Intercalibration Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) in transitional waters (TW)

Phase 2:Phase 2:MilestoneMilestone 5 5 RReportseports (M (M55R)R)

Presented by Nikolaos ZampoukasPresented by Nikolaos ZampoukasJoint Research CentreJoint Research Centre

Institute for Environment and Institute for Environment and SustainabilitySustainability

Contents of the presentationContents of the presentation

State of the art in each GIG/BQE intercalibration process:State of the art in each GIG/BQE intercalibration process:

Methods development, compliance, validation, IC Methods development, compliance, validation, IC

option, common metrics & benchmarkingoption, common metrics & benchmarking

Highlighting of problems, open issues & questions (in Highlighting of problems, open issues & questions (in

yellow)yellow)

Recommendations from ECOSTAT are expectedRecommendations from ECOSTAT are expected

Estimation of probability to achieve results by October Estimation of probability to achieve results by October

20112011

Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) for TWfor TW

PhytoplanktonPhytoplankton AngiospermsAngiosperms MacroalgaeMacroalgae Benthic invertebrate faunaBenthic invertebrate fauna FishFish

Phytoplankton - BalticPhytoplankton - Baltic1 type shared by PL & LT1 type shared by PL & LT

The same approach is followed as in coastal watersThe same approach is followed as in coastal waters

Only Chl-a is assessedOnly Chl-a is assessed

Justification for not covering other parameters is not sufficientJustification for not covering other parameters is not sufficient

There are 1There are 1stst phase results that will be reviewed but only for Chl-a phase results that will be reviewed but only for Chl-a

Results for Chl-a may be achievedResults for Chl-a may be achieved but the consideration of only Chl-a is but the consideration of only Chl-a is questionablequestionable

Phytoplankton - NEAPhytoplankton - NEAMS with full participation (methods and data): IE, PT, ES, UKMS with full participation (methods and data): IE, PT, ES, UK

NL=NL= methodmethod + only few data+ only few data

SE=SE= method (same as CW)method (same as CW) but no data – no possibility for ICbut no data – no possibility for IC

1 type NEA 111 type NEA 11

Option 2 full methods comparison – CM: median & 90%ile Chl-aOption 2 full methods comparison – CM: median & 90%ile Chl-a

Benchmarks will be probably identified using a risk indexBenchmarks will be probably identified using a risk index

Results could be possible for October 2011if some issues will be solvedResults could be possible for October 2011if some issues will be solved

Phytoplankton – NEA- compliancePhytoplankton – NEA- complianceWaiting for more justification from ES for only assessing Chl-a in AndalusiaWaiting for more justification from ES for only assessing Chl-a in Andalusia

Taxonomic composition not covered by: IE, FR, ES, PT, NL.Taxonomic composition not covered by: IE, FR, ES, PT, NL.

Justifications received by IE & ES (Basque Country) arguing mainly that:Justifications received by IE & ES (Basque Country) arguing mainly that:

•The response of phytoplankton communities to nutrients is not well studied and much The response of phytoplankton communities to nutrients is not well studied and much affected by inherent variabilityaffected by inherent variability

•An approach by WISER to relate pigments concentration (as a proxy of composition) with An approach by WISER to relate pigments concentration (as a proxy of composition) with P P in coastal waters in coastal waters provided very low correlations. provided very low correlations.

FR, IE & ES are working to find suitable and responsive composition metrics but maybe FR, IE & ES are working to find suitable and responsive composition metrics but maybe they won’t be developed until the end of the 2they won’t be developed until the end of the 2ndnd IC phase IC phase

Proposal: to accept methods that do not include composition as long as they include Proposal: to accept methods that do not include composition as long as they include more metrics than just Chl-amore metrics than just Chl-a

Phytoplankton – NEA- validationPhytoplankton – NEA- validationMost methods (CM included) are validated versus a risk index (RI) (not recommended Most methods (CM included) are validated versus a risk index (RI) (not recommended by ECOSTAT) and not with pressures or pressure indicators.by ECOSTAT) and not with pressures or pressure indicators.

