Marine Benthic Invertebrates Classification and Intercalibration EQR... · Marine Benthic...

Francis O’Beirn

WFD Intercalibration Workshop

October 13, 2011

Marine Benthic Invertebrates Classification and Intercalibration

Benthic EQR - Coastal waters

Classification Tool:

– UK-ROI Multimetric (Invertebrate Quality Index – IQI)

– Soft Sediment tool

– Complies with Normative definitions in Directive

– Incorporates – Disturbance Sensitive Taxa, Diversity, Abundance

Benthic Multimetric (Classification tool)

IQI *=(((0.38 x AMBIIQI) + (0.08 x (1-’)IQI) + (0.54 x SIQI 0.1)) – 0.4)/0.6

* developed by EA with input from Scotland, NI and RoI

AMBIIQI= Observed value of (1-AMBI/7) divided by maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.

1-’ IQI = Observed value of Simpsons evenness index (1-’) divided by the maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.

SIQI = Observed number of taxa divided by the maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.

Benthic Multimetric – IQI

Complies with criteria of Directive and provides a measure of:

1. Disturbance Sensitive Taxa (Functional Index)

2. Diversity (Simpson’s Eveness)

3. Abundance and No. of Taxa (UnivariateStatistics)

Scale 0-1

Boundary setting - IQI

1st Iteration - equidistant on scale of 0-1 (0, 0.2, 0.4,0.8, 1)

Subsequent revisions achieved by ensuring data fit with normative definitions from directive.

In each status class assess:• AMBI ecological group proportions• Taxa abundances using SIMPER analysis• Breakdown of Phyla, Class, Order, Family and Genus

using SIMPER analysis and reference to MNCR habitat characterising taxa

AMBI – proportions of sensitive taxa

IQI - Boundaries proposed for Intercalibration exercise

Status Class Boundary IQI

High/ Good 0.80

Good/ Moderate 0.65

Moderate/ Poor 0.43

Poor/ Bad 0.20

Intercalibration 1 (IC I)

• NEA GIG

• Ireland - data from 38 stations

• Total ≈ 400 stations

National Methods for IC - 1

Member State Method Status

BE Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI)1 Agreed

DE Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Agreed

DK Danish Quality Index (DKI) Agreed

ES Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Agreed

FR Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Not Agreed

IE Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) Agreed

NL Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI)1 Agreed

NO Norwegian Quality Index (NQI) Agreed

PT Portuguese Benthic Assessment Tool (P-BAT) Not Agreed

SE Biological Quality Index (BQI) Agreed

UK Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) Agreed

Intercalibration (NEAGIG) –

New Type

IDName Salinity

Tidal range

(m)

Depth

(m)

Current

velocity

(knots)

Exposure MixingResidence

time

CW –

NEA1/26

Exposed

or

sheltered,

euhaline,

shallow

Fully

saline (>

30)

Mesotidal

(1 - 5)

Shallow

(< 30)

Medium

(1 - 3)

Exposed

or

sheltered

Fully

mixedDays

• Option 3 – Common dataset – individual tools • Seven intercalibration types• Coastal Waters - CW-NEA1/26 - DK, ES, IE, NO, PT, UK

Benthic EQR Intercalibration – Reference

Conditions

MS MethodSample

area (m2)Component metrics - reference values

Combined

reference value

Taxa no. Diversity AMBI

DK DKIShannon’s

(logbase2) = 50

ES M-AMBI 42 Shannon’s = 4 1

IE IQI 0.1 68 Simpsons = 0.971-AMBI/7 =

0.96

NO NQI 0.4 0.78

PT P-BAT 0.1Shannon’s = 4.1

Margarlef = 50

UK IQI 0.1 68 Simpsons = 0.971-AMBI/7 =

0.96

Kappa Scores – Level of agreement (G/M): source:

DKI IQI M-AMBI NQI P-BAT

DKI

0.91

(almost

perfect)

0.93

(almost

perfect)

0.91

(almost perfect)

0.89

(almost perfect)

IQI 8.47%

0.86

(almost

perfect)

0.96

(almost perfect)

0.85

(almost perfect)

M-AMBI 5.51% 12.53%0.87

(almost perfect)

0.92

(almost perfect)

NQI 7.91% 3.11% 11.72%0.87

(almost perfect)

P-BAT 10.59% 13.8% 6.62% 12.29%

IQI (UK and Ireland) boundary revisions after harmonisation

Index B/P P/M M/G G/H

National –

proposed

IQI

(version 4)0.20 0.43 0.65 0.80

After

Intercalibration-

Optimised

IQI

(version 4)0.22 0.41 0.61 0.71

Intercalibration-

Optimised

FINAL MAXs

IQI

(version 4)0.24 0.44 0.64 0.75

IC I – Coastal Waters

Very positive outcome on standardised dataset considering they were independently collected and analysed.

Outcome deemed by the GIG to be an acceptable level of agreement and validates the national boundaries.

Next phase:

IC of methods that are applicable in the polyhaline, mesohaline and oligohaline habitats of transitional waters.

Intertidal and subtidal habitats need to be considered. Broader habitat types needed to be considered.

Intercalibration 2 – Transitional waters

More difficult to conduct

No data from Republic of Ireland

Level of agreement:

– Not as good as coastal waters - Low Kappa scores

– Very broad range of habitat types and influences

– Pressures (partition anthropogenic and natural sources difficult)

– Pressures (response of tools – additive?)

– MS married to monitoring systems and resistant to change

– Reference conditions highly variable or non-existent

Harmonisation – difficulties with boundary revision

Intercalibration (advantages and disadvantages)

Peer review process of methodologies

Drives method development and imposes realistic boundaries

Highlight range of issues relating to quantifying pressures

Not only Ireland contenting with justification of methodologies

Highlight problems associated with Typology process

Coastal waters - good agreement

Transitional waters – problematic!!