marine benthic invertebrates classification and intercalibration eqr... · marine benthic...
TRANSCRIPT
Francis O’Beirn
WFD Intercalibration Workshop
October 13, 2011
Marine Benthic Invertebrates Classification and Intercalibration
Benthic EQR - Coastal waters
Classification Tool:
– UK-ROI Multimetric (Invertebrate Quality Index – IQI)
– Soft Sediment tool
– Complies with Normative definitions in Directive
– Incorporates – Disturbance Sensitive Taxa, Diversity, Abundance
Benthic Multimetric (Classification tool)
IQI *=(((0.38 x AMBIIQI) + (0.08 x (1-’)IQI) + (0.54 x SIQI 0.1)) – 0.4)/0.6
* developed by EA with input from Scotland, NI and RoI
AMBIIQI= Observed value of (1-AMBI/7) divided by maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.
1-’ IQI = Observed value of Simpsons evenness index (1-’) divided by the maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.
SIQI = Observed number of taxa divided by the maximum expected value under reference conditions for a given habitat type.
Benthic Multimetric – IQI
Complies with criteria of Directive and provides a measure of:
1. Disturbance Sensitive Taxa (Functional Index)
2. Diversity (Simpson’s Eveness)
3. Abundance and No. of Taxa (UnivariateStatistics)
Scale 0-1
Boundary setting - IQI
1st Iteration - equidistant on scale of 0-1 (0, 0.2, 0.4,0.8, 1)
Subsequent revisions achieved by ensuring data fit with normative definitions from directive.
In each status class assess:• AMBI ecological group proportions• Taxa abundances using SIMPER analysis• Breakdown of Phyla, Class, Order, Family and Genus
using SIMPER analysis and reference to MNCR habitat characterising taxa
AMBI – proportions of sensitive taxa
IQI - Boundaries proposed for Intercalibration exercise
Status Class Boundary IQI
High/ Good 0.80
Good/ Moderate 0.65
Moderate/ Poor 0.43
Poor/ Bad 0.20
Intercalibration 1 (IC I)
• NEA GIG
• Ireland - data from 38 stations
• Total ≈ 400 stations
National Methods for IC - 1
Member State Method Status
BE Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI)1 Agreed
DE Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Agreed
DK Danish Quality Index (DKI) Agreed
ES Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Agreed
FR Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) Not Agreed
IE Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) Agreed
NL Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI)1 Agreed
NO Norwegian Quality Index (NQI) Agreed
PT Portuguese Benthic Assessment Tool (P-BAT) Not Agreed
SE Biological Quality Index (BQI) Agreed
UK Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) Agreed
Intercalibration (NEAGIG) –
New Type
IDName Salinity
Tidal range
(m)
Depth
(m)
Current
velocity
(knots)
Exposure MixingResidence
time
CW –
NEA1/26
Exposed
or
sheltered,
euhaline,
shallow
Fully
saline (>
30)
Mesotidal
(1 - 5)
Shallow
(< 30)
Medium
(1 - 3)
Exposed
or
sheltered
Fully
mixedDays
• Option 3 – Common dataset – individual tools • Seven intercalibration types• Coastal Waters - CW-NEA1/26 - DK, ES, IE, NO, PT, UK
Benthic EQR Intercalibration – Reference
Conditions
MS MethodSample
area (m2)Component metrics - reference values
Combined
reference value
Taxa no. Diversity AMBI
DK DKIShannon’s
(logbase2) = 50
ES M-AMBI 42 Shannon’s = 4 1
IE IQI 0.1 68 Simpsons = 0.971-AMBI/7 =
0.96
NO NQI 0.4 0.78
PT P-BAT 0.1Shannon’s = 4.1
Margarlef = 50
UK IQI 0.1 68 Simpsons = 0.971-AMBI/7 =
0.96
Kappa Scores – Level of agreement (G/M): source:
DKI IQI M-AMBI NQI P-BAT
DKI
0.91
(almost
perfect)
0.93
(almost
perfect)
0.91
(almost perfect)
0.89
(almost perfect)
IQI 8.47%
0.86
(almost
perfect)
0.96
(almost perfect)
0.85
(almost perfect)
M-AMBI 5.51% 12.53%0.87
(almost perfect)
0.92
(almost perfect)
NQI 7.91% 3.11% 11.72%0.87
(almost perfect)
P-BAT 10.59% 13.8% 6.62% 12.29%
IQI (UK and Ireland) boundary revisions after harmonisation
Index B/P P/M M/G G/H
National –
proposed
IQI
(version 4)0.20 0.43 0.65 0.80
After
Intercalibration-
Optimised
IQI
(version 4)0.22 0.41 0.61 0.71
Intercalibration-
Optimised
FINAL MAXs
IQI
(version 4)0.24 0.44 0.64 0.75
IC I – Coastal Waters
Very positive outcome on standardised dataset considering they were independently collected and analysed.
Outcome deemed by the GIG to be an acceptable level of agreement and validates the national boundaries.
Next phase:
IC of methods that are applicable in the polyhaline, mesohaline and oligohaline habitats of transitional waters.
Intertidal and subtidal habitats need to be considered. Broader habitat types needed to be considered.
Intercalibration 2 – Transitional waters
More difficult to conduct
No data from Republic of Ireland
Level of agreement:
– Not as good as coastal waters - Low Kappa scores
– Very broad range of habitat types and influences
– Pressures (partition anthropogenic and natural sources difficult)
– Pressures (response of tools – additive?)
– MS married to monitoring systems and resistant to change
– Reference conditions highly variable or non-existent
Harmonisation – difficulties with boundary revision
Intercalibration (advantages and disadvantages)
Peer review process of methodologies
Drives method development and imposes realistic boundaries
Highlight range of issues relating to quantifying pressures
Not only Ireland contenting with justification of methodologies
Highlight problems associated with Typology process
Coastal waters - good agreement
Transitional waters – problematic!!