Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators

in rivers and lakesAnne Lyche Solheim and Jannicke Moe, NIVA

EEA European Topic Centre on Water

EIONET meeting 20-21 October 2009, Copenhagen

Outline of presentation

• Objective and process• Overview of replies (countries, water

bodies, stations)• Data compilation and analyses • Results• Conclusions and way forward

Objective: Why biology now?

• Current indicators only indicate pressures on water bodies

• Biological indicators provide info on impacts of the pressures

• Added value relative to what is already reported to Commission:– Provide status for each Biological Quality Element– Enable trend analyses (long-term) on numerical scale

through normalisation of EQRs • Example of improvement:

– change from EQR=0,45 to EQR=0,55 show approaches towards good status objective (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (moderate status)

• Example of degradation: – change from EQR=0,75 to EQR=0,65 show increasing risk of

failing good status (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (good status)

Calculation of normalised EQR valuesIn order to allow comparison of biological data between countries, EEA/ETC has transformed the reported national EQR values to normalised EQR values.

Ref: DG Environment

Normalising EQRMetricvalue

20

0

G/M 11

SG/G 17

7

4

national EQR for the metric

1

0

0,8517/20

11/20 0,55

7/20 0,354/20 0,20

Normalised EQR for the metric

1

0

0,80

0,60

0,40

0,20

15 0,75(0,75-0,55)*(0,80-0,60)

(0,85-0,55)+0,60

0,73

M/D

SD/D

REF

Metricvalue

20

0

G/M 11

SG/G 17

7

4

national EQR for the metric

1

0

0,8517/20

11/20 0,55

7/20 0,354/20 0,20

Normalised EQR for the metric

1

0

0,80

0,60

0,40

0,20

15 0,75(0,75-0,55)*(0,80-0,60)

(0,85-0,55)+0,60(0,75-0,55)*(0,80-0,60)

(0,85-0,55)+0,60

0,73

M/D

SD/D

REF

PreparedPrepared byby: : AAnnenne LycheLyche SolheimSolheim & JRC& JRC

Calculated by countries

Calculated by EEA/ETC

H/GH/G

G/MG/M

M/PM/P

P/BP/B

Process for test data exercise:Step-wise approach to test feasibility

• Requested data from countries (test data flow), June-Aug.

• Quality check and data analysis of the received data, Sept.

• Presented results of data analysis to Ecostat, Oct. 2009 for comments

• Present results of data analysis to Eionet in Oct. 2009 for comments

• If agreement can be achieved on the way forward, establish a WISE-SoE data flow for aquatic biology in 2010 or 2011.

Freshwater test data exercise:

What data is requested for rivers and lakes?

• Benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers

• Phytoplankton in lakes

• Macrophytes in lakes

Parameter specifications• Reporting sheets specifying parameters and methods of aggregation are

included in the WISE SoE guidance – For full report see:

http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/water/library?l=/wise_reporting_2009&vm=detailed&sb=Title

• Requested information for representative stations in selected water bodies – National EQR values for each BQE for 2007 and 2008, if available;– National reference values and EQR class boundaries for each BQE;– Other data for phytoplankton and macrophytes, according to reporting

sheets (chlorophyll, % Cyanobacteria, lower growing depth, % Isoetids or Charaphytes)

• Supporting background information– Name of the metric used– Station info to allow links to pressure data and map production– Type of water body (national type and most similar IC type)– Some methodological details to aid interpretation

• If station information is already reported to EEA, then it is not necessary to report this information again– We need correct National Station ID in order to access this information

from EEA

Standardised format for data reporting: Template: xls-file with 3 separate tables

• Biology data table

123456

C D E F G H I J K L MNational

Station ID Year DeterminandBiology UnitBiology MeanStandard Deviation

Determinand Class

Aggregation Period

Period Length (# month) # Samples #Subsites

NTRENAM 2008 InvertebrateNationalEQR Ratio 0,26 P autumn 1 6 2L-297 2008 PhytoplanktonNationalEQR Ratio 0,4 M growing season 6 6 1L-297 2008 MacrophyteNationalEQR Ratio 0,4 M summer 1 1 3L-297 2008 TotalPhytoplanktonBiomass mg/L 1,5 M growing season 6 6 1L-297 2008 Chlorophyll a µg/L 12,7 M growing season 6 6 1

