Inland Fisheries Ireland · 2019-10-08 · Fish Intercalibration in Rivers, Lakes and TraC Dr. Fiona Kelly Andrew Harrison, Lynda Connor, Ronan Matson, Rory Feeney, Emma Morrissey,

Fish Intercalibration in Rivers, Lakes and TraC

Dr. Fiona Kelly

Andrew Harrison, Lynda Connor, Ronan Matson, Rory Feeney, Emma Morrissey, Ciara Wogerbauer and Kieran Rocks (Roisin

O’Callaghan, Grainne Hanna, Trevor Stafford, Brian Hayden, Glen Wightman, Mo Lordan, Trevor Champ)

Plus MANY staff from the IFI RBD offices

Inland Fisheries Ireland

Overview:

Presentation duration of 30 minutes (approx) to inform you on:

• Rivers

• Summary of FCS2 Ireland

• IC

• Lakes

• Summary of FIL2

• IC

• TRaC

• Summary of TFCI

• IC

WFD Fish Intercalibration

RIVERS: Fisheries Classification Scheme 2 Ireland (FCS2)

WFD Fish Classification Tool - Rivers

Project Management: SNIFFER

Developers: HR Wallingford (David Wyncoll & Valerie Bain)

Data Sources: Inland Fisheries Ireland and NIEA/AFBI

Funding sources: EPA, NIEA & SEPA

TAG: Fiona Kelly, Ronan Matson and Andrew Harrison (IFI),

Jake Gibson and Rosetta Mullan (NIEA), Robert Rosell and

Liam O’ Connor (AFBI), Paddy Boylan (LA), Willie Duncan

and Alistair Duguid (SEPA), Colin Bean (SNH), Iain

Malcolm (MS), Graeme Storey (EA)

Agencies throughout each of the three regions

contributed electrofishing data which was

used in model development

Multiple catch data from 981 surveys (934

sites) in RoI (826) and NI (155) were used

61 reference sites were included

Bayesian geostatistical model (parameters as

well as data are assumed to be random)

Rather than a single estimate, a whole

distribution of likely values is found for

each parameter

Overview of FCS2 Ireland

WFD Fish Classification Tool- Rivers

Compares fish species metrics (abundance and prevalence) at a given site

(observed) to those predicted (expected) for that site under reference (or

unimpaired) conditions

Uses a range of abiotic and pressure variables (e.g. MRP)

Takes into account geographical location of a site because different fish species

can predominate in different parts of the country

An EQR (more correctly, probability) for abundance and prevalence

(probability of a species being present at a site) for each of 17 fish models is

generated

A site EQR, survey EQR and a WB EQR are generated

Overview of FCS2 Ireland



Developments made in the Ireland model

FCS2 Ireland extended to:

• Account for age classes (0+ and 1+ & older salmon and trout

treated as separate independent species

• Account for barriers

• Incorporate multiple-pass data (> 80% data was multiple

pass)

• Include fishing method (boat or wading)

For fish in rivers

WFD requires species composition, abundance and age structure


Species

Expected

prevalence

Observed

total catch

Expected total

catch if present

Expected total

catch

Species

EQR mean

Bream 0.305 0 4.786 0.211 0.999

Eel 0.855 0 1.009 1.009 0.653

Flounder 0.000 0 59.599 0.000 1.000

Gudgeon 0.024 0 3.915 0.091 0.987

Lamprey 0.941 0 1.371 1.266 0.752

Minnow 0.271 0 33.719 8.779 0.812

Nine-spined stickleback 0.097 1 0.686 0.050 0.991

Perch 0.069 0 1.957 0.108 0.973

Pike 0.171 0 0.262 0.041 0.968

Roach 0.230 0 8.453 1.864 0.886

0+ Salmon 0.373 0 9.828 3.473 0.755

1+ & older Salmon 0.524 0 10.160 5.295 0.581

Sea trout 0.922 0 0.000 0.0002 1.000

Stone loach 0.765 0 6.010 4.556 0.585

Three-spined stickleback 0.933 24 4.339 4.040 0.966

0+ Trout 0.727 0 20.592 14.947 0.326

1+ & older Trout 0.993 20 15.311 15.210 0.747

Example: Tully stream (Soomeragh Br)- IR14T020390– Barrow catchment

Survey date: 21/07/2008

Fish

Site EQR = 0.462= Moderate

Other elements

Invertebrates = poor

Phys/chem = fail

Bad 0.8%

Poor 29.3%

Moderate 58.7%

Good 11.1%

High 0.1%

Prevalence of 0.3 means

that at 70% of the sites

you should not be

surprised if the species is

not caught because it is

expected to be absent


Setting class boundaries

EQR 0.845 - 1.0 HIGH

EQR 0.54 - 0.845 GOOD

EQR 0.12 - 0.54 MODERATE

EQR 0.007 - 0.12 POOR

EQR 0 - 0.007 BAD

Created using artificial datasets

High quality: Species

composition and abundance

correspond nearly or totally to

undisturbed conditions, with little

or no anthropogenic

disturbance.

