Intercalibrating macrophytes in the CentralBaltic region results of
Intercalibrating macrophytes in the Central-Baltic region results of first round of intercalibration and way forward (2008 -2011)
Where are we now (after round 1) ? Species composition: we have set up of common database, intercalibration of methods using option 3 • • Spring 2008: Decision by EC to include results as ad interim result (BE, GE, UK, NL, LV, EE; LCB 1, LCB 2) Comparability was demonstrated based on how precautionary methods are, however differences in classifications of individual lakes were still considered large • Improvement can be achieved by extension with use of additional common indicators this would bring results closer together •
common database
Comparability: the way forward. . . • agreement beforehand on desired level of comparability at QE level • more indicators to be included –. . . inclusion of classification based on maximum colonised depth Zmax ( values based on chf-a boundaries Annex C of Milestone 6 report, September 2006 can be point of departure) – phytobenthos & still other indicators to be included / explored ? (emergent vegetation, . . . ) • Rules for combination of indicators • Use of Option 1, 2 or 3 or combinations
Proposals and discussion to further work on: 1. Use of option 1 type approach to determine class boundaries and EQR for Zmax 2. Combine EQR’s for • Zmax • metric for species composition • other indicators to be determined (if any. . ) 3. Use option 3 type approach with respect to the overall EQR
Further actions/ discussion points CBGIG Norwich meeting, September 2008 • work on database • addition of new/ changed national methods • indicators • which intercalibration options to use • time table
Work on database • UK facilitates to start working on the database before March 2009 • All countries will extend (shrink) present data set, max 50 per country per type)/ better quality data/ substitute present data/ cover quality range/ emphasis on sites in H, G or M state • French data available spring 2009, 20 lakes mainly LCB 3, also UK will provide LCB 3 lakes. . . , not all countries have LCB 3 lakes • criteria for invasive species: wait for Ecostat working group advice • LV, DK have data on colour, other countries? • Reference sites: check database for sites that are in high status according to all methods; supply more ref sites • use alkalinity subgroups (<0. 2, 0. 2 -1, 1 -2. 5, >2. 5) or use conductivity as substitute • Minimum data requirement, check if residence time falls within range, no extreme artificial water level fluctuations
changes in methods/ newly developed methods • Generally: use continuous EQR scale as much as possible, interpolate for methods with discontinuous scale, or discriminate between class boundary and middle of class. • DK method ready in 2009 (incl Zmax) • FR method ready early 2010, preliminary classifications will be provided. • LT has Zmax for Pot. perfoliatus, will perhaps adapt German method • LV formalising method for monitoring • / PL adapting method
indicators • explore/ use Zmax • plant coverage/PVI? • valueing species/geographical range checks • phytobenthos: only PL & GE, rest not, UK has separate metric, not integrated in macrophytes metric • species richness (logistic function of pressure) • filamenthous algae? which options to use ? • further refinement of option 3 • combinations of options, use option 3 for overall comparisons
Provisionary time table • now – March 2009: start up of work on database; contact WISER • January 2009: review of data by countries • meeting in March 2009 invite WISER; • decide on additional indicators overall GIG meeting in autumn 2009 • 2 nd half 2009: preliminary analyses • finish database by end of 2009, no more changes after Jan 1 st 2010 • spring 2010: comparisons with final national methods, all countries can apply new or modified methods to whole dataset • meeting March-April 2010 • March-August 2010: harmonizing methods • August-Dec 2010 reporting • finalise early 2011
- Slides: 10