123456

A B C D E F G H I JCountry Code Determinand Biology Sampling Method CEN/ISO ICType

Reference value

HG Boundary

GM Boundary

MP Boundary

PB Boundary

NO Chlorophyll Integrated tube sampler 10519 L-N3 2,5 0,5 0,3 0,17 0,08

123456

A B C D E F G H I J K L M NWater

CategoryCountry

CodeNational

Station IDWaterbase

NameWater

Body ID Lake NameWater Body

TypeIC

Type Longitude Latitude Altitude SurfaceArea MeanDepthWater Colour

LevelLK NO 297 Gjersjøen 005-297-L Gjersjøen 2 LN3a 10,7835 59,7916 40 2,7 18 M

• Method and class boundaries (reported only once and if changed)

• Station and water body info (reported only once and if changed)

Overview of data reported

32 500 biological values from 8300 stations in 16 countries !!!

SpainCyprus

Ireland

Norway

Romania

Estonia

France

Lithuania

UK

Finland

Belgium

Netherlands

Denmark

Sweden

AustriaSlovakia

Overview of data reported:Benthic invertebrates in rivers

Ca. 5000 water bodies in 16 countries Country Water bodies reported

Stations reported

Stations w/ normalised EQR

Sum 5099 7142 4315 AT 44 45 45 BE-FL 30 34 14 BE-WA 167 177 172 CY 31 31 22 DK 43 43 0 EE 96 149 104 ES 1326 1971 0 FI 14 14 0 FR 630 683 0 IE 172 180 173 LT 34 37 37 NL 14 28 14 NO 20 44 32 RO 68 72 72 SE 14 14 14 SK 73 80 79 UK-EW 2123 3329 3327 UK-NI 86 88 87 UK-SC 114 123 123

Overview of data reported:Phytoplankton in lakes

Ca. 1000 water bodies in 13 countries Country Water

bodies reported

Stations reported

Stations w/ normalised EQR

Sum 1003 1056 666 AT 20 20 20 BE-FL 3 3 3 CY 8 8 8 DK 19 19 0 EE 60 60 54 ES 195 246 0 FI 3 3 0 LT 22 22 0 NL 10 10 0 NO 212 212 201 RO 1 2 2 SE 118 118 112 UK-EW 225 225 180 UK-NI 27 27 9 UK-SC 80 81 67

Overview of data reported:Macrophytes in lakes

Ca. 500 water bodies in 8 countries

Country Water bodies reported

Stations reported

Stations w/ normalised EQR

Sum 459 460 271 BE-FL 3 3 3 EE 57 57 57 ES 9 9 0 LT 3 3 0 NL 10 10 10 NO 85 85 17 SE 112 112 23 UK-EW 121 121 113 UK-NI 10 10 4 UK-SC 49 50 44

Data compilation

Biology table• National Station ID• Metric Biology• Value (EQR)• etc.

Station table• National Station ID• Waterbody ID• Waterbody type• Longitude, Latitude• etc.

Type-specific class boundaries table• Metric biology• Waterbody type• Reference condition• H/G boundary • G/M boundary• etc.

New EEA database: biological data from test reporting

Calculation of normalised EQR

Station table• National Station ID• Waterbody info• RBD info• etc.

EEA WISE-SoEdatabases

Pressure table• National Station ID• Land-use info• etc.

Nutrients table• National Station ID• NO3, Total P, PO4• etc.

Show Ecological statusfor each BQE

Data compilation: obstaclesProblem ConsequenceClass boundaries or ref. cond. and status class missing

Cannot use results to show status class nor to calculate normalised EQR

Class boundaries or ref. cond. missing or given for original metric (not for EQR)

Cannot calculate normalised EQR

Non-matching links between tables- Biological metric- Waterbody type- NationalStationID

Cannot calculate normalised EQR

NationalStationID is not unique for each station

Wrong links between stations and biology values, non-sense results

NationalStationID is different from previously reported to EEA

Cannot link biological data with information in WISE-SoE

Waterbody info is missing Cannot aggregate results to WB level

Various errors in data, f.ex.longitude/latitude mixed up or wrong unit

Must make corrections or ask data providers for more information

Class boundaries given for national waterbody types (instead of IC types)

