Intercalibrating the national classifications of ... - Europapublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/...Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunnsrapport

EUR 29334 EN

Frauke Ecke, Marit Mjelde,

Jukka Aroviita

Edited by Sandra Poikane

2018

Intercalibrating the national classifications of

ecological status for Northern rivers

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes

JRC112698

EUR 29334 EN

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/484237

Print ISBN 978-92-79-92964-9 ISSN 1018-5593 doi:10.2760/973926

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

© European Union, 2018

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12

December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised,

provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The

European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or

reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from

the copyright holders.

All content © European Union, 2018

How to cite: ECKE F, MJELDE M, AROVIITA J, POIKANE S, Intercalibrating the national classifications of

ecological status for Northern rivers: Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes, EUR 29334 EN, Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6, doi:10.2760/484237, JRC112698

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication.

EU Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

1

CONTENTS

Abstract .......................................................................................................... 2

1. Description of national assessment methods .................................................... 3

2. IC Feasibility checking .................................................................................. 8

3. Collection of IC dataset ............................................................................... 10

4. Common benchmark or reference conditions .................................................. 11

5. Comparison of methods and boundaries ........................................................ 12

6. Description of reference or alternative benchmark communities ....................... 13

7. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 14

References .................................................................................................... 14

List of tables .................................................................................................. 15

List of figures ................................................................................................. 15

Appendix I .................................................................................................... 16

Appendix II. .................................................................................................. 18

2

Abstract

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications

of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this

exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are

harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of

the national assessment methods.

Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing

on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures

and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises were carried out in

Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member

States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the

WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration

process (European Commission, 2011).

The Technical reports are organized in volumes according to the water category

(rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and

Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the

Northern River GIG Macrophyte ecological assessment methods.

Three countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) participated in the intercalibration exercise

and harmonised their river macrophyte systems. The results were approved by the

WG ECOSTAT and included in the EC Decision on intercalibration (European

Commission, 2018).

3

1. DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

In the beginning of the intercalibration, no national assessment methods were finalised

yet (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of the national assessment methods.

MS Method

Sweden No national assessment method, yet. However, the Norwegian trophic index (TIc) originally developed for lakes will be tested

Norway No national assessment method, yet. However, the Norwegian trophic index (TIc) originally developed for lakes will be tested

Finland No national assessment method, yet. However, preliminary assessment metrics have been tested (O/E, BC, AB) nationally. The Tic index will be tested within as

part of this NGIG IC work

Overview of the macrophyte metrics included in the national assessment methods at present are shown in Table 2. Norway is testing the TIC – index, developed for lakes (Penning et al. 2008), however with separate lists of sensitive and tolerant macrophyte species for rivers. The index is calculated by using the number of sensitive and tolerant species along a Tot-P gradient according to the formula:

100

N

NNTI TS

c

,

where TIc is the trophic index, Ns is the number of sensitive species, Nt is the number of tolerant

species and N is the total number of species. The list of sensitive and tolerant macrophyte taxa

is presented in Appendix I.

For Finland, testing of preliminary metrics (O/E-taxa ratio, BC-index, AB-index) have been done

and described in Rääpysjärvi et al. (2016).

Table 2. Overview of the metrics included in the national assessment methods.

Member

State Full BQE method

Composition# Abundance

Disturbance sensitive

taxa

Diversity Biomass

Taxa indicative

of pollution

Combina-tion rule of

metrics

SE * - - - - - - - -

NO * MP

Species composition

index based on

presence/absence of

taxa

Not included yes yes

FI * MP O/E-taxa, BC, AB

AB takes into

account

relative

abundance

O/E-taxa

O/E-

taxa,

BC

yes,

indirectly

by AB

O/E-

taxa, BC,

AB

not

decided

* None of the countries has an official assessment method. Overview of sampling methods is given in Table 3a and 3b.

4

Table 3a. Overview of the sampling and data processing of the national assessment methods. *

Information as provided in the online WISER project assessment method

questionnaires

Sweden** Norway Finland

- Sampling/survey device Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope

- How many sampling/survey occasions (in time) are required to allow for ecological quality classification of survey site or area?

