Search

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that the ecological status of waterbodies is assessed using multiple biological quality elements (BQEs) that are combined into a single status class. The recommended combination rule (the “one-out, all-out” rule; OOAO) has been criticised for being unreasonably conservative and for being sensitive to uncertainty. In this study, the objective was to compare the sensitivity to uncertainty of four different combination rules: (1) OOAO, (2) OOAO with exclusion of one element, (3) average and (4) weighted average. Index values for 5 BQEs (phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish) sampled from 10 lakes in the Wel River catchment in Poland were used to classify the lakes according to the OOAO and the three alternative combination rules. Based on the mean and (where possible) standard deviation of these index values, we modelled the risk of misclassification by simulating 10,000 resamples for each BQEs in each lake, classifying each resample and calculating the proportion of misclassified resamples under each combination rule. For individual BQEs, the risk of misclassification increased both with higher uncertainty (standard deviation) and with the proximity of the index value to a class boundary. Under the OOAO rule, the risk of misclassification was more biased towards worse status (“underclassification”) than towards better status. Furthermore, risk of underclassification was more affected by uncertainty under the OOAO rule compared with the alternative combination rules. This analysis has demonstrated the weaknesses associated with the OOAO rule for integration of BQEs for lake classification. However, the alternative combination rules are associated with other shortcomings, such as the need for subjective judgement, and involve a higher risk of not protecting the most sensitive BQE and thus the whole ecosystem. We recommend that future versions of instructions for WFD implementation consider alternatives to the OOAO combination rule, and provide guidelines for weighting of individual BQEs.

Eleven countries participated in an intercalibration exercise to harmonise diatom-based methods used for status assessment in lakes. Participating countries extended from Sweden and Finland in the north to Italy and Slovenia in the south, and from Ireland in the west to Hungary in the east. Intercalibration followed standard procedures developed for the European Commission which ensures that outcomes of this exercise are compatible with those for other types of biota in both freshwater and marine water bodies throughout Europe. Lakes were divided into low, medium and high alkalinity types for this exercise. However, it was not possible to perform a full intercalibration on the low alkalinity lakes due to the short gradient length and confounding influences of pH and humic substances. Values of the Trophie Index of Rott et al. (1999) were computed for all samples in order that national datasets could all be expressed on a common scale. Not all participating countries had reference sites against which national methods could be standardised and, therefore, a Generalised Linear Modelling approach was used to control the effect of national differences in datasets. These steps enabled the position of high/good and good/moderate status boundaries for all participating countries to be expressed on a common scale and for deviations beyond  0.25 class widths ( 0.05 Ecological Quality Radio (EQR) units, assuming equal distances between all class boundaries) to be identified. Those countries which had relaxed boundaries were required to adjust these to within  0.25 class widths whilst the intercalibration rules allowed those countries with more stringent boundaries to retain these. Despite biogeographical and typological differences between participating countries, there was broad agreement on the characteristics of high, good and moderate status diatom assemblages, and the intercalibration exercise has ensured a consistent application of Water Framework Directive assessments around Europe., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

International audience; In 2009, seventeen analysts participated in a pan-European diatom ring-test (intercalibration), analyzing nine samples from seven countries following the European standard EN 14407. The objective of this exercise was to agree on practical conventions on diatom identification to facilitate future intercalibration work and to assess the extent to which national differences in sample analysis (counting protocol and identification conventions) contribute to variability in EU-level comparisons of diatom-based methods. Differences in the reported taxa lists were large, but not a major source of variation in values of a common metric (the phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric, ICM). Therefore, every country can apply its own identification conventions for national assessments, and still be fairly confident that the ICM reflects the national classification of its streams. Part of the index variation was due to differences in counting protocols and care should be taken when handling broken valves, girdle views and small taxa. More work at both national and European level is needed to provide a harmonized way of using diatoms for ecological status assessments in the future.

International audience; The European Union (EU)'s Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all Member States participate in intercalibration exercises in order to ensure that ecological status concepts and assessment levels are consistent across the EU. This paper describes one such exercise, performed by the countries in the Central/Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group stretching from Ireland in the west to Estonia in the east and from the southern parts of Scandinavia to the northern regions of Spain and Italy (but excluding alpine regions, which were intercalibrated separately). In this exercise, methods used to measure ecological status of rivers using benthic diatoms were compared. Ecological status is estimated as the ratio between the observed value of a biological element and the value expected in the absence of significant human impact. Approaches to defining the 'reference sites', from which these 'expected' values were derived, varied from country to country. Minimum criteria were established as part of the exercise but there was still considerable variation between national reference values, reflecting typological differences that could not be resolved during the exercise. A simple multimetric index was developed to compare boundary values using two widely used diatom metrics. Boundary values for high/good status and good/moderate status set by each participant were converted to their equivalent values of this intercalibration metric using linear regression. Variation of ±0.05 EQR units around the median value was considered to be acceptable and the exercise provided a means for those Member States who fell significantly above or below this line to review their approaches and, if necessary, adjust their boundaries.