Fish Intercalibration in Rivers, Lakes and TraC
Inland Fisheries Ireland
Dr. Fiona Kelly
Andrew Harrison, Lynda Connor, Ronan Matson, Rory Feeney, Emma Morrissey, Ciara Wogerbauer and Kieran Rocks (Roisin
O’Callaghan, Grainne Hanna, Trevor Stafford, Brian Hayden, Glen Wightman, Mo Lordan, Trevor Champ)
Plus MANY staff from the IFI RBD offices
WFD Fish Intercalibration
Overview:
Presentation duration of 30 minutes (approx) to inform you on:
• Rivers
•
•
• Lakes
•
•
• TRaC
•
•
Summary of FCS2 Ireland
IC
Summary of FIL2
IC
Summary of TFCI
IC
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Rivers
RIVERS: Fisheries Classification Scheme 2 Ireland (FCS2)
Project Management:
SNIFFER
Developers:
HR Wallingford (David Wyncoll & Valerie Bain)
Data Sources:
Inland Fisheries Ireland and NIEA/AFBI
Funding sources:
EPA, NIEA & SEPA
TAG:
Fiona Kelly, Ronan Matson and Andrew Harrison (IFI),
Jake Gibson and Rosetta Mullan (NIEA), Robert Rosell and
Liam O’ Connor (AFBI), Paddy Boylan (LA), Willie Duncan
and Alistair Duguid (SEPA), Colin Bean (SNH), Iain
Malcolm (MS), Graeme Storey (EA)
WFD Fish Classification Tool- Rivers
Overview of FCS2 Ireland

Agencies throughout each of the three regions
contributed electrofishing data which was
used in model development

Multiple catch data from 981 surveys (934
sites) in RoI (826) and NI (155) were used

61 reference sites were included

Bayesian geostatistical model (parameters as
well as data are assumed to be random)

Rather than a single estimate, a whole
distribution of likely values is found for
each parameter
WFD Fish Classification Tool- Rivers
Overview of FCS2 Ireland

Compares fish species metrics (abundance and prevalence) at a given site
(observed) to those predicted (expected) for that site under reference (or
unimpaired) conditions

Uses a range of abiotic and pressure variables (e.g. MRP)

Takes into account geographical location of a site because different fish species
can predominate in different parts of the country

An EQR (more correctly, probability) for abundance and prevalence
(probability of a species being present at a site) for each of 17 fish models is
generated

A site EQR, survey EQR and a WB EQR are generated
WFD Fish Classification Tool- Rivers
Developments made in the Ireland model
For fish in rivers
WFD requires species composition, abundance and age structure
FCS2 Ireland extended to:
• Account for age classes (0+ and 1+ & older salmon and trout
treated as separate independent species
• Account for barriers
• Incorporate multiple-pass data (> 80% data was multiple
pass)
• Include fishing method (boat or wading)
Example: Tully stream (Soomeragh Br)-
WFD Fish
Classification
Tool- Rivers
Prevalence
of 0.3
means
that at 70% of the sites
you should not be
IR14T020390–
Barrow
surprised
if the species
is catchment
not caught because it is
expected to be absent
Expected
prevalence
Observed
total catch
Expected total
catch if present
Expected total
catch
Species
EQR mean
Bream
0.305
0
4.786
0.211
0.999
Eel
0.855
0
1.009
1.009
0.653
Flounder
0.000
0
59.599
0.000
1.000
Gudgeon
0.024
0
3.915
0.091
0.987
Lamprey
0.941
0
1.371
1.266
0.8%
0.752
Minnow
0.271
0
33.719
8.779
0.812
Nine-spined stickleback
0.097
1
0.686
0.050
0.991
Perch
0.069
0
0.108
58.7%
0.973
0.171
0
0.262
0.041
0.968
0.230
0
8.453
1.864
0.886
0.373
0
9.828
0.1%
3.473
0.755
1+ & older Salmon
0.524
0
10.160
5.295
0.581
Sea trout
0.922
0
0.000
0.0002
1.000
Stone loach
0.765
0
6.010
4.556
0.585
Three-spined stickleback
0.933
24
4.339
4.040
0.966
0+ Trout
0.727
0
20.592
14.947
0.326
1+ & older Trout
0.993
20
15.311
Species
Fish
Site EQR = 0.462= Moderate
Pike
Other elements
Roach
Invertebrates = poor
0+ Salmon
Phys/chem = fail
Bad
Poor
Moderate 1.957
Good
High
29.3%
11.1%
Survey
date: 21/07/2008
15.210
0.747
WFD Fish Classification Tool- Rivers
Setting class boundaries
Created using artificial datasets
EQR 0.845 - 1.0
HIGH
EQR 0.54 - 0.845
GOOD
EQR 0.12 - 0.54
MODERATE
EQR 0.007 - 0.12
POOR
EQR 0 - 0.007
BAD
High quality: Species
composition and abundance
correspond nearly or totally to
undisturbed conditions, with little
or no anthropogenic
disturbance.
