Water chemistry of Lake Ladoga and Russian-Finnish intercalibration of analyses

As part of the Russian-Finnish research studies on Lake Ladoga, joint expeditions were organized in 1992 and 1993. Water samples were collected for intercalibration of chemical analysis methods and to monitor the chemical quality of the lake water.In August of 1992 water samples were taken from northern Lake Ladoga for intercalibration of Russian and Finnish analysis methods. In August 1993 water samples were collected from 23 sampling stations in all parts of the lake; some of these were also used for intercalibration purposes.The oxygen, colour and COD_Mn results were at the same level in the intercalibration. In 1993, the P_tot results obtained were acceptable. In N_tot, Fe and Mn analysis there seemed to be systematic and random errors between some results.The Secchi depth ranged from 1.5 m to 3.3 m. The average concentrations for the total phosphorus ranged from 15 µg 1^–1 to 29 µg 1^–1. The total nitrogen values were from 620 µg 1^–1 to 690 µg 1^–1. The N:P ratio varied from 24 to 40. The concentration of phosphorus indicated mesotrophic or even eutrophic conditions in the lake. Phosphorus seemed to be the limiting nutrient to bacteria and algae.     

Harmonising the bioassessment of large rivers in the absence of near‐natural reference conditions – a case study of the Danube River

1. International river catchments pose challenges for effective water resource management. Catchment‐wide strategies are often complicated by differences in national bioassessment and quality classification. Intercalibration efforts aim to harmonise these differences, but rely on the consistent delineation of near‐natural reference sites that are almost unavailable in today’s landscape, especially for large rivers. 2. We introduce the concept of alternative benchmarking that is based on the notion of aquatic communities at similar (low) levels of impairment associated with least‐disturbed conditions (LDC) as defined by abiotic criteria. Using data acquired during the second Joint Danube Survey, we defined LDC sites based on a multivariate gradient of anthropogenic pressures, mostly related to morphological deterioration, that spans the entire navigable Danube. 3. The river was subdivided into four stretches, each featuring homogeneous biological assemblages. Indirect gradient analysis revealed relationships between the pressure gradient and selected features of the macroinvertebrate and macrophyte community but not for diatoms or phytoplankton. 4. We identified biological metrics suitable for the quality classification of individual stretches or the entire river. Impoundment is the major hydromorphological alteration on the Danube but various metrics still responded significantly to differences in the morphological condition of sites not affected by impoundment. 5. A comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling techniques (airlift versus kick‐and‐sweep) revealed differences in how the acquired data reflect the effects of anthropogenic pressure. Biological metrics based only on kick‐and‐sweep sample data were insensitive to habitat deterioration in the heavily modified Upper Danube. 6. This study exemplifies the empirical approach of alternative benchmarking in intercalibration and offers practical solutions to some of the challenges of large river bioassessment.     

Direct comparison of assessment methods using benthic macroinvertebrates: a contribution to the EU Water Framework Directive intercalibration exercise

The aim of the intercalibration exercise presently performed by the EU is to identify and resolve significant inconsistencies between the ecological quality classifications of EU Member States and the normative definitions of the EU Water Framework Directive. Based on benthic macroinvertebrate data of two European stream types (small siliceous mountain streams and medium-sized lowland streams in Central and Western Europe) we correlated the indices of 10 river quality assessment methods (ASPT, BMWP, DSFI, German Multimetric Index, Saprobic Indices) applied in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom. National class boundaries were compared via regression analysis. Assessment methods of the same type (Saprobic Indices, BMWP/ASPT scores) showed best correlation results (R²>0.7). The good quality status boundaries of the national methods deviated up to 25%; thus indicating the necessity to harmonize the national classification schemes. Prerequisites of the presented intercalibration approach are (1) a sufficiently large and consistent dataset representative of the respective common intercalibration types and (2) agreement on common type specific reference conditions.     

