9th LAKE – MEDITERRANEAN GIG
MEETING
(31 March – 1 April)
REPORT ON THE 1ST CROSS GIG
MACROPHYTES MEETING
GUILLERMO MARTINEZ LOPEZ
CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS
HIDROGRÁFICOS DEL CEDEX
INTRODUCTION

The first meeting of the Cross GIG Macrophytes
evaluated the ways of collaboration with Project WISER
and dealed with some issues related to the use of
Macrophytes in the assessment systems of ecological
status

The participation of L-M GIG is not very clear since we
have not been decided to intercalibate any natural lake
type

For the next meeting of the Cross GIG Macrophytes in
octuber of this year we have to decide how to take part in
this Cross GIG
PROJECT WISER – LAKE MACORPHYTE
MAIN TASKS
MAIN OBJETIVES
for

Compilation existing and
new data into a database
water

Field
campaign
standard methos

Test combination rules with
phytobenthos metrics

Test existing and new
macrophytes metrics and
quantify their uncertainty

Evaluation of
photography

Rules
for
integrated
assessment both eutrophication
and
hydromorphology pressures

Validate
metrics
eutrophication

Develop metrics
level fluctuations
for
using
aerial
using
MAIN ISSUES OF THE 1st CROSS GIG
MACROPHYTES MEETING

Situation of the L-GIGs respect to the use of macrophytes in
their assessment systems

Macrophytes and phytobenthos

Development of maximun depth colonisation metric

Development of a common metric for eutrophication

Development of hydromorphology metrics

Development of common database with WISER

Other issues related to macrophytes
GENERAL SITUATION

The following L-GIGs have intercalibrated macrophyte based
assessment system



Nordic L- GIG
Central Baltic L-GIG
Alpine L-GIG

As a general rule, in these L-GIGs only metrics for
eutrophication have been developed and they have only used
macrophytes as representative of the whole BQE “Other
aquatic flora”

The folowing L-GIGs have not intercalibrated macrophytes
based assessment system


Mediterranean L-GIG
Eastern Continental L-GIG
SITUATION OF THE OTHER L-GIGs
L-GIGs
SITUATION
Nordic L- GIG
Eutrophication metrics have been intercalibrated but
not hydromorphology metrics. Abundance has not
been included
Alpine L-GIG
Eutrophication metrics have been intercalibrated but
not hydromorphology metrics. Phytobenhos partly
included. Some countries have not developed
assessment systems
Central Baltic LGIG
Eutrophication metrics have been intercalibrated but
not hydromorphology metrics. Low comparability
among the MS assessment systems
Eastern
No MS assessment systems have been developed
Continental L–GIG and no dataset has been established
GENERAL SITUATION IN THE L-M GIG

L-M GIG has only intercalibrated types of
reservoirs

MACROPHYTES
have
not
been
intercalibrated because of the considerable
seasonal variations in water surface level
hampering their growth

First question to be solved, it is to decide to
intercalibrate any natural lake type
SITUATION IN THE MS OF L-M GIG
Member
States
Answers
Observations
Portugal
They are monitoring macrophytes in
natural lakes
No information about the sampling
protocol and the assessment systems
Portuguese lakes are in Azores Islands
and they can not be intercalibrated in
the L-M GIG because they belong to the
Macaronesian region
France
They are monitoring macrophytes in
natural lakes
They have a validate sampling protocol,
and
they
are
developing
a
bioindication index (abundance and
composition metric)
The bioindication index is close to the
one proposed by some MS of Central
GIG
Italy
They
are
beggining
to
monitore
macrophytes in natural lakes.
They have a sampling protocol. Its main
weakness is the matter of abundance
They do not have any metric
Some italian lakes are volcanic and
there are not any similar lakes in the
rest of the countries belong to this LGIG
Greece
No answer
Cyprus
No answer
Romania
Romania does not intercalibrate its natual
lakes in the L-M GIG
SPANISH SITUATION

Spain has not adopted an official samplig protocol and a proper
assessment system to assess the ecological status of lakes
through macrophytes

The Spanish hydrological management legislation establishes
these indicators in an orientative way:


Presence of exotic macrophytes
Percentage of typical flora cover

An important problem for a common sampling protocol and
common assessment system is the diversity of natural lakes

Spain does not have any specific database of Macrophytes.
However, there is a database with all Biological Quality Elements
that have been sampled in some water bodies

Some River Basin Administrations have developed different
assessment systems
MACROPTHYTES AND PHYTOBENTHOS
MAIN ACTIONS
MAIN ISSUES


The whole QE “Other aquatic flora”
includes Phytobenthos apart from
Macrophytes

Ask countries to send a list of
lakes with information about
type where macrophytes and
diatoms data are available. (May
2009)

Identify what lakes types are
likely to have sufficient data to
allow an useful comparison
What elements of Phytobenthos ? Only
diatoms or the other benthic algae also

It is necessary to do a comparison
between macrophytes and diatoms
metrics through the option 3

3 different situations
 Lakes
without
eutrophication
pressures changes
 Lakes
with
eutrophication
pressures changes
 Lakes
without macrophytes in
reference conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM DEPTH
COLONISATION METRICS
MAIN ACTIONS
MAIN ISSUES

