development and validation of methods for integrated assessment of ecological status of rivers and...

Development and validation of methods for integrated assessment of ecological status of

rivers and lakes to support RBMPLake macrophytes

Warsaw, 9-10 February 2011

UWM: Hanna CiecierskaJoanna Ruszczyńska Jan Dziedzic Piotr Dynowski

IEP: Agnieszka KoladaNIVA: Marit Mjelde

Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund


• To perform field survey of macrophytes in lakes of Wel river catchemnt by different surveyors and using different methods – COMPLETED

• To test and validatie macrophyte method used in Poland in lake ecological status assessment – COMPLETED

• To test and validate the applicability of different macrophyte metrics describing taxonomic composition and abundance in lake ecological status assessment – COMPLETED

• To estimate an uncertainty and risk of misclassification in lake assessment based on macrophytes concerning different surveyours and different methods – RUNNING

• To combine macrophyte-based assessment with assessment based on other biological elements, physico-chemical parameters and hydromorphology

Aims:


Macrophyte metrics Water quality indicators

TP TN Chla SD PCA1

ESMI 0,66** 0,46* 0,54* Cover (%) 0,45* Cmax 0,58* 0,44* 0,60** 0,73** 0,72** Z 0,72** 0,57* 0,46* 0,63** S 0,51* 0,54* H Hmax 0,43* 0,53* 0,46* 0,55* J Share of (%) Characeae Potamion 0,44* 0,76*** 0,66** 0,66** 0,77*** Nymphaeion Phragmition 0,45* 0,68** 0,69** 0,86*** 0,81***

Relationships between macrophyte indicators and water quality parameters; values of determination coef. R2>0,6 marked in bold

ESMI responds good enough to be applied for lake assessment !!!

Testing ESMI:

0 ,0 4 0 ,0 5 0 ,0 6 0 ,0 7 0 ,0 8 0 ,0 9 0 ,1 0 0 ,1 1 0 ,1 2

Ptot

0 ,2 5

0 ,3 0

0 ,3 5

0 ,4 0

0 ,4 5

0 ,5 0

0 ,5 5

0 ,6 0

0 ,6 5

0 ,7 0

0 ,7 5

ES

MI

Ptot:E S M I: r2 = 0 ,6 5 6 0 ; r = -0 ,8 0 9 9 ; p = 0 ,0 0 4 5 ; y = 0 ,8 1 2 2 - 5 ,1 7 6 1 *x

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

P CA 1

0 ,2 5

0 ,3 0

0 ,3 5

0 ,4 0

0 ,4 5

0 ,5 0

0 ,5 5

0 ,6 0

0 ,6 5

0 ,7 0

0 ,7 5

ES

MI

P CA 1 :E S M I: r2 = 0 ,5 4 2 6 ; r = 0 ,7 3 6 6 ; p = 0 ,0 1 5 1 ; y = 0 ,4 2 2 5 + 0 ,0 5 0 4 *x


Testing ESMI:

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ESMI AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS

Relationships almost linear !!!


Uncertainty:

SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY IN MULTIMETRIC ESMI

12 lakes surveyed by using four survey methods of different level of accuracy:• Polish monitoring protocol based on transects and plant communities (synecological approach)• method based on transects and plant species (autecological approach)• method based on phytolittoral mapping• sigma-association method (one lake = one reléve)

METHOD ACCURACY

12 lakes surveyed on 6 to 26 spatially distributed transects:SPATIAL VARIABILITY

10 lakes surveyed by using Polish original monitoring protocol by two or three independent surveyors:

WORKER ERROR

Method:Dąbro

wa Wlk.

Dąbrowa

Mała

Rumian

Zarybi-nek

Tarczynskie

GrądyLidzbarskie

Kiełpin-skie

Hartowiecki

e

Zwiniarz

Neliwa

Wlecz

No of transects 26 21 22 11 16 22 18 11 10 12 6 6

ESMI_trans X XX XXX XX XX XXX XX XXX XX X XX XX

ESMI_sp X X X X X X X X X X X X

ESMI_map X X X X X X X X X X X X

ESMI_sigma X X X X X X X X X X X X


MATRIX OF SURVEY METHODS AND NUMBER

OF SURVEYORS PER LAKE

Uncertainty:

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

Jeziora głębokie Jeziora płytkie

ESM

I

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

ESM

I

ESMI ESMI_gat ESMI_sigm ESMI_map


Data:

ESMI DISTRIBUTION ACC. TO 4 SURVEY METHODS

OF DIFFERENT ACCURACY


Metoda ESMI ESMI _gat

ESMI _map

ESMI _sigm

odch. stand.

Jeziora stratyfikowane Wlecz 0,696 0,606 0,607 0,706 0,055 Dąbrowa Wielka 0,708 0,636 0,618 0,673 0,040 Dąbrowa Mała 0,516 0,487 0,391 0,509 0,058 Kiełpińskie 0,425 0,416 0,421 0,410 0,006 Rumian 0,415 0,374 0,382 0,382 0,018 Lidzbarskie 0,352 0,296 0,314 0,284 0,030 Jeziora polimiktyczne Neliwa 0,797 0,759 0,766 0,705 0,038 Hartowieckie 0,481 0,407 0,417 0,531 0,058 Grądy 0,371 0,306 0,276 0,248 0,053 Tarczyńskie 0,360 0,301 0,250 0,410 0,070 Zarybinek 0,381 0,284 0,246 0,302 0,057 Zwiniarz 0,280 0,199 0,249 0,267 0,036

FOUR METHODS OF DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SAMPLING ACCURACY

Data:

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

Wlec

z

Rumian

Lidzbarskie

Neliw

a

Harto

wieckie

Zaryb

inek

Jeziora głębokie Jeziora płytkie

ESM

I

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

ESM

I

1 2 3


Data:

ESMI DISTRIBUTION ACC. TO 2 or 3 SURVEYORS


LAKES SAMPLED BY TWO OR THREE INDEPENDENT SURVEYORS

Badacz 1 2 3 odch. stand.

Jeziora stratyfikowane Kiełpińskie 0,425 0,471 0,500 0,038 Rumian 0,415 0,383 0,338 0,039 Wlecz 0,696 0,811 - 0,081 Dąbrowa Mała 0,516 0,549 - 0,023 Lidzbarskie 0,352 0,285 - 0,047 Jeziora polimiktyczne Grądy 0,320 0,371 0,354 0,026 Neliwa 0,797 0,675 - 0,086 Hartowieckie 0,481 0,530 - 0,035 Tarczyńskie 0,360 0,263 - 0,069 Zarybinek 0,317 0,381 - 0,045

Data:

75perc. from reference

sites

minimum value

recorded in database

division in log scale

1

0

LCB1 LCB2

Ecological

state

Range of ESMI value

High 0,680 - 1,000 0,680 - 1,000

Good 0,340 - 0,679 0,270 - 0,679

Moderate 0,170 - 0,339 0,110 - 0,269

Poor 0,090 - 0,169 0,050 - 0,109

Bad < 0,090 < 0,050


Classification:

Original class boundaries of ESMI - range LOG-devided:

Lake name ESMIOriginal

classification

Wlecz 0,696 1

Dąbrowa Wielka 0,708 1

Dąbrowa Mała 0,516 2

Kiełpińskie 0,425 2

Rumian 0,415 2

Lidzbarskie 0,352 2

Neliwa 0,797 1

Hartowieckie 0,481 2

Grądy 0,371 2

Tarczyńskie 0,360 2

Zarybinek 0,381 2Zwiniarz 0,280 2


Classification:

ORIGINAL ESMI CLASSIFICATION:


WORKER ERROR - STRAT LAKES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0,01

0,06

0,11

0,16

0,21

0,26

0,31

0,36

0,41

0,46

0,51

0,56

0,61

0,66

0,71

0,76

0,81

0,86

0,91

0,96

ESMI

WORKER ERROR - N-STRAT LAKES

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0,01

0,06

0,11

0,16

0,21

0,26

0,31

0,36

0,41

0,46

0,51

0,56

0,61

0,66

0,71

0,76

0,81

0,86

0,91

0,96

ESMI

WISERBUGS results for original class boundaries

1

0

Ecological state

Range of ESMI value (one classification for all types)

High

>0,68

Good

0,68 – 0,51

Moderate

0,51 – 0,34

Poor

0,34 – 0,17

Bad

<0,17

75perc.

from reference

sites

equal division

!!


Classification:

New suggested class boundaries of ESMI - range devided equally:


WISERBUGS results for suggested new class boundaries

NEW CLASS BOUNDARIES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0,01

0,06

0,11

0,16

0,21

0,26

0,31

0,36

0,41

0,46

0,51

0,56

0,61

0,66

0,71

0,76

0,81

0,86

0,91

0,96

ESMI


Lake name ESMIOriginal

classification New classification

Wlecz 0,696 1 1

Dąbrowa Wielka 0,708 1 1

Dąbrowa Mała 0,516 2 2

Kiełpińskie 0,425 2 3

Rumian 0,415 2 3

Lidzbarskie 0,352 2 3

Neliwa 0,797 1 1

Hartowieckie 0,481 2 3

Grądy 0,371 2 3

Tarczyńskie 0,360 2 3

Zarybinek 0,381 2 3Zwiniarz 0,280 2 4

Classification:

NEW ESMI CLASSIFICATION:


Jezioro ESMI Error old Error new

Wlecz 0,696 42,4 42,3Dąbrowa Wielka 0,708 26,1 27,8Dąbrowa Mała 0,516 0 50,6Kiełpińskie 0,425 4 8,5Rumian 0,415 6,9 7,1Lidzbarskie 0,352 43,3 43,4

Neliwa 0,797 40,7 0,8Hartowieckie 0,481 69,4 26,9Grądy 0,371 69,6 27,4Tarczyńskie 0,36 70,8 34,3Zarybinek 0,381 69,1 27,4Zwiniarz 0,28 71,3 11,8

Stratified lakes

Non-stratified lakes

Thank you for your attention !!!


development and validation of methods for integrated assessment of ecological status of rivers and...

Documents