Search

The intercalibration (IC) exercise is a key element in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Europe. Its focus lies on the harmonization of national classification methods to guarantee a common understanding of ‘Good Ecological Status’ in surface waters. This article defines reference conditions and sets class boundaries for deep (mean depth >15 m, IC lake type L-AL3) and moderately deep (mean depth 3–15 m, IC lake type L-AL4) Alpine lakes >0.5 km2. Data were collated from each of the five EU member states included in the Alpine Geographical Intercalibration Group (Alpine GIG: Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia). Hydro-morphological, chemical and biological data from 161 sites (sampling stations) in 144 Alpine lakes over a period of seven decades were collated in a database. Based on a set of reference criteria, 18 L-AL3 and 13 L-AL4 reference sites were selected. Reference conditions were defined using a combined approach, based on historical, paleolimnological and monitoring data in conjunction with trophic modelling and expert judgement. Reference values and class boundaries were set for annual mean total biomass (biovolume), and then derived for annual mean chlorophyll- a using a regression between the two parameters. In order to allow for geographical differences within the Alpine GIG and to facilitate the inclusion of the broadly defined common IC types and national lake types, ranges were defined for each reference value. Range of reference values are 0.2–0.3 mg l−1 (L-AL3) and 0.5–0.7 mg l−1 (L-AL4) for total biovolume and 1.5–1.9 μg l−1 (L-AL3) and 2.7–3.3 μg l−1 (L-AL4) for chlorophyll- a. Depending on lake type and variable, the ecological quality ratios (EQR) for setting the class boundaries lie between 0.60 and 0.75 for the high/good class boundary and between 0.25 and 0.41 for the good/moderate class boundary. The response of sensitive phytoplankton taxa along a nutrient gradient and the occurrence of ‘undesirable conditions and secondary effects’ as defined in the WFD was used to validate the class boundary values, which are thus considered to be compliant with the requirements of the WFD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We tested the applicability of two available Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliant phytoplankton indices on three large peri-alpine lakes to analyze their suitability for trophic classification. We show that the indices vary in their final resulting Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs) and are only appropriate to roughly distinguish lakes of different water quality according to OECD criteria (OECD, ). Annual mean TP concentration in Lake Geneva was 0.03 mg l−1 in 2006 (Lazzarotto & Rapin, ), which marks mesotrophic conditions. According to the tested indices, the lake is of ‘good’ (0.60–0.80) quality after the German WFD method (PSI) and of ‘moderate’ quality according to the Austrian WFD method (BI). We prove that the way how to derive the per annum value of the metric ‘Brettum Index’ (BI) in the Austrian WFD method significantly influences the resulting index and the scatter of long-term data. We focused on improvement strategies for this index in terms of calculation and sampling frequency. Contrary to the tested bin, the modified index presents no significant differences between four and six sampling dates per year. In order to improve the significance of the available indices, we propose to modify the way of per annum index calculation for the Austrian WFD method as well as to focus on species composition to achieve a high relative proportion of indicator species. A phytoplankton index alone may not be sensitive enough to track the changes that occur within a lake. The results confirm the need to take into account other biological elements such as fish, macrophytes, attached diatoms and macrozoobenthos as suggested by the WFD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]