Justification for non validation with pressures:Justification for non validation with pressures:

•Variability of phytoplankton community can be huge and cannot currently be adequately Variability of phytoplankton community can be huge and cannot currently be adequately explained, particularly in estuaries (“we are still in the descriptive natural history phase explained, particularly in estuaries (“we are still in the descriptive natural history phase of phytoplankton research”)of phytoplankton research”)

•Many factors affecting phytoplankton variability, many more than season and nutrients: Many factors affecting phytoplankton variability, many more than season and nutrients: turbidity due to changing flow of suspended solids, flashing rates, grazing pressures, turbidity due to changing flow of suspended solids, flashing rates, grazing pressures, weather during spring bloom e.t.c.weather during spring bloom e.t.c.

•Particularly dynamic BQE: 12 samples per year only represent 12 seconds per year!Particularly dynamic BQE: 12 samples per year only represent 12 seconds per year!

Phytoplankton – NEA -validationPhytoplankton – NEA -validationWeaknesses of validation with RI:Weaknesses of validation with RI:Estimated in a non harmonized way in each countryEstimated in a non harmonized way in each countryIncludes a lot of expert judgmentIncludes a lot of expert judgmentOnly 3 risk classes (not continuous scale)Only 3 risk classes (not continuous scale)

Figure – Linear regression (R2=0.52; p<0.01; n=47) between chlorophyll concentrations and the scale of risk, from low (1) to high (3) for the Portuguese estuaries considered in the NEA11 intercalibration. 95% confidence interval of the linear regression is also presented (from Brito et al. submitted).

Linear regression (R2=0.52; p<0.01; n=47) between chlorophyll concentrations and the scale of risk, from low (1) to high (3)

Phytoplankton – NEA -validationPhytoplankton – NEA -validationStrengths for validating with RI:Strengths for validating with RI:Nutrient loads have been quantitatively considered together with other Nutrient loads have been quantitatively considered together with other factors such as turbidity and flushing rate (in a semi-quantitative or qualitative factors such as turbidity and flushing rate (in a semi-quantitative or qualitative manner)manner)

Overall risk assessment may better represent the response of phytoplankton Overall risk assessment may better represent the response of phytoplankton to nutrients than nutrients aloneto nutrients than nutrients alone

Chl-a and cell counts medians for WB in 3 different risk classes do not Chl-a and cell counts medians for WB in 3 different risk classes do not significantly overlap (Mood test, p=0.000)significantly overlap (Mood test, p=0.000)

In the GIG dataset RI correlates well with status classification and CMIn the GIG dataset RI correlates well with status classification and CM

Phytoplankton – NEA - validationPhytoplankton – NEA - validationPossible options:Possible options:Exclude phytoplankton from IC in the 2Exclude phytoplankton from IC in the 2ndnd IC phase due to high natural (not IC phase due to high natural (not seasonal) variability until better understanding of its relation with nutrients seasonal) variability until better understanding of its relation with nutrients will be achieved.will be achieved.

JRC proposal: JRC proposal: Accept validation with RI as best available and sufficiently Accept validation with RI as best available and sufficiently reasonable approachreasonable approach

ECOSTAT recommendation?ECOSTAT recommendation?

Phytoplankton - MEDPhytoplankton - MED

ES, FR & IT full participation (methods and data): ES, FR & IT full participation (methods and data): GR= no method, no dataGR= no method, no data

4 common types based on salinity and confinement4 common types based on salinity and confinement

Considerations for Option 2 with Chl-a as CMConsiderations for Option 2 with Chl-a as CM

Common quantification of pressures for benchmarking has been considered Common quantification of pressures for benchmarking has been considered but no agreedbut no agreed

Limited hope for achieving resultsLimited hope for achieving results

Phytoplankton – MED - compliancePhytoplankton – MED - complianceES does not cover blooms because:ES does not cover blooms because:Blooms detection needs high frequency of sampling – too costly for the numerous and small Spanish Blooms detection needs high frequency of sampling – too costly for the numerous and small Spanish lagoonslagoonsChl-a could be considered a proxy for the assessment of blooms as blooms will result in elevated Chl-a Chl-a could be considered a proxy for the assessment of blooms as blooms will result in elevated Chl-a valuesvalues

Proposal: request for better justification based on data, graphs and/or publications demonstrating that a Proposal: request for better justification based on data, graphs and/or publications demonstrating that a bloom metric would not result in a more accurate Eco status assessment.bloom metric would not result in a more accurate Eco status assessment.

