Attersee

Grand Barterand

Etival Alpsee Maclu

transects from 3 lakes 12 observation units (transects) from 3 lakes 4 transects from 1 lake Use of all reference transects of the Alp-GIG database 2 transects from 1 lake* Location of ref sites

Introduction

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of the national assessment methods.

Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises were carried out in Geographical Intercalibration Groups -larger geographical units including Member States with similar water body types -and followed the procedure described in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration process (European Commission, 2011).

In a first phase, the intercalibration exercise started in 2003 and extended until 2008. The results from this exercise were agreed on by Member States and then published in a Commission Decision, consequently becoming legally binding (EC, 2008). A second intercalibration phase extended from 2009 to 2012, and the results from this exercise were agreed on by Member States and laid down in a new Commission Decision (EC, 2013) repealing the previous decision. Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration exercise to their national classification systems in order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types.

Annex 1 to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is successfully achieved, within the limits of what is technically feasible at this point in time. The Technical report on the Water Framework Directive intercalibration describes in detail how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out for the water categories and biological quality elements included in that Annex.

The Technical report is organized in volumes according to the water category (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the Lake Alpine Macrophyte ecological assessment methods.

Introduction

In the Alpine Macrophyte Geographical Intercalibration Group:  Five Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) compared and harmonised their national lake macrophyte assessment systems;  All methods address eutrophication and general degradation pressure and follow a similar assessment principle (including species composition and abundance indices);  Intercalibration "Option 3" was used -direct comparison of assessment methods using a common dataset via application of all assessment methods to all the data available;  The comparability analysis show that methods give a closely similar assessment (in agreement to comparability criteria defined in the IC Guidance), so only one boundary adjustment was needed (France where "good-moderate" boundary was adjusted from 0.69 to 0.72);  The final results include EQRs of lake macrophyte assessment systems of Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia for two common types: LAL-3 and L-AL4.

Description of national assessment methods

Five Member States compared and harmonised their national lake macrophyte assessment systems (more detailed descriptions in Annex E.1, Annex E.2):

 Austria -AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes), a multimetric system including five metrics: overall macrophyte abundance, vegetation limit, vegetation zonation, trophic indication, species composition. In each case the deviation from reference condition is calculated.  France -IBML (French Macrophyte Index for Lakes) includes only one metric based on abundance of indicator taxa and composition (trophic level indicating species and stenoecy coefficient).  Germany -PHYLIB for Lakes (German Assessment system for Macrophytes & Phytobenthos for Lakes for implementation of the WFD). Multimetric system uses the arithmetic mean of a macrophyte species composition metric, supported by additional metrics (vegetation limit and mass stands of eutrophication indicating species) and a phytobenthos species composition metric combined with a phytobenthos trophic index is calculated.  Italy-MacroIMMI (Macrophytic index for the evaluation of the ecological quality of the Italian lakes), a multimetric system including three metrics: vegetation limit (Z-cmax), trophic score (sk) and dissimilarity index. Other two metrics -percent frequencies of submerged species and of exotic species are used as limits of application of the index.

 Slovenia-SMILE (Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems) uses a multimetric system comprising three metrics -Macrophyte Index (MI) [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF]; vegetation limit and Charophyte vegetation limit

Methods and required BQE parameters

All macrophyte assessment systems include (See Table 2.1):

 Taxonomic composition metrics, mostly expressed as species composition indices;  Abundance metrics, mostly expressed as maximum colonization depth (see table below), except French method (they don't use vegetation limit, only abundance of indicator taxa).

National reference conditions

Table 2.3 summarizes the methodology used to derive the reference high status or the H/G boundary (in the case of Poland).

Results of WFD compliance checking

All MS methods are considered WFD compliant. The table below lists the criteria from the IC guidance and compliance checking conclusions.

General conclusion of the compliance checking:

 Design and concept of national assessment methods were extensively discussed and evaluated among experts at the meetings in Vienna. The WFD compliance criteria stated in the IC Guidance are met by all countries;  All methods are WFD compliant.

Pressures addressed

Intercalibration is feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methodseutrophication and general degradation (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Evaluation if IC feasibility regarding common IC types

Assessment concept

All national methods follow a similar assessment concept (see table below)

IC dataset collected

Huge dataset was collected within the Alpine GIG (Table 5.1 to Table 5.3.). Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type

MS were asked to provide data which should as far as possible cover the whole EQR range.

Common benchmarking

Reference conditions were defined using reference transects. The approach to define reference sites of Alpine lakes, prepared by the Phytoplankton group of the Alpine GIG, was considered (See Annex A.2, Alpine Phytoplankton GIG). Furthermore, the additional criteria were used (Table 6.1) Additionally, the biological data have been screened using expert judgement for impacts caused by pressures not regarded in the reference criteria within the GIG.