Results not comparable to other countries

Non-intercallibrated metrics reported Results not comparable to other countries

Data analyses

Calculate normalised EQR

for each BQE and each station

Biological data per BQE compiled and linked to WISE databases

Station-level map: Status class for each BQECan also use WB level (WB id missing for 10% of stations)

Country-level map: Proportion of stations per status class plotted as pie charts for each BQE

Average normalised EQR for each country for all high/good stations and for < good stations

Country-level bar plot:

Plot average normalised EQRfor each BQE for high/good stations and for < good stations

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status per station

Some stations have unknown status class:• Missing status class, EQR values and/or

class boundaries (DK, ES)

Some results may not be comparable:• HMWB (NL)• Acidification metrics (SE, UK-SC)• Other non-intercalibrated metrics

• Majority of stations shows high or good status

• Is this real or are stations not representative?

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status summarised per country

* Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI)

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Normalised EQR per country

AT BE-FL BE-WA CY EE IE LT NL NO RO SE SK UK-EW UK-NI UK-SC

High or GoodModerat or worseMacroinvertebrates EQR

country

Nor

mal

ised

EQ

R

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

34 0 102 18 79 103 18 5 21 59 230 32 2811 62 10111 13 69 18 25 70 19 9 19 13 1 44 1429 27 0

* * * * *

Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status per station

Some stations have unknown status class:• Missing EQR values and/or

class boundaries (DK)

Some results may not be comparable:• HMWB (NL)• Non-intercalibrated metric

Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

• Majority of stations shows high or good status

• Is this real or are stations not representative?

* Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI)

Phytoplankton in lakes: Normalised EQR per country

AT BE-FL CY EE NL NO RO SE UK-EW UK-NI UK-SC

High or GoodModerat or worsePhytoplankton EQR

country

Nor

mal

ised

EQ

R

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

29 11 81 10 240 1 4604 168 7 534 3 3 47 63 1 587 86 5 14

* *

Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status per station

Some stations have unknown status class:• Missing EQR values and/or

class boundaries (ES, LT, SE)

Some results may not be comparable:• HMWB (NL)• Non-intercalibrated metric

Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

• Majority of stations shows high or good status

• Is this real or are stations not representative?

* Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI)

Macrophytes in lakes: Normalised EQR per country

BE-FL EE NL NO SE UK-EW UK-NI UK-SC

High or GoodModerat or worseMacrophytes EQR

country

Nor

mal

ised

EQ

R

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

120 7 17 19 70 1 333 87 3 1 2 43 3 11

* * * * *

Conclusions: Promising results• Comprehensive submission of data: 32500 values from

8300 stations and 16 countries• Data enables assessment of impacts of human

pressures (emissions) and water quality as shown by chemical indicators on different ecosystem components, incl. Biodiversity

• Clear potential for future trend analysis showing impact of WFD programme of measures

• Synergies with the Intercalibration work by revealing problems of translating IC results into national systems

• Ecostat support further development of biodata reporting

Conclusions: Caution needed

• More time needed to solve the issues related to:– Geographic coverage (missing countries: DE, PL, IT) – Comparability of metrics, boundaries and types of water bodies– Representativity of stations and aggregation methods, links to

stations used for chemical indicator reporting and to WFD surveillance monitoring programmes

– Coherence with WFD reporting of status in RBMPs? Testing needed

– Feedback to countries on data quality: QA needed• Test data should not be published due to these

shortcomings• Need for additional biological indicator: Phytobenthos in

rivers to show impact of eutrophication of rivers

Way forward in 10 points

1. Feedback from ETC to countries on quality of test data2. Comparison of test data results with WFD RBMPs results for the

same WBs3. Need to decide on stations or WB reporting and on frequency,

annual or less4. Updated guidance on representativity of stations or WBs needed5. Develop reporting sheet for phytobenthos in rivers6. Revise template for data reporting to clarify request for reference

values, class boundaries, water types, metrics7. Encourage more countries to participate in next data request (DE,

PL, IT + several smaller countries)8. Continued collaboration with Ecostat/JRC/GIGs to ensure

comparability of metrics and correct interpretation of data9. Organise a new test data request using revised template in

autumn 201010. Start regular priority data flow in 2011

Thank you for your attention Thank you for your attention and support !and support !