Once per RBMP period. Once per RBMP period. Once per RBMP period.

- Sampling/survey months June-September July – mid September Late June - August.

- Which method is used to select the sampling /survey site or area?

Topographic, pressure and land use information is used to select a representative monitoring site within the water body.

Selection based on expert judgement, depending on the purpose, up- and downstream river branches, pollution sites, etc.

Pressure and land use information is used to select a representative monitoring site within the water body.

- How many spatial replicates per sampling/ survey occasion are required to allow for ecological quality classification of sampling/ survey site or area?

One site per river stretch, number of sites per river depends on the river

One site per river stretch, number of sites per river depends on the river length. Focus on slow to medium flow sites (fine substrate)

One spatial replicate which consists of a pool section and a riffle section within a water body.

- Total sampled area or volume, or total surveyed area, or total sampling duration on which ecological quality classification of sampling/survey site or area is based

200 m per waterbody,

divided into eight 25 m sections.

Random belt transect, 20-

50 m along the shore, and as deep as possible by wading and depending on width of stream. No fixed plots. Mostly medium-large rivers, only one side of the river are surveyed.

At each site a 100 m riffle

and 100 m adjacent pool section are surveyed. Each section is divided into five 20 m subsections (see below for details).

- Short description of field sampling/survey procedure and processing (sub-sampling)

Macrophytes include vascular plants and bryophytes growing under water or above the water surface on rocks in the stream channel. In each waterbody a stretch of in total 200 m is sampled divided into eight 25 m sections. The abundance of the species is recorded at a five-graded scale (1-5) representing classes of percentage cover. The 25 m sections are either continuously located after each other or with an interdistance of up to 100 m.

Each river site is visited once between July and September. The plants are recorded using an aqua scope and rake. The abundance of the species is scored by a semi-quantitative scale (1-5). (In some earlier surveys only presence and absence data are available). The macrophytes are identified to species level. All true aquatic macrophytes, belonging to the life form groups isoetids, elodeids, nymphaeids, lemnids & charophytes, are included. Some macrophyte species can occur in both helophyte and true aquatic forms, e.g. Juncus bulbosus, Sagittaria sagittifolia and

Macrophytes include vascular plants with underwater roots and bryophytes growing under water or above the water surface on rocks in the stream channel. At each site a 100 m riffle and 100 m adjacent pool section are surveyed. If only either habitat is present then a 200 m section of that habitat is surveyed. Each section is divided into five 20 m subsections, where abundance and frequency of macrophyte species are visually estimated. Abundance of vascular plants is estimated by percent coverage in one square meter of a typical stand of each species,

5

Information as provided in the online WISER project assessment method questionnaires

Sweden** Norway Finland

Hippuris vulgaris. These are also included in the analyses. Helophytes (emergent aquatic plants) are excluded completely from the analyses, so are aquatic bryophytes and filamentous algae.

and their frequency by dividing the subsection to 100 equally-sized quadrats and then counting the number of quadrats in which the species is observed. Abundance of bryophyte species is estimated as percentage coverage at two 1x2 m plots within each 20 m subsection placed at 10 m intervals starting at 5 m distance from the lower edge of

the section. The frequency of bryophyte species is counted as the number of plots where the species occurs. The taxa are identified to species level, with the exception of some sterile shoots e. g. from Sparganium and Callitriche genera.

Reference - Mjelde & Edvardsen 2013. Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunnsrapport. NIVA-Report 6505-2013 (in Norwegian).

Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016. Meissner, et al. 2016.

* More details on sampling methods and procedures is given in Table 3b.