FR does not cover taxonomic compositionFR does not cover taxonomic composition – will develop a metric in 2012– will develop a metric in 2012

FR wishes to IC now with the incomplete method and do the calculations again with the complete method FR wishes to IC now with the incomplete method and do the calculations again with the complete method in 2012. Boundaries will be changed in 2012 only if they are more stringent than the ones calculated in in 2012. Boundaries will be changed in 2012 only if they are more stringent than the ones calculated in 2011.2011.

Is this acceptable by DG ENV & ECOSTAT?Is this acceptable by DG ENV & ECOSTAT?

Macroalgae - NEAMacroalgae - NEAMS with full participation (methods and data): PT, FR, UK, IE – 1 typeMS with full participation (methods and data): PT, FR, UK, IE – 1 type

BE, NL= macroalgae do not naturally grow in their TW/ BE, NL= macroalgae do not naturally grow in their TW/ DE= ?DE= ?

Validation lacking for FRValidation lacking for FR

All methods only assess abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (OM) All methods only assess abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (OM) (representative of the whole BQE). It seems an established practice in many (representative of the whole BQE). It seems an established practice in many MS.MS.

Macroalgae - NEAMacroalgae - NEATaxonomic composition not directly assessed. Cover and biomass of algal Taxonomic composition not directly assessed. Cover and biomass of algal mats is assessed and when they cover more than 5% of the available habitat mats is assessed and when they cover more than 5% of the available habitat (RefCon) it is considered that there is a bloom of opportunistic algae. These (RefCon) it is considered that there is a bloom of opportunistic algae. These mats tend to consist of certain taxa and indicative list exist but there is no mats tend to consist of certain taxa and indicative list exist but there is no explicit need for taxonomic identification. Cover and biomass is enough for the explicit need for taxonomic identification. Cover and biomass is enough for the calculation of EQRs.calculation of EQRs.

Macroalgae - NEAMacroalgae - NEAJustification (1):Justification (1):

Taxa richness, as a proxy for taxonomic composition, is not sensitive to Taxa richness, as a proxy for taxonomic composition, is not sensitive to pressures (documented by several documents)pressures (documented by several documents)

A review of the available data showed that for NEA taxonomic composition A review of the available data showed that for NEA taxonomic composition was not likely to give a good measure of ecological pressure to justify the was not likely to give a good measure of ecological pressure to justify the investment of the limited resources to develop metrics based on taxonomic investment of the limited resources to develop metrics based on taxonomic composition just to show that they are not useful.composition just to show that they are not useful.

In TW MED tax. comp is considered to be assessed by the relative In TW MED tax. comp is considered to be assessed by the relative abundance of groups of different sensitivity. Macroalgae & Angiosperms are abundance of groups of different sensitivity. Macroalgae & Angiosperms are assessed together (in the NEA separately) and the abiotic and biological assessed together (in the NEA separately) and the abiotic and biological differences of MED lagoons and NEA estuaries are too big to consider differences of MED lagoons and NEA estuaries are too big to consider adapting and adopting a MED method.adapting and adopting a MED method.

Macroalgae - NEAMacroalgae - NEAJustification (2):Justification (2):

The assessment of the over-representation of particular groups of algae The assessment of the over-representation of particular groups of algae could in itself indirectly be considered an assessment of taxonomic could in itself indirectly be considered an assessment of taxonomic composition.composition.