The STAR common metrics approach to the WFD intercalibration process: Full application for small, lowland rivers in three European countries

Class boundaries of three European assessment systems based on macroinvertebrates were compared and harmonized. Three different approaches to comparison, one based on regression analysis and the other two on statistical testing, were described and used, however only one was considered useful for the harmonization of boundaries. In all cases, the calculations were based on a set of six Intercalibration Common Metrics, combined into a simple multimetric index (ICMi). The ICMi was calculated for three test datasets from Italy, Poland and the UK, all belonging to the same stream type (small lowland siliceous sand rivers). For comparison, a regression model was employed to convert national assessment boundary values into ICMi values. The ICMi was also calculated on samples included in a strictly WFD-compliant benchmark dataset. The values of the ICMi obtained for the quality classes Good and High for the test and benchmark datasets were statistically compared. When significant differences were observed in the harmonization phase, the boundaries of the national method were refined until no further differences were observed. For the test datasets and assessment systems of Italy (IBE index) and Poland (Polish BMWP index) small refinements of the boundaries between High/Good and Good/Moderate classes were sufficient to remove the differences from the benchmark dataset. After harmonization, in the studied stream type, the percentage of samples requiring restoration to Good quality increased by 22 and 6% for Italy and Poland, respectively. For the UK dataset (EQI ASPT) the comparison to benchmark dataset showed no significant differences, thus no harmonization was proposed. A general discussion of the options used to compare boundaries based on the ICMi and their potential for harmonization is provided. Lastly, the option of harmonizing class boundaries through comparison to an external, benchmarking dataset and then re-setting them until no differences are found is supported.     

The trophic state of Lake Ladoga as indicated by late summer phytoplankton

As a part of the joint Russian-Finnish evaluation of human impact on Lake Ladoga, we studied the phytoplankton of the lake in order to find biological indicators for eutrophication. A second aim of the investigation was intercalibration of sampling and phytoplankton counting techniques between the Russian and Finnish laboratories. Phytoplankton samples were collected from 27 sampling stations in the lake and from the rivers Volkhov and Neva in 9–13 August 1993. In surface water samples the phytoplankton fresh weight biomass varied in the range 218–3575 mg m^–33. Highest biomass values were encountered in Sortavala Bay, and lowest ones in the western central part of the lake. Phytoplankton species composition varied considerably in the lake; blue-green and green algae predominated near-shore areas and Cryptophyceae in the offshore stations. Canonical correspondance analysis revealed close grouping of eutrophy indicating communities, dominated mainly by greens and blue-greens, in the most nutrient-rich parts of Lake Ladoga, the Volkhov and Svir Bays. Samples from the vicinity of the inflows of Vuoksi and Burnaya Rivers and off Pitkaranta formed a separate group, dominated by diatoms, most of which were typical to mesotrophic or eutrophy lakes. As judged by phytoplankton biomass values and chlorophyll a concentrations, Lake Ladoga may generally be classified as mesotrophic. Eutrophicated areas are found in the northern archipelago of the lake and in the areas influenced by large rivers.     

The validation of common European class boundaries for river benthic macroinvertebrates to facilitate the intercalibration process of the Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all the water bodies in Europe be protected and enhanced to achieve Good Ecological Status by 2015. The intercalibration of the biological monitoring results of Member States has to be carried out in relation to classification tasks to guarantee a common understanding of ‘Good Ecological Status’ at a European level. An intercalibration exercise was carried out within the framework of different Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs), each composed of a group of countries that share similar river types and have a discrete geographical range. By means of the intercalibration exercise, common European boundaries were proposed for river invertebrate assessment methods within each GIG. The purpose of this study was to validate the boundaries proposed for the formal intercalibration exercise. A benchmark data set was used, which comprised data, collected in different European countries that satisfied WFD requirements. The data set included a set of reference sites and provided evidence of a high degree of comparability among countries. The STAR Intercalibration Common Metric index (STAR_ICMi) was calculated for benchmark samples and was selected as the index in which national assessment boundaries were expressed. It was applied for the intercalibration exercise in two GIGs. For the STAR_ICMi, the coefficient of variation was also calculated, demonstrating a comparable variability with indices that are based on species level identification. A fixed percentile of reference samples STAR_ICMi values was selected as the boundary between High and Good status. The range from this fixed percentile to the lowest possible value was divided into four equal parts to obtain the remaining class boundaries. The resulting High/Good and Good/Moderate boundaries were compared to the boundaries proposed by GIGs and proved to be in line with those defined in the intercalibration exercise. Even if, for the intercalibration exercise, some procedures to check the Member States (MS) data sets where put into practice, it is the responsibility of each state to guarantee the WFD compliancy of their reference conditions and methods. Accordingly, the process of validation explained in this article, or similar ones, can be an important step forward and demonstrate the comparability of the actual boundaries.     