** Sweden has not yet decided on an official sampling and processing method, yet. All information given is preliminary.

6

Table 3b. Summary table on description of field sampling methods. Descriptor Sweden* Norway Finland

Sites

Number of sites per river

1 Some-many 1

No. of stretches per site

1 1 2

Flow type (slow, medium, fast)

Slow, medium & fast

Slow & medium Slow & fast

Length of stretch (m) 100/200 20-50 100

Transects (Y/N) Yes (25 cm wide) Yes (belt) Yes (belt)

No. of transects per stretch

Depends on width of stream/-

Several random 5

Width of transects (m)

Depends on width of stream/-

Depends on width of stream

Depends on width of stream

Number of plots 100/No plots are used

No plots are used 10 in fast-flowing (only mosses)

Plot size (cm) 25 x 25 No plots are used 100x200 (only for mosses)

Both sides of the streams included (Y/N)

Yes (mostly) No. If narrow river, both sides might be sampled

Yes

Wading (W)/snorkeling (S)/boat (B)

W, B W (B) W (S)

Survey device Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope Rakes, aquascope

Survey period June-September July – mid September

Late June-August

Biological data

Vascular plants (only hydrophytes) (Y/N)

Yes Yes Yes

Bryophytes Yes (Yes) occasionally Yes

Helophytes Yes (Yes) occasionally Yes

Filamentous algae Yes No Yes

Vegetation data

Presence/absence Yes Yes Yes

Abundance or frequency per species

Calculating frequency per stretch in the office/abundance

Semi-quantitative (1-5)

Abundance & frequency per transect

Other information

Habitat description Yes (Yes) Yes, including HYMO

Substrate Yes Yes Yes

Information on discharge

Modelled by SMHI No (only available for whole river)

Part of HYMO

Approved as official method

Approved, but to be revised

Not yet Yes

Comment Too time consuming. Many species are overlooked/new suggested method

Reference Naturvårdsverket 2003. Handbok för miljöövervakning. Undersökningstyp:

Makrofyter i vattendrag.

Mjelde & Edvardsen 2013.

Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016 Meissner, et al. 2016.

* Information before “/” relates to sampling method that was used for parts of the Swedish dataset according to the reference given above. Information given after “/” relates to the new suggested method

7

Table 4. Overview of the methodologies used to derive the reference conditions for the national

assessment methods.

Member

State

Type and period of reference or

alternative benchmark conditions

Number of reference or

benchmark sites

Location of reference/bench

mark sites

Reference criteria used for selection of reference or benchmark sites

SE 2010-2013 45 Sweden

Reference benchmark stream selection done

based on pressure and stressor data (land use, water quality, hydro-morphological

quality). <10 % agricultural area, no invasive species (according to VISS), urban

area <1 %.

NO 1959-2013 145 Mostly in Southern Norway

Includes sites with <5% agriculture (in upstream catchment area). Heavily acidified

sites and sites with tot P > 10 µg/l are excluded

FI 2009-2013 49 Finland

Reference benchmark stream selection done based on pressure and stressor data (land use, water quality, hydro-morphological quality). In peatland and mineral land

streams benchmark sites have agriculture < 10 % of the upstream catchment. In streams draining clayish catchments benchmark sites

have agriculture< 15 %.

Table 5. Explanations for national boundary setting of the national methods.

Member

State

Type of boundary setting: Expert judgment – statistical – ecological discontinuity – or mixed for different boundaries?

Specific approach for HG boundary

Specific approach for GM boundary

BSP: method tested against

pressure

SE No boundaries existed before IC was started

No boundaries existed before IC was started


-

NO No boundaries existed before IC was started



FI No boundaries existed before IC was started



Table 6. List of the WFD compliance criteria and the WFD compliance checking process and

results of the national methods included in the IC exercise

Compliance criteria Compliance checking conclusions

8

1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad).

Yes

2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure)

Yes

3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance)?

Yes (Taxonomic composition and abundance)

4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the Annex II WFD and approved by WG ECOSTAT?

Yes

5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions?

Yes; R-N3 and R-N9 were merged due to insufficient amount of data.

6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs?

Yes

7. Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ecological status in space and time?

Yes

8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure?

Yes

9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification?

Yes

Conclusion on compliance checking: WFD-Compliance is achieved.

2. IC FEASIBILITY CHECKING

Intercalibration was carried out for two common river types (Table 7).