Proposal: to accept methods in ICProposal: to accept methods in IC

Results could be possible for October 2011, if compliance issues will be Results could be possible for October 2011, if compliance issues will be solved, as methods are very similarsolved, as methods are very similar

Saltmarshes (Angiosperms) - NEASaltmarshes (Angiosperms) - NEA

MS with full participation (methods and data): MS with full participation (methods and data): BE, DE, ES, NL, PT, UKBE, DE, ES, NL, PT, UK

IE= no dataIE= no data

All methods cover all required parameters, at least sensu latoAll methods cover all required parameters, at least sensu lato

Validation lacking for: Validation lacking for: DE, ES, NL, PTDE, ES, NL, PT

UK: validation with risk indexUK: validation with risk index

Lack of abiotic/pressure data for several countries: benchamrking problematicLack of abiotic/pressure data for several countries: benchamrking problematic

Option 2: Option 2: in search of common metricin search of common metric

Limited hope for achieving resultsLimited hope for achieving results

Angiosperms (Seaweeds) - NEAAngiosperms (Seaweeds) - NEA

MS with full participation (methods and data): MS with full participation (methods and data): DE, ES, FR, IE, NL, PT, UKDE, ES, FR, IE, NL, PT, UK

All required parameters are covered, at least sensu latoAll required parameters are covered, at least sensu lato

No method is validatedNo method is validated

On going work on common pressures quantification that may be useful for On going work on common pressures quantification that may be useful for both validation and benchmarkingboth validation and benchmarking

Option 3 seems possibleOption 3 seems possible

Possible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed upPossible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed up

Macroalgae & Angiosperms - MEDMacroalgae & Angiosperms - MED MS with full participation (methods and data): IT, FR, GR

ES: initial participation with method and data for HMWB. No participation for natural TWBs

Macroalgae & Angiosperms assessed together Macroalgae & Angiosperms assessed together

All required parameters are covered, at least sensu lato

Attempt to validate Greek method

Macroalgae & Angiosperms - MEDMacroalgae & Angiosperms - MED Uncertainty on common pressures quantificationUncertainty on common pressures quantification

Few sites – uncertainty on how to proceed with benchmarkingFew sites – uncertainty on how to proceed with benchmarking

Good practices exists in CWGood practices exists in CW

Possible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed upPossible to achieve results in 2011 if work will be considerably speed up

Macrozoobenthos - NEAMacrozoobenthos - NEAAll MS participate with methods and data All MS participate with methods and data

BE= no delegate currently & FR= no EQR calculations – no meetings attendanceBE= no delegate currently & FR= no EQR calculations – no meetings attendance

Validation of methods is not fully demonstrated for FR, DE, BEValidation of methods is not fully demonstrated for FR, DE, BE

ES method (Andalusia) is revised and can now be considered compliant, at least ES method (Andalusia) is revised and can now be considered compliant, at least sensu latosensu lato

IC is expected in 3 common typesIC is expected in 3 common types

Option 3 will be followed in all typesOption 3 will be followed in all types

There is a common dataset for each type where all MS sharing the type provided There is a common dataset for each type where all MS sharing the type provided datadata

Macrozoobenthos - NEAMacrozoobenthos - NEAA common pressure index was proposed to be used for benchmarking and A common pressure index was proposed to be used for benchmarking and benchmark standardization. All MS calculated the above pressure index for benchmark standardization. All MS calculated the above pressure index for their sites their sites except of FR & BEexcept of FR & BE..

Preliminary testing with the MS that have provided EQRs and pressure info Preliminary testing with the MS that have provided EQRs and pressure info for benchmarking has been done.for benchmarking has been done.

Should the GIG proceed to final results without the MSs that lack pressure Should the GIG proceed to final results without the MSs that lack pressure index calculation?index calculation?