Bad quality: Sites that are
biologically inert little or no fish
present except for the most
tolerant species.
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Rivers
River Fish Intercalibration
Participating MS – 27 countries
Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg,
Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, England, Wales, Norway.
Problem with Bulgaria and Hungary
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
IC Pilot Exercise (not necessary to organise into GIGS instead 5 regional
groups (Three meetings from May 2006 to April 2007)
Aim:
1. Demonstrate the usefulness of using fish as a BQE
2. Begin compiling a common database
3. Establish expertise and contacts
Decision: Fish could be used for IC and enter into full intercalibration exercise
2nd Round Intercalibration – Full IC
(Seven River Fish Intercalibration Meetings from April 2008 to May 2011)
Five regional groups are coordinated by:
Nordic Group: Teppo Vehanen (Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Scotland)
Lowland-Midland Group: Tom Buijse and Cornelia Schuetz (and with Marco Beers)
Alpine-type Mountains Group: Haimo Prinz and Michael Schabuss
Mediterranean South-Atlantic: Pedro Segurado (with Teresa Ferrera)
Danubian Group: Vladimir Kovac
D. Pont and O. Delaigue (Cemagref, France,) are in charge of the establishment of the
common database and of the development of the common metrics (Option 2)
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Common database
4515 sites from 24 countries with only one fishing occasion per site.
Country
Austtria
BE (Flanders)
BE (Wallonia)
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Spain
Estonia
England & Wales
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Lithuania
Latvia
Luxemburg
Northern Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Romanis
Scotland
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
Code
AT
BF
BW
CZ
DE
DK
ES
ET
EW
FI
FR
GR
HU
IR
LT
LV
LX
NI
NL
NO
PT
RO
SC
SE
SK
SL
Sites
259
82
146
93
439
50
189
77
139
157
473
161
133
495
130
54
20
75
154
70
150
143
138
702
76
87
National Reference cond. sites
21
0
42
14
21
0
102
7
0
95
90
26
0
31
44
17
5
0
0
20
32
17
23
93
34
10
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Methods used (18 methods included)
Country
Austria
Belgium - Flanders
Belgium – Wallonia
Czech Republic
England & Wales
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland (RoI & NI)
Netherland
Method
FIA
Upstream and Lowland
IBI
IBIP
Czech multimetric
method CZI
Status
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
WISER questionnaire
1- Completed
1- Completed
2- method under development
1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
1- Completed
FCS2
1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) 1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
FBI
FIBS
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
FCS2 Ireland
1 – Finalized agreed national method
1 - .finalized agreed national method
( References and Metrics for Fish in Small Rivers)
1- Completed
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
2- Completed partially
1- Completed
Spain
Sweden
LZI
FIBIP
EFI+ European Fish
index
FCS2 Scotland
IBICAT
Swedish method VIX
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
1- Completed
1- Completed
Slovenia
Slovakia
SIFAIR
Fish Index of FIS
1. finalized
1 - finalized agreed national method
1- Completed
Lithuania
Portugal
Romania
NLFISR
1- Completed
1- Completed
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Table Pressures description
VARIABLE
EXPLANATION
P_barrier
Presence of downstream artifical barriers on the catchment scale
P_barrierup
Artificial barriers upstream from the site
P_barrierdown
Artificial barriers downstream from the site
P_impoundment
Impoundment
P_hydropeaking
Hydropeaking
P_waterabsrt
Water abstraction
P_reservoir
Colinear connected reservoir (fish farms, fish ponds,...)
P_dam
Upstream dams influence
P_watertemp
Water temperature modification (excuding dam effect)
P_chan
Channelisation / Cross section alteration (segment scale)
P_vegrip
Riparian vegetation
P_habalt
Local Habitat alteration (site scale)
P_dyke
Dykes (flood protection)
P_tox
Toxic Risk. Priority substances list
P_waterac
Water acidification
P_waterqualindex
National water quality index (segment scale)
P_wateralt
Water quality alteration (local scale)
P_navigation
Navigation
P_recreational
Recreational use with high intensity (angling, boating,...)
P_specimp
Impairment of indigenous species
P_predation
Heavy predation
P_stockact
Major effect on indigenous populations by stocking activities
The most important
pressures are :
1. water quality
alteration,
2. hydromorphological
modifications,
3. connectivity
disruption.
Common pressure
Index
(based on the common
dataset) (17 pressures
combined into one
index and five classes))
All undisturbed sites
are classified in
pressure class 1
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
FCS2 Fish models vs pressures
P<0.0001
P<0.0001
Abundance of
1+ & older
salmon and
connectivity
Prevalence of 0+
salmon vs
connectivity
P<0.05
Roach
(prevalence) vs
log mrp mg L-1)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
FCS2 vs pressures
mediummedium
high high
nolow medium
low
no no low
high
no no low
mediumhigh
high
no low medium
low
medium
high
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
no no
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
P_navigation
P_navigation
Press_index_cl2
Cannot
test
Cannot
test test
Cannot
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.2
FCS2 Ireland vs the National
water quality index (segment
scale)
(4 pressure classes: No – no
alteration, low – minor
alteration, etc.)
