25 oktober 2011 2nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje

25 oktober 2011

2nd phase intercalibration

CBGIG Macrophytes

Rob Portielje

2 25 oktober 2011Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat

Steps in intercalibration

• Data collection

• National methods development

• Choice of intercalibration option

• Reference sites / benchmark standardisation

• Relationships with pressure

• Harmonisation

• Issues remaining


Data collectionMember State LCB1 LCB2 LCB3BE 5 14

DK 25 62 24

EE 13 13 11

FR 3

GE 32 18

UK 21 39

LT 5 21

LV 67 45 26

NL 14 36

PL 77 26

total 259 274 64

Data collection


Lake typology

Common IC type Type characteristics MS sharing IC common type

LCB1 Shallow (3-15 m), alkalinity > 1 meq/l

All countries except FR

LCB2 Very shallow (<3 m), alkalinity > 1 meq/l

All countries except FR

LCB3 Shallow (3-15 m), alkalinity < 1 meq/l

EE, LV & DK. UK has lakes of similar type in NGIG. FR has LCB3 lakes not comparable to the others due to large geographic differences. Intercalibration for LCB3 not possible due to large geographical differences and lack of data.


National methods

Member State Status Belgium Fl 1a

Denmark 2 (draft boundaries within range)

Estonia 1a

France 1b (LCB3)

Germany 1b

Latvia 1b

Lithuania 1b

Netherlands 1b

Poland 1b

UK 1b (draft boundaries within range)

1a: finalized formally agreed national method, 1b intercalibrated but not formally agreed (NOTE: we added this category)2: intercalibration-ready finalized method3: method under development4: no method developed


Compliance and feasibility checks• Different methods use variety of indicators for taxonomic composition

as well as macrophytes abundance

• All methods respond to eutrophication

• Several method were adjusted because of insufficient correlation (R<0.5) with the (pseudo) common metric

• FR method was not taken into account for comparisons (decision at June 2011 meeting Amsterdam)

• Nine methods to be intercalibrated:– BE-FL, DK, EE, GE, LT, LV, NL, PL, UK


GIG explored options 2 and 3a

Option 2• Common metric was developed based on (WISER):

– trophic index for species composition– Max depth or cover for macrophyte abundance

• Attempts for boundary setting for the common metric• Not all countries could apply common metric• Not all countries have sufficient number of lakes for both LCB1 and LCB2Option 2 comparison was not possible

Option 3a All methods could be applied to sufficient number of lakes for LCB1/LCB2 PL method was applied only to PL lakes (77 LCB1, 26 LCB2) Option 3a was chosen

Choice of intercalibration option


LCB1 LCB2 LCB3 totalLV 4 1 4 9LT 2 2PL 4 1 5NL 1 1EE 2 1 3UK 1 1FR 2 2

total 9 7 7 23

BE no reference lakesGE no reference lakesDK no reference lakes

Reference lakes/ benchmark standardisation

Conclusion:

-Insufficient number of true reference sites

-Same problem for alternative benchmark sites

Choice for continuous benchmark standardisation


Benchmark sites

total LCB1 LCB2BE 8 4 4DK 63 20 43EE 22 12 10GE 45 30 15GB 31 13 18LT 21 0 21LV 105 64 41NL 38 10 28PL 93 69 24

Sites for continuous benchmarking standardisation based on range of total-P from 0 to 0.2 mg P/l


Benchmark standardisation factors

methodlakes GB GE PL LV NL BE LT EE DK

GB -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01 -0.09 -0.02 0.03 -0.01

GE -0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05

PL -0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 0.15 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03

LV 0.07 0.09 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.10 0.07 0.09

NL -0.09 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.09 0.04 -0.09 -0.05

BE -0.05 -0.03 0.01 0.05 0.00 -0.18 0.05 0.01

LT 0.07 0.01 -0.17 -0.07 0.06 -0.05

EE 0.09 -0.03 0.03 0.09 0.05 -0.04 -0.01 0.09

DK -0.03 -0.05 0.05 -0.01 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05


Relationships with pressures

Relationship with pressure

Pearson R

Ln UK GE PL LV NL BE-FL

LT EE DK

LCB1 TP -0.53 -0.42 -0.52 -0.39 -0.48 -0.33 -0.41 -0.64 -0.52

TN -0.32 -0.51 -0.57 -0.41 -0.48 -0.29 -0.39 -0.60 -0.50

Chl-a -0.47 -0.46 -0.71 -0.52 -0.57 -0.28 -0.41 -0.58 -0.61

LCB2 TP -0.50 -0.29 -0.32 -0.47 -0.38 -0.36 -0.34 -0.51 -0.39

TN -0.35 -0.30 -0.70 -0.37 -0.31 -0.29 -0.46 -0.50 -0.28

Chl-a -0.53 -0.39 -0.64 -0.52 -0.54 -0.36 -0.47 -0.55 -0.50

All relationships significant at p<0.001, except PL for LCB2 with TP (R=-0.32, n=26, p=0.112)