Bad quality: Sites that are

biologically inert little or no fish

present except for the most

tolerant species.

WFD Fish Intercalibration- Rivers

River Fish Intercalibration

Participating MS – 27 countries

Austria, Belgium-Flanders, Belgium-Wallonia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg,

Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia,

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, England, Wales, Norway.

Problem with Bulgaria and Hungary

WFD Fish Intercalibration - Rivers

IC Pilot Exercise (not necessary to organise into GIGS instead 5 regional

groups (Three meetings from May 2006 to April 2007)

Aim: 1. Demonstrate the usefulness of using fish as a BQE

2. Begin compiling a common database

3. Establish expertise and contacts

Decision: Fish could be used for IC and enter into full intercalibration exercise

2nd Round Intercalibration – Full IC (Seven River Fish Intercalibration Meetings from April 2008 to May 2011)

Five regional groups are coordinated by:

Nordic Group: Teppo Vehanen (Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Scotland)

Lowland-Midland Group: Tom Buijse and Cornelia Schuetz (and with Marco Beers)

Alpine-type Mountains Group: Haimo Prinz and Michael Schabuss

Mediterranean South-Atlantic: Pedro Segurado (with Teresa Ferrera)

Danubian Group: Vladimir Kovac

D. Pont and O. Delaigue (Cemagref, France,) are in charge of the establishment of the

common database and of the development of the common metrics (Option 2)


Common database 4515 sites from 24 countries with only one fishing occasion per site.

Country Code Sites National Reference cond. sites

Austtria AT 259 21

BE (Flanders) BF 82 0

BE (Wallonia) BW 146 42

Czech Republic CZ 93 14

Germany DE 439 21

Denmark DK 50 0

Spain ES 189 102

Estonia ET 77 7

England & Wales EW 139 0

Finland FI 157 95

France FR 473 90

Greece GR 161 26

Hungary HU 133 0

Ireland IR 495 31

Lithuania LT 130 44

Latvia LV 54 17

Luxemburg LX 20 5

Northern Ireland NI 75 0

Netherlands NL 154 0

Norway NO 70 20

Portugal PT 150 32

Romanis RO 143 17

Scotland SC 138 23

Sweden SE 702 93

Slovakia SK 76 34

Slovenia SL 87 10


Methods used (18 methods included)

Country Method Status WISER questionnaire

Austria FIA 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Belgium - Flanders Upstream and Lowland

IBI

1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Belgium – Wallonia IBIP 2- method under development 1- Completed

Czech Republic Czech multimetric

method CZI


England & Wales FCS2 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Finland Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

France FBI 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Germany

FIBS 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Ireland (RoI & NI) FCS2 Ireland 1 – Finalized agreed national method

Netherland NLFISR 1 - .finalized agreed national method

( References and Metrics for Fish in Small Rivers)

1- Completed

Lithuania LZI 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Portugal FIBIP 1 - finalized agreed national method 2- Completed partially

Romania EFI+ European Fish

index


FCS2 Scotland 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Spain IBICAT 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Sweden Swedish method VIX 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

Slovenia SIFAIR 1. finalized

Slovakia Fish Index of FIS 1 - finalized agreed national method 1- Completed

VARIABLE EXPLANATION

P_barrier Presence of downstream artifical barriers on the catchment scale

P_barrierup Artificial barriers upstream from the site

P_barrierdown Artificial barriers downstream from the site

P_impoundment Impoundment

P_hydropeaking Hydropeaking

P_waterabsrt Water abstraction

P_reservoir Colinear connected reservoir (fish farms, fish ponds,...)

P_dam Upstream dams influence

P_watertemp Water temperature modification (excuding dam effect)

P_chan Channelisation / Cross section alteration (segment scale)

P_vegrip Riparian vegetation

P_habalt Local Habitat alteration (site scale)

P_dyke Dykes (flood protection)

P_tox Toxic Risk. Priority substances list

P_waterac Water acidification

P_waterqualindex National water quality index (segment scale)

P_wateralt Water quality alteration (local scale)

P_navigation Navigation

P_recreational Recreational use with high intensity (angling, boating,...)

P_specimp Impairment of indigenous species

P_predation Heavy predation

P_stockact Major effect on indigenous populations by stocking activities

Table Pressures description


The most important

pressures are :

1. water quality

alteration,

2. hydromorphological

modifications,

3. connectivity

disruption.