P_wateralt
P_wateralt
P_navigation
p Cannot
= 0.020
p = 0.020
test
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
mediummedium
high high
nolow medium
low
no no low
high
0.4
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
P_waterqualindex
P_waterqualindex
P_wateralt
= 0.000
p = 0.000
p =p 0.020
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
high
nono no low low
lowmedium
mediumhigh high
medium
high
Responds to all pressures that can impact fish (e.g. water quality, artifical barriers,
local habitat alteration, etc.)
1.0
gh
no nono
low lowmedium
mediumhigh
highhigh
no1-high
highhigh
no
2-good
Water quality alteration pressure
(local scale)
(4 pressure classes: No – no visible
signs of eutrophication, Low – slight
signs of eutrophication, medium –
clear signs of eutrophication and
high – strong signs of
eutrophication)
Global pressure index
45-pb
1-high
1-hig
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Multiple correspondence analysis of the intercalibration sites and classes of the
index pressure in the Euclidian space of pressures
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Selection of reference criteria in GIG
Pressure intensity
Pressure type
Scale
Nb of modalities
Presence of downstream artifical barriers on the catchment scale
catchment
no
low
high
Artificial barriers upstream from the site
segment
no
low
medium
high
4
Artificial barriers downstream from the site
segment
no
low
medium
high
4
Impoundment
site
no
low
high
3
Hydropeaking
site
no
low
high
3
Water abstraction
site
no
low
medium
Colinear connected reservoir (fish farms, fish ponds ...)
segment
no
high
Upstream dams influence
site
no
low
Water temperature modification (excuding dam effect)
site
no
high
Channelisation / Cross section alteration (segment scale)
segment
no
low
medium
high
4
Riparian vegetation
site
no
low
medium
high
4
Local Habitat alteration
site
no
low
medium
high
4
Dykes (flood protection)
segment
no
low
medium
high
4
Toxic Risk. Priority substances list
segment
no
low
high
3
Water acidification
segment
no
low
high
3
National water quality index (segment scale)
segment
no
low
medium
high
4
Water quality alteration (local scale)
site
no
low
medium
high
4
Navigation
segment
no
high
2
Recreational use with high intensity (angling, boating,..)
site
no
high
2
impairment of indigenous species
segment
no
high
2
heavy predation
site
no
high
2
major effect on indigenous populations by stocking activities
segment
no
high
2
3
high
4
2
high
3
2
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Only considered sites with >30 fish and an area fish of >=100m^2
Using these criteria, the total number of undisturbed sites selected was 1032
sites.
Country
AT BF
BW
CZ
DE
DK
ES
ET
EW
FI
FR
GR
IR
Nb sites
27 0
47
8
15
0
79
19
7
68
85
32
256
Country
LT LV
LX
NI
NL
NO
PT
RO
SC
SE
SK
SL
Nb Sites
64 23
5
0
0
4
28
35
26
105
39
28
National Reference sites
The total number of sites selected as reference sites at the national level is 556
Country
Nb sites
Country
Nb Sites
AT
21
LT
44
BF
0
LV
16
BW
41
LX
5
CZ
14
NI
0
DE
20
NL
0
DK
0
NO
4
ES
75
PT
32
ET
7
RO
16
EW
0
SC
16
FI
60
SE
52
FR
86
SK
34
GR
18
SL
10
IR
28
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Boundary Harmonization (IC Annex V, vers. 5.1, October 2010)
Nordic Group
Option 2 With piecewise transformation - 4 methods
Boundaries before harmonization
Method_countryType
H_G_raw
G_M_raw
H_G_fit
H_G_lwr
H_G_upr
G_M_fit
G_M_lwr
G_M_upr
FI_FIFI_index
L2
0.665
0.499
0.911
0.871
0.951
0.751
0.711
0.791
FI_FIFI_index
L3
0.658
0.493
0.911
0.871
0.951
0.751
0.711
0.791
FI_FIFI_index
M1
0.709
0.532
0.911
0.871
0.951
0.751
0.711
0.791
FI_FIFI_index
M2
0.734
0.550
0.911
0.871
0.951
0.751
0.711
0.791
FI_FIFI_index
M3
0.723
0.542
0.911
0.871
0.951
0.751
0.711
0.791
IR_FCS2_index no
0.845
0.540
0.889
0.860
0.919
0.770
0.740
0.800
SC_FCS2_index no
0.845
0.600
0.878
0.855
0.901
0.786
0.763
0.809
SE_VIX_index
no
0.749
0.467
1.029
0.993
1.064
0.887
0.851
0.922
Mean
no
-
-
0.927
-
-
0.799
-
-
Median
no
-
-
0.900
-
-
0.778
-
-
Raw values and predicted values (fit) of the H/G and G/M boundaries and the
associated intervals (lower and upper values)
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Boundary Harmonization
Common metrics
H_G_fit
Finnish types
are averaged
prior to
calculating the
mean
SE_VIX_index
SC_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
G_M_fit
SE_VIX_index
SC_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
4 methods vs Common metric before harmonization
1.2
1.0
0.8
Slope
R
R^2
FI_FIFI
0.799
0.697
0.486
IR_FCS2
0.598
0.526
0.276
Sco_FCS2
0.461
0.567
0.321
