Lakes assessment:

suitability of BQEs along gradients of eutrophication and hydromorphological pressures

Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA
Phytoplankton experts: Laurence Carvalho2, Geoff Phillips3, Ute Mischke4, Giuseppe Morabito5, Gbor Borics6, Birger Skjelbred1, Marko Jrvinen7, Stina Drakare8, Tiina Noges9, Peeter Noges9, Stephen Thackeray2, Claire McDonald2, Christophe Laplace-Treyture18, Macrophyte experts: Agnieszka Kolada10, Martin Sndergaard11, Nigel Wilby12, Seppo Hellsten7, Bernard Dudley2, Fraucke Ecke8, Marit Mjelde1, Vincent Bertrin18 Macroinvertebrate experts: Martin Pusch4, Ralph Clarke13, Ken Irvine14,15, Angelo Solimini16, Jukka Aroviita7, Oliver Miler4, Elaine McGoff8, Jrgen Bhmer 17, Fish experts: Erik Jeppesen11, Torben L. Lauridsen11, Christine Argillier18, Stephanie Pedron18,20, Simon Causs18, Murielle Gevrey18, Sandra Brucet19, Kerstin Holmgren8, Matthias Emmrich4, Thomas Mehner4, Julien De Bortoli18, Ian Winfield2, Pietro Volta5, Atle Rustadbakken1, Martti Rask21, Cross-BQE Statisticians: Jannicke Moe1 , Mike Dunbar2 Generalists and coordinators: Sandra Poikane19 , Christian Feld22, Daniel Hering22

Conference, date, place

Outline
Objectives Datasets and methodology Main results for each BQE Cross BQE comparisons Key messages and recommendations Future challenges

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Objectives for WISER work on Lakes

identify and develop suitable biological indicators / metrics for assessing status of European lakes according to WFD requirements propose common metrics sensitive to eutrophication and hydro-morphological pressures, to support the WFD intercalibration process quantify uncertainty for each biological quality element as a basis for recommendations on WFD monitoring design
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Datasets
biggest in Europe and the world?
Existing data from 21 countries with harmonised taxonomy
BQE Phytoplankton Macrophytes Macroinvertebrates Fish Abio&c pressure data for all water bodies # Water-bodies 6 927* 1 575 227 1 632

New data from 26-51 lakes

25 lakes sampled for all BQEs in 2009 (and 2010)

*taxonomic data available from ca. 1500 water bodies

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Methodology
Metric development/testing: Statistical data analyses
Multivariate methods (CCA & others)

Uncertainty analyses:
Sampling of each BQE according to standardised methodology Statistically stratified sampling design used for all BQEs

Univariate regressions (linear & non-linear)

Using WISERBUGS software to quantify uncertainty components

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Phytoplankton main results and impacts

Results
New common metric developed for taxonomic composition: Phytoplankton Trophic Index (PTI) New bloom metric developed: Cyanobacteria biovolume

Impacts
PTI metric used in IC in Central Baltic and Northern GIGs Cyanobacteria biovolume adopted as national metric by several countries (Spain,Italy, Norway,UK) Both metrics can be used together with chlorophyll a for whole BQE assessment and to set more WFD compliant nutrient targets Uncertainty results can be used to improve the design of WFD monitoring programmes, esp. concerning sampling frequency
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Low spatial uncertainty, temporal uncertainty more important

Phytoplankton Taxonomic composition metric: Phytoplankton trophic index (PTI)

