Suchergebnisse

One key component of any eutrophication management strategy is establishment of realistic thresholds above which negative impacts become significant and provision of ecosystem services is threatened. This paper introduces a toolkit of statistical approaches with which such thresholds can be set, explaining their rationale and situations under which each is effective. All methods assume a causal relationship between nutrients and biota, but we also recognise that nutrients rarely act in isolation. Many of the simpler methods have limited applicability when other stressors are present. Where relationships between nutrients and biota are strong, regression is recommended. Regression relationships can be extended to include additional stressors or variables responsible for variation between water bodies. However, when the relationship between nutrients and biota is weaker, categorical approaches are recommended. Of these, binomial regression and an approach based on classification mismatch are most effective although both will underestimate threshold concentrations if a second stressor is present. Whilst approaches such as changepoint analysis are not particularly useful for meeting the specific needs of EU legislation, other multivariate approaches (e.g. decision trees) may have a role to play. When other stressors are present quantile regression allows thresholds to be established which set limits above which nutrients are likely to influence the biota, irrespective of other pressures. The statistical methods in the toolkit may be useful as part of a management strategy, but more sophisticated approaches, often generating thresholds appropriate to individual water bodies rather than to broadly defined "types", are likely to be necessary too. The importance of understanding underlying ecological processes as well as correct selection and application of methods is emphasised, along with the need to consider local regulatory and decision-making systems, and the ease with which outcomes can be communicated to ...

The aim of European water policy is to achieve good ecological status in all rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters by 2027. Currently, more than half of water bodies are in a degraded condition and nutrient enrichment is one of the main culprits. Therefore, there is a pressing need to establish reliable and comparable nutrient criteria that are consistent with good ecological status. This paper highlights the wide range of nutrient criteria currently in use by Member States of the European Union to support good ecological status and goes on to suggest that inappropriate criteria may be hindering the improvements required in some of these. Along with a comprehensive overview of nutrient criteria, we provide a critical analysis of the threshold concentrations and approaches by which these are set. We identify four essential issues: (1) Different nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) are used for different water categories in different countries. (2) The use of different nutrient fractions (total, dissolved inorganic) and statistical summary metrics (e.g., mean, percentiles, seasonal, annual) currently hampers comparability between countries, particularly for rivers, transitional and coastal waters. (3) Wide ranges in nutrient threshold values within shared water body types, in some cases showing more than a 10-fold difference in concentrations. (4) Different approaches used to set threshold nutrient concentrations to define the boundary between "good" and "moderate" ecological status. Expert judgement-based methods resulted in significantly higher (less stringent) good-moderate threshold values compared with data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of consistent and rigorous approaches to criteria setting. We suggest that further development of nutrient criteria should be based on relationships between ecological status and nutrient concentrations, taking into account the need for comparability between different water categories, water body types within these categories, and countries.

The aim of European water policy is to achieve good ecological status in all rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters by 2027. Currently, more than half of water bodies are in a degraded condition and nutrient enrichment is one of the main culprits. Therefore, there is a pressing need to establish reliable and comparable nutrient criteria that are consistent with good ecological status. This paper highlights the wide range of nutrient criteria currently in use by Member States of the European Union to support good ecological status and goes on to suggest that inappropriate criteria may be hindering the achievement of good status. Along with a comprehensive overview of nutrient criteria, we provide a critical analysis of the threshold concentrations and approaches by which these are set. We identify four essential issues: (1) Different nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) are used for different water categories in different countries. (2) The use of different nutrient fractions (total, dissolved inorganic) and statistical summary metrics (e.g., mean, percentiles, seasonal, annual) currently hampers comparability between countries, particularly for rivers, transitional and coastal waters. (3) Wide ranges in nutrient threshold values within shared water body types, in some cases showing more than a 10-fold difference in concentrations. (4) Different approaches used to set threshold nutrient concentrations to define the boundary between "good" and "moderate" ecological status. Expert judgement-based methods resulted in significantly higher (less stringent) good-moderate threshold values compared with data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of consistent and rigorous approaches to criteria setting. We suggest that further development of nutrient criteria should be based on relationships between ecological status and nutrient concentrations, taking into account the need for comparability between different water categories, water body types within these categories, and countries. ; publishedVersion