Following reference sites were selected for each Member State in each common IC type.

 Austria: AT-Fus03, AT-FU04, AT-Wes04, AT-Wes05, AT-Att-08;  Germany: GE-Alp01, GE-Alp02, GE-Alp03, GE-Alp07;  Italy: All Alpine GIG reference sites were used;  France: All transects of Lac de Barterand, Grand Lac Etival, Lac du Grand Maclu;  Slovenia: SI-Boh02, SI-Boh03.

The approaches for setting reference conditions were very similar in all MS:

 Austria, Germany and Slovenia selected reference transects according to the ALP-GIG reference criteria;  Only France had whole lakes as reference sites (they have been selected following a national standard). The sites have been rechecked according to GIG criteria and could be accepted;  Italy had no own reference sites. For defining reference conditions they used the data of the ALP-GIG database;  All MS calculated as "reference condition" the median of parameters used in the single metrics from reference transects or sites respectively;  Due to the very similar approaches the reference conditions set in the single MS could directly be used for the intercalibration exercise. All reference sites have been rechecked according to GIG criteria.

The high ecological status in Alpine lakes in general is characterised by deep vegetation limit (mean vegetation limit about 10 m in reference transects of the Alpine-GIG database) according to high Secchi depth / low phytoplankton density. The macrophyte community usually builds more or less dense stands dominated by sensitive taxa, above all Charophytes. The figure below shows the Relative Plant Mass (RPM = relative share of the plant mass of single species on the overall plant mass; Pall & Janauer, 1995) in the reference transects of the Alpine-GIG database. Due to the high similarity of species composition in reference transects and the high similarity of sampling procedures it was not necessary to apply benchmark standardization.

In order to test the difference of assessment systems, Kruskal-Wallis-Test was performed (for example, comparing the EQRs of AT assessment system applied to reference transects of all MS). In each case it turned out that there are no significant differences (p>0.05):

 AT method on all reference sites: p = 0.190;  DE method on all reference sites: p = 0.282;  FR method on all reference sites: p = 0.055;  IT method on all reference sites: p = 0.0594;  SI method on all reference sites: p = 0.246.

Comparison of methods and boundaries

IC Option and Common Metrics

IC Option 3 was used: due to similar sampling procedure, similar data structure of all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries.

For comparison of the MS assessments, a pseudo-common metric (PCM) -the global means of all the methods was used.

Results of the regression comparison

All methods have significant regressions to the pseudo-common metrics (see Table 7.1). The correlation coefficients (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each method with the common metric The outcomes of the regression complied with the following characteristics according to the IC Guidance:

 All relationships were highly significant p<=0.001;  Assumptions of normally distributed error and variance (homoscedasticity) of model residuals are met;  Common metric must represented all methods (r2>0.5);  Observed minimum r2 was > half of the observed maximum r2;  Slope of the regression should lie between 0.5 and 1.5.

Evaluation of comparability criteria

Comparability criteria are acceptable according to the IC Guidance Annex V requirements (Table 7.2):

 All boundary biases for MS methods is <-0.250, except FR GM boundary which is adjusted (see Final results -Boundaries to be included in the EC Decision)  Average class agreement equals to 0.45, for all MS methods class agreement is < 0.5 (only for FR -0.51).

Boundary adjustments

 Austria is to precautionary with its H/G boundary but doesn't intent to adapt boundary;  Germany is to precautionary with its H/G boundary and with its G/M boundary but doesn't intent to adapt boundaries;  France: adjustment of the G/M boundary is necessary (has to be more precautionary, so the boundary was adjusted from 0.69 to 0.72). The IC-results of Phase 2 summarize the IC exercise of the separate modules of macrophytes and phytobenthos respectively, intercalibrated in two GIGs (Lake Alpine GIG for macrophytes and Cross-GIG Phytobenthos for Phytobenthos).

From Phase 1 one more IC result for the comparison of the combined BQE "macrophytes and phytobenthos" in one Alpine lake type L-AL4 is available and still valid, therefore was included in the final IC results (see Table 7.4).

Description of biological communities representing the "borderline" conditions between good and moderate ecological status

Biological communities at borderline between good and moderate ecological status are characterized by disappearance of reference species e.g. Charophytes and equal share of sensitive and disturbance indicating species.

The following graph shows the species composition (as Relative Plant Mass) of "good" and "moderate" sites of the Alpine-GIG database (Figure 8.1).

