1 / 22

Saltmarsh Intercalibration TW

Saltmarsh Intercalibration TW. COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS INTERCALIBRATION VALIDATION WORKSHOP ISPRA 17 nov 2011. E. Van den Bergh (BE), Joao Neto (PT), Jose Juanes (ES), Robert Wilkes (IE). 1. Compliance of methods. DE – EM (WISER ID 130): Saltmarsh in CW and TW

alevine
Download Presentation

Saltmarsh Intercalibration TW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Saltmarsh Intercalibration TW COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS INTERCALIBRATION VALIDATION WORKSHOP ISPRA 17 nov 2011 E. Van den Bergh (BE), Joao Neto (PT), Jose Juanes (ES), Robert Wilkes (IE)

  2. 1. Compliance of methods • DE – EM (WISER ID 130): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Metrics in the lower salinity zones: • Abundance: • SM extent compared to historical reference • Near natural biotopes in the foreland • Width of Reed • Taxonomic composition: Species and structures of Reeds Combination rule:Mean • NL – TSM (WISER ID 259, to be adapted): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Metrics: • Abundance: SM extent compared to historical reference • Taxonomic composition: Relative representation of SMzones compared to reference Combination rule: One out All out • UK – SM (under construction): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Metrics: • Abundance: • Saltmarsh extent compared to historical reference • Saltmarsh extent compared to intertidal • Taxonomic composition: • Number of zones compared to maximum • Maximum zone area • Number of species/zone compared to reference Combination rule: Weighted mean

  3. 1. Compliance of methods • BE – TMQI (WISER ID 27): Saltmarsh in TW Metrics: • Abundance: SM extent compared to modelled reference • Taxonomic composition: ponderation of • Vegetation diversity • Species diversity • Floristic quality index Combination rule: One out All out • ES – AQI (WISER ID 249, to be adapted): Angiosperms in TW Metrics: • Abundance: • Cover density of habitats compared to reference • Anthropic surface in TWB • Taxonomic composition: number of estuarine habitats Combination rule: Mean • PT-SMAT (under construction): Saltmarsh in TW Metrics: • Abundance: Coverage of principal species compared to reference • Taxonomic composition: presence of principal and occasional species in low, mid and high marsh Combination rule: mean

  4. 1. Compliance of methods • Abundance = extent for BE-DE-NL-UK = relative species cover for ES and PT Calculation rule for abundance differs in both cases • Disturbance sensitive taxa = vegetation zones for BE-DE-NL-UK Different definition for zones and calculation rules for EQR = reed width and quality for lower salinity zones in DE = number of habitats in ES = n° principal and occasional species per zone in PT and UK = species diversity and floristic quality in BE • Taxonomic level: No species information for NL-DE-ES • REFCOND: historical interpretation, expert judgement, modelling, no near natural sites • All methods comply BUT differ in assessment concept

  5. 2. Feasability

  6. 3 DATA

  7. 4 Pressures

  8. 4 Pressures

  9. 4 Pressure data

  10. 4 Pressure Indicators • Hydromorpological pressure • Landclaim % intertidal • Shoreline % reinforcement • Dredge disposal area % subtidal • Summed up as Total HMP • Maximum value as Maximum HMP • For UK only tested on surveillance sites with info on SM extent AND zonation (4wb)

  11. 4 Pressure EQR response R²=0,2

  12. 4 Pressure EQR response

  13. 5 Assessment concept

  14. Common Metrics • CM 1: SM extent as proportion of reference, truncated at 1or as proportion of WB to include ES and PT? • CM 2: H’ of 4 predefined vegetation zones: pioneer, low, mid, high marsh, normalised to values between 0 and 1. • In upstream direction zones become less straightforward, • Influenced by WB type • Influenced by WB salinity reach • CM 3: (CM 1 + CM 2)/2: may be not possible

  15. 6 Common Metrics EQR response Saltmarsh extent

  16. 6 Common Metrics EQR response Saltmarsh extent

  17. 6 Common Metrics EQR response Shannon diversity

  18. 6 Common Metrics EQR response Shannon diversity

  19. 6 Common Metrics EQR response Shannon diversity

  20. 6 Common Metrics Pressure response Saltmarsh extent

  21. 6 Common Metrics Pressure response Shannon diversity

  22. Problems • Diversity of WB in shape, size, latitude,salinity • Different assessment concepts • CM and pressure data collated from different sources • Different interpretation of pressures • Some pressures are overlooked • Saltmarsh zonation in TW upper reaches not as clear as in higher salinity zones • Limited number of EQR to make geographical or subtypological subgroups

More Related