HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg Lower depth limit of macrophyte species Mats Blomqvist TM (SE), Samuli Korpinen TM (FI), Nick Kovaltchouk TM (RU), Georg Martin TM (EE), Kaire Torn (EE), Karin Fürhaupter TML (DE)
12
Embed
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species - HELCOM II 2-2014 joint/Documents... · Lower depth limit of macrophyte species Scientific background • nutrient enrichment enhances phytoplankton
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Mats Blomqvist TM (SE), Samuli Korpinen TM (FI), Nick Kovaltchouk TM (RU), Georg Martin TM (EE), Kaire Torn
(EE), Karin Fürhaupter TML (DE)
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Scientific background • nutrient enrichment enhances phytoplankton and ephemeral algae
growth reducing light availability at the bottom • reduction of light availability is documented for various marine
regions and identified as main cause of the decline in the vertical distribution of characteristic vegetation communities
• macrophyte species differ in light requirements = in their sensitivity to light reduction (differences between hard and soft bottom macrophytes) but also other pressures are relevant
• vegetation communities and their characteristic species vary in terms of substrate conditions (soft bottom/hard bottom) and along the salinity gradient set of macrophyte species in focus need to be sensitive to light reduction, widely distributed within the Baltic Sea
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Stage of development Indicator type
Pre-core State
Primary importance Secondary importance
BSAP
Segment and Objective
Thriving and balanced communities of
plants and animals
none stated
MSFD
Descriptors and Criteria
1.6. Habitat condition (1.6.1 Condition of
typical species/communities)
1.4 Habitat distribution (1.4.1 Distributional
pattern)
1.5 Habitat extent (area, only a proxy)
4.3 Abundance/distribution of key trophic
groups and species (habitat defining species)
6.1 Substrate characteristics (6.1.1 Biogenic
substrate)
Other relevant legislation: (e.g. WFD) Ecological status indicator/metric in five HELCOM countries
Legislative linkage:
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Concept/ design
Coordinated monitoring Assessment
Research needs for operationalization (in
relation to needs stated under the
coordinated monitoring and
assessment columns)
Data arrangements
Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters
Technical guidelines Geographic scale
Assessment method
GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional)
A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level?
A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level?
A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?
HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level?
A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level?
A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level?
A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?
A A – for some species and countries
B – quality assurance is needed – TM, MONAS
B (A) – identified but not clear if applicable to all units
A – if identical to WFD assessment
A – for some species in some units
Depth limit data in certain assessment units, background data (nutrients), modelling of historical depth limits by nutrient or other pressure proxies
C – data submission arrangements to be incorporated into the indicator TM, HELCOM
B – for some species and countries
B – for some species in some units
C – for some species in some countries, financial issues, CP
C – for some species in some units – TM, CP
B –
(action level = who needs to complete the task)
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
GES
species and water type specific reference GES as deviation of the reference
Problems
• nationally depth limits as WFD metric GES at the moment identical to the good/moderate boundary (approach may differ between countries, only two country intercalibration)
• are there species and type specific references for all assessment units (WFD experience: NO)
• can we adopt references to certain units by using nutrient data or other pressure data as proxy?
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
• HELCOM Assessment Unit Level: 4 (water types and bodies)
• The indicator is applicable in: all coastal areas around the Baltic Sea, but sufficient natural depth range of soft and hard substrate and macrophyte stands is needed
• Currently data is available : species and unit specific for DE, DK, EE, LT, LV, FI, SE, (RU) (but no HELCOM data base)
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
List of issues that still need
to be solved for the
indicator
Describe what is hindering solving the issue
Pressure-relationship Does the end value need to have a significant pressure-relationship or is it sufficient to
prove that for some species or groups
Identifying assessment units, where
the indicator is not applicable
Data on distribution and usable monitoring areas (sufficient natural depth range of
substrate) for different species (especially for countries not regularly part of the group).
Combination rule for different species species sensitivity to light reduction, siltation enough data to develop a combination
rule based on that topic
GES value some countries with operational depth limits (good/moderate boundary), some countries
are developing boundaries, some countries change “fixed” boundaries what happens if
national GES differs from HELCOM GES?
Quality assurance Monitoring methods are similar between countries but slight changes can cause relevant
variations in the depth limit value (water level corrections, cover degree as depth limit,
towed or drop down video, diver experience and training)
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Spermatophyte depth limit (species independent) – high pressure gradient
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Data availability restricted even for widely distributed species
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Lower depth limit of macrophyte species
Data availability for hard bottom species even more restricted
HELCOM CORESET II, 2nd Workshop 29.–30.09.2014 Gothenburg
Candidate macrophyte indicators
Biomass ratio of opportunistic species + WFD metric in some countries (monitoring in place) + applicable also in assessment units with low visibility + based on “hard” data: a “real” sample with species richness, composition and biomass - time and cost intensive (laboratory work) - method not harmonized between countries (term opportunistic is handled differently)
Cumulated cover of macrophyte species + cover estimates part of many monitoring programmes + highly significant pressure-relationship for DK and SE data + less time and cost intensive (no laboratory work) - method not applicable in areas with low visibility and difficult in areas with high species richness - no hard data, no sample - method not harmonized between countries