Annexes

A. Description of member states assessment methods A.1 Austria: AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes)

Investigated lakes and used lake typology

In order to develop the assessment system, results from macrophyte investigations in 38 lakes out of all 45 lakes, relevant to the WFD in Austria, were used. For all investigated lakes data from an identical transect-mapping method exist [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]. A total of 482 datasets (results from transects), mainly from the years 2002 and 2003, entered the analyses.

The assessment of the ecological state of lakes according to the WFD has to respect laketype-specific aspects. Moog et al. (2004) established a system of "aquatic ecoregions" and "fluvial bioregions" in Austria on the basis of invertebrate communities. Starting from this, a macrophyte-based typology for Austrian lakes has been established on the basis of the results from the above mentioned macrophyte data (Pall et al., 2005). The 10 lake types found (Table A.1) are differentiated mainly according to ecological regions, geology, elevation above sea level and geographic position.

Table A.1 Macrophyte based typology for Austrian lakes (Pall et al., 2005)

Lake type No. of lakes

Lakes of the Hungarian Lowlands 5

Lakes of the Central Highlands, perialpine region, calcareous 5

Lakes of the Northern Limestone Foothills <600m 5

Lakes of the Northern Limestone Foothills >600m 6

Lakes of the Northern Limestone Alps <1000m 9

Lakes of the Northern Limestone Alps >1000m 4

Lakes of the Southern Limestone Alps <600m 2

Lakes of the Southern Limestone Alps >600m 1

Lakes of the Central Crystalline Alps 2

Lakes of the Southern Inner-alpine Basins 5

Type not allocated yet 1

Mapping procedure

The mapping procedure applied here is in accordance to the Austrian and European normative standards (ÖNORM M6231 [START_REF]ÖNORM M6231: Guidelines for the ecological survey and evaluation of stagnant surface waters[END_REF]; ÖNORM EN 15460 [ON, 2006]; ÖNORM EN 14996 [ON, 2007]).

The best basis for an assessment of lakes with the help of the macrophyte vegetation is a whole lake investigation via scuba diving according to [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF] and [START_REF] Pall | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Großen Vätersees[END_REF] respectively. For routine investigations according to the WFD such a comprehensive assessment would usually not be possible for cost reasons. Therefore, a new mapping method, particularly designed for the requirements of the WFD, was developed [START_REF] Jäger | A method for mapping macrophytes in large lakes with regard to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive[END_REF]. It combines a dGPS-supported echo-sounding [START_REF] Dumfarth | Vegetationskartierung mit Schall -submerse Makrophyten im "Visier" von Echosonden[END_REF] of the entire littoral with a detailed mapping of selected transects by scuba diving [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]. This guarantees a reliable statement for the whole lake, although some uncertainty may remain.

The echo-sounding of the littoral supplies a detailed picture of the spatial expansion and the structure of the macrophyte vegetation. By means of an appropriate evaluation, zones with structurally different macrophyte growth can be differentiated. Depending upon the variability of the vegetation structure, the length of these shoreline sections can vary between approximately 100 and more than 1000 m. One or more transects are positioned in these zones, depending upon their expansion. In any case the distance between the individual transects should not exceed 1500 m in WFD-relevant lakes.

The transects, 25 m wide and rectangular to the shoreline, reach from the long-term mean water level to the depth limit of vegetation. Along these transects the proper mapping procedure is carried out by scuba diving. According to [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF] the different species, their abundance and growth height as well as further relevant parameters are recorded for defined depth zones, which depend on the type-specific zonation of the macrophyte vegetation (for example: reed zone, charophyte community of the shallow water, pondweed belt…). Helophytes, floating-leaved plants and the submerged vegetation are elements of this survey. Higher plants (Spermatophyta), aquatic ferns (Pteridophyta) and mosses (Bryophyta) as well as stoneworts (Charophyta) are determined to species level.

In each depth zone of a transect, the quantity of all the occurring species is estimated as "Plant Mass Index" (PMI) according to a five level scale (see Table A.2). Furthermore, for each depth zone the average growth height of the different species as well as sediment composition and slope are recorded. In addition for all transects other important abiotic information, such as the degree of shading, the type of the surrounding vegetation and the land use, is recorded.

Data Evaluation

The following indices are calculated:

1. Cumulative Plant Mass Index (CMI; [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF] The mapping procedure described delivers abundance data (PMI, Table A.2) for all single species in the different depth zones. In order to derive the overall plant abundance in one depth zone the CMIraw [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF] has to be calculated:

           5 , PMI Min CMI 3 n 1 i 3 i raw
Eq. 1 CMIraw = Cumulative Plant Mass Index (raw = 2 decimal places included)

PMI = Plant Mass Index of different species i = current index of different species
The average CMI, called CMIA, of an entire transect consisting of different depth zones can be calculated using the Eq. 2 [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]. For this assessment all depth zones, even those without macrophyte growth, must enter the calculation.