Results can be expected by October 2011Results can be expected by October 2011

Macrozoobenthos - MEDMacrozoobenthos - MED MS with full participation (methods and data): MS with full participation (methods and data): ES, FR, IT, GR - ES, FR, IT, GR - 4 common 4 common

typestypes

Most methods are compliant and validatedMost methods are compliant and validated

Still uncertainty about the application of m-AMBI in GreeceStill uncertainty about the application of m-AMBI in Greece: : work on work on adaptation & validation is on-goingadaptation & validation is on-going

Promising on-going work on common pressure quantificationPromising on-going work on common pressure quantification

Good chances for results, at least for types where there are no sampling Good chances for results, at least for types where there are no sampling devices differences (option 3)devices differences (option 3)

Macrozoobenthos - MEDMacrozoobenthos - MEDAssessment concept issue for some types: some methods use grabs while others use Assessment concept issue for some types: some methods use grabs while others use hand nets.hand nets.

Hand nets: scientist with a fresh water background (Spanish methods)Hand nets: scientist with a fresh water background (Spanish methods)

Grabs: scientists with a marine background (IT, FR & GR methods)Grabs: scientists with a marine background (IT, FR & GR methods)

Q: Do hand nets really and exclusively collect zoobenthos? Q: Do hand nets really and exclusively collect zoobenthos?

A: Zoobenthos is caught (mainly epifauna & an some not deep infauna) together with A: Zoobenthos is caught (mainly epifauna & an some not deep infauna) together with some zooplankton and animals that are not considered typically benthic (e.g. Artemia). In some zooplankton and animals that are not considered typically benthic (e.g. Artemia). In shallow ecosystems typically planktonic animals behave as benthic ones.shallow ecosystems typically planktonic animals behave as benthic ones.

Proposal to accept both sampling devicesProposal to accept both sampling devices

On-going work on a possible common metric to surpass this differenceOn-going work on a possible common metric to surpass this difference

Fish - NEAFish - NEAAll TW MS are participating with methods and data –All TW MS are participating with methods and data –except SE (will develop a method in except SE (will develop a method in the coming years)the coming years)

All methods are compliant but All methods are compliant but most still not validatedmost still not validated

4 types related to size4 types related to size

Feasibility issue: different gears in different methods sampling different component of Feasibility issue: different gears in different methods sampling different component of the fish community. Option 3 not possible – biological metric for option 2 not yet feasiblethe fish community. Option 3 not possible – biological metric for option 2 not yet feasible

Consideration on using a pressure CM and to check if boundaries correspond to similar Consideration on using a pressure CM and to check if boundaries correspond to similar amount of pressure. On-going work on this together with N. Willbyamount of pressure. On-going work on this together with N. Willby

Results could be achievable depending on how well this approach will work (a Results could be achievable depending on how well this approach will work (a correlation of all methods with this CM is not fully demonstrated yet)correlation of all methods with this CM is not fully demonstrated yet)

Fish - MEDFish - MEDNo Milestone 5 ReportNo Milestone 5 Report

The group will continue its work after 2011 as at the moments no method is finalizedThe group will continue its work after 2011 as at the moments no method is finalized

Situation Situation June 2011June 2011

BalticBaltic NEANEA MED MED

PhytoplanktonPhytoplankton Only for Chl-a

MacroalgaeMacroalgae & & AngiospermsAngiosperms

Benthic Benthic invertebrate invertebrate faunafauna

FishFish

Issues for ECOSTAT recommendationsIssues for ECOSTAT recommendations

NEA phytoplankton methodsNEA phytoplankton methods::

1.1.No tax. compositionNo tax. composition

2.2.Validation with a RIValidation with a RI

MED phytoplankton:MED phytoplankton:

3.3.Spanish method without blooms for phytoplanktonSpanish method without blooms for phytoplankton

4.4.FR incomplete method: to IC or not?FR incomplete method: to IC or not?

5.5.NEA macroalgaeNEA macroalgae: no tax. composition: no tax. composition

6.6.NEA zoobenthosNEA zoobenthos: continue without FR & BE?: continue without FR & BE?

7.7.MED zoobenthosMED zoobenthos: different devices – are hand nets acceptable?: different devices – are hand nets acceptable?

Thank you for your time and attentionThank you for your time and attention