Table 7. Description of common intercalibration water body types

Common IC type Type characteristics MS sharing IC common type

R-N3 Small/medium lowland organic

SE, NO, FI

R-N9 Small – medium mid-altitude siliceous low

alkalinity organic (humic)

SE, NO, FI

TIc was used as common metric since none of the MSs has an official national assessment

method and no other known metric worked for the common dataset. Tic is appropriate for IC

types R-N3 & R-N9.

Classification of reference streams according to factors not affected by human activity (latitude,

catchment size, flow, latitude, longitude) were tested, but the outcome was of limited value.

Therefore, the established typology groups (R-N3 and R-N9) were chosen for IC.

Table 8. Pressures addressed by the national methods included in the IC exercise and

overview of the relationship between national methods and the pressures.

Member

State

Method/ Metrics tested

Pressure Pressure indicators

Amount of data Strength of relationship

9

SE, NO,

FI TIc

Agricultural land-use/Eutrophication

Tot-P

N = 84 – combined dataset

SE: N = 5 NO: N = 22 FI: N = 57

r2 = 0.399 for common dataset

SE: r2 = 0.309 NO: r2 = 0.420 FI: r2 = 0.336

Figure 1. Relationship between the metric TIc and Tot-P (log10). Regression formulas: Sweden: TIc = 93.799-63.2012*x, Norway: TIc = 114.3807-59.3223*x, Finland: TIc = 99.5425-79.9352*x. The vertical line indicates a reference threshold for Tot-P = 12.5 g l-1,

corresponding to TIc = SE: 24.47, NO: 49.31, FI: 11.86. The reference threshold for the Tot-P was estimated based on the visually identified sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of

macrophyte species along the Tot-P gradient (see chapter Comparability Criteria).

Conclusion: The relationship is strong. However, the levels of TIc at the reference Tot-P = 12.5

g l-1 (see Fig. 1 and chapter Comparability Criteria) differ considerably and systematically

among MSs, likely due to biogeographical differences. At reference Tot-P values, Norway shows

on average the highest TIc (49.31), Finland on average the lowest (11.86) and Sweden

intermediate TIc values (24.47). Therefore, we conducted the benchmark standardisation for

reference conditions. Hence, class boundaries can be established based on the relationship

between the metric and the pressure.

10

Table 9. Assessment concepts used by the national methods included in the IC exercise

Method Assessment concept Remarks

TIc All MSs intercalibrate using the same metric.

The trophic index TIc is calculated as:

With NT = number of sensitive species, NT = number of tolerant species and N = number of total species. Sensitive species: 75th percentile less than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P, Tolerant species: 75th percentile more than 20 and 25th percentile more than10 µg l-1 Tot-P, Indifferent species: 75th percentile more than20 µg l-1 Tot-P and 25th percentile less than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P.

Conclusion: Intercalibration is feasible in terms of assessment concepts as all MS follow the same approach by using the same metric, i.e. the trophic index TIc.

3. COLLECTION OF IC DATASET

Table 10. Overview of the number of sites/samples/data values. Number of

intercalibrated sites are given, total number of sites are given in parentheses.

Member State Number of sites or samples or data values

Biological data Physico- chemical data Pressure data

SE 5 (121) 5 (121) 5 (121)

NO 22 (310) 22 (310) 22 (310)

FI 57 (129) 57 (129) 57 (129)

Table 11. Overview of the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control.

Data acceptance criteria Data acceptance checking

Data requirements (obligatory and optional) Only data according to the field methods described above were included.

The sampling and analytical methodology If data from multiple samplings (years) were available, only the most recently sampled data were included in the

analysis. For the Finnish sites, riffle and pool sections were combined to one section. Sweden did not distinguish between riffles and pools. Norway didn’t sample riffles.

Level of taxonomic precision required and

taxa lists with codes

Only taxa at the species level included. For IC, only

hydrophytes incl. charophytes but excl. bryophytes were

used. However, for identification of sudden drops also bryophytes and helophytes were used.

The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type

Nine (R-N9). R-N3 included 74 sites.

Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type

For IC, sufficient data were available to identify the HG and GM boundary, but not boundaries of MP and PB.