PTI scores had a significant type specific relationship with phosphorus that was linear in the range of 2 100 gP L-1.
The lack of response of the phytoplankton community > 100 gP L-1 highlights the importance of reducing lake P concentrations to below this level.
Genus Carteria Spondylosium Chrysochromulina Chrysococcus Rhabdoderma Quadrigula Oocystis Radiocystis Eunotia Synura Pinnularia Sphaerocystis Asterionella Cyclotella Puncticulata Chlamydocapsa Peridinium Mougeotia Ankyra Gonyostomum Peridiniopsis Xanthidium Raphidocelis Woronichinia Fragilaria Cyanodictyon Katodinium Cymbella Ceratium Navicula Eudorina Planctonema Closterium Planktosphaeria Anabaena Volvox Golenkinia Treubaria Coelastrum Diatoma Lyngbya Chlorella Planktothrix Stephanodiscus Ulothrix Limnothrix Pseudanabaena Oscillatoria Aphanizomenon Nitzschia Melosira Golenkiniopsis Pandorina Microcystis Phacus Euglena Cylindrospermopsis PTI Optima N records LN2b -0,480 104 S -0,480 643 S -0,472 222 S -0,468 26 S -0,448 600 S -0,436 1077 S -0,405 68 S -0,331 83 T -0,318 257 T -0,316 18 T -0,290 322 T -0,277 799 T -0,227 775 T -0,209 39 T -0,163 486 T -0,139 1101 T -0,125 250 T -0,112 353 T -0,071 167 T -0,069 87 T -0,057 46 T -0,055 123 T 0,008 56 T 0,043 421 T 0,317 147 T 0,318 20 T 0,343 50 T 0,353 82 T 0,583 105 VT 0,687 98 VT 0,694 64 VT 0,730 616 VT 0,732 44 VT 0,755 21 VT 0,984 26 VT 1,032 41 VT 1,053 85 VT 1,054 27 VT 1,078 158 VT 1,082 41 VT 1,345 25 VT 1,373 450 VT 1,416 321 VT 1,427 11 VT 1,430 190 VT 1,441 61 VT 1,570 169 VT 1,575 13 VT 1,595 58 VT 1,674 21 VT 1,711 10 VT 1,752 143 VT 1,763 27 VT 1,788 56 VT 1,912 15 VT 2,095 51 VT 2,121 24 VT Lake Type LN2a LN1 LCB1 S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S VS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S T S S T S S T S S T S S T S S T S S T T S T T S T T S T T S T T T VT T T VT T T VT T T VT T T VT T T VT VT T VT VT T VT VT T VT VT T VT VT T VT VT T VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT LCB2 VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS S S S S S S S S S T T T T T T T T T T T T T VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT VT

Low alkalinity lakes (red) had lower PTI scores than high alkalinity lakes (green) at the same level of phosphorus.
Eutrophic taxa are less dominant in low alkalinty lakes than in high alkalinity lakes at same TP level

For more info, see poster by G. Phillips

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Phytoplankton bloom intensity metric: Cyanobacteria biovolume

Cyanobacterial blooms are severe in enriched lakes across Europe

Risk of exceedance of WHO health alert threshold (biovolume 2mm3 L-1) 10% exceedance at 20 g L-1 TP 30% exceedance at 40 g L-1 TP
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Phytoplankton uncertainty
Metric scores vary largely between lakes - significantly related to eutrophication pressure for IC recommended metrics (chla, PTI, cyanobacteria) Within-lake sampling- and analytical variability are minor for integrated samples in euphotic pelagic zone
Optimal predictor

Metric

Country Waterbody Station Sample Analyst Error Total Total (subwithin between sample) 0 0.96 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.96 Chlorophylla PTI 0 0.88 <0.01 0 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.88 SPI 0 0.65 0.03 0 0.19 0.13 0.35 0.65 MFGI 0 0.86 0.02 <0.01 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.86 Evenness 0 0.69 0.04 0 0.17 0.1 0.31 0.69 Cyanobacteria 0.09 0.86 0.01 0 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.94

TP, depth, latitude TP, depth, altitude depth, altitude depth, altitude TP alkalinity TP, depth

Inter-annual and seasonal variability still under investigation, but is probably higher
(see figure from Carvalho et al 2006, SNIFFER report)

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Macrophytes main results and impacts

Results
Common metrics suitable for eutrophication are:
Taxonomic composition metrics: ICM and Ellenberg index Abundance proxy metrics: max. colonisation depth and % cover

Impacts
The ICM has been used for intercalibration in Northern and Central Baltic GIG The abundance metrics are promising, but need further improvement in field methodology The Water level fluctuation index is a promising tool to set true biological boundaries for good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies to reduce uncertainty in ecological status assessment for macrophytes, several stations or increased station area should be sampled
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Metric suitable for hydromorphological pressure:

The macrophyte water level fluctuation index (FI, NO)

Uncertainty:
largest variability found between stations within a lake

Eutrophication metrics for macrophytes taxonomic composition

10

Intercalibra&on Common Metric for lake macrophytes (ICM), calculated using average of unweighted species scores (scaling 1 10) based on arithme&c mean TP in lakes (leE) where they occur