3 k 1 j j j k 1 j j j j 3 raw raw A uL lL uL lL CMI CMI         Eq. 2
CMIA raw = Average Cumulative Plant Mass Index (raw = 2 decimal places included) CMIraw = Cumulative Plant Mass Index (raw = 2 decimal places included) lL = lower limit of a depth zone in meter below surface uL = upper limit or a depth zone in meter below surface j = current index of (all!) different depth zones Table A.3 gives the CMI-scale, the corresponding ranges of CMIraw as well as a verbal description of the different CMI levels. 2. Macrophyte Index (MI; Melzer, 1999) In order to describe the trophic indication of the macrophyte vegetation the Macrophyte Index is used. The calculation is to be done with the help of the following formula: [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF][START_REF] Melzer | Der Makrophytenindex -eine biologische Methode zur Ermittlung der Nährstoffbelastung von Seen[END_REF], Melzer, 1999) ) i = current index of the different species j = current index of the different depth zones According to [START_REF] Melzer | Der Makrophytenindex -eine biologische Methode zur Ermittlung der Nährstoffbelastung von Seen[END_REF] the different index classes correspond to distinct trophic levels (see Table A.4). [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Ammer-, Wörth-und Pilsensees sowie des Weßlinger Sees[END_REF] and trophic classes according to [START_REF] Melzer | Der Makrophytenindex -eine biologische Methode zur Ermittlung der Nährstoffbelastung von Seen[END_REF]

                        k 1 j n 1 i 3 ji k 1 j n 1 i i 3 ji PMI I PMI MI Eq. 3 MI = Macrophyte Index PMI = Plant Mass Index I = indicator value of the species (after

Table A.4 Assignment of Macrophyte Index ranges to degree of nutrient enrichment

Assessment system

The assessment system in its present form (AIM -Module 1) concentrates on the submerged vegetation and the floating-leaved plants and focuses on the assessment of "trophic state and general impairment".

The assessment system presented is a multi-metric approach. The individual metrics deal with different features of the macrophyte vegetation with special regard to composition and abundance. Short time as well as long time reacting components are included. See

Table A.5 for the 5 defined metrics.

Table A.5 Metrics of AIM -Module 1 "trophic state and general impairment"

Metrics Parameter

Vegetation density (Vd) CMI [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF] Vegetation limit (Vl)

Depths [m]
Characteristic zonation (Z) Type-specific zonation Trophic indication (Ti) Macrophyte Index [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF] Species composition (Sc) Bray Curtis (Beals, 1984;McCune & Beals, 1993) Apart from the assessment of the trophic conditions, AIM -Module 1 allows a detection and evaluation of changes in the hydrology and hydrodynamics as well as of impairments of the shore structure, as far as these alterations affect the plant groups in question (submerged vegetation and floating-leaved plants).

For each individual metric the deviation from the reference condition has to be calculated. The final ecological quality class for one transect results from averaging the results of the single metrics. The ecological quality class of the entire lake results from averaging the results of the individual transects, weighted according to the length of the shoreline for which they are to be regarded as representative. If for this last step no results from echo-sounding are available, with some loss of accuracy, an averaging of the results of all investigated transects can be made.

Definition of reference conditions

Following the requirements of the WFD, the assessment has to reflect the degree of deviation of the current vegetation from the reference condition. This requires knowledge of the reference conditions. In fact, in Austria in most cases no data about whole lake macrophyte vegetation in reference condition exist. However, we found at least reference transects for the designated lake types in Austria. The following selection criteria for reference transects were used (Table A.6):

Table A.6 Criteria for the selection of reference transects

Criteria Requirements

Lake

Trophic state

The lake has to be in the trophic basic state (total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll a, Secchi-depth corresponding to the values defined for reference condition as fixed in Austrian law and agreed during intercalibration)

pH, salinity

No deviation from reference conditions (Cl --concentration and ph corresponding to the values defined for reference condition or high status as fixed in Austrian law)

Hydrology

Artificial water level fluctuations must not be bigger than the natural range between the mean low water level and the mean high water level (comparison of long term gage-data before and after regulation [Wolfram, 2004])

Transect

(surrounding area with a radius of at least 500 m)

Surrounding

No intensive agriculture or settlements

Nutrient input

No direct local nutrient input or discharges

Hydrology

No tributary

Morphology

No (or insignificant) artificial modifications of the shore line

Other pressures

No recreation area, no other discernible pressures

Vegetation

Undisturbed macrophyte vegetation, based on expert judgement

In the investigated Austrian lakes altogether 51 reference sites (transects) could be found.

At the moment a sufficient data basis of reference sites exists for 6 out of the 10 designated lake types. The aquatic vegetation of these sites forms the basis of the assessment system.