Common pressure

Index

(based on the common

dataset) (17 pressures

combined into one

index and five classes))

All undisturbed sites

are classified in

pressure class 1


P<0.0001 P<0.0001

Roach

(prevalence) vs

log mrp mg L-1)

FCS2 Fish models vs pressures

Abundance of

1+ & older

salmon and

connectivity

Prevalence of 0+

salmon vs

connectivity

P<0.05


no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierup

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierdown

p = 0.190

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_impoundment

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_hydropeaking

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterabsrt

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_reservoir

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dam

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_watertemp

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_chan

p = 0.558

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_vegrip

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_habalt

p = 0.484

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dyke

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_tox

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterac

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterqualindex

p = 0.000

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_wateralt

p = 0.020

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_navigation

Cannot test

1-high 2-good 45-pb

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Press_index_cl2

Cannot test

IR_FCS2_index (all sites)

FCS2 vs pressures

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierup

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierdown

p = 0.190

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_impoundment

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_hydropeaking

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterabsrt

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_reservoir

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dam

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_watertemp

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_chan

p = 0.558

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_vegrip

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_habalt

p = 0.484

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dyke

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_tox

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterac

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterqualindex

p = 0.000

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_wateralt

p = 0.020

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_navigation

Cannot test

1-high 2-good 45-pb

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Press_index_cl2

Cannot test


no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierup

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_barrierdown

p = 0.190

no low high0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_impoundment

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_hydropeaking

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterabsrt

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_reservoir

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dam

Cannot test

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_watertemp

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_chan

p = 0.558

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_vegrip

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_habalt

p = 0.484

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_dyke

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_tox

Cannot test

no low high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterac

Cannot test

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_waterqualindex

p = 0.000

no low medium high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_wateralt

p = 0.020

no high

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P_navigation

Cannot test

1-high 2-good 45-pb

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Press_index_cl2

Cannot test


Responds to all pressures that can impact fish (e.g. water quality, artifical barriers,

local habitat alteration, etc.)

FCS2 Ireland vs the National

water quality index (segment

scale)

(4 pressure classes: No – no

alteration, low – minor

alteration, etc.)

Water quality alteration pressure

(local scale)

(4 pressure classes: No – no visible

signs of eutrophication, Low – slight

signs of eutrophication, medium –

clear signs of eutrophication and

high – strong signs of

eutrophication)

Global pressure index


Multiple correspondence analysis of the intercalibration sites and classes of the

index pressure in the Euclidian space of pressures


Selection of reference criteria in GIG

Pressure type Scale Nb of modalities

Presence of downstream artifical barriers on the catchment scale catchment no low high 3

Artificial barriers upstream from the site segment no low medium high 4

Artificial barriers downstream from the site segment no low medium high 4

Impoundment site no low high 3

Hydropeaking site no low high 3

Water abstraction site no low medium high 4

Colinear connected reservoir (fish farms, fish ponds ...) segment no high 2

Upstream dams influence site no low high 3

Water temperature modification (excuding dam effect) site no high 2

Channelisation / Cross section alteration (segment scale) segment no low medium high 4

Riparian vegetation site no low medium high 4

Local Habitat alteration site no low medium high 4

Dykes (flood protection) segment no low medium high 4

Toxic Risk. Priority substances list segment no low high 3

Water acidification segment no low high 3

National water quality index (segment scale) segment no low medium high 4

Water quality alteration (local scale) site no low medium high 4

Navigation segment no high 2

Recreational use with high intensity (angling, boating,..) site no high 2

impairment of indigenous species segment no high 2

heavy predation site no high 2

major effect on indigenous populations by stocking activities segment no high 2

Pressure intensity


Only considered sites with >30 fish and an area fish of >=100m^2

Country AT BF BW CZ DE DK ES ET EW FI FR GR IR

Nb sites 27 0 47 8 15 0 79 19 7 68 85 32 256

Country LT LV LX NI NL NO PT RO SC SE SK SL

Nb Sites 64 23 5 0 0 4 28 35 26 105 39 28

Using these criteria, the total number of undisturbed sites selected was 1032

sites.

National Reference sites

The total number of sites selected as reference sites at the national level is 556

Country AT BF BW CZ DE DK ES ET EW FI FR GR IR

Nb sites 21 0 41 14 20 0 75 7 0 60 86 18 28

Country LT LV LX NI NL NO PT RO SC SE SK SL

Nb Sites 44 16 5 0 0 4 32 16 16 52 34 10


Nordic Group

Option 2 With piecewise transformation - 4 methods

Method_countryType H_G_raw G_M_raw H_G_fit H_G_lwr H_G_upr G_M_fit G_M_lwr G_M_upr

FI_FIFI_index L2 0.665 0.499 0.911 0.871 0.951 0.751 0.711 0.791

FI_FIFI_index L3 0.658 0.493 0.911 0.871 0.951 0.751 0.711 0.791

FI_FIFI_index M1 0.709 0.532 0.911 0.871 0.951 0.751 0.711 0.791

FI_FIFI_index M2 0.734 0.550 0.911 0.871 0.951 0.751 0.711 0.791

FI_FIFI_index M3 0.723 0.542 0.911 0.871 0.951 0.751 0.711 0.791

IR_FCS2_index no 0.845 0.540 0.889 0.860 0.919 0.770 0.740 0.800

SC_FCS2_index no 0.845 0.600 0.878 0.855 0.901 0.786 0.763 0.809

SE_VIX_index no 0.749 0.467 1.029 0.993 1.064 0.887 0.851 0.922

Mean no - - 0.927 - - 0.799 - -

Median no - - 0.900 - - 0.778 - -

Boundaries before harmonization

Raw values and predicted values (fit) of the H/G and G/M boundaries and the

associated intervals (lower and upper values)

