DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont,...
-
Upload
rhoda-alison-neal -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont,...
DRAFT
Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fishNiels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont, Cemagref
Content of the Report
Background and purpose
General results and conclusions
Common Approach at the European level using ICMs
Comparison between national methods and ICM-EQR
Annex I: Description of the Common Database
Annex II: Report from the Alpine Group
Annex III: Report from the Atlantic Group
Annex IV: Report from the Carpathian Group
Annex V: Report from the Lowland Group
Annex VI: Report from the Mediterranean Group
Annex VII: Report from the Midland Group
Annex VIII: Report from the Nordic Group
Working groups since October
More than 20 MS have been participating
Currently 13 different methods, 6 are official
Several under development/approval
No official ICM, but EFI+ may be used
Why the delay?
High / Good Boundary Good / Moderate Boundary
CountryNational
EQRICM-EQR
NationalEQR
ICM-EQR
BWLUX-IBIP 1.079 1.109 0.868 0.975
CZ-FI 1.328 0.987 0.996 0.784
FR-FBI 1.064 0.978 0.933 0.865
LT-LFI 1.123 0.991 0.860 0.775
NL-FI 1.258 1.332 0.943 1.059
SE-VIX 1.236 1.081 0.770 0.870
High/Good and Good/Moderate ecological classes boundaries from the different national methods and their correspondence with the ICM-EQR.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AT17
BF1
BW24
FN4
FR222
IR7
LT7
LUX2
PL6
RO3
SE5
SK5
SL5
SP-C25
SP-N47
I C
M
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AT17
BF1
BW24
FN4
FR222
IR7
LT7
LUX2
PL6
RO3
SE5
SK5
SL5
SP-C25
SP-N47
I C
M
Comparability of reference sites ?
Austria -
FIA Austria - EFIGermany -
FIBS Germany - EFIFrance -
FBI France - EFISlovenia -
EFI
High-Good 0,88 1,19 0,85 1,03 1,04 1,39 1,49
Good-Moderate 0,63 0,80 0,47 0,69 0,94 0,94 1,00
Boundary-setting from the Alpine Group
correlation of FIA with other methods
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
AT FIBS DE FIBS SLO FIBS AT EFI DE EFI SLO EFI AT FBI SLO FBI
origin of data and methods
co
rrela
tio
n R
²
321
Hydrological_degree
0,6
0,4
0,2
95
% C
IVIX_index_value
FIFI_score
321
Morphological_degree
0,6
0,4
0,2
95
% C
I
VIX_index_value
FIFI_score
1. The pilot exercise did not produce common boundaries between any national methods, but the first results demonstrated main problems and weaknesses of the methods.
2. One of the main problems was the lack of well-defined criteria used for selecting reference sites. It is necessary that each MS decide how they will select reference sites. If there are no such sites to be found, they must decide how to overcome this problem.
3. Available ICM are correlated with 7 of the 12 methods.
4. In general there is agreement on the sampling methods and the vast majority of sampling is done using electrofishing according to the CEN-standards.
5. Several national methods are still under development and will be ready within short time.
6. A well-developed and tested ICM would be an important asset for the intercalibration of the quite different national methods. EFI did not perform well!
Main results
• Methods are available and national boundaries can be established and intercalibrated
• More data is needed
• Clear common/comparable criteria for reference conditions
• A better response to certain pressures is expected/needed
• Still limited to relatively small rivers, mainly due to lack of reference sites and appropriate methods in large rivers
Main tasks:
• Final list of (common?) reference criteria
• Reference sites selection (~ 30-50 per country/region). Comparison between countries.
• All data (including Regional groups) centralised in one common database.
• Comparison between National Methods within Regional groups.
• Pre-classification of pressures: recommended but not an obligation.
• Evaluation and Testing of a new set of common metrics.
• Harmonising H/G and G/M class boundaries between MS.
Time-Table
October 2007: Official confirmation of the mandate by ECOSTAT/JRC. Reformation of regional groups, inclusion of countries with new national methods. Drafting of workplans for the groups. (MEETING).
January 2008: Final list of Reference sites. Comparison of Reference sites between countries. Definition of the methodology, agreement on a common approach. (MEETING).
July 2008: Reporting of Regional Groups. New ICM’s. 1-2 meetings:
June 2009: Final Report: boundaries setting
The river fish IC group asks for
2 more years and
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$