2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intercalibration of aquatic ecological assessment methods in the European Union: Lessons learned and way forward

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
78
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
78
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Analysis showed that based on the four biological parameters (phytoplankton, chlorophyll a, phytobenthos, macrozoobenthos), the comprehensive evaluation of the ecological potential of water reservoirs fulfilled meeting requirements set out by the WFD [12,21]. Assessment of ecological potential is the first step of water body classification [22].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysis showed that based on the four biological parameters (phytoplankton, chlorophyll a, phytobenthos, macrozoobenthos), the comprehensive evaluation of the ecological potential of water reservoirs fulfilled meeting requirements set out by the WFD [12,21]. Assessment of ecological potential is the first step of water body classification [22].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly relevant for policy and regulatory implementation as well as restoration management. Within the context of the Water Framework Directive, the intercalibration process aims to obtain comparability of ecological status boundaries and national assessment methods across Europe [52]. The intercalibration has focused on the harmonisation of the position of high/good and good/moderate boundaries for specific ecological quality parameters but has not looked at the precision of these estimates [4,53] which, as shown in this paper, will change according to the data support (i.e., resolution) used.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meeting these criteria has been a major task throughout EU countries, and harmonisation of approaches is particularly challenging in multi-national river basins, such as the DRB. Ensuring comparability of national assessments across Europe requires an inter-calibration exercise, as required by the WFD, but this is still an ongoing issue in large river basins >10.000 km 2 in area (Poikane et al, 2014).…”
Section: Lessons For Future Monitoring In the Danubementioning
confidence: 99%