The aim of European water policy is to achieve good ecological status in all rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters by 2027. Currently, more than half of water bodies are in a degraded condition and nutrient enrichment is one of the main culprits. Therefore, there is a pressing need to establish reliable and comparable nutrient criteria that are consistent with good ecological status. This paper highlights the wide range of nutrient criteria currently in use by Member States of the European Union to support good ecological status and goes on to suggest that inappropriate criteria may be hindering the achievement of good status. Along with a comprehensive overview of nutrient criteria, we provide a critical analysis of the threshold concentrations and approaches by which these are set. We identify four essential issues: (1) Different nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) are used for different water categories in different countries. (2) The use of different nutrient fractions (total, dissolved inorganic) and statistical summary metrics (e.g., mean, percentiles, seasonal, annual) currently hampers comparability between countries, particularly for rivers, transitional and coastal waters. (3) Wide ranges in nutrient threshold values within shared water body types, in some cases showing more than a 10-fold difference in concentrations. (4) Different approaches used to set threshold nutrient concentrations to define the boundary between "good" and "moderate" ecological status. Expert judgement-based methods resulted in significantly higher (less stringent) good-moderate threshold values compared with data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of consistent and rigorous approaches to criteria setting. We suggest that further development of nutrient criteria should be based on relationships between ecological status and nutrient concentrations, taking into account the need for comparability between different water categories, water body types within these categories, and countries.

The aim of European water policy is to achieve good ecological status in all rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters by 2027. Currently, more than half of water bodies are in a degraded condition and nutrient enrichment is one of the main culprits. Therefore, there is a pressing need to establish reliable and comparable nutrient criteria that are consistent with good ecological status. This paper highlights the wide range of nutrient criteria currently in use by Member States of the European Union to support good ecological status and goes on to suggest that inappropriate criteria may be hindering the achievement of good status. Along with a comprehensive overview of nutrient criteria, we provide a critical analysis of the threshold concentrations and approaches by which these are set. We identify four essential issues: (1) Different nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) are used for different water categories in different countries. (2) The use of different nutrient fractions (total, dissolved inorganic) and statistical summary metrics (e.g., mean, percentiles, seasonal, annual) currently hampers comparability between countries, particularly for rivers, transitional and coastal waters. (3) Wide ranges in nutrient threshold values within shared water body types, in some cases showing more than a 10-fold difference in concentrations. (4) Different approaches used to set threshold nutrient concentrations to define the boundary between "good" and "moderate" ecological status. Expert judgement-based methods resulted in significantly higher (less stringent) good-moderate threshold values compared with data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of consistent and rigorous approaches to criteria setting. We suggest that further development of nutrient criteria should be based on relationships between ecological status and nutrient concentrations, taking into account the need for comparability between different water categories, water body types within these categories, and countries.

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU Member States (MS) to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS) of their seas by 2020. We address the question of what GEnS entails especially with regard to the level at which targets are set (descriptors, criteria, indicators), to scales for assessments (regional, sub-divisions, site-specific), and to difficulties in putting into practice the GEnS concept. We propose a refined and operational definition of GEnS, indicating the data and information needed to all parts of that definition. We indicate the options for determining when GEnS has been met, acknowledge the data and information needs for each option, and recommend a combination of existing quantitative targets and expert judgement. We think that the MSFD implementation needs to be less complex than shown for other similar directives, can be based largely on existing data and can be centred on the activities of the Regional Seas Conventions. ; This manuscript has resulted from the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing Good Environmental Status) project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, 'The Ocean of Tomorrow' Theme (Grant Agreement No. 308392), www.devotesproject. eu. This paper is contribution number 654 from AZTITecnalia (Marine Research Division).

