European Class 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 52
About This Presentation
Title:

European Class 2005

Description:

Sabrina Coste, Julia Hegner and Fran?ois Rose. 13th May 2005 ... Water velocity was measured at the sampling stations using a flow meter. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:48
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 53
Provided by: systema272
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: European Class 2005


1
European Class 2005
  • The WFD approach at
  • the River Gallikos
  • in Makedonia, Hellas

Sabrina Coste, Julia Hegner and Fran?ois
Rose 13th May 2005 School of Biology -
Aristoteles University Thessaloniki
2
Contents
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Study Area
  • 3. Methods and Materials
  • 4. Discussion of Results
  • 5. Conclusion

3
1. Introduction
  • The Water Framework Directive 2000/60 E.C.
  • "good water status for all waters by 2015"
  • The Ecological Quality Ratio
  • Assessment of
  • Biological Parameters
  • Hydromorphological Parameters
  • Physicochemical Parameters

4
Contents
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Study Area
  • 3. Methods and Materials
  • 4. Discussion of Results
  • 5. Conclusion

5
2. Study Area - Gallikos
  • Localisation
  • Coordinates 40,48299 N 22,51235 E
  • Sampling in beginning of March
  • Landuses

6
(No Transcript)
7
Contents
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Study Area
  • 3. Methods and Materials
  • 4. Discussion of Results
  • 5. Conclusion

8
3. Methods and Materials
  • A, Biological Parameters
  • Macroinvertebrate- Kick-Sampling
  • Biotic Indices and Scores
  • B, Hydromorphological Parameters
  • Greek Habitat Richness Matrix
  • River Habitat Survey (RHS)
  • C, Physicochemical Parameters
  • D, Statistical Analyses Multivariate Technics
  • Primer
  • Simper
  • Fuzzy
  • Canoco

9
A, Biological Parameters
  • Using macroinvertebrates, because .
  • They dont move a lot
  • Indicator organisms
  • Not difficult to sample and to identify
  • Sampling
  • Kick-sweep sampling
  • With standards pond net
  • 3 min 1 min in all habitats at each site
  • Conservation with formol
  • After sampling
  • In laboratory animals are sorted and identify

10
Tool and Technic
  • Kick sweep sampling by Yorgos Chatzinikolaou
  • Pond net used to sample

11
BIOTIC INDICES AND SCORES
  • Based on the principle that polluted waters are
    generally less diverse than comparable unpolluted
    waters.
  • All countries have different Biotic Indices or
    Scores
  • The UK Biological Monitoring Working Party Score
  • ?
  • The Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party
    Score
  • ?
  • The Hellenic Evaluation Score

12
The Hellenic Evaluation Score
  • Abundant
  • Common
  • Present
  • Taxa
  • Calculation of the Hellenic Biological Monitoring
    Working Party (HBMWP) score Sum of all the
    results of the taxa
  • Calculation of the Hellenic Average Score Per
    Taxon (HASPT) HBMWP/ number of taxa
  • Decide whether the site is poor or rich according
    to Greek Habitat Richness Matrix (GHRM)
  • (gt10) Case J
  • (1.01-10) Case J
  • (0-1) Case J
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • ) Capniidae, Chloroperlidae,
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • ß) Siphlonuridae,
  • 120
  • 110
  • 100
  • ?) Aphelocheiridae,
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • d) Blephariceridae
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • e) Phryganeidae, Molanidae, Odontoceridae,
    Bareidae, Lepidostomatidae, Thremmatidae,
    Brachycentridae, Helicopsychidae

13
Rich site Many types of habitats
Poor site Few types of habitats
  • Y
  • HASPT
  • X
  • HBMWP
  • Y
  • ASPT
  • X
  • HBMWP
  • 5
  • gt55,69
  • 5
  • gt1053
  • 5
  • gt64,72
  • 5
  • gt1532
  • 4
  • 45,18-55,69
  • 4
  • 756-1052
  • 3
  • 35,33-45,17
  • 3
  • 389-755
  • 3
  • 45,82-54,56
  • 3
  • 830-1325
  • 2
  • 27,50-35,32
  • 2
  • 167-388
  • 2
  • 31,73-45,81
  • 2
  • 341-829
  • 1
  • 0-27,49
  • 1
  • 0-166
  • 1
  • 0-31,72
  • 1
  • 0-340