Boundary Harmonization (IC Annex V, vers. 5.1, October 2010)


FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

H_G_fit

G_M_fit

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Common metrics

Finnish types

are averaged

prior to

calculating the

mean

Boundary Harmonization


4 methods vs Common metric before harmonization

Method Slope R R^2

FI_FIFI 0.799 0.697 0.486

IR_FCS2 0.598 0.526 0.276

Sco_FCS2 0.461 0.567 0.321

SE_VIX 0.709 0.661 0.437

Pearson’s R: OK

Slopes: OK except SCO:0.46

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.697

FI FIFI index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.526

IR FCS2 index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.567

SC FCS2 index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.661

SE VIX index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

Requirements:

1. Regression = significant

2. Slope between 0.5 and

1.5

3. Min R^2 at least half of

max R^2


After harmonization

Method Slope R R^2

FI_FIFI 0.799 0.697 0.486

IR_FCS2 0.598 0.526 0.277

Sco_FCS2 0.463 0.566 0.321

SE_VIX 0.702 0.660 0.436

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.697

FI FIFI index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.526

IR FCS2 index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.566

SC FCS2 index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

R = 0.660

SE VIX index

Com

mon m

etr

ic

Requirements:

1. Regression = significant

2. Slope between 0.5 and

1.5

3. Min R^2 at least half of

max R^2

Pearson’s R: OK

Slopes: OK except SCO:0.463)


FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

H_G_fit

G_M_fit

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Common metrics

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

FI_FIFI_index

IR_FCS2_index

SC_FCS2_index

SE_VIX_index

H_G_fit

G_M_fit

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Common metrics

Plot of the predicted High-Good (in blue) and the Good-Moderate (in green) boundaries, and their associated interval (one fourth a

class), expressed in common metrics for the 4 methods of the Nordic group, before (on the left) and after (on the right)

harmonization. In addition, the mean (dashed line) and median (solid line) value are added.

Before After

Only H-G boundary modified


Country_Method Type H_G_before G_M_before H_G_after G_M_after

FI_FIFI_index L2 0.665 0.499 0.665 0.499

FI_FIFI_index L3 0.658 0.493 0.658 0.493

FI_FIFI_index M1 0.709 0.532 0.709 0.532

FI_FIFI_index M2 0.734 0.550 0.734 0.550

FI_FIFI_index M3 0.723 0.542 0.723 0.542

IR_FCS2_index no 0.845 0.540 0.845 0.540

SC_FCS2_index no 0.845 0.600 0.850 0.600

SE_VIX_index no 0.749 0.467 0.739 0.467

High-Good and the Good-Moderate boundaries before and after

harmonization (in red).


Method CI agree before CI agree after Class

agreement

FI_FIFI vs IR_FCS2 0.596 0.596 OK

FI_FIFI vs SE_VIX 0.985 0.978 OK

IR_FCS2 vs FI_FIFI 0.601 0.601 OK

IR_FCS2 vs SE_VIX 0.954 0.951 OK

SE_VIX vs FI_FIFI 0.844 0.836 OK

SE_VIX vs IR_FCS2 0.795 0.791 OK

Mean 0.796 0.792 OK

Class agreement before and after harmonization

Class agreement (The confidence that two or more national methods will

report the same class for a given site) must be <1.0


Conclusion

No requirement to change boundaries for FCS2

Ireland

Successful intercalibration

Fish in Lakes Classification Tool (FIL2) for Eco Region 17 Summary of development and outputs

Inland Fisheries Ireland – Research and Development Division

Fiona Kelly, Andrew Harrison and Lynda Connor

Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) - Fisheries and Aquatic

Systems Branch

Michelle Allen, Trudyann Kelly and Robert Rosell

Overview of the Solution for FIL2

Select training dataset

Stepwise Discriminant Analysis Model Building

Classification rule for qualitative ecological status

Derive EQR for each lake

Apply results to test data

Define ecological status boundaries

WFD Fish Classification Tool - Lakes

• Agencies throughout RoI and NI contributed data from netting surveys and supportive information

• 137 lakes surveyed = training dataset

• 14 lakes surveyed on two occasions = test dataset (1st survey)

• Abiotic metrics (x 8)

• Pressure metrics (x 9)

• Suite of fish metrics calculated (x 145) - species composition, reproduction, abundance, biomass, condition, age, length

Fish in lakes Data (2005 to 2009)


Typology for fish in lakes

Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 Max Depth (m)

Low <67 Shallow <17

Low <67 Deep >17

High >67 Shallow <17

High >67 Deep >17

1. Optimum cut-point for ALK was 67 with 36 of the 43 lakes being

correctly classified into Low and High ALK

2. The optimum cut-point for depth was 17 with 35 of the 43 lakes

being correctly classified into Shallow and Deep depth


Total P (ug/l P)

Max Chl a

(mg/m3)

Ultraoligo/Oligotrophic (HIGH) TP_MEAN <12 <8.0

Mesotrophic (GOOD) 12<= TP_MEAN <35 >8- <=25

Moderately Eutrophic (MODERATE) 35<= TP_MEAN <60 >25 - <=50

Highly Eutrophic (POOR) 60<= TP_MEAN <100 >50 - <=75

Hypertrophic (BAD) TP_MEAN >100 >75

1. Define a Pressure gradient

Combine the TP_MEAN and CHLOR_MAX using a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach

E.g. TP_MEAN = high, CHLOR_MAX = good…..overall = good

TP_MEAN = good, CHLOR_MAX = poor…..overall = poor


13 fish metrics used for the DA classification &

EQR model CORE METRICS

• TOT_BPUE: Sum of mean biomass per unit effort (excl. eels and adult salmon)

• NAT_BPUE: Sum of mean biomass per unit effort of native (group 1) fish species

• PERCH_BIO: Mean perch biomass per unit effort

OPTIMAL METRICS (stepwise procedure)

• RHEO_BIO: % individuals (based on BPUE excl. eels & adult salmon) that are rheophilic

• SPE_EVEN: Species evenness/dominance (1/D=1/(Nmax/Ntot) (Nmax= no. inds

represented by the most abundant species, Ntot=total number of individuals in the sample

(eels captured in fyke nets excluded) (Based on total number of fish captured)

• ROACH_BPUE: Mean biomass per unit effort ((g) of fish per linear metre of net - gill nets and fyke nets)

• BREAM_%_IND: % composition of bream based on CPUE (BREAM_CPUE/TOTAL_CPUE*100)

• PHYT_%_BIO: % individuals (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) that are phytophilic

• 2_%_BIO: % biomass of Group 2 species (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon), inc hybrids

• CYP_BIO: % biomass (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) of cyprinid species, inc hybrids

• RUDD_%_IND: % composition of rudd based on CPUE (RUDD_CPUE/TOTAL_CPUE*100)

• MAX_L_DOM_BIO: Maximun length of dominant species (based on BPUE excl. eels and adult salmon)

• LITH_IND: % individuals (based on CPUE excl. eels and adult salmon) that are lithophilic

(per linear metre of net used – gill nets and fykes)


Low alkalinity deep lakes: 5 fish metrics significant

Typology-specific boxplots for the metrics identified by the discriminant analysis

TOT_BPUE

NAT_BPUE

PERCH_BIO PHYT_BIO

BREAM_IND


High = 41 lakes

Good = 55 lakes

Moderate = 27 lakes

Poor/bad = 53 lakes

Classification of lakes in

Ecoregion 17

with FIL2


Boundary EQR

High/Good 0.76

Good/moderate 0.53

Moderate/poor-bad 0.32

WFD Fish Intercalibration - Lakes

Lake Fish Intercalibration

Participating MS – 30 countries

Problem: Lack of standardised data from many countries

Only 7 national methods (Nordic & Central Baltic)

GIG MS

Northern: Ireland (RoI & NI), Finland, Sweden, Scotland, England

(N), Norway

Lowland/Central: Germany (N), England (s), Netherlands, Belgium,

Denmark, France (N),Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia,

Poland, Hungary,

Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria (N).

Mediterranean/Southern: Portugal, Spain, France (S), Italy, Greece, Cyprus,

Romania, Bulgaria (S).

Alpine Germany (S), France (E), Austria, Slovenia, Italy.

WFD Fish Intercalibration- Lakes

1. March/April 2008 1st introductory lake fish meeting in Aix-en-Provence

(France)

2. Sept/Oct 2008 2nd Lake fish intercalibration meeting in Ranco (Italy)

3. Sept 2009 3rd Lake fish intercalibration meeting in Drottningholm

(Sweden) and L-N-F-group

4. May 2010 L-N-F and R-N-F partners – short informal meeting

after a broader Nordic fish meeting 24-26 May 2010,

at Lammi Biological Station in Finland.

5. Nov 2010 Lake Intercalibration Meeting 2010, JRC, Ispra

(Italy), Kerstin Holmgren and Mikko Olin represented

the group

6. April 2011 Informal group meeting as part of a broader

Nordic fish meeting 7-8 April 2011, Galway, Ireland.

Lake IC Meetings

Fish in lakes was not officially included until October 2008 (1-year pilot study)


Common European Database and WISER

•2107 lakes (1833 natural and 274 reservoirs)

•Fish data, environmental characters, climatic variables and anthropogenic

catchment-scale pressures

•Only considered lakes samples with the CEN benthic multimesh gillnets (CEN,

2005)

•1840 lakes remaining (1760 natural and 80 reservoirs)

•One campaign per lake (most recent in a time series)

•36.9% of the lakes contained low diversity (<3 species)

•All mainly in Northern GIG

•Did not consider lakes with < 3 species

•1097 natural lakes selected for the WISER study (common metric)

•WISER – Deliverable 3.4-4: Fish indicators for ecological status assessment of lakes

affected by eutrophication and hydromorphological pressures (common metric)


Eutrophication

– % of catchment impacted

• Corine Land Cover

• expert opinion (5 classes)

– Population density

– Annual mean values of total Phosphorus

Acidification

– pH and expert opinion (is it natural or not?)

In-lake pressures

– Urban and/or industrial discharge (yes/no)

– Chemical manipulation (yes/no)

– Stocking (yes/no)

– Activities: motorboat, bathing, exploitation of fish populations (low, medium, strong)

Hydrological

– Upstream barriers (yes/no)

– Lack of connectivity downstream (yes/no)

– Significant water level regulation (yes/no)

Morphological

– Shoreline modified

• LHS

• Expert judgment (5 classes)

Pressures


Reference criteria

• Thresholds decided for reference?

• Eutrophication

• % of catchment impacted

• Population density

- Number inhabitants in the catchment

• Annual mean values of total Phosphorus (µg/L)

• Acidification

• pH and expert opinion (is it natural or not?)

• In-lake pressures

• Urban and/or industrial discharge/Chemical manipulation /Stocking

• Activities: motorboat, bathing, exploitation of fish populations

• Hydrological

• Upstream barriers /Lack of connectivity downstream/SWLF

• Morphological

– Shore-line bank modifiedBM


Flow-chart for screening reference sites: 2 criteria on the 3 selected.

Eutrophication/ Enrichment

CLC natural

Reference

threshold

Rejection

threshold

Impacted

Not reference

site

X

Reference

site

Possible

reference

site

?

Population

Density

Total P

+

1 or more criteria clearly

above rejection threshold

Remaining 1 criteria

between reference

and rejection threshold

2 criteria clearly below

reference threshold

All criteria below

reference threshold


Harmonization of reference:

Application of pressures & thresholds

• Distribution of selected sites among GIG:

• Very low number of reference sites in CB, AL

& MED GIG

undefined AL CB MED NO Total

Disturbed 0 25 197 2 268 492

Reference 0 10 34 1 449 494

Unknown 3 2 50 2 752 809

1795 143 lakes passed the reference filter. (NO GIG) These reference lakes were

used as benchmark sites (BM-sites), and they were distributed between

member states in the following way; 68 for Finland, 12 for Republic of Ireland,

18 for Norway, and 45 for Sweden.


L_N_F Group - PILOT STUDY

•Began October 2008

•Exchange of country specific information on sampling methods and classification

tools

•All MS had fish data from CEN benthic gillnets = standard sampling method

(CEN 2005)

•Comparison of two assessment tools: Swedish (EQR8) and Finnish

(EQR4)indices.

•Two reduced datasets compiled (for EQR8 and EQR4)

•Preliminary analyses of the pilot study have been done on 640 lakes –subset of

Finnish, Swedish & Irish lakes – with publication of a report.

•Clear differences in the classification output of EQR4 and EQR8

Correlation between Finnish EQR4

and Swedish EQR8 (data from pilot study 2008-2009)

Finnish

lake

type

N P's r S's rho

1 165 0,318 0,306

2 128 0,456 0,498

3 27 0,586 0,607

6 76 0,544 0,463

7 21 0,410 0,338

8 71 0,420 0,414

9 81 0,476 0,458

12 22 -0,309 -0,348

All 639 0,421 0,409

All MS

N P's r S's rho

55 0,161 0,204

75 0,278 0,211

22 0,516 0,476

54 0,403 0,345

14 0,694 0,572

52 0,361 0,302

73 0,448 0,412

14 -0,176 -222

364 0,387 0,344

FI & SE

N P's r S's rho N P's r S's rho

145 0,330 0,323 44 0,169 0,217

74 0,415 0,428 43 0,132 0,136

13 0,637 0,575 13 0,637 0,575

43 0,553 0,426 26 0,197 0,135

16 0,494 0,434 12 0,720 0,648

42 0,340 0,351 32 0,368 0,299

40 0,551 0,520 33 0,504 0,396

12 -0,638 -0,720 6 -0,866 -0,657

391 0,401 0,382 238 0,358 0,291

All MS, excluding acid and

limed lakes

FI & SE, excluding acid

and limed lakes

IC is feasible if r or rho >= 0.5!


MS Method Status

Finland EQR4 1 - finalized formally agreed national

method

Norway FCI 1 - finalized formally agreed national

method

Rep. of Ireland & NI

(partial )

FIL2 1 - finalized formally agreed national

method

Sweden EQR8 1 - finalized formally agreed national

method

Northern Fish Group – 4 Methods


Method Pressure Remarks

Finnish EQR4 Eutrophication May be applied also for

acidification, but this is not

tested. Acidification is not a

relevant pressure in today.

Irish (RoI and NI,

partial & ) FIL2

Eutrophication and

general land use

pressures

Not tested for acidification

although some acidified lakes

have been inlcuded in the

database

Norwegian Fish

Index

Mixed pressures Best suited for effects of

acidification (damaged and lost

stocks)

Swedish EQR8 Acidification,

eutrophication, mixed

pressures

Northern Group - Pressures

Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?

The answer is yes. IC can (at least theoretically) be completed using eutrophication as the only relevant common

pressure. Lakes impacted by acidification and liming must then be excluded to refine the pressure-response relationships.


Standardised EQRs for 4 national methods vs TP (n=169)


FIL2 vs Pressure – reference vs impacted lakes

Mean EQR of “reference” lakes = 0.71 was significantly higher than those

classified as ‘impacted’ lakes = 0.43 (Independent t-test, P<0.001)


FIL2 EQR vs Pressure – TP and Chlor a

FIL2 EQR values were negatively correlated with both mean total

phosphorus (Pearsons correlation, r=-0.598, P<0.01) and maximum

chlorophyll a (Pearsons correlation, r=-0.536, P<0.01)


FIL2 EQR vs Pressure Index

There was also a significant difference in the EQR between each pressure index

class (Independent samples Mann Whitney U test, High vs Good, P<0.05; Good vs

Moderate P<0.05, Moderate vs Poor/Bad P<0.05; High vs Moderate P<0.05; High vs

Poor/bad P<0.05; Good vs Poor/Bad P<0.05)


IC Option

Option 3a chosen

• Similar data acquisition (similar sampling method)

• Common set of lakes

• Common lake types (Finnish types 1 and 2)

• Different numerical evaluation

Common metric

• No common metric used

• Errors in the common database

• Poor correlations with common metric

• Only two methods (Swe and NO excluded)

• Direct comparison between 2 methods

WFD Fish Intercalibration- Rivers Preliminary IC results 2011 Correlations with Common Metric FAML

P's r N P's r N P's r N P's r N P's r N P's r N P's r N P's r N

EQR FIL2 0.51 113 0 0.47 108 0 0 0.53 21 0.52 25 0.55 97

EQR8 -0.00 994 0.24 97 -0.35 110 0.09 29 -0.29 753 0.06 98 0.24 108 0.09 610

EQR4 0.27 553 0.67 97 0.24 110 0.14 29 0.06 312 0.57 98 0.65 108 0.49 321

FCI -0.35 71 -0.12 14 0 0 -0.40 57 0.06 11 -0.05 10 0.10 25

Acceptable (Pearson's r>=0.5) = Pass IC Feasibility check 2

Significant (P< 0.001, 2-tailed)

Significant (P< 0.05, 2-tailed)

Not significant (P>=0.05)

No possible comparisons

Non acid or

limed (N=702)

SE lakes

(N=753)

FI type 1

(N=98)

FI type 2

(N=108)L-N-F

indices

All MS &

Types

(N=994)

FI lakes

(N=97)

IE lakes

(N=110)

NO lakes

(N=29)

Correlation between national methods: Pearson’s r (N)

EQRFIL2

EQR4

EQR8

0.15 (409) 0.28 (31)

0.00 (31)

0.56 (97) --- (0)

FCI

-0.18 (97)

EQR4 EQR8

Acidic and limed lakes excluded!

Compared to r = 0.40,

when using 391 lakes

in the pilot study data


Boundary setting & harmonization

Class agreement (The confidence that two or more national methods will

report the same class for a given site) must be <1.0

EQR4 vs FIL2 = 0.92 OK

Proportion of lakes with deviation < 0.5 classes = 40%

Member

state

Classification

method

EQRs

H-G

boundary

G-M

boundary

Finland EQR4 (0.8) (0.6)

Ireland FIL2 (0.76) (0.53)


y = 1,0734x - 0,1053R² = 0,3534

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

stdFIL2_EQR

stdEQR4

Boundary setting & harmonization

FIL2 vs EQR4

R^2 = 0.3534

R = 0.594

Slope = 1.07

P<0.001

Next step

Boundary

harmonization

Waiting on scripts from ECOSTAT to confirm that boundary

harmonization is not needed

Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI) Summary of development and intercalibration

Inland Fisheries Ireland – Research and Development Division

Fiona Kelly and Andrew Harrison

Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)

Peter Moorehead and Trevor Harrison

Environment Agency (England and Wales)

Steve Coates and Adam Waugh

• The TFCI is a multi-metric index using 10 fish metrics

- Species composition

- Abundance

- Functional guilds

- Indicator species

• Individual metric scores are summed

• Summed scores are converted into an EQR between 0 and 1

WFD Fish Classification Tool - TraC

Summary - TFCI

Taxa attributes

Metric 1

Metric 2

Metric 8

Metric 7

Metric 3

Metric 4

Metric 5

Metric 6

Multimetric

index/

Ecological quality

class

Score

Score

Score

Score

Score

Score

Score

A metric is defined as “a characteristic of the biota that changes in some

predictable way with increases in human disturbance”