International audience ; In Europe and around the world, the approach to management of the marine environment has developed from the management of single issues (e.g., species and/or pressures) toward holistic Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) that includes aims to maintain biological diversity and protect ecosystem functioning. Within the European Union, this approach is implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is required by the Directive in order to assess Good Environmental Status (GES). Ecological modeling has a key role to play within the implementation of the MSFD, as demonstrated here by case studies covering a range of spatial scales and a selection of anthropogenic threats. Modeling studies have a strong role to play in embedding data collected at limited points within a larger spatial and temporal scale, thus enabling assessments of pelagic and seabed habitat. Furthermore, integrative studies using food web and ecosystem models are able to investigate changes in food web functioning and biological diversity in response to changes in the environment and human pressures. Modeling should be used to: support the development and selection of specific indicators; set reference points to assess state and the achievement of GES; inform adaptive monitoring programs and trial management scenarios. The modus operandi proposed shows how ecological modeling could support the decision making process leading to appropriate management measures and inform new policy.

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. It is emphasized that while many of the recommendations given here require better; more extensive and perhaps more costly monitoring, this is required to avoid any legal ...

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

International audience ; In Europe and around the world, the approach to management of the marine environment has developed from the management of single issues (e.g., species and/or pressures) toward holistic Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) that includes aims to maintain biological diversity and protect ecosystem functioning. Within the European Union, this approach is implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is required by the Directive in order to assess Good Environmental Status (GES). Ecological modeling has a key role to play within the implementation of the MSFD, as demonstrated here by case studies covering a range of spatial scales and a selection of anthropogenic threats. Modeling studies have a strong role to play in embedding data collected at limited points within a larger spatial and temporal scale, thus enabling assessments of pelagic and seabed habitat. Furthermore, integrative studies using food web and ecosystem models are able to investigate changes in food web functioning and biological diversity in response to changes in the environment and human pressures. Modeling should be used to: support the development and selection of specific indicators; set reference points to assess state and the achievement of GES; inform adaptive monitoring programs and trial management scenarios. The modus operandi proposed shows how ecological modeling could support the decision making process leading to appropriate management measures and inform new policy.

International audience ; In Europe and around the world, the approach to management of the marine environment has developed from the management of single issues (e.g., species and/or pressures) toward holistic Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) that includes aims to maintain biological diversity and protect ecosystem functioning. Within the European Union, this approach is implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is required by the Directive in order to assess Good Environmental Status (GES). Ecological modeling has a key role to play within the implementation of the MSFD, as demonstrated here by case studies covering a range of spatial scales and a selection of anthropogenic threats. Modeling studies have a strong role to play in embedding data collected at limited points within a larger spatial and temporal scale, thus enabling assessments of pelagic and seabed habitat. Furthermore, integrative studies using food web and ecosystem models are able to investigate changes in food web functioning and biological diversity in response to changes in the environment and human pressures. Modeling should be used to: support the development and selection of specific indicators; set reference points to assess state and the achievement of GES; inform adaptive monitoring programs and trial management scenarios. The modus operandi proposed shows how ecological modeling could support the decision making process leading to appropriate management measures and inform new policy.

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. [.]

International audience ; In Europe and around the world, the approach to management of the marine environment has developed from the management of single issues (e.g., species and/or pressures) toward holistic Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) that includes aims to maintain biological diversity and protect ecosystem functioning. Within the European Union, this approach is implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is required by the Directive in order to assess Good Environmental Status (GES). Ecological modeling has a key role to play within the implementation of the MSFD, as demonstrated here by case studies covering a range of spatial scales and a selection of anthropogenic threats. Modeling studies have a strong role to play in embedding data collected at limited points within a larger spatial and temporal scale, thus enabling assessments of pelagic and seabed habitat. Furthermore, integrative studies using food web and ecosystem models are able to investigate changes in food web functioning and biological diversity in response to changes in the environment and human pressures. Modeling should be used to: support the development and selection of specific indicators; set reference points to assess state and the achievement of GES; inform adaptive monitoring programs and trial management scenarios. The modus operandi proposed shows how ecological modeling could support the decision making process leading to appropriate management measures and inform new policy.