Relationship of PCM with pressures

Pearson RLCB1 LCB2

ln(TP) -0.57 -0.56ln(TN) -0.50 -0.45ln(Chl-a) -0.59 -0.62 LCB1 EQR = -0.08ln(TP) + 0.33

R2 = 0.32

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

ln(TP)

EQR

PC

M

LCB2 EQR = -0.09ln(TP) + 0.31R2 = 0.32

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

ln(TP)

EQR

PC

M


Harmonisation

• MS with largest deviations from accepted range of comparability criteria were adjusted first several iterations

• This was achieved in two ways:– Adjustment of class boundaries for individual indicators

(preferable from ecological point of view, but cannot be achieved for all member states)

– Adjusting of standardised EQR class boundaries

• Band width was fixed at the CBGIG macrophytes Copenhagen meeting in September 2011


Results Copenhagen meeting 26-27 September 2011

LCB1 UK GE PL LV NL BE-FL LT EE DKR >0.5 0.62 0.72 0.74 0.64 0.79 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.75Class agreement <1.0 0.71 0.69 0.65 0.73 0.61 0.78 0.83 0.64 0.66HG_Bias -0.25 +0.25 0.52 0.20 -0.11 -0.22 0.07 -0.46 -0.33 -0.21 0.19GM_Bias -0.25 +0.25 0.40 0.02 -0.13 -0.24 -0.05 -0.06 -0.03 -0.12 0.13

LCB2UK GE PL LV NL BE-FL LT EE DK

R >0.5 0.71 0.62 0.73 0.58 0.85 0.60 0.70 0.71 0.82Class agreement <1.0 0.72 0.66 0.67 0.77 0.66 0.80 0.75 0.69 0.70HG_Bias -0.25 +0.25 0.00 -0.13 0.07 0.21 0.08 -0.32 -0.27 0.02 0.23GM_Bias -0.25 +0.25 -0.02 -0.24 -0.08 0.14 0.07 -0.08 -0.14 0.20 0.16

LCB1 & LCB2 combined UK GE PL LV NL BE-FL LT EE DKR >0.5 0.66 0.64 0.75 0.60 0.83 0.57 0.65 0.73 0.80Class agreement <1.0 0.72 0.67 0.66 0.75 0.64 0.79 0.79 0.67 0.68HG_Bias -0.25 +0.25 0.22 -0.05 0.02 0.00 0.10 -0.32 -0.28 -0.08 0.25GM_Bias -0.25 +0.25 0.17 -0.18 -0.07 -0.03 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 0.06 0.16


LCB2

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

UK GE PL LV NL BE-FL LT EE DK

GM

bou

ndar

y bi

as

LCB2

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75


HG b

ound

ary

bias

LCB1

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75


GM

bou

ndar

y bi

as

LCB1

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75


HG b

ound

ary

bias


Adjustments after Copenhagen meeting

BE-FL: - review of indicator species used in BE-FL metric - review of BE-FL lake types assigned to PL LCB1 lakes further improve correlation with PCM and bring HG boundary bias

within range for LCB2 and very close for LCB1

19/10/11 Copenhagen LCB1 R >0.5 0.57 0.50

Class agreement <1.0 0.75 0.78HG_Bias -0.25 +0.25 -0.27 -0.46GM_Bias -0.25 +0.25 -0.05 -0.06

LCB2 R >0.5 0.65 0.60Class agreement <1.0 0.78 0.80HG_Bias -0.25 +0.25 -0.19 -0.32GM_Bias -0.25 +0.25 -0.03 -0.08


Classification Ecological Quality Ratios Member State Method High-good

boundary Good-moderate

boundary UK LCB1 0.80 0.67 LCB2 0.80 0.67 GE* LCB1 0.80 0.60 LCB2 0.80 0.60 PL stratified 0.68 0.41 non-stratified 0.68 0.41 LV LCB1 0.80 0.60 LCB2 0.78 0.59 NL LCB1 0.80 0.60 LCB2 0.80 0.60 BE-FL LCB1 0.80 0.60 LCB2 0.80 0.60 EE LCB1 0.78 0.52 LCB2 0.76 0.50 DK LCB1 0.80 0.60 LCB2 0.80 0.60


Issues remaining

• LV: did not attend meetings, no representative was present to approve suggested (minor) changes in class boundaries

• LT: did not attend meetings, HG boundary bias not within range (GIG could not adjust method)

• Several MS need approval from national authorities for adjustments made during harmonisation phase adjustment within agreed band width is still possible

• Narrative description of macrophytes communities at high, good, less than good status is in progress

Documents

25 oktober 2011 2nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje