Development of zooplankton indicators for implementation of MSFD in the Baltic Sea

Elena Gorokhova, SU

CORESET II meeting, 29-30 September, 2014, Göteborg

Zooplankton community metrics are functions of continuous natural environmental factors and respond

to a gradient of mixed anthropogenic pressures

•Total abundance,

•Total biomass

•Copepod abundance

•%Copepod abundance

•Copepod biomass

•%Copepod biomass

•Microphagous species biomass

•%Microphagous species biomass

•Cladocera/Copepoda ratio

•(Rotifera+Cladocera)/Copepoda ratio

•Mean Size

Zooplankton Expert Network (ZEN), Coreset I

Eval

uat

ed fo

r in

dic

ato

r p

rop

erti

es

MSTS: Zooplankton mean size and total stock

- combination of metric scores for mean body size in zooplankton community and total biomass;

- discriminate well between reference and stressed conditions

►PLS-DA, GLM;

- ecologically meaningful (mechanisms of responses can be explained);

- are not redundant with each other.

Authored by HELCOM ZEN

High grazing, moderate food limitation for

zooplankton, high energy transfer efficiency, good feeding for fish

Low grazing, poor fish feeding conditions,

unproductive pelagic food web

Mea

nSi

ze

Total Stock

Efficient grazing on larger

phytoplankton, moderate fish

feeding conditions

Efficient grazing on bacteria and small

phytoplankton moderate feeding

conditions for larval fish, poor for postlarval fish

GES for Total Stock

GES fo

r Mean

Size

Metrics used to calculate MSTS

- Total zooplankton abundance (TZA)

- HELCOM guidelines

- Species, stages (size classes)

- Total zooplankton biomass (TZB)

- calculated using TZA and individual weights

(species- and stage-specific)

- Mean zooplankter size (MeanSize)

- TZB:TZA ratio

• Assessment Unit Level:

– 2 (Subbasins) – 3 (Subbasins with coastal

and offshore division)

• The indicator is applicable: – Where COMBINE-based

monitoring is implemented

• Currently data are available: BB, BS, GoF, NBP, GoR, GB, SEB, SB, K

Askö

Landsort

GoFFI

LHEI

BIOR

ÅlandFI

BoSFI

BoBFI

K32-41 J56-K18

BMPJ2

Bornholm

Anholt

MSTS: geographic applicability and data availability

Stage of development Indicator type

Core State

Primary importance Secondary importance

BSAP

Segment and

Objective

Thriving and balanced

communities of plants and

animals

MSFD

Descriptors and

Criteria

4.2. Abundance

/distribution of key trophic

groups and species

1.6. Habitat condition (condition of typical species or

communities, relative abundance and/or biomass,

physical, hydrological and chemical conditions)

Legislative linkage:

MSTS – a Food web indicator

In-GES communities have higher proportion of larger organisms, higher total biomass and

intermediate abundances

In-GES Sub-GES

All 12 datasets

Higher discrimination efficiency when: - Mean size is combined with stock size; - Biomass is used instead for abundance

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

B o t h n i a n B a y

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

Å l a n d

- 3

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

L a n d s o r t & A s k ö

1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0- 3

- 2

- 1

0

1

2

3

B o r n h o l m

Fat%

in h

erri

ng

Mea

nSi

ze

Landsort

H a r u f j ä d e n

0

2

4

6

8

Ä n g s k ä r s k l u b b

0

2

4

6

8

L a n d s o r t

0

2

4

6

8

U t l ä n g a n

1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

0

2

4

6

8

Y e a r

Validation of Mean Size as relevant metric: lipid% in herring

decreases with decreasing MeanSize

(Gorokhova & Bignert, in prep.)

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 270

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Mean size decrease with increased cyanobacterial blooms (=eutrophication)

Mea

n s

ize

B1 H4

Circle size is proportional to cyanobacteria biovolume

Total zooplankton biomass

Defining RefCon

• Sprat and herring WAA and thier population size

• Periods with acceptable (according to regional EQR) Chlorophyll levels

1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

S p r a t, d 2 7

Fu

lto

n's

K

1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0-2 0

-1 0

0

1 0

2 0

-5

0

5

A s k ö

Cu

Su

m

z-s

co

re, T

ZB

• Control charts • For each indicator, z-score (zero

mean, unit variance) were calculated and used in CUSUM (cumulative sum) analysis

• Out of control periods were defined as ±3*SD for Upper and Lower Control Limits

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Research needs for operationalization (in

relation to needs stated under the

coordinated monitoring and

assessment columns)

Data arrangements

Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale

Assessment method

GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional)

A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level?

A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A B - frequency varies, national monitoring programmes with HELCOM COMBINE used and this manual is to be updated MORE

A A B - a clear method on how to interpret the result graph to be detailed

B - may require re-iteration - TM

Data needed for southern sub basins. Zooplankter size mainly calculated based on standard weights, direct measurements would be needed

B - data pooling and collecting needs to be outlined -TM, HELCOM

A B Recommendations for indicator assessment at varying sampling frequency

A

A

B Written guidelines for calculating and interpreting indicator values

A Improved biomass

assessment is needed

A

Be

gin

nin

g o

f C

OR

ESET

II

cu

rren

t si

tuat

ion

MSTS – current status

Issues that need to be

solved for the

indicator

What is hindering solving the issue

Standartization of

biomass calculations

Requirements to monitoring laboratories and funding

of methodological research in national monitoring

programmes

Coordination of

statistical evaluation of

the scoring system

among indicators

Funding and coordination

Short time series for

some areas

More efforts are needed to find archival data (data

rescue projects?)

MSTS: next steps