-

𝑇𝐼𝐶 = 𝑁𝑆 − 𝑁𝑇

𝑁 × 100

11

4. COMMON BENCHMARK OR REFERENCE CONDITIONS

In section 1 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be included on the derivation of reference conditions for the national methods. In section 3 the checking procedure and derivation of reference conditions or the alternative benchmark at the scale of the common IC type has to be explained to ensure the comparability within the GIG.

-

Benchmark standardization serves to homogenize the EQR results of common datasets where needed, minimising typological and methodological differences between the Member states which may otherwise influence the comparability of their classifications. For each MS, the median TIc was calculated using the benchmark sites that met the agreed pressure criteria (Tot-P ≤ 12.5 g l-1 ): SE: TIcMedian = 33.3, NO: TIcMedian = 63.3, FI: TIcMedian =

25.0.

The benchmarked EQRTIc was then calculated as: EQRTIc = 𝑇𝐼𝑐𝑀𝑆+100

𝑇𝐼𝑐𝑀𝑆,𝑀𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛+100 ,

where TIcMS is the observed TIc calculated from the common dataset and TIcMS, Median = the median TIc value calculated for each MS.

In the next step, we plotted the benchmarked EQRTIc against Tot-P (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Relationship between the benchmarked EQR TIc and Tot-P (log10).

Since no national assessment methods were established for FI, NO and SE before IC started, the relationship between the benchmark EQR TIc and Tot-P (y = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x; Figure 2), together with commonly agreed class boundaries, was used for the intercalibration. The class boundaries were set based on visually identified sudden drops of frequency occurrence of individual species along the Tot-P gradient (see chapter Comparability Criteria).

12

5. COMPARISON OF METHODS AND BOUNDARIES

Option 3 was chosen since benchmark standardization had to be performed and boundary values had to be back-calculated for each MS from the benchmarked EQR TIc using the following formula: TIc = (EQRTIc (TIcMs, Median + 100)) – 100.

Table 12. Correlation coefficient (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each method with the common metric (see Annex V of IC guidance).

Member State/Method rs p

- - * - *

* Not applicable since common metric was used and none of the MSs has a national assessment

method. Assessing level of boundary bias: No national boundaries were available during IC. Bias for class boundary setting of TIc was reduced by applying visually identifiable sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of certain macrophyte taxa (sensitive and tolerant) along Tot-P gradient.

Assessing class agreement: Two main groups of sudden drops were identified (see Figure 3 for some examples; see also Appendix II):

Figure 3. Sudden drop in the frequency occurrence of four example macrophyte species along Tot-P gradient. See Appendix II for histograms of all species that showed visually identifiable sudden drops.

13

Group I: Species showing sudden drops at Tot-P of ca. 12.5 µg l-1: Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia vulgaris, Isoëtes echinospora, I. lacustris, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Lobelia dortmanna, Nitella opaca, Eleocharis acicularis, Callitriche palustris, C. hamulata, Subularia aquatica, Ranunculus reptans, R. peltatus, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Juncus bulbosus. 12.5

µg l-1: was agreed as common threshold for the IC work for minimally impacted benchmark (reference) sites (i.e. H/G boundary). Group II: Species showing sudden drops at Tot-P of 35-40.0 µg P l-1: Calla palustris, Fissidens pusillus, Dichelyma falcatum, Potamogeton natans, Scapania undulata. 40 µg P l-1 was agreed as common threshold for the IC work for G/M boundary. Finland has also identified 40 µg P l-1

as nutrient criteria boundary for G/M in naturally humic rivers (Aroviita et al. 2012). Applying the thresholds 12.5 µg P l-1 (H/G) and 40.0 µg P l-1 (G/M), we first calculated the corresponding benchmarked EQR TIc-values using the regression model from Figure 2:

The H/G boundary (12.5 µg P l-1; log10 = 1.0969) corresponds to EQR TIc = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x = 0.889. The G/M boundary (40.0 µg P l-1; log10 = 1.6020) corresponds to EQR TIc = 1.4971 – 0.554 * x = 0.610. The back-calculated boundary TIc values for each MS were then calculated according to:

TIc = (EQRTIc (TIcMs, Median + 100)) – 100

H/G: TIcSE = (0.889 (33.3 + 100)) – 100 = 18.50

TIcNO = (0.889 (63.3 + 100)) – 100 = 45.17

TIcFI = (0.889 (25.0 + 100)) – 100 = 11.13

G/M: TIcSE = (0.610 (33.3 + 100)) – 100 = -18.69

TIcNO = (0.610 (63.3 + 100)) – 100 = -0.39

TIcFI = (0.610 (25.0 + 100)) – 100 = -23.75.

6. DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE OR ALTERNATIVE BENCHMARK

COMMUNITIES

Description of the biological communities at reference sites or at the alternative benchmark,

considering potential biogeographical differences:

Reference communities are characterized by species representing Group I: Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia vulgaris, Isoëtes echinospora, I. lacustris, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Lobelia dortmanna, Nitella opaca, Eleocharis acicularis, Callitriche palustris, C. hamulata, Subularia aquatica, Ranunculus reptans, R. peltatus, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Juncus bulbosus. However, not all species occur frequently in all MSs.

Description of IC type-specific biological communities representing the “borderline”

conditions between good and moderate ecological status, considering possible biogeographical

differences :

14

Communities at the GM border include rarely Group I species, can include some Group II species,

but also include Group III species (Calla palustris, Fissidens pusillus, Dichelyma falcatum, Potamogeton natans, Scapania undulata).

7. CONCLUSIONS

Final results are presented at Table 13.

Table 13. Overview of the IC results for the national methods included in the IC exercise.

Member state

National classification system intercalibrated

High-Good boundary

Good-Moderate boundary

Ecological Quality Ratios

SE-NO-FI Not valid since no national classification

system was established prior to start of IC 0.889 * 0.610 *

Corresponding TIc-values

SE 18.50 -18.69

NO 45.17 -0.39

FI 11.13 -23.75

* Figure 2 shows the regression equation used to calculated the EQRs.

REFERENCES

Meissner, K., et al. 2016. Biological monitoring of rivers and lakes in Finland – from sampling to data base (Jokien ja järvien biologinen seuranta – näytteenotosta tiedon tallentamiseen). in Finnish (http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Pintavesien_tila/Pintavesien_tilan_seuranta/Biologisten_seurantamenetelmien_ohjeet)

Naturvårdsverket 2003. Handbok för miljöövervakning. Undersökningstyp: Makrofyter i

vattendrag.

Mjelde, M. & Edvardsen, H. 2013. Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunns-rapport. NIVA-Report 6505-2013 (in Norwegian).

Penning, W. E., Mjelde, M., Dudley, B., Hellsten, S., Hanganu, J., Kolada, A., van den Berg, M., Maemets, H., Poikane, S., Phillips, G., Willby, N., & Ecke, F., 2008. Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquatic Ecology 42:237-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y

Rääpysjärvi, J., Hämäläinen, H. & Aroviita, J. 2016. Macrophytes in boreal streams: Characterizing and predicting native occurrence and abundance to assess human impact. Ecological Indicators 64: 309–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.014

http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Pintavesien_tila/Pintavesien_tilan_seuranta/Biologisten_seurantamenetelmien_ohjeet

http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Pintavesien_tila/Pintavesien_tilan_seuranta/Biologisten_seurantamenetelmien_ohjeet

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.014

15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Overview of the national assessment methods.

Table 2. Overview of the metrics included in the national assessment methods.

Table 3a. Overview of the sampling and data processing of the national assessment

methods.

Table 3b. Summary table on description of field sampling methods.

Table 4. Overview of the methodologies used to derive the reference conditions for the

national assessment methods.

Table 5. Explanations for national boundary setting of the national methods.

Table 6. List of the WFD compliance criteria and the WFD compliance checking process

and results of the national methods included in the IC exercise

Table 7. Descriptio of common intercalibration water body types

Table 8. Pressures addressed by the national methods included in the IC exercise and

overview of the relationship between national methods and the pressures.

Table 9. Assessment concepts used by the national methods included in the IC exercise

Table 10. Overview of the number of sites/samples/data values. Number of

intercalibrated sites are given, total number of sites are given in parentheses.

