Background information and issues for discussion Lena Avellan, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

2/10/2015 3

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Research needs for

• perationalization (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 B - frequency varies, national monitoring programmes with HELCOM COMBINE used and this manual is to be updated MORE A A B - a clear method on how to interpret the result graph to be detailed B - may require re- iteration - TM Data needed for southern sub basins. Zooplankter size mainly calculated based on standard weights, direct measurements would be needed B - data pooling and collecting needs to be

• utlined -TM,

HELCOM A B Recommendations for indicator assessment at varying sampling frequency A A B Written guidelines for calculating and interpreting indicator values A Improved biomass assessment is needed A

Beginning of CORESET II At CORESET II 2-2014

2/10/2015 4

• Assessment Unit Level:

– 2 (Subbasins) – 3 (Subbasins with coastal and offshore division)

• The indicator is

applicable:

– Where COMBINE-based monitoring is implemented

• Currently data are

available: BB, BS, GoF, NBP, GoR, GB, SEB, SB, K

Askö Landsort GoFFI LHEI BIOR ÅlandFI BoSFI BoBFI K32-41 J56-K18 BMPJ2 Bornholm Anholt

MSTS: geographic applicability and data availability

Zooplankton mean size and total stock

2/10/2015 5

Issues that need to be solved for the indicator What is hindering solving the issue Standartization of biomass calculations Requirements to monitoring laboratories and funding

• f methodological research in national monitoring

programmes Coordination of statistical evaluation of the scoring system among indicators Funding and coordination Short time series for some areas More efforts are needed to find archival data (data rescue projects?)

Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based

• n environmental factors

2/10/2015 6

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

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?

B B B B - assessment units to be clarified - TM A A (based on the concept, boundaries need to be set in more areas) B

CORESET II 2-2014

Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factos

2/10/2015 7

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue Has to be tested in other regions of the Baltic Sea. There is need for funding to collect the data and analysis 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.

Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups

2/10/2015 8

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue

Low number of sites/basins meeting the criteria Insufficient monitoring frequency, too short time-series Weak coordination of monitoring activities in the open sea areas

Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups

2/10/2015 9

• Tested in the Gulf of

Finland, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Gdansk

• GES is determined by the
• no. of observations falling

inside the reference envelope (EQR)

• EQRGES/sub-GES=0.67 (may be

different in different sub- basins)

year 2.85 3.02 month mean SD n SE zmont h Zmonth+ SD Zmonth- 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

• 4
• 2

2 4 6 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ln biomass, µg l-1

Reference envelope (mean ± SD), diatoms, Gulf of Finland

zmonth Zmonth+SD Zmonth-SD 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EQR 0.46-0.49 (sub-GES)

Ratio of diatoms and dinoflagellates

2/10/2015 10

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Research needs for

• perationalization (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) In place (needs to be agreed upon and tested for whole Baltic though) A) In place (COMBINE), higher frequency would be nice, but… A) Should be in place B – suggested Level 3 (17 subbasins plus differentiation coastal/ open sea) A: trend assessment is available C – not yet available, major task, need to be elaborated and agreed upon for the different sea areas/basins (western Baltic differs from 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) Literature/data study regarding diat/dino ratio in former years/times to but derivation of GES on a broader basis, plus linkage to nutrient status (correlations) B - data sub-mission arrangements to be incorporated into the indicator to be discussed, many data not yet submitted to ICES - TM, HELCOM

At CORESET II 2-2014

Ratio of diatoms and dinoflagellates

2/10/2015 11

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue Needs to get support by

• ther CPs willing to provide

data , test the indicator and give input to GES definition Candidate status plus no TML until very recently Decide whether it is a biodiversity, food web or eutrophication indicator Com Dec says Eutrophication, we would rather say food web indicator (like FI) and biodiversity is also touched Needs to be accepted even if indicator is not directly linked to measures Measures will not directly aim at this indicator, but improving nutrient status should improve indicator status. And in particular for food web indicators there will be no direct links to measures except for fisheries regulations Practical work: collect data, analyse for time trends, try to define GES Availability of ready-to-use datasets (time series)

helcom.fi web-sites and workspaces Available tools for long-term up-dating

CORESET II Lena Avellan 2/10/2015 12

To do

• FOCUS on GES-boundaries!

– Concept; describe the principles of how the target is determined – Target-value; if available, propose a concrete boundary value based on data

• Consider main aim of the indicators, currently

food-web (D4), but also biodiversity (D1) and eutrophication (D5) have been proposed

2/10/2015 13

To Do

• HELCOM Monitoring Manual

– Any general level information lacking that you know should be included in the Monitoring Topics phytoplankton and/or zooplankton – Consider relevant guidelines for phytoplankton monitoring; are COMBINE guidelines (http://helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and- assessment/manuals-and-guidelines/combine- manual) sufficient/applicable for the indicators, if not then propose relevant guidelines and describe briefly in the indicator reports under the sub- heading Monitoring Method

2/10/2015 14