4. Choose the respectively X/Y-Table 5. Classify
HBMWP score ? X 6. Classify HASPT ? Y 7. Final
Calculation (XY)/2 HES
14
8. Classification of the water quality
  • Interpretation
  • Semi-sum (HBMWPHASPT)
  • excellent
  • 5
  • Very good
  • 4,5
  • Good
  • 4
  • Good
  • 3,5
  • Moderate
  • 3
  • Moderate
  • 2,5
  • Poor
  • 2
  • Poor
  • 1,5
  • Very poor
  • 1

15
The UK BMWP score
  • The BMWP score
  • Benthic invertebrate are refered to a score based
    on their susceptibility to pollution
  • The ASPT
  • BMWPT / number of taxa
  • The EQItaxa
  • number of taxa observed / number of taxa
    predicted
  • The EQIaspt
  • ASPT observed / ASPT predicted

16
UK river classification scheme
  • EQIASPT
  • EQItaxa
  • Description
  • Grade
  • 1.0
  • 0.85
  • Very good
  • A
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 0.90
  • 0.70
  • Good
  • B
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 0.77
  • 0.55
  • Fairly good
  • C
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 0.65
  • 0.45
  • Fair
  • D
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 0.50
  • 0.30
  • Poor
  • E

17
The Iberian BMWP score
  • Meaning
  • Score
  • Quality
  • Class
  • Very clean waters (pristine)
  • gt150
  • Good
  • I
  • Differences to the UK BMWP
  • news families that changes the score
  • 5 different levels of classification
  • Almost the same methodology as for the UK BMWP
  • Not polluted, or not noticeably altered system
  • 101-150
  •  
  •  
  • Evidence of effects of mild pollution
  • 61-100
  • Passable
  • II
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Polluted waters (altered system)
  • 36-60
  • Dubious
  • III
  • Very polluted waters (very altered system)
  • 16-35
  • Critical
  • IV
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Strongly polluted waters (strongly altered system)
  • lt15
  • Very critical
  • V

18
B, Hydromorphological Parameters
  • Greek Habitat Richness Matrix (GHRM)

19
River Habitat Survey
  • The Hydromorphological Parameters were recording
    using the River Habitat Survey field method
    (RHS).
  • RHS systematic collection of data associated
    with the physical structure of the watercourses
    based on a standard 500m length of a river
    channel
  • 10 spot checks located at an interval of 50m ?
    recording the features associated with the
    physical structure of the watercourses (channel
    and bank morphologies, structures,
    modifications).
  • A sweep up ? report the general habitat of the
    channel and the management of adjacent land use.

20
(No Transcript)
21
  • Data of the RHS are used for calculate the
    Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA) and the Habitat
    Modification Score (HMS) for each site.
  • HQA give a score indicating the habitat quality
    based on the physical features recorded in the
    RHS (version 1.2).
  • HMS provide a score expriming the extent of
    artificial modification to the physical structure
    of a river (version 1.1).
  • ? 5 Habitat Modification Categories

22
C, Physicochemical Parameters
  • Following physicochemical parameters were
    measured in situ using a digital multimeter
    Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
    Dissolved Oxygen (DO2), Conductivity, Salinity,
    pH, Cl-, NO3-, NH4, NH3-, Turbidity and
    Chlorophyll
  • PO4-, BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were
    analysed in the laboratory
  • Relative abundance of each category of substrate
    (boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, sand, silt)
    was estimated visually.
  • Water velocity was measured at the sampling
    stations using a flow meter. Discharge was
    calculated using measurement of velocity and
    depth at each tenth of the width of the river.

23
D, Statistical Analyses
  • Can be used to generate hypotheses about the
    causality of distribution of taxa.
  • Can identify present discontinuities within
    the biological communities which can be related
    to environmental changes.
  • Can be carried out on presence-absence data or
    quantitative data.
  • Results, usually single figure, is a
    preferantial way to present data.

24
  • Primer Simper (Field et al., 1982)
  • Produces a similarity dendrogram of sampling
    stations based on the presence absence and the
    abundance of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa.
  • Measures the similarity of stations and groups
    of stations, using the Bray-Curtis similarity
    index.
  • Then by SIMPER analysis it may be explained
    which families of macroinvertebrates contribute
    to the similarity or dissimilarity between groups.