Table 11. Overview of the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control.

Table 12. Correlation coefficient (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each

method with the common metric (see Annex V of IC guidance).

Table 13. Overview of the IC results for the national methods included in the IC

exercise.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship between the metric TIc and Tot-P (log10).

Figure 2. Relationship between the benchmarked EQR TIc and Tot-P (log10).

16

APPENDIX I

Classification of macrophyte species into sensitive, indifferent and tolerant and

species, respectively.

Sensitive species: 75th percentile less than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P. Tolerant species: 75th percentile more than 20 and 25th percentile more than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P. Indifferent species: 75th percentile more than 20 µg l-1 Tot-P and 25th percentile less than 10 µg l-1 Tot-P.

Sensitive species Indifferent species Tolerant species

Callitriche hamulata (CALL HAM)

Callitriche copocarpa (CALL COP)

Ceratophyllum demersum (CERA DEM)

C. hermaphroditica (CALL HER) C. stagnalis (CALL STA) Sparganium emersum x natans (EMERxNAT)

C. palustris (CALL PAL)

Hippuris vulgaris (HIPP

VUL)

Hydrocharus morsus-ranae (HYDR

MOR)

Crassula aquatica (CRAS AQU) Myriophyllum sibiricum (MYRI SIB) Lemna minor (LEMN MIN)

Elatine hydropiper (ELAT HYD) Nymphaea alba (NYMP ALB) Lythrum portula (LYTH POR)

Elodea canadensis (ELOD CAN) Potamogeton alpinus (POTA ALP) Nupha lutea (NUPH LUT)

Eleocharis acicularis (ELEO ACI) P. berchtoldii (POTA BER) Nymphaea tetragona (NYMP TET)

Isoetes echinospora (ISOE ECH) P. natans (POTA NAT) Persicaria amphibia (PERS AMP)

I. lacustris (ISOE LAC) Sagittaria sagittifolia (SAGI SFO) Sparganium emersum (SPAR EME)

Juncus bulbosus (JUNC BUL) Sparganium natans (SPAR NAT) Spirodela polyrhiza (SPIR POL)

Limosella aquatica (LIMO AQU)

Littorella uniflora (LITT UNI)

Lobelia dortmanna (LOBE DOR)

1

10

100

1000

ISO

E LA

CU

TRI M

INIS

OE

ECH

JUN

C B

UL

LOB

E D

OR

PO

TA P

OL

RA

NU

TR

IC

ALL

HER

LITT

UN

IU

TRI O

CH

UTR

I IN

TSP

AR

AN

GSU

BU

AQ

UN

ITE

OP

AR

AN

U A

QU

CA

LL H

AM

MYR

I ALT

RA

NU

RP

TP

OTA

GR

AEL

EO A

CI

ELO

D C

AN

RA

NU

PEL

CA

LL P

AL

ELA

T H

YDC

RA

S A

QU

LIM

O A

QU

UTR

I VU

LP

OTA

PER

PO

TA A

LPP

OTA

BER

HIP

P V

UL

SPA

R N

AT

PO

TA N

AT

CA

LL S

TAN

YMP

ALB

CA

LL C

OP

MYR

I SIB

SAG

I SFO

SPA

R E

ME

PER

S A

MP

LYTH

PO

RN

UP

H L

UT

CER

A D

EMN

YMP

TET

EMER

xNA

TH

YDR

MO

RLE

MN

MIN

SPIR

PO

L

tota

l P

17

Myriophyllum alterniflorum (MYRI ALT)

Nitella opaca (NITE OPA) Potamogeton gramineus (POTA GRA)

P. perfoliatus (POTA PER) P. polygonifolius (POTA POL) Ranunculus aquatilis (RANU AQU)

R. peltatus (RANU PEL) R. reptans (RANU RPT) R. trichophyllus (RANU TRI)

Sparganium angustifolium (SPAR ANG) Subularia aquatica (SUBU AQU) Utricularia intermedia (UTRI

INT) U. minor (UTRI MIN) U. ochroleuca (UTRI OCH) U. vulgaris (UTRI VUL)

18

APPENDIX II.