9 8 7 6

ICM

5 4 3 2 1 0 0,0

ICM r2 = 0.52
0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 LogTP (ug/L)

BE EE FI IE LT LV NL NO PL RO SE UK

Ellenberg Index

Ellenberg N index, calculated using average of unweighted species scores (scaling 1 10), and expert based indicator values (species scores) Both metrics, but esp.Ellenberg index have less response to TP when TP is > 100 g/l

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0,0 BE EE FI IE LT LV

Ellenberg r2 = 0.47
0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

NL NO RO SE UK PL

LogTP (ug/L)

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Eutrophication metrics for macrophytes abundance proxy: Cmax and % cover

Maximum colonisation depth is a promising abundance metric for macrophytes :
Log Cmax = 0.84 0.17*log TP (0.17) -0.27*log Colour (0.21) + 0.19*log Z_max (0.07), r2=0.45, N= 233

% cover shows a decrease at increasing nutrient concentrations

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Macrophytes Water Level Fluctuation index

WLc correlated very well with winter drawdown in storage reservoirs in Northern countries
Aquatic macrophytes in Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian lakes sensitive and tolerant to water level regulation

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Macrophytes uncertainty
Spatial variability is high, but can be reduced by increasing the number of stations and transects

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Macroinvertebrates main results and impacts

Results:
A new multimetric index is developed for HyMo pressure:
The littoral macroinvertebrate shore-line modification index (LIM)

Impacts:
A new assessment tool for morphological alterations of the shores of natural lakes is now applied in Germany and can be applied in other countries Eutrophication pressure is not specifically assessed with littoral macroinvertebrates To reduce uncertainty a sampling protocol is recommended

Macroinvertebrates in the littoral zone are less suited than the botanical BQEs to detect eutrophication pressure Spatial variability is high, requiring sampling many replicates for each level of pressure

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

1. sampling sites grouped into 3 levels of morphological altera&on

Es#ma#on of stress level

Reference

Intermediate alteration

High alteration

2. Addi&onal quan&ta&ve es&ma&on using

the Lake Habitat Survey protocol

Rowan, J.S. 2008. Lake Habitat Survey in the United Kingdom. Field survey guidance manual. Version 4. Dundee, The Scotland and Northern Ireland forum for environmental research (SNIFFER) & Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Li7oral Invertebrate Mul#metric (LIM) for shore line modica#ons

based on samples from 51 lakes - composite sampling (LIMCO) and - habitat-specic sampling (LIMHA) Dieren&a&on of mul&metric was done depending on region due to biogeogr.
MMI Spear mans Rho 0.70 0.49 0,44 0.47 LIMHA 0.72 0.40 0,44 0.71 Region Metrics

LIMCO

DE+DK Italy SE+FI IE+UK DE+DK Italy SE+FI IE+UK

MEAN of (Gath&Coll%AC + MargalefDiv + Chiro%AC + No.EPTCBOtaxa) MEAN of (rK-relation + MargalefDiv + Odon% + no.ETOtaxa) MEAN of (Lithal%AC + no.famil + Crusta%AC + no.Odontaxa) MEAN of (GathColl% + MargalefDiv + Dipt%AC + no.ETOtaxa) STONES: MEAN of (Gath&Coll%AC + MargalefDiv + Coleopt%AC + No.EPTCBOtaxa) SAND: MEAN of (%TypePsa + ShanWienDiv + Oligo%AC + EPTtaxa%) MACROPHYTES: MEAN of (Predat% + Evenness + Coleopt%AC + EPTCBOtaxa%) STONES: MEAN of (SwimmDiv%AC + ShanWienDiv + no.famil + EPTCBOtaxa%)
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Pressure-response-rela#onships of assessment tool

Li7oral Invertebrate Mul#metric Index based on composite samples (LIMCO)

Littoral Invertebrate Multimetric Index based on composite samples (LIMCO)

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Further improvement
Merging data from all four regions together Finding the overall best single metrics to be combined to a multimetric applicable for larger parts of Europe

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Fish main results and impacts

Results:
A multimetric Fish index responding to eutrophication is developed, consisting of:
CPUE, BPUE, OMNI Response to pressure is less good than the botanical BQEs

Impacts:
Fish seem less suited than other BQEs to detect single pressures at the pan-European scale, but can be used regionally