A bioassay using the measurement of the growth inhibition of a ciliate protozoan: Colpidium campylum Stokes

A bioassay method using the ciliate protozoan Colpidium campylum is presented in a standardized form. The influence of the initial cell concentration on the potassium dichromate EC50 values was determined. Two intercalibration experiments between two laboratories were performed on ten toxicants in two different conditions. The potassium dichromate EC50 determinations performed by eight different people are also presented. All results are discussed in terms of feasibility and reproducibility of the method, fields of application, and limitations.     

The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches

STAR is a European Commission Framework V project (EVK1-CT-2001-00089). The project aim is to provide practical advice and solutions with regard to many of the issues associated with the Water Framework Directive. This paper provides a context for the STAR research programme through a review of the requirements of the directive and the Common Implementation Strategy responsible for guiding its implementation. The scientific and strategic objectives of STAR are set out in the form of a series of research questions and the reader is referred to the papers in this volume that address those objectives, which include: (a) Which methods or biological quality elements are best able to indicate certain stressors? (b) Which method can be used on which scale? (c) Which method is suited for early and late warnings? (d) How are different assessment methods affected by errors and uncertainty? (e) How can data from different assessment methods be intercalibrated? (f) How can the cost-effectiveness of field and laboratory protocols be optimised? (g) How can boundaries of the five classes of Ecological Status be best set? (h) What contribution can STAR make to the development of European standards? The methodological approaches adopted to meet these objectives are described. These include the selection of the 22 stream-types and 263 sites sampled in 11 countries, the sampling protocols used to sample and survey phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, fish and hydromorphology, the quality control and uncertainty analyses that were applied, including training, replicate sampling and audit of performance, the development of bespoke software and the project outputs. This paper provides the detailed background information to be referred to in conjunction with most of the other papers in this volume. These papers are divided into seven sections: (1) typology, (2) organism groups, (3) macrophytes and diatoms, (4) hydromorphology, (5) tools for assessing European streams with macroinvertebrates, (6) intercalibration and comparison and (7) errors and uncertainty. The principal findings of the papers in each section and their relevance to the Water Framework Directive are synthesised in short summary papers at the beginning of each section. Additional outputs, including all sampling and laboratory protocols and project deliverables, together with a range of freely downloadable software are available from the project website at www.eu_star.at.     

Intercalibration and comparison – major results and conclusions from the STAR project

The main results of the STAR project on the intercalibration of boundaries of European assessment systems and comparison between assessment methods are summarized here. The main findings are outlined in the context of the Water Framework Directive that requires reliable instructions to be set up on how to use and harmonise assessment systems and methods for European rivers. The main papers published on these subjects by STAR partners are reviewed, with focus on major questions addressed and approaches used for investigation. The need for broad coverage of geographic ranges and pressure gradients, together with the goal of providing outcomes appropriate to the effective application of the WFD are emphasized. Extensive datasets from a wide range of countries, stream types and sites and a large number of methods, metrics and approaches are compared and tested and various cross-cutting themes emerged. Among these, the value of the use of benchmarking systems for comparison and intercalibration is highlighted. Two ways of looking for comparability of assessment systems results were analyzed: a) by adopting identical sampling techniques across Europe and b) by harmonizing the classification results of the national assessment systems. In addition, the need, in the intercalibration process, for a proper definition of the criteria for reference conditions is underlined. This is because their imprecision now represents one of the major weaknesses of the whole intercalibration process. Direct and indirect approaches to intercalibration are considered and commented on for their potential use in distinct circumstances. Finally, the use common metrics for the intercalibration process, which make comparability across Europe valid, is tested and indeed encouraged.     

Comparison of methods used in zooplankton sampling and counting in the joint Russian-Finnish evaluation of the trophic state of Lake Ladoga

The results of a joint Russian-Finnish investigation on zooplankton in Lake Ladoga are presented, and a comparison is made between two sampling techniques, tube sampler and plankton net, and between two counting methods. The precision of subsampling and sampling is further discussed on the basis of zooplankton data gathered in Lake Saimaa, Finland. The comparison clearly indicates that a tube sampler is required for reliable sampling of small-sized animals, while a plankton net saves time and is a more economical sampler for large, rare or active animals. The comparison between the results obtained by Finnish and Russian workers, using different counting procedures, shows that the main groups of crustacean zooplankton are similarly counted and identified in the two laboratories.