In order to define reference conditions for the single metrics we proceeded as follows:

 Vegetation density (Vd): Calculation of the median of the reference values (expressed as CMIA raw) for each lake type;  Vegetation limit (Vl): Calculation of the median of the reference values (in m water-depth) for each lake type;  Characteristic zonation (Z): Definition of characteristic vegetation zones with characteristic species for each lake type out of the results from reference sites;  Trophic indication (Ti): Level of "Macophyte Index" [START_REF] Melzer | Der Makrophytenindex -eine biologische Methode zur Ermittlung der Nährstoffbelastung von Seen[END_REF] corresponding to the defined trophic state at reference condition;  Species composition (Sc): We established a database for the macrophyte vegetation of the investigated reference sites. Historical information about macrophyte vegetation of some lakes (Schulz et al., 2003) as well as current results from other European lakes (e.g. results from lake monitoring in Germany) have also entered this database. Up to now not all Austrian lakes have been investigated in detail. Therefore this database will have to be completed with macrophyte data from possible new reference site assessments.

In Table A.7 the single reference values of the different metrics for all lake types described here are listed.

Boundary setting and calculation of the single metrics

The class boundaries for each metric were defined according to the normative definitions and interpretations of the Water Framework Directive. Whereas the database of reference sites gave a sound basis to define reference conditions, there were not enough data to calculate percentiles to define the boundaries for the other classes. In case of "only few data from sites available" the REFCOND-Guidance [START_REF] Cis | Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential[END_REF] proposes to apply Tool 3, Option B. Following this, we first established tentative EQR-scales for all metrics, we applied them on numerous real and virtual data sets and we adjusted them to the normative definitions of ecological status as given in Appendix V, 1.2 of the Directive.

EQRVd (Vegetation density)

The vegetation density is the result of different pressures, such as alteration of the shoreline, artificial water level fluctuations, artificial wave action, and the trophic state. While the first impacts listed above, lead in most cases to a lower vegetation density compared with undisturbed conditions (Schutten et al. 2004) nutrient enrichment can influence the vegetation density in both directions [START_REF] Ellenberg | Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen[END_REF]. For this reason, both, a lower as well as a higher vegetation density than the respective reference condition, have to be judged negatively. In order to achieve this, the absolute value of deviation has to be taken into account.

The vegetation density of a transect is expressed as CMIA raw [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]. In order to derive EQRVd the deviation of the CMIA raw Tr from CMIA raw Ref has to be calculated.

The calculation algorithm is given in a way, that a deviation of CMIA raw of 1,00 (plus or minus) lowers the ecological state by one class. A deviation of CMIA raw of 2,00 leads to a lowering of the ecological state by two classes, respectively.

2 , 0 CMI CMI 1 EQR Tr raw A f Re raw A Vd     Eq. 4 EQRVd = EQR metric

EQRVl (Vegetation limit)

The vegetation limit in lakes without any marsh or melting water influence is mainly regulated by the trophic state. In Austria as well as in the Alpine GIG it was agreed, that a deterioration of a whole trophic class (e.g. from the oligotrophic to a mesotrophic state or from an oligo-mesotrophic to a meso-eutrophic state) should lead to "call for action".

Therefore this change should lead to a deterioration of two ecological classes in the assessment systems. A deterioration of a half trophic class (e.g. from the oligotrophic state to the oligo-mesotrophic state) results in a deterioration of one ecological class.

In order to derive the EQRVl a relationship between trophic state and vegetation limit had to be evaluated first. For this analysis a regression between the depth limits of the lakes in question and trophic half classes was calculated. The resulting equation was used to derive a, with regard to the trophic conditions, linear scale for the vegetation limit (Vllin). For calculation of the EQRVl in a second step the deviation of the Vllin Tr to the Vllin Ref has to be calculated. Hereby, in contrast to the metric "vegetation density", only a shallower vegetation limit than the respective reference condition leads to a deterioration of the ecological status class.

 

      0 , 1 , 2 . 0 VL Vl 1 Min Max EQR Tr lin f Re lin Vl     Eq. 6 EQRVl = EQR, metric Vegetation Limit Vllin Ref =

vegetation limit of reference transect

Vllin Tr = vegetation limit of current transect Table A.9 gives the used definitions and interpretations of the different status classes and the corresponding deviation of trophic level and EQRVl values.

Table A.9 Boundary setting for the metric Vegetation limit (Vl)

Status

Definitions and interpretation Deviation Vllin

Range EQRVl

High

The total vegetated area will be within the range expected at reference conditions. The observed Vl corresponds to the expected one at reference conditions. <1 >0.8 -1.0

Good

The observed Vl and with it the total vegetated area deviate only slightly from that normally associated with the lake type under undisturbed conditions.