SE_VIX
0.709
0.661
0.437
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
FI FIFI index
IR FCS2 index
R = 0.567
R = 0.661
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
Common metric
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
Pearson’s R: OK
Slopes: OK except SCO:0.46
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
1.0
Requirements:
1. Regression = significant
2. Slope between 0.5 and
1.5
3. Min R^2 at least half of
max R^2
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.2
Common metric
Method
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.6
Common metric
1.2
1.0
0.8
R = 0.526
0.0
Common metric
R = 0.697
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
SC FCS2 index
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
SE VIX index
0.6
0.8
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
After harmonization
1.2
1.0
Method
Slope
R
R^2
FI_FIFI
0.799
0.697
0.486
IR_FCS2
0.598
0.526
0.277
Sco_FCS2
0.463
0.566
0.321
SE_VIX
0.702
0.660
0.436
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
FI FIFI index
IR FCS2 index
R = 0.566
R = 0.660
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
Pearson’s R: OK
Slopes: OK except SCO:0.463)
0.0
0.2
0.6
Common metric
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
SC FCS2 index
0.8
1.0
1.0
Requirements:
1. Regression = significant
2. Slope between 0.5 and
1.5
3. Min R^2 at least half of
max R^2
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.2
Common metric
0.6
Common metric
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Common metric
0.8
1.2
R = 0.526
1.0
R = 0.697
0.0
0.2
0.4
SE VIX index
0.6
0.8
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Before
After
Common metrics
Common metrics
H_G_fit
H_G_fit
SE_VIX_index
SE_VIX_index
SC_FCS2_index
SC_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
G_M_fit
G_M_fit
SE_VIX_index
SE_VIX_index
SC_FCS2_index
SC_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
IR_FCS2_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
FI_FIFI_index
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Plot of the predicted High-Good (in blue) and the Good-Moderate (in green) boundaries, and their associated interval (one fourth a
class), expressed in common metrics for the 4 methods of the Nordic group, before (on the left) and after (on the right)
harmonization. In addition, the mean (dashed line) and median (solid line) value are added.
Only H-G boundary modified
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
High-Good and the Good-Moderate boundaries before and after
harmonization (in red).
Country_Method Type
H_G_before G_M_before
H_G_after
G_M_after
FI_FIFI_index
L2
0.665
0.499
0.665
0.499
FI_FIFI_index
L3
0.658
0.493
0.658
0.493
FI_FIFI_index
M1
0.709
0.532
0.709
0.532
FI_FIFI_index
M2
0.734
0.550
0.734
0.550
FI_FIFI_index
M3
0.723
0.542
0.723
0.542
IR_FCS2_index
no
0.845
0.540
0.845
0.540
SC_FCS2_index
no
0.845
0.600
0.850
0.600
SE_VIX_index
no
0.749
0.467
0.739
0.467
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Class agreement before and after harmonization
Method
CI agree before
CI agree after
Class
agreement
FI_FIFI vs IR_FCS2
0.596
0.596
OK
FI_FIFI vs SE_VIX
0.985
0.978
OK
IR_FCS2 vs FI_FIFI
0.601
0.601
OK
IR_FCS2 vs SE_VIX
0.954
0.951
OK
SE_VIX vs FI_FIFI
0.844
0.836
OK
SE_VIX vs IR_FCS2
0.795
0.791
OK
Mean
0.796
0.792
OK
Class agreement (The confidence that two or more national methods will
report the same class for a given site) must be <1.0
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers
Conclusion
No requirement to change boundaries for FCS2
Ireland
Successful intercalibration
Fish in Lakes Classification Tool (FIL2) for Eco Region 17
Summary of development and outputs
Inland Fisheries Ireland – Research and Development Division
Fiona Kelly, Andrew Harrison and Lynda Connor
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) - Fisheries and Aquatic
Systems Branch
Michelle Allen, Trudyann Kelly and Robert Rosell
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
Overview of the Solution for FIL2
Select training dataset
Stepwise Discriminant Analysis
Model Building
Classification rule for
qualitative ecological status
Derive EQR for each lake
Apply results to test data
Define ecological
status boundaries
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
Fish in lakes Data (2005 to 2009)
• Agencies throughout RoI and NI contributed data from netting
surveys and supportive information
• 137 lakes surveyed = training dataset
• 14 lakes surveyed on two occasions = test dataset (1st survey)
• Abiotic metrics (x 8)
• Pressure metrics (x 9)
