoplankton but sampling techniques are different and there is concern over comparability • Macrophyte measured in AT,DE and SL but not always comparable • WFD compatible assessment methods in development in AT, DE and ES
Alpine LakesBoundaries • No general agreement: • Some sites have high ecological status (AT) • Some countries submitted sites for the range from high to moderate ecological status (DE) • Some submitted sites in the class boundaries (ES) • Some could not evaluate based in reference conditions (IT) • Currently no possibility for a common view of boundaries
Alpine LakesRecommendations • Important to agree on common sampling methods, analytical methods, taxonomic level, metrics for biological and physical-chemical elements • Probable that the GIG will be able to agree on a common phytoplankton data set
Mediterranean LakesPressures • L-M5, L-M7 and L-M8 impacted by eutrophication but too few sites • No acidified sites - to be excluded • There may be confounding pressures: input of raw sewage, alien fish • Other pressures may be consider in the future
Mediterranean LakesBiological elements • All countries in GIG have data on phytoplankton – composition and chl-a or only chl-a • No data for macrophytes, invertebrates or fish • No concern over comparability • WFD compliant assessment methods for phytoplankton in development
Mediterranean LakesClass boundaries • Reference conditions were not considered in the classification • Confidence in identification of class boundary GM • It is though to be possible to achieve a GIG common view of the class boundaries
Mediterranean LakesRecommendations • Strong recommendation for collection of a common data set for phytoplankton • Development of guidance on common sampling methods • Data collection dependent on availability of external funding
Conclusions (1) • Most GIG’s a few types have a sufficient number of sites shared at least by two countries • Comparability of sites within types seem good, except Baltic GIG • Eutrophication is the main pressure not always well represented • There is lack of data and harmonisation of data collection for the for the biological elements
Conclusions (2) • Sites represent MS views of the class boundaries or a quality range from High to Moderate • In some GIG it will be impossible to achieve a common view within the time to of the register • Additional funding would be necessary to proceed with collection of a common data set for IC