1 -<2 >0.6 -0.8

Moderate The observed Vl and with it the total vegetated area deviate moderately from that normally associated with the lake type under undisturbed conditions.

2 -<3 >0.4 -0.6

Poor

The observed Vl and with it the total vegetated area deviate substantially from that normally associated with the lake type under undisturbed conditions.

3 -<4 >0.2 -0.4 Bad Absence of large portions of the macrophyte community normally associated with the lake type under undisturbedconditions. The macrophyte vegetation reaches only very minor depths.

4

0.2

EQRZ (Characteristic zonation)

This metric helps to check, if all type specific vegetation zones (only submerged vegetation and floating-leaved plants) are present. The following vegetation zones for the up to now regarded lake types (Table A.7) where defined. -0.8 -0.9 -1.0

0.2

In a first step the CMIraw of all for a single zone representative species has to be calculated. Type specific species lists will be provided in [START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]. If a CMIraw-value of at least 3 is reached, the zone can be considered as "existing". In case all necessary zones exist, an EQR = 1 is given. Are one ore more vegetation zones lacking, reduction values (rv's) are introduced. If representative species of a defined zone are found, but do not reach the expected amount (CMI <3), a rv of 0,1 for this zone is given. If there are no representative species of a defined zone, an rv of 0,2 is introduced. Finally an rv of 0,3 is applied, if there are no macrophytes at all in a designated zone. The EQRZ has to be calculated as follows:

    3 1 j j Z rv 1 EQR Eq. 7 EQRZ = EQR, metric characteristic zonation, rv = reduction value, j = current index of the different depth zones

EQRTi (Trophic Indication)

In order to analyze the trophic condition, the Macrophyte Index (MI) after Melzer et al. (1999) is used. This term is closely related to the trophic state of a lake, but, in contrast to quickly reacting metrics, such as the vegetation limit, the MI shows the trophic state of the whole littoral (water and in particular the sediments). Therefore this term is a slowly reacting metric and can deliver valuable information concerning the state of reoligotrophication.

In order to derive the trophic status from of the macrophyte vegetation, the Macrophyte Index after [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF][START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Ammer-, Wörth-und Pilsensees sowie des Weßlinger Sees[END_REF] has to be calculated. After [START_REF] Melzer | Der Makrophytenindex -eine biologische Methode zur Ermittlung der Nährstoffbelastung von Seen[END_REF] a change of 1,0 of the Index value corresponds to a change of a whole trophic class (see Table A .4). Such a change has to lead to the change of two ecological classes correspondingly.

Table A.11 gives the used definitions and interpretations of the different status classes and the corresponding deviation MI-and EQRTI values.

In order to derive EQRTI the deviation of the MITr from MIRef has to be calculated. As the Macrophyte Index reaches the lowest values at the best conditions the calculation algorithm has to include an inversion procedure. The equation to calculate EQRTI is given in the following a way:

          1 , 1 , 4 . 0 MI 7 MI 7 Min 1 Min EQR Tr f Re TI       Eq. 8 EQRTI = EQR,

Species composition (SC)

For calculating the EQRSC the species composition of the current transect is compared with the species composition of the reference sites. The data sets thereby consist of the maximum PMI-values of the different species in the different depth zones. The similarity of the datasets is measured as Bray-Curtis Distance

         n 1 i p 1 j i , Tr max i , f Re max n 1 i i , Tr max i , f Re max f Re ,

Calculation of EQR for the entire lake

In a first step for each transect the EQR's of the single metrics have to be averaged. The results give the ecological state for the single transects. With regard to the position of the different transects in the lake, places of impact may be detected. A further analysis of the results of the single metrics may be a helpful tool for finding the reasons of local impact. In a second step, the results for all transects have to be averaged. They are weighted according to the length of the shoreline for which they are regarded as representative.

 

Eq. 12 gives the calculation algorithm for the EQR of the entire lake:

        n 1 i i Sl n 1 i i Sl i Tr Lake L L EQR EQR
Eq. 12 EQRLake = EQR of the entire lake EQRTr = EQR of the single transects LSl = Length of shoreline i = current index of the different transects Table A.13 gives the definitions and interpretations concerning the macrophyte vegetation of the whole lake and the corresponding EQR-values.

A.2 France

French macrophyte assessment method for lakes IBML (Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Lac)

Which indicators are used?

Macrophyte taxonomic composition

The taxonomic composition includes:

 Phanerogams (hydrophytes, amphiphytes and helophytes), also including aquatic forms of land species;  Macroalgae (charophytes);  Macroscopic colony of algae (benthic, epiphytic, floating);  Pteridophytes (submerged, helophytic or floating);  Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts);  Aquatic lichens;  Macroscopic colony of heterotrophs (bacteria and fungus).