• Suite of fish metrics calculated (x 145)
- species composition, reproduction, abundance,
biomass, condition, age, length
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
Typology for fish in lakes
Alkalinity
mg/l CaCO3 Max Depth
(m)
Low
<67
Shallow
<17
Low
<67
Deep
>17
High
>67
Shallow
<17
High
>67
Deep
>17
1. Optimum cut-point for ALK was 67 with 36 of the 43 lakes being
correctly classified into Low and High ALK
2. The optimum cut-point for depth was 17 with 35 of the 43 lakes
being correctly classified into Shallow and Deep depth
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
1. Define a Pressure gradient
Combine the TP_MEAN and CHLOR_MAX using a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach
E.g. TP_MEAN = high, CHLOR_MAX = good…..overall = good
TP_MEAN = good, CHLOR_MAX = poor…..overall = poor
Total P (ug/l P)
Max Chl a
(mg/m3)
Ultraoligo/Oligotrophic (HIGH)
TP_MEAN <12
<8.0
Mesotrophic (GOOD)
12<= TP_MEAN <35
>8- <=25
Moderately Eutrophic (MODERATE)
35<= TP_MEAN <60
>25 - <=50
Highly Eutrophic (POOR)
60<= TP_MEAN <100
>50 - <=75
Hypertrophic (BAD)
TP_MEAN >100
>75
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
13 fish metrics used for the DA classification &
EQR model
CORE METRICS
•
TOT_BPUE:
Sum of mean biomass per unit effort (excl. eels and adult salmon)
•
NAT_BPUE:
Sum of mean biomass per unit effort of native (group 1) fish species
•
PERCH_BIO:
Mean perch biomass per unit effort
OPTIMAL METRICS (stepwise procedure)
•
RHEO_BIO:
% individuals (based on BPUE excl. eels & adult salmon) that are rheophilic
•
SPE_EVEN:
Species evenness/dominance (1/D=1/(Nmax/Ntot) (Nmax= no. inds
represented by the most abundant species, Ntot=total number of individuals in the sample
(eels captured in fyke nets excluded) (Based on total number of fish captured)
•
ROACH_BPUE:
Mean biomass per unit effort ((g) of fish per linear metre of net - gill nets and fyke nets)
•
BREAM_%_IND:
% composition of bream based on CPUE (BREAM_CPUE/TOTAL_CPUE*100)
•
PHYT_%_BIO:
% individuals (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) that are phytophilic
•
2_%_BIO:
% biomass of Group 2 species (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon), inc hybrids
•
CYP_BIO:
% biomass (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) of cyprinid species, inc hybrids
•
RUDD_%_IND:
% composition of rudd based on CPUE (RUDD_CPUE/TOTAL_CPUE*100)
•
MAX_L_DOM_BIO:
Maximun length of dominant species (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon)
•
LITH_IND:
% individuals (based on CPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) that are lithophilic
(per linear metre of net used – gill nets and fykes)
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
Low alkalinity deep lakes: 5 fish metrics significant
TOT_BPUE
NAT_BPUE
PERCH_BIO
PHYT_BIO
BREAM_IND
Typology-specific boxplots for the metrics identified by the discriminant analysis
WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes
Classification of lakes in
Ecoregion 17
with FIL2
High
= 41 lakes
Good
= 55 lakes
Moderate = 27 lakes
Poor/bad = 53 lakes
Boundary
EQR
High/Good
0.76
Good/moderate
0.53
Moderate/poor-bad
0.32
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes
Lake Fish Intercalibration
Participating MS – 30 countries
GIG
MS
Northern:
Ireland (RoI & NI), Finland, Sweden, Scotland, England
(N), Norway
Lowland/Central:
Germany (N), England (s), Netherlands, Belgium,
Denmark, France (N),Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia,
Poland, Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria (N).
Mediterranean/Southern:
Portugal, Spain, France (S), Italy, Greece, Cyprus,
Romania, Bulgaria (S).
Alpine
Germany (S), France (E), Austria, Slovenia, Italy.
Problem: Lack of standardised data from many countries
Only 7 national methods (Nordic & Central Baltic)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Lake IC Meetings
Fish in lakes was not officially included until October 2008 (1-year pilot study)
1. March/April 2008
2. Sept/Oct 2008
3. Sept 2009
4. May 2010
5. Nov 2010
6. April 2011
1st introductory lake fish meeting in Aix-en-Provence
(France)
2nd Lake fish intercalibration meeting in Ranco (Italy)
3rd Lake fish intercalibration meeting in Drottningholm
(Sweden) and L-N-F-group
L-N-F and R-N-F partners – short informal meeting
after a broader Nordic fish meeting 24-26 May 2010,
at Lammi Biological Station in Finland.
Lake Intercalibration Meeting 2010, JRC, Ispra
(Italy), Kerstin Holmgren and Mikko Olin represented
the group
Informal group meeting as part of a broader
Nordic fish meeting 7-8 April 2011, Galway, Ireland.
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Common European Database and WISER
•2107 lakes (1833 natural and 274 reservoirs)
•Fish data, environmental characters, climatic variables and anthropogenic
catchment-scale pressures
•Only considered lakes samples with the CEN benthic multimesh gillnets (CEN,
2005)
•1840 lakes remaining (1760 natural and 80 reservoirs)
•One campaign per lake (most recent in a time series)
•36.9% of the lakes contained low diversity (<3 species)
•All mainly in Northern GIG
•Did not consider lakes with < 3 species
•1097 natural lakes selected for the WISER study (common metric)
•WISER – Deliverable 3.4-4: Fish indicators for ecological status assessment of lakes
affected by eutrophication and hydromorphological pressures (common metric)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Pressures
 Eutrophication
– % of catchment impacted
• Corine Land Cover
• expert opinion (5 classes)
– Population density
– Annual mean values of total Phosphorus
 Acidification
– pH and expert opinion (is it natural or not?)
 In-lake pressures
– Urban and/or industrial discharge (yes/no)
– Chemical manipulation (yes/no)
– Stocking (yes/no)
– Activities: motorboat, bathing, exploitation of fish populations (low, medium, strong)
 Hydrological
– Upstream barriers (yes/no)
– Lack of connectivity downstream (yes/no)
– Significant water level regulation (yes/no)
 Morphological
– Shoreline modified
• LHS
• Expert judgment (5 classes)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Reference criteria
• Thresholds decided for reference?
• Eutrophication
• % of catchment impacted
• Population density
- Number inhabitants in the catchment
• Annual mean values of total Phosphorus (µg/L)
• Acidification
• pH and expert opinion (is it natural or not?)
• In-lake pressures
• Urban and/or industrial discharge/Chemical manipulation
/Stocking
• Activities: motorboat, bathing, exploitation of fish populations
• Hydrological
• Upstream barriers /Lack of connectivity downstream/SWLF
• Morphological
– Shore-line bank modifiedBM
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Flow-chart for screening reference sites: 2 criteria on the 3 selected.
1 or more criteria clearly
above rejection threshold
CLC
natural
Population
Density
Impacted
X
2 criteria clearly below
reference threshold
+
Eutrophication/
Enrichment
Not
reference
site
Possible
Remaining 1 criteria
reference
between reference
Rejection
site
threshold
and rejection threshold
?
Total P
All criteria below
reference threshold
Reference
site

Reference
threshold
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Harmonization of reference:
Application of pressures & thresholds
• Distribution of selected sites among GIG:
• Very low number of reference sites in CB, AL
& MED GIG
undefined
AL
CB
MED
NO
Total
Disturbed
0
25
197
2
268
492
Reference
0
10
34
1
449
494
Unknown
3
2
50
2
752
809
143 lakes passed the reference filter. (NO GIG) These reference lakes were
used as benchmark sites (BM-sites), and they were distributed between
member states in the following way; 68 for Finland, 12 for Republic of Ireland,
18 for Norway, and 45 for Sweden.
1795
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
L_N_F Group - PILOT STUDY
•Began October 2008
•Exchange of country specific information on sampling methods and classification
tools
•All MS had fish data from CEN benthic gillnets = standard sampling method
(CEN 2005)
•Comparison
of
two
assessment
tools:
Swedish
(EQR8)
and
Finnish
(EQR4)indices.
•Two reduced datasets compiled (for EQR8 and EQR4)
•Preliminary analyses of the pilot study have been done on 640 lakes –subset of
Finnish, Swedish & Irish lakes – with publication of a report.
•Clear differences in the classification output of EQR4 and EQR8
Correlation between Finnish EQR4
and Swedish EQR8
(data from pilot study 2008-2009)
All MS, excluding acid and FI & SE, excluding acid
limed lakes
and limed lakes
FI & SE
All MS
Finnish
lake
type
N
P's r
S's rho
N
P's r
S's rho
N
P's r
S's rho
N
P's r
S's rho
1
165
0,318
0,306
55
0,161
0,204
145
0,330
0,323
44
0,169
0,217
2
128
0,456
0,498
75
0,278
0,211
74
0,415
0,428
43
0,132
0,136
3
27
0,586
0,607
22
0,516
0,476
13
0,637
0,575
13
0,637
0,575
6
76
0,544
0,463
54
0,403
0,345
43
0,553
0,426
26
0,197
0,135
7
21
0,410
0,338
14
0,694
0,572
16
0,494
0,434
12
0,720
0,648
8
71
0,420
0,414
52
0,361
0,302
42
0,340
0,351
32
0,368
0,299
9
81
0,476
0,458
73
0,448
0,412
40
0,551
0,520
33
0,504
0,396
12
22
-0,309
-0,348
14
-0,176
-222
12
-0,638
-0,720
6
-0,866
-0,657
All
639
0,421
0,409
364
0,387
0,344
391
0,401
0,382
238
0,358
0,291
IC is feasible if r or rho >= 0.5!
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Northern Fish Group – 4 Methods
MS
Method
Status
Finland
EQR4
1 - finalized formally agreed national
method
Norway
FCI
1 - finalized formally agreed national
method
Rep. of Ireland & NI
(partial )
FIL2
1 - finalized formally agreed national
method
Sweden
EQR8
1 - finalized formally agreed national
method
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Northern Group - Pressures
Method
Finnish EQR4
Irish (RoI and NI,
partial & ) FIL2
Pressure
Eutrophication
Eutrophication and
general land use
pressures
Norwegian Fish
Index
Mixed pressures
Swedish EQR8
Acidification,
eutrophication, mixed
pressures
Remarks
May be applied also for
acidification, but this is not
tested. Acidification is not a
relevant pressure in today.
Not tested for acidification
although some acidified lakes
have been inlcuded in the
database
Best suited for effects of
acidification (damaged and lost
stocks)
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
The answer is yes. IC can (at least theoretically) be completed using eutrophication as the only relevant common
pressure. Lakes impacted by acidification and liming must then be excluded to refine the pressure-response relationships.
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes
Standardised EQRs for 4 national methods vs TP (n=169)
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes
FIL2 vs Pressure – reference vs impacted lakes
Mean EQR of “reference” lakes = 0.71 was significantly higher than those
classified as ‘impacted’ lakes = 0.43 (Independent t-test, P<0.001)
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes
FIL2 EQR vs Pressure – TP and Chlor a
FIL2 EQR values were negatively correlated with both mean total
phosphorus (Pearsons correlation, r=-0.598, P<0.01) and maximum
chlorophyll a (Pearsons correlation, r=-0.536, P<0.01)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
FIL2 EQR vs Pressure Index
There was also a significant difference in the EQR between each pressure index
class (Independent samples Mann Whitney U test, High vs Good, P<0.05; Good vs
Moderate P<0.05, Moderate vs Poor/Bad P<0.05; High vs Moderate P<0.05; High vs
Poor/bad P<0.05; Good vs Poor/Bad P<0.05)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
IC Option
Option 3a chosen
•
Similar data acquisition (similar sampling method)
•
Common set of lakes
•
Common lake types (Finnish types 1 and 2)
•
Different numerical evaluation
Common metric
•
No common metric used
•
Errors in the common database
•
Poor correlations with common metric
•
Only two methods (Swe and NO excluded)
•
Direct comparison between 2 methods
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Rivers
Preliminary IC results 2011
Correlations with Common Metric FAML
L-N-F
indices
EQR FIL2
EQR8
EQR4
FCI
All MS &
FI lakes
Types
(N=97)
(N=994)
P's r
N
P's r
N
0
0.51 113
-0.00 994 0.24 97
0.27 553 0.67 97
-0.35 71 -0.12 14
IE lakes
(N=110)
P's r
N
0.47 108
-0.35 110
0.24 110
0
NO lakes
(N=29)
P's r
0.09
0.14
N
0
29
29
0
SE lakes
(N=753)
P's r
N
0
-0.29 753
0.06 312
-0.40 57
FI type 1
(N=98)
P's r
0.53
0.06
0.57
0.06
N
21
98
98
11
FI type 2
(N=108)
P's r N
0.52 25
0.24 108
0.65 108
-0.05 10
Non acid or
limed (N=702)
P's r
0.55
0.09
0.49
0.10
N
97
610
321
25
Acceptable (Pearson's r>=0.5) = Pass IC Feasibility check 2
Significant (P< 0.001, 2-tailed)
Significant (P< 0.05, 2-tailed)
Not significant (P>=0.05)
No possible comparisons
Correlation between national methods: Pearson’s r (N)
EQR4
EQR8
FCI
-0.18 (97)
--- (0)
0.56 (97)
EQRFIL2
0.15 (409)
0.28 (31)
EQR4
0.00 (31)
EQR8
Acidic and limed lakes excluded!
Compared to r = 0.40,
when using 391 lakes
in the pilot study data
WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes
Boundary setting & harmonization
Class agreement (The confidence that two or more national methods will
report the same class for a given site) must be <1.0
EQR4 vs FIL2 = 0.92 OK
Proportion of lakes with deviation < 0.5 classes = 40%
Member
state
Classification
method
EQRs
H-G
boundary
G-M
boundary
Finland
EQR4
(0.8)
(0.6)
Ireland
FIL2
(0.76)
(0.53)
WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes
Boundary setting & harmonization
FIL2 vs EQR4
1,6
y = 1,0734x - 0,1053
R² = 0,3534
1,4
R^2 = 0.3534
R = 0.594
stdFIL2_EQR
1,2
1
Slope = 1.07
0,8
P<0.001
0,6
Next step
0,4
0,2
Boundary
harmonization
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
stdEQR4
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
Waiting on scripts from ECOSTAT to confirm that boundary
harmonization is not needed
Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI)
Summary of development and intercalibration
Inland Fisheries Ireland – Research and Development Division
Fiona Kelly and Andrew Harrison
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)
Peter Moorehead and Trevor Harrison
Environment Agency (England and Wales)
Steve Coates and Adam Waugh
WFD Fish Classification Tool - TraC
Summary - TFCI
• The TFCI is a multi-metric index using 10 fish metrics
- Species composition
- Abundance
- Functional guilds
- Indicator species
• Individual metric scores are summed
• Summed scores are converted into an EQR between 0 and 1
WFD Fish Classification Tool - TraC
TFCI – multimetric index
Taxa attributes
Metric 1
Score
Metric 2
Score
Metric 3
Score
Metric 4
Score
Metric 5
Score
Metric 6
Score
Metric 7
Score
Multimetric
index/
Ecological quality
class
Score
Metric 8
A metric is defined as “a characteristic of the biota that changes in some
predictable way with increases in human disturbance”
WFD Fish Classification Tool - TraC
TFCI – Metrics
Species diversity and composition
1)
2)
Species composition
Presence of indicator species
Species abundance
3)
4)
Species relative abundance
Number of taxa that make up 90% of the abundance
Functional guilds
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Number of estuarine resident taxa
Number of estuarine-dependent marine taxa
Functional guild composition
Number of benthic invertebrate feeding taxa
Number of piscivorous taxa
Feeding guild composition
WFD Fish Classification Tool - TraC
TFCI – EQR calculation
•Score (1 – 5) for each metric
• Sum the metric scores
• Scores range from 10 - 50
• TFCI converted to an EQR: (TFCI -10) / (50 -10)
EQR
WFD Ecological Status Class
<0.2
Bad
0.2-0.4
Poor
0.4-0.6
Moderate
0.6-0.8
Good
>0.8
High
WFD Fish Intercalibration - TRaC
North East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group
Methods used (8)
Member State
Classification tool
Belgium
Zeeschelde Estuarine Biotic Index (Z-EBI)
Germany
FAT_TW
France
Estuarine and Lagoon Fish Index (ELFI)
Republic of Ireland/NI
Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI)
United Kingdom
Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI)
Spain
Basque Country – AZTI’s Fish Index (AFI)
Asturias and Cantabria – Transitional Fish Classification Index
(TFCI)
Portugal
Estuarine Fish Assessment Index (EFAI)
The Netherlands
WFD Fish Index for Transitional Waters, Type O2
Norway
No method
Sweden
No method
WFD Fish Intercalibration - TRaC
Physical intercalibration of methods at common survey sites
Are the sampling methods the same?
Increasing pressure
• Four estuaries were surveyed using various different MS methods:
Gweebarra (ROI): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI
Swilly (ROI): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI
Gironde (FR): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI, Germany, Netherlands, Spain (Basque)
Weser (Ger): Belgium, France, UK+NI, Netherlands, Spain (Cantabria), Norway, Germany
•Different sampling methods:
Fyke nets, anchor nets, beam trawls (different sizes), seine nets, winged fyke nets
• High variability in catch due to sampling methods
• Not possible to swap datasets for intercalibration
WFD Fish Intercalibration - TRaC
IC Option
• Type 1: Same data acquisition, same numerical evaluation
• Type 2: Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation
• Type 3: Similar data acquisition, different numerical evaluation
COMMON METRIC
• Development of common metric not possible
• Development of common reference condition criteria also not possible
• ‘Pseudo’ Type 2: Develop a common pressure index, rather than a common metric
WFD Fish Intercalibration - TRaC
NEAGIG – Common Pressure Index
Interference with hydrographic regime
Scale 1 - 9
Dredging
Water chemical quality
16 pressure metrics combined = Total pressure score for each
estuary
NEAGIG – ‘Type 2’ Intercalibration approach
• Correlate each MS EQR with common pressure index scores
• Assess how each tool responds to pressure index at MS level (assume they will)
• Harmonise boundaries for each MS tool using the position on the pressure
gradient as the standard for comparing class boundaries
• Substitute for developing a biological common metric – not feasible for NEAGIG
**Currently at the stage of assessing Member States EQRs versus
pressure index**
NEAGIG – Ireland TFCI
Ireland TFCI - EQR versus pressure index
EQR
y = -0.0023x + 0.5941
R² = 0.0489
0.90
0.80
0.70
EQR
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
20
30
Pressure Score
40
50
60
NEAGIG – Ireland TFCI
Ireland TFCI - EQR versus pressure index (Water quality pressures only)
EQR
y = -0.0187x + 0.6722
R² = 0.2449
0.90
0.80
0.70
EQR
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
2
4
6
8
Water quality
10
12
14
Ireland TFCI – Problems arising and future work
• Poor correlation of TFCI EQRs with common pressure index
•Water quality pressures appear to influence Irish EQRs more than hydromorphology
• ‘Fine tune’ pressure index for all MS to improve correlations?
In time for November 2011 deadline?
• Future developments in Ireland TFCI may help:
•Typologies
• Reference conditions for Ireland TFCI
• New (more sensitive) fish metrics for Ireland TFCI
• New (more sensitive) pressure index relevant for Irish transitional waters
WFD Fish Intercalibration - ALL
Implications for IE
• No change in boundaries for rivers => no change in 2010 status
• Lakes IC almost complete, due Nov 2011 (? Change in boundaries
•? Change in 2010 status)
• TRaC IC to be completed or update tool and then intercalibrate in future
Future work
•Revision of FCS2 when more data available
•Revision of FIL2 when more data available (gap in high alk/deep lakes)
•Revision of TFCI – ongoing - NIEA
Thank You
Thank you