Sudden drops in the frequency occurrence of river macrophytes along the Tot-

P gradient. Only species with at least 30 observations were included.

Histogram of Calla palustris

N_GIG_MP_Masterdata_160524_Jukka_FE_totP.sta 329v*1001c

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Calla palustris

0%

2%

5%

7%

10%

12%

14%

17%

Perc

ent of obs

Histogram of Fissidens pusillus


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Fissidens pusillus

0%

3%

7%

10%

14%

17%

20%

24%

Perc

en

t o

f ob

s

19

Histogram of Schistidium alpicola/agassizii


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Schistidium alpicola/agassizii

0%

3%

5%

8%

11%

13%

16%

18%

21%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Utricularia intermedia


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Utricularia intermedia

0%

9%

18%

27%

36%

45%

54%

63%

71%

80%

Perc

en

t o

f ob

s

20

Histogram of Isoetes echinospora


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Isoetes echinospora

0%

15%

31%

46%

61%

76%

92%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Isoetes lacustris


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Isoetes lacustris

0%

14%

29%

43%

58%

72%

87%

Perc

ent of obs

21

Histogram of Menyanthes trifoliata


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Menyanthes trifoliata

0%

3%

5%

8%

11%

13%

16%

19%

21%

24%

27%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Dichelyma falcatum


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Dichelyma falcatum

0%

2%

4%

7%

9%

11%

13%

15%

18%

20%

Perc

ent of obs

22

Histogram of Utricularia vulgaris


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Utricularia vulgaris

0%

11%

22%

33%

43%

54%

65%P

erc

en

t o

f ob

s

Histogram of Potamogeton perfoliatus


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Potamogeton perfoliatus

0%

8%

15%

23%

30%

38%

45%

53%

Perc

en

t o

f ob

s

23

Histogram of Potamogeton natans


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Potamogeton natans

0%

2%

5%

7%

9%

12%

14%

16%

19%

21%P

erc

en

t o

f ob

s

Histogram of Potamogeton gramineus


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Potamogeton gramineus

0%

9%

17%

26%

34%

43%

52%

Perc

en

t o

f ob

s

24

Histogram of Lobelia dortmanna


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Lobelia dortmanna

0%

9%

18%

26%

35%

44%

53%

61%

70%

79%

88%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Nitella opaca


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Nitella opaca

0%

13%

25%

38%

51%

63%

76%

89%

Perc

ent of obs

25

Histogram of Eleocharis acicularis


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Eleocharis acicularis

0%

6%

12%

19%

25%

31%

37%

43%

49%

56%

62%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Callitriche palustris


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Callitriche palustris

0%

9%

18%

27%

36%

45%

55%

Perc

ent of obs

26

Histogram of Subuluria aquatica


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Subuluria aquatica

0%

9%

19%

28%

37%

46%

56%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Scapania undulata


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Scapania undulata

0%

3%

5%

8%

11%

13%

16%

19%

Perc

ent of obs

27

Histogram of Ranunculus reptans


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Ranunculus reptans

0%

9%

17%

26%

34%

43%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Ranunculus peltatus


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Ranunculus peltatus

0%

6%

13%

19%

26%

32%

39%

45%

52%

58%

Perc

ent of obs

28

Histogram of Juncus bulbosus


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Juncus bulbosus

0%

7%

15%

22%

29%

37%

44%

51%

59%

66%

74%

81%P

erc

ent of obs

Histogram of Callitriche hamulata


510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

6570

7580

8590

95100

105110

115120

125130

135140

145150

155160

165170

175180

Callitriche hamulata

0%

10%

20%

31%

41%

51%

Perc

ent of obs

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by electronic mail via:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at:https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop

at:https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by

contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (seehttps://europa.eu/european-

union/contact_en).

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en


https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications



KJ-N

A-2

9334-E

N-N

doi:10.2760/484237

ISBN 978-92-79-92965-6

Documents

Intercalibrating the national classifications of ... - Europapublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/...Vannvegetasjon i elver – utvikling av trofiindeks. Bakgrunnsrapport