TFCI – multimetric index

Score


Species diversity and composition

1) Species composition

2) Presence of indicator species

Species abundance

3) Species relative abundance

4) Number of taxa that make up 90% of the abundance

Functional guilds

5) Number of estuarine resident taxa

6) Number of estuarine-dependent marine taxa

7) Functional guild composition

8) Number of benthic invertebrate feeding taxa

9) Number of piscivorous taxa

10) Feeding guild composition

TFCI – Metrics


TFCI – EQR calculation

• Sum the metric scores

• TFCI converted to an EQR: (TFCI -10) / (50 -10)

• Scores range from 10 - 50

EQR WFD Ecological Status Class

<0.2 Bad

0.2-0.4 Poor

0.4-0.6 Moderate

0.6-0.8 Good

>0.8 High

•Score (1 – 5) for each metric


Member State Classification tool

Belgium Zeeschelde Estuarine Biotic Index (Z-EBI)

Germany FAT_TW

France Estuarine and Lagoon Fish Index (ELFI)

Republic of Ireland/NI Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI)

United Kingdom Transitional Fish Classification Index (TFCI)

Spain

Basque Country – AZTI’s Fish Index (AFI)

Asturias and Cantabria – Transitional Fish Classification Index

(TFCI)

Portugal Estuarine Fish Assessment Index (EFAI)

The Netherlands WFD Fish Index for Transitional Waters, Type O2

Norway No method

Sweden No method

North East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group

Methods used (8)

WFD Fish Intercalibration - TRaC

Physical intercalibration of methods at common survey sites

Are the sampling methods the same?

• Not possible to swap datasets for intercalibration

• High variability in catch due to sampling methods

•Different sampling methods:

Fyke nets, anchor nets, beam trawls (different sizes), seine nets, winged fyke nets

• Four estuaries were surveyed using various different MS methods:

Gweebarra (ROI): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI

Swilly (ROI): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI

Gironde (FR): Belgium, France, UK+NI, ROI, Germany, Netherlands, Spain (Basque)

Weser (Ger): Belgium, France, UK+NI, Netherlands, Spain (Cantabria), Norway, Germany

Incre

asin

g p

ressu

re


• Type 1: Same data acquisition, same numerical evaluation

• Type 2: Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation

• Type 3: Similar data acquisition, different numerical evaluation

COMMON METRIC

• Development of common metric not possible

• Development of common reference condition criteria also not possible

• ‘Pseudo’ Type 2: Develop a common pressure index, rather than a common metric

IC Option


NEAGIG – Common Pressure Index

Water chemical quality

Dredging

Interference with hydrographic regime Scale 1 - 9

16 pressure metrics combined = Total pressure score for each estuary


• Correlate each MS EQR with common pressure index scores

• Assess how each tool responds to pressure index at MS level (assume they will)

• Harmonise boundaries for each MS tool using the position on the pressure

gradient as the standard for comparing class boundaries

NEAGIG – ‘Type 2’ Intercalibration approach

• Substitute for developing a biological common metric – not feasible for NEAGIG

**Currently at the stage of assessing Member States EQRs versus

pressure index**

Ireland TFCI - EQR versus pressure index

NEAGIG – Ireland TFCI

y = -0.0023x + 0.5941 R² = 0.0489

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

EQ

R

Pressure Score

EQR

y = -0.0187x + 0.6722 R² = 0.2449

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

EQ

R

Water quality

EQR

Ireland TFCI - EQR versus pressure index (Water quality pressures only)

NEAGIG – Ireland TFCI

• Poor correlation of TFCI EQRs with common pressure index

•Water quality pressures appear to influence Irish EQRs more than hydromorphology

Ireland TFCI – Problems arising and future work

• Future developments in Ireland TFCI may help:

•Typologies

• Reference conditions for Ireland TFCI

• New (more sensitive) fish metrics for Ireland TFCI

• New (more sensitive) pressure index relevant for Irish transitional waters

• ‘Fine tune’ pressure index for all MS to improve correlations?

In time for November 2011 deadline?

WFD Fish Intercalibration - ALL

Implications for IE

• TRaC IC to be completed or update tool and then intercalibrate in future

Future work

•Revision of FCS2 when more data available

•Revision of FIL2 when more data available (gap in high alk/deep lakes)

•Revision of TFCI – ongoing - NIEA

• No change in boundaries for rivers => no change in 2010 status

• Lakes IC almost complete, due Nov 2011 (? Change in boundaries

•? Change in 2010 status)

Thank you

Thank You

Documents

Inland Fisheries Ireland · 2019-10-08 · Fish Intercalibration in Rivers, Lakes and TraC Dr. Fiona Kelly Andrew Harrison, Lynda Connor, Ronan Matson, Rory Feeney, Emma Morrissey,