25
  • Fuzzy (Equihua, 1990)
  • Was performed in order to obtain ordination
    and classification of the sites.
  • Produces clusters according to the assemblages
    of benthic macroinvertebrates in each site,
    according to the membership value.
  • The numbers of Fuzzy clusters are selected
    according to the higher partition coefficient.
  • Does not assume the existence of discrete
    benthic populations along the various stretches
    of a river system.
  • Identifies the continuum and gradual change of
    the sites faunal composition. Therefore it is
    suitable for the description of ecological
    communities.

26
  • Canoco (Ter Braak, 1988)
  • Analysing the relationships between the
    macroinvertebrate lowest taxonomic level, the
    sampling sites and the physicochemical parameters
  • Is performed to detect covariances between
    environmental/external variables and respective
    biological components.
  • Particularly suited for a forward selection of
    environmental variables in order to determine
    which variables have the greatest influence on
    the species community.

27
Contents
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Study Area
  • 3. Methods and Materials
  • 4. Discussion of Results
  • 5. Conclusion

28
4. Discussion of Results
  • A, Hydromorphological Parameters
  • B, Physicochemical Parameters
  • C, Biological Parameters
  • D, Statistical Analyses

29
A, Hydromorphological Parameter
RHS Galliko (close Nea Filadelphia) HQA score
36 HMS score 30 significantly
modified
Valley Shape
Asymmetrical floodplain
Channel
substrate flow vegetation types modifications
Gravel/pebbles sand Ripples 4 No
Banks
material feature top face land
use modifications
Left
Right
Gravel/Sand Vegetation point bars simple complex R
ough pasture embankment
Earth Gravel/Sand Eroding cliff uniform complex
Tall herbs / rough pasture reinforced
30
Gallikos (close Nea Filadelphia)
31
(No Transcript)
32
B, Physicochemical Parameters
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
C, Biological Parameters
40

41

42
The Hellenic Evaluation Score
  • Quality
  • Score
  • HBMWP
  • HASPT
  • Taxa
  • moderate
  • 3
  • 950
  • 47,5
  • 20
  • G01
  • moderate
  • 3
  • 836
  • 52,25
  • 16
  • G02
  • moderate
  • 2,5
  • 768
  • 48
  • 16
  • G03

43
COMPARATION OF TWO BIOTIC SCORE
  • HELLENIC SCORE
  • IBERIAN SCORE
  • Quality
  • Score
  • Quality
  • Score
  • moderate
  • 3
  • passable
  • 64
  • G01
  • moderate
  • 3
  • polluted water
  • 50
  • G02
  • moderate
  • 2,5
  • polluted water
  • 56
  • G03

44
D, Statistical Analyses
  • Primer
  • Simper
  • Fuzzy
  • Canoco

45
Primer
  • Similarity
  • AB7, G01, G02 G03 (Gammaridae,Baetidae)
  • -A067, A054, A034 A021 (Miscidaceae,Chironomidae
    )
  • - A006 close to the sea

46
Fuzzy
  • Similarity
  • G01, G02 G03 (Gammaridae,Baetidae,
    Chironomidae)
  • -A067, A054, A034 A021 (Miscidaceae,Chironomidae
    )
  • A006 close to the sea
  • AB7 tributary

47
Canoco
48
Contents
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Study Area
  • 3. Methods and Materials
  • 4. Discussion of Results
  • 5. Conclusion

49
After this Case Study
  • we can not make a reliable statement about the
    water quality of the River Gallikos according to
    the WFD
  • No monitoring of all recommended biological
    parameters
  • Only once, not following the recommended
    monitoring frequencies
  • No monitoring of the whole managment unit
  • but it was enough for
  • getting an overview about how the monitoring is
    carried out
  • understanding the correlation between the
    different parameters
  • getting to know the main principles and methods
    of the WFD
  • experiencing and working in an international
    team

50
References
All course documents on Blackboard http//edu.bio.
auth.gr/wq Environment Agency (1997) River
Habitat Survey 1997 Field Survey Guidance
Manual, Incorporating Sercon. Equihua, M.
(1990). FUZZY clustering of ecological data. J.
Ecol. 78. pp. 519-534 Lazaridou-Dimitriadou, M.
et al. (2004) Assessment of the Water and habitat
Quality of a Mediterranean River (Kalamas,
Epirus, Hellas), in Accordance with the EU Water
Frame Work Directive. Acta hydrocim. Hydrobiol.
32, 3, p. 175-188
51
Thanks to
Maria Yorgos Konstantinos Giannis And all the
team of the Biology laboratory at Aristoteles
University, Thessaloniki
52
And for your attention!!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com