Hydroacoustic method is promising to assess fish abundance No relationship found between fish and HyMo pressure Large intra-lake variability between depth strata means many nets per lake (or precise hydroacoustics) Fish species are sensitive to increased temperature with warm water species increasing and cold water species decreasing

Hydroacoustics provide costeffective assessment of fish abundance Fish species can be good indicators of climate change

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Fish metric response to eutrophication

Fish index Multimetric index (CPUE, BPUE, OMNI) EQR
1.0 r = -0,5 R2 = 0.25 AL CB EC MED NO

0.0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of non-natural land cover in the catchment

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Main trends in fish response to eutrophication and climate

Oligotrophic Cold High altitude lakes Small lakes Cold High altitude lakes Low seasonality
DENSITY & BIOMASS

Eutrophic Warm Lowland lakes Large lakes Warm Lowland lakes High seasonality

RICHNESS & DIVERSITY

BODY SIZE

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Fish in lakes and Hydromorphology

Seemingly no relationship between fish community descriptors and hydromorphological alterations. Why?
Fish are not sensitive or they have a high resilience ? Fish are moving Impacts of these pressures is obscured by the effect of biological interactions? Results are limited to a certain degree of pressure intensity? New analyses focusing on fish sampled by gill nets in the littoral zone may reveal impacts HyMo pressure should be better characterised

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Cross BQE comparisons: Sensitivity to human pressures

BQE Phytoplankton Macrophytes Benthic fauna (littoral) Fish Pressure
Eutrophication (TP) Eutrophication (TP) HyMo (water level fluct.) Eutrophication (TP) HyMo (shore modifications) Eutrophication (non-natural land cover)

Best common metrics R2

Chlorophyll a PTI (tax. comp.) ICM (tax.comp) WLi (tax. Comp) (NO+FI) MMI MMI (LIMCO) (DE+DK) MMI (LIMHA) (DE+DK) 0.63 0.67 0.52 0.77 0.40

Rho
0.70 0.72

MMI (CPUE, BPUE, OMNI) 0.25

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Cross BQE comparisons: Variability based on the field sampling

BQE Major variance component Overall natural + methodological variability Temporal (seasonal) Spatial (station) Spatial (station) Small (~<25%?) Medium (~30%) Medium (30-40%)

Phytoplankton Macrophytes Benthic fauna Fish*

Spatial (depth stratum) Large (>90%) (standardise sampling period)

*Large within lake variability for fish is less important, as data from all gill nets and all depth strata are merged when analysing fish response to pressure

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Other evidence supporting WISER results on sensitivity and uncertainty

The WISER common metric results are supported by a comparison of 93 national lake assessment methods (Brucet , Birk et al.) showing that correlation coefficients are higher and less variable for phytoplankton and macrophytes than for macroinvertebrates and fish.

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Key messages for lake assessment

Phytoplankton and macrophytes are recommended for assessing eutrophication pressure. Good common metrics developed in WISER and used for intercalibration can be used also as national metrics Littoral BQEs are well suited for assessing HyMo pressures: metrics are available for macrophytes response to water level fluctuations, and benthic invertebrates response to morphological shore-line degradation. Fish show less clear signals to individual pressures at the European scale, but may be good indicators at the regional scale. Fish are also good indicators of climate change: warm water species are increasing, cold water species decreasing

Eutrophication

Macro phyte Lake s Biological Benthic Quality inverte Fish brates HyMo alterations Climate warming
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Phytoplankton

Recommendations for lake monitoring

Phytoplankton monitoring should have sufficient frequency (monthly) to reduce the temporal variability Monitoring of littoral BQEs: macrophytes and benthic invertebrates should have several stations and replicates for each station Fish monitoring must include all depth strata with many gill nets (or whole-lake hydroacoustics) For all BQEs: Uncertainty can be further reduced by ensuring effective and consistent training in sampling and species identification across Europe
WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Future challenges
Linking ecological status in lakes to ecosystem services Metrics, reference values and class boundaries should take account of climate change Functional metrics across BQEs are needed to improve whole lake assessment, including top-down control and trophic interactions Better metrics for Eastern Continental and Mediterranean regions needed More metrics needed for reservoirs (HMWBs)

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia

Thanks for your attention

WISER final conference, 25-26 Jan 2012, Tallin, Estonia