Phanerogams, bryophytes, pteridophytes, lichens and charophytes are determined at species level. Unicellular organisms (heterotrophs and algae excepted charophytes) are determined at genius level.

Macrophyte abundance

The relative abundance of macrophyte in the littoral zone (section of shore) and the aquatic zone (profiles perpendicular to the shore) is surveyed separately. Abundance classes for each zone are proposed (see Table A .14).

Table A.14

The French abundance scale. Taxon present in large quantities all over the rake Depth limit of macrophytes:Depth limit is estimated on perpendicular profiles.

Bacterial tufts: Bacterial tufts are taken into account in the assessment.

Summary:

The IBML method is developed for lakes with a water level fluctuation less than 2 meters. Macrophyte communities are surveyed on observation units (one section of shore and three perpendicular profiles) located and selected according the description of the shore such that the main types of riparian zone around the lake are represented. The lake assessment is calculated as the mean of observation units results. The trophic score (Notetrophie from 0 to 20) gives an estimation of the trophic level of the lake. It includes all the pressures linked or associated to the degradation of this trophic level (eutrophication, HYMO, general degradation, etc.). This score is calculated from the relative abundance of about 300 indicator taxa with their own specific value and stenoecy coefficient.

How are these indicators monitored?

This is a short summary of the XP T90-328 French standard for the sampling of macrophytes in lake.

Sampling strategy

The macrophytes are sampled on observation units (1 section of shore and 3 perpendicular profiles). These observation units are located by applying the Jensen's method (geometric positioning) and selected according the description of the shore such that the main types of riparian zone around the lake are represented. Four types of riparian zone (Table A.15) are available, based on the description of the vegetation structures and/or anthropic alterations of the shore. Three types of shore, noted 1 to 3 correspond to natural habitats or habitats not significantly modified by human pressure. They are described based on the nature of the vegetation present. The fourth type (4) indicates extensive human modification. A short description of the structure of the observation unit is given Figure A.1.

Survey of the littoral zone: the width of the area explored depends on the slope of the bottom, finishing when the depth reaches 1m. In the event of a shallow slope the width explored will reach at least 10 metres. The record will also include the occurrence of helophytes and wetland plants up to the high water line.

Profiles perpendicular to the shore: Each profile is at least 20 m long and at maximum 100 m long according to the slope and the Secchi depth. The profile begins near the water limit on the shore line and finishes when the depth limit of the euphotic zone is reached. For each of the profiles, thirty samples are evenly taken by point contact using a rake or a grapnel depending on the depth.

Data to be collected: list of taxa and relative abundances for each taxa (littoral zone and each profile); substrate and depth (recorded on each contact point for each profile), maximum colonization depth. On the field, for each observation unit, a short description of the riparian zone, the shore (bank and beach) and the littoral zone is made, including the dominant vegetation, signs of erosion, dominant substrate, visible human impacts, etc. The frequency of the different elements composing the riparian zone (Table A.15) is also estimated with a 1 to 5 scale score. The number of observation units can never be less than 3 for a lake of 50 to 250 ha, 6 from 250 ha to 10 km² and should reach 8 for a lake of over 10 km 2 , the aim being to When is monitored and with which frequency?

Samples are taken once in the summer period (early July to the end of September).

Use of equipment

The littoral zone survey is made on foot or by boat according to the depth. On the profiles, a rake (with a scaled handle) or a grapnel (with a scaled rope) are used according to the depth. Bathyscope, Secchi disc and GPS device are also used. Sampling bags and preservation liquids (alcohol, sémichon, lugol) are used to store samples for later determination (charophytes, filamentous algae, mosses, etc.).

Analysis of sample and level of determination

Most of plants are determined to species in the field, and partly validated in the laboratory. Phanerogams, bryophytes, pteridophytes, lichens and charophytes are determined at species level. Unicellular organisms (heterotrophs and algae excepted charophytes) are determined at genius level.

Way of reporting basic data

There is a standard set of survey sheets to be completed for each observation units. The national tools such as the databases and the data capture softwares (Naïades) are under development leaded by the French Agency for Water and Aquatic Environment (ONEMA).

The data are currently hosted by the Cemagref on MS Excel (data capture) and MS Access (database).

Assessment

Data requirement

A national software tool for the automatically calculation of the IBML is under development (SEEE). Therefore some parameters in the given tables may be changed in near future.

Method of calculation

IBML Algorithms

Relative abundance formula:

Zelinka & Marvan equation type (Zelinka and Marvan 1961);

Abk -abundance of taxon k; Nb_Point_Prelev -occurrence of taxon k

For each observation unit, Note is calculated on the littoral zone and on the perpendicular profiles:

CS -specific value (0 to 20); E -stenoecy coefficient (0 to 3); n -number of taxa; Note -0 to 20 score About 300 taxa have their own specific value and stenoecy coefficient. Indicators taxa are presented in Table A.20.

Here, the riparian type of each observation unit, as defined in the national protocol (4 types), is taken into account. It is used either for littoral zone (rive) and perpendicular profiles (profil):

: average score of the riparian type k (1 to 4)

: Score calculated on the littoral zone or the perpendicular profiles : Percentage of the riparian type k estimated on the whole lake perimeter Whole lake score : The reference is based on existing least disturbed reference sites following the criteria given in the National Circular DCE 2004/08: mostly based on the land use data on the catchment area and the chemical/physicochemical data on the lake. Regarding the macrophyte communities, only the presence of invasive aquatic species is taken into account. About 13 reference lakes, most of them located in Alpine region and the West side of Aquitaine (South-West of France).

elev Po Nb Ab Ab elev Po Nb j k k Pr int_ _ Pr int_ _ 0              n i i i i i i E Ab E Ab CS Note 1 ) * ( ) * * (      4 1 _ _ 4 _ * k k k profil
The reference value for "lake types" is given by the median of IBML from reference lakes identified according to the pressure criteria. The H/G boundary is as 75 th percentile from the distribution of reference lakes. The other boundaries are given by the equidistant division of the continuum.

Due to lack of data, the classification of IBML values into the categories of ecological status is under development.

How well correlate the indicators with pressure indicators?

An example of correlation is presented in the

* Significant value

How is dealt with differences between national and assessment vs. GIG data and assessment?

The IBML method is developed for lakes with a water level fluctuation less than 2 meters. The French macrophyte assessment method uses the taxonomic composition and abundance surveyed on observation units. The metrics are calculated on several sections of shore (including helophytes) and profiles perpendicular to the shore. The ecological status is given by the combination of these results according to the proportion of each different types of riparian zone around the lake.

Assessment transformation to the GIG data base

For intercalibration, the surveys on the sections of shore are not taken into account, only the profiles are considered. The helophytes are not included in the intercalibration assessment (only in the Lake Central-Baltic exercise). The intercalibration results are given at transects scale. The results from IBML are given at the lake scale (calculated as the mean of observation units results) including the proportion of each types of riparian zone which are not taken into account in the GIGs.

Name Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Callitriche hamulata 12

Callitriche obtusangula 8

Callitriche truncata subsp. occidentalis 10

Callitriche platycarpa 10

Callitriche stagnalis 12

Carex acutiformis 11

Carex demissa 14

Carex elata 11

Carex hirta 13

Carex limosa 14

Carex nigra 13

Carex paniculata 12

Carex pendula 10

Carex pseudocyperus 13

Carex remota 13

Carex riparia 8

Carex rostrata 15

Carex vesicaria 12

Catabrosa aquatica 11

Ceratophyllum demersum 5

Ceratophyllum submersum 2

Chara delicatula 18

Chara canescens 18

Chara contraria 18

Chara connivens 18

Chara globularis 13

Chara hispida 15

Chara intermedia 18

Chara polyacantha 18

Chara strigosa 18

Chara tomentosa 18

Chara vulgaris 13

Chaetophora 12

Chiloscyphus pallescens 14

Chiloscyphus polyanthos 15

Cinclidotus aquaticus 15

Cinclidotus danubicus 13

Cinclidotus fontinaloides 12

Cinclidotus riparius 13

Name

Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Cladophora 6

Cladium mariscus 12

Collema fluviatile 17

Cratoneuron commutatum 15

Cratoneuron filicinum 18

Cyperus fuscus 11

Dermatocarpon weberii 16

Diatoma 12

Draparnaldia 18

Drepanocladus aduncus 15

Drepanocladus fluitans 14

Egeria densa 8

Elatine hexandra 13

Elodes palustris 15

Eleocharis acicularis 12

Eleocharis palustris 12

Elodea canadensis 10

Elodea nuttalii 8

Enteromorpha 3

Epilobium hirsutum 9

Epilobium palustre 14

Equisetum fluviatile 12

Equisetum palustre 10

Eriophorum angustifolium 15

Filipendula ulmaria 9

Fissidens crassipes 12

Fissidens gracilifolius 14

Fissidens grandifrons 15

Fissidens polyphyllus 20

Fissidens pusillus 14

Fissidens rufulus 14

Fissidens viridulus 11

Fontinalis antipyretica 10

Fontinalis hypnoides var. duriaei 14

Fontinalis hypnoides 14