Search

Phytoplankton constitutes a diverse array of short-lived organisms which derive their nutrients from the water column of lakes. These features make this community the most direct and earliest indicator of the impacts of changing nutrient conditions on lake ecosystems. It also makes them particularly suitable for measuring the success of restoration measures following reductions in nutrient loads. This paper integrates a large volume of work on a number of measures, or metrics, developed for using phytoplankton to assess the ecological status of European lakes, as required for the Water Framework Directive. It assesses the indicator strength of these metrics, specifically in relation to representing the impacts of eutrophication. It also examines how these measures vary naturally at different locations within a lake, as well as between lakes, and how much variability is associated with different replicate samples, different months within a year and between years. On the basis of this analysis, three of the strongest metrics (chlorophyll- a, phytoplankton trophic index (PTI), and cyanobacterial biovolume) are recommended for use as robust measures for assessing the ecological quality of lakes in relation to nutrient-enrichment pressures and a minimum recommended sampling frequency is provided for these three metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Halting and reversing the deterioration of aquatic ecosystems requires concerted action across state boundaries and administrative barriers. However, the achievement of common management objectives is jeopardised by different national quality targets and ambitions. The European Water Framework Directive requires that quality classifications are harmonised via an intercalibration exercise, ensuring a consistent level of ambition in the protection and restoration of surface water bodies across the Member States of the European Union. We outline the key principles of the intercalibration methodology, review the achievements of intercalibration and discuss its benefits and drawbacks. Less than half of the required intercalibration has been completed, mostly due to a lack of national assessment methods. The process has fostered a scientific debate on ecological classification with important implications for environmental management. Despite a significant level of statistical abstraction, intercalibration yielded a fundamental and unified vision of what constitutes good ecology across Europe, in principle ensuring greater parity in the funds invested to achieve good ecological status. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]