This metric could be an unifying
metric

To make a draft list of data
needed and to send to L-GIGs

Most L-GIGs have used this
metric
to
assess
the
eutrophication pressure

To find data used by CBGIG to
set chlorophyll boudanries and
to prepare a request to send all
the countries

Natural colour and water level
changes have to be considered

To collate data and to do an
analysis
for
discussion
(Octuber 2009)

Cross GIG
option 1
analysis
throuh
HARMONIZATION OF METRICS FOR
EUTROPHICATION
MAIN ACTIONS
MAIN ISSUES

There is a consensus
about
the
need
to
harmonize the eutrophication metrics

To send template to GIG
coordinators asking for
countries to supply data
(July 2009)

To extend the NGIG
common metric to other
GIGs

Macrophytes expert will
undertake analysis to
report at the next Cross
GIG meeting (Octuber
2009)
TYPES OF METRICS TO ASSESS THE
EUTROPHICATION

Based on the percentage of reference, tolerant and
indifferent species

Based on the percentage of the different ways of
growth

Based on the percentage of typical flora cover

Based on the taxa scores according to their trophic
rank
DEVELOPMENT OF
HIDROMORPHOLOGY METRICS
MAIN ISSUES

Up to now, only metrics for
eutrophication
have
been
developed.

This issue should be deal with
WISER partners

To test simple metrics like %
helophytes between maximum
and minimum water levels

To propose simple pressures
metrics
like
water
level
changes
MAIN ACTIONS

To discuss with WISER
partners how to develop
hydromorphology metrics
COMMON DATABASE WITH WISER
MAIN ISSUES
MAIN ACTIONS

Common database between
WISER and L-GIGs have to
be developed

Some problems: ownership
and quality of data

Not
all
countries
represented in WISER

Try to store data in a similar
format to the source data
are

GIG coordinators provide
these data to WISER if
countries were willing and
WISER though the data
would be useful
OTHER ISSUES
REFERENCE CONDITIONS

To establish common criteria to
define reference conditions

To collect data of reference
sites
and
to
check
the
macrophytes
composition
according to lakes types

Previous studies have proved
that macrophytes distribution
are more related to other issues
like: sampling protocols or
macrophytes list
ALIEN SPECIES

Up to now, alien species have
not been considered in the
intercalibration process

Only, Spain has considered this
question
in
preliminary
assessment systems

In general, alien species does
not look to be an important
problem for the other L-GIGs
PARTICIPATION OF L-M GIG IN
MACROPHYTE CROSS GIG

It is not very clear the way of participation of L-M GIG in
the Macrophytes Cross GIG.

First question to be solved, it is to decide to intercalibrate
any natural lake type. If we do not intercalibrate any type
it is going to be difficult to participate in this Cross GIG

Second question, it is to decide the way of participation
 As a group (only if we intercalibrate natural lake types)
 Each country individually
STATE IN THE L-M GIG OF DISCUSSED
ISSUES
DISCUSSED ISSUES
SITUATION
Macrophytes and
Phytobenthos
Perphas, only some Spanish mountain lakes have diatoms
data
Maximum Depth
Colonisation metric
Any MS have data about Maximum Depth Colonisation.
Perphaps, France has data since it is developing a
bioindication index which is closed to one proposed by
some MS of Central GIG
Common metric for
Eutrophycation
Perphas, quality of the available data does not meet the
requisites to test eutrophication metrics. Is it possible to
apply European metrics in the mediterranean lakes ?
Hydromorphology
metrics
MS have not started to develop metrics for
hydromorphology pressure. Is it possible to develop
hydromorphology metrics sine the natural fluctuations of
water levels of the Mediterranean lakes ?
Common database
with WISER
Any country apart from France is represented in WISER
project. Other problems are the ownership and the quality
of Macrophyte data
COLLABORATION OF L-M GIG WITH
WISER PROJECT

MS of L-M GIG could send their dataset of
Macrophytes to WISER PROJECT

WISER PROJECT could help MS of L-M GIG to
develop:





Lists of representative macrophytes
Sampling protocols for Macrophytes
Evaluation of responses
of Macrophytes
eutrophication and hydromorphology pressures
Assessment systems of Macrophytes Element
taxa
to
A Macrophytes wish list have to be made in order to
send WISER
PROBLEMS FOR COLLABORATION
WITH WISER PROJECT

Firstly, MS of L-M GIG have to decide which natural lake
types should be intercalibrated. Probably, a calcareous
type

In case any natural lake type was intercalibrated, would it
be possible for each MS of the L-M GIG to collaborate
individually ?

The only country belong to L-M GIG which is
participating in the Macrophyte WISER Project is France,
through Cemagref

Other problems for the collaborations are the ownership
and the quality of the Macrophytes data
CONCLUSIONS

Situation of L-M GIG about Macrophyte based assessment systems is
very defficient in comparison with the other L-GIGs

First question to be solved, it is to decide to intercalibrate any natural
lake types. If we do not intercalibrate any type, it is going to be difficult
to participate in the Macrophytes Cross GIG

Another question to be solved, it is the way to participate in this Cross
GIG

Collabation with WISER project could be useful and macrophytes wish
list have to be made

Some problems for this collaboration are: ownership and quality of
macrophytes data and the only presence of France in the Macrophytes
WISER Project