Pelagic break-out group Background information and issues for discussion Lena Avellan, Project Manager (CORESET II) CORESET II thematic meeting for benthic- and pelagic indicators 10-12 February 2015 Gdynia, Poland
Pelagic indicators At the beginning of CORESET II • 1 core indicator: Zooplankton mean size and total stock • Lack of phytoplankton biodiversity indicators noted • Candidates proposed and 3 candidates selected for further development at CORESET II 2-2014, 29-30 September 2014 2/10/2015 2
Zooplankton mean size and total stock Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy GES / assessment (method, frequency, criteria Concept/ spatial resolution) in (currently all GES are design relation to relevant Technical provisional) indicator parameters guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM A ) available and A ) proposed and B) under B ) monitoring needs B ) needs revision, assessment units: described described development revision what needs doing A ) identified B ) available not B ) proposed but Research needs for C ) not available, C ) monitoring not C ) not available, B) Identified not described needs more operationalization (in A ) in place what needs - available, what needs - what needs - described C ) not available, what supporting data relation to needs B ) needs revision, what stated under the needs doing action level? action level? action level? C) not identified, needs - action level? C ) not available, what needs - what needs - action coordinated C ) not available, what action level? level? monitoring and needs - action level? assessment columns) A A A Data needed for B - frequency B - a clear B - may B - data pooling Beginning of CORESET II southern sub varies, national method on how require re- and collecting basins. monitoring to interpret the iteration - TM needs to be Zooplankter size programmes result graph to outlined -TM, mainly calculated with HELCOM be detailed HELCOM based on COMBINE used standard weights, and this manual direct is to be updated measurements MORE would be needed At CORESET II A B A A A Improved A B Recommendations biomass Written 2-2014 for indicator assessment is guidelines for assessment at needed calculating and varying sampling interpreting frequency indicator values 2/10/2015 3
MSTS: geographic applicability and data availability • Assessment Unit Level: – 2 (Subbasins) BoBFI – 3 (Subbasins with coastal and offshore division) • The indicator is BoSFI applicable: ÅlandFI – Where COMBINE-based GoFFI monitoring is Askö implemented Landsort • Currently data are LHEI Anholt BIOR available: BB, BS, GoF, BMPJ2 NBP, GoR, GB, SEB, SB, K J56-K18 K32-41 Bornholm 2/10/2015 4
Zooplankton mean size and total stock Issues that need to be What is hindering solving the issue solved for the indicator Standartization of Requirements to monitoring laboratories and funding biomass calculations of methodological research in national monitoring programmes Coordination of Funding and coordination statistical evaluation of the scoring system among indicators Short time series for More efforts are needed to find archival data (data some areas rescue projects?) 2/10/2015 5
Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial Concept/ resolution) in relation to GES / assessment criteria design relevant indicator Assessment (currently all GES are provisional) parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM assessment A ) available and A ) proposed and described B) under B ) monitoring needs B ) needs revision, what units: described B ) proposed but needs more development revision needs doing A ) identified B ) available not supporting data A ) in place C ) not C ) monitoring not available, C ) not available, what B) Identified not described C ) not available, what needs - action B ) needs revision, what needs available, what needs - action level? needs - action level? described C ) not available, level? doing what needs - C) not identified, what what needs - C ) not available, what needs - action level ? needs - action level? action level? action level? B B B B - assessment units A A B CORESET II to be clarified - TM 2-2014 (based on the concept, boundaries need to be set in more areas) 2/10/2015 6
Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factos List of issues that still need to be solved Describe what is hindering solving the issue for the indicator Has to be tested in other regions of the There is need for funding to collect the data and analysis Baltic Sea. from other regions of Baltic Sea if there is no volunteers to test this indicator. At the moment the indicator only has used to assess the state of the Gulf of Riga. Data is available and assessment has made for one sub-basin. 2/10/2015 7
Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups List of issues that still need to be solved Describe what is hindering solving the issue for the indicator Low number of sites/basins Insufficient monitoring frequency, too short meeting the criteria time-series Weak coordination of monitoring activities in the open sea areas 2/10/2015 8
Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups Reference envelope (mean ± SD ) , diatoms, Gulf of Finland • Tested in the Gulf of 8 Finland, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of zmonth 6 Zmonth+SD Gdansk ln biomass, µg l -1 EQR 0.46-0.49 (sub-GES) Zmonth-SD 4 • GES is determined by the 2006 2 no. of observations falling 2007 2008 0 inside the reference 2009 envelope (EQR) -2 2010 • 2011 -4 EQR GES/sub-GES =0.67 (may be 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 different in different sub- year 2.85 3.02 zmont Z month + Z month - basins) month mean SD n SE h SD SD 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 4 6.91 1.38 38 0.19 5.97 7.35 4.59 4.63 3.53 3.27 4.15 4.53 5.39 5 5.17 2.44 71 0.27 4.23 6.66 1.79 1.74 1.09 2.85 1.50 1.45 3.06 6 2.10 2.34 69 0.26 1.15 3.49 -1.18 -1.58 -2.37 -1.44 0.38 -1.05 -4.12 7 0.88 2.77 74 0.31 -0.07 2.70 -2.83 -0.67 -2.40 -3.30 -5.62 -0.56 -1.28 8 1.36 2.75 73 0.30 0.41 3.17 -2.34 -2.26 -1.73 -2.28 -0.68 -0.71 -0.33 9 2.91 1.92 40 0.31 1.96 3.88 0.04 -2.18 3.02 1.77 -0.17 -0.49 -1.39 10 3.39 1.97 41 0.30 2.44 4.41 0.48 -1.33 -0.38 0.08 -0.24 1.76 -0.41 2/10/2015 9
Ratio of diatoms and dinoflagellates Coordinated monitoring Assessment Monitoring strategy GES / assessment (method, frequency, criteria Concept/ spatial resolution) in (currently all GES are design relation to relevant Technical provisional) indicator parameters guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method Data arrangements A ) in place A ) monitoring in place A ) in place HELCOM A ) available and A ) proposed and B) under B ) monitoring needs B ) needs revision, assessment units: described described development revision what needs doing A ) identified B ) available not B ) proposed but Research needs for C ) not available, C ) monitoring not C ) not available, B) Identified not described needs more operationalization (in A ) in place what needs - available, what needs - what needs - described C ) not available, what supporting data relation to needs B ) needs revision, what action level? action level? action level? C) not identified, needs - action level? C ) not available, stated under the needs doing what needs - what needs - action coordinated C ) not available, what action level? level? monitoring and needs - action level? assessment columns) A) In place A) In place A) Should be in B – suggested A: trend C – not yet Literature/data B - data sub-mission (needs to be (COMBINE), higher place Level 3 (17 assessment is available, major study regarding arrangements to be agreed upon frequency would be subbasins plus available task, need to be diat/dino ratio in incorporated into and tested for nice, but… differentiation elaborated and former years/times the indicator to be whole Baltic coastal/ open agreed upon for to but derivation of discussed, many though) sea) the different sea GES on a broader data not yet At CORESET II areas/basins basis, plus linkage submitted to ICES - (western Baltic to nutrient status TM, HELCOM differs from (correlations) 2-2014 Eastern Baltic) First step: develop it as trend indicator; definition of GES as second step (challenge; and GES values may need to vary between areas/basins) 2/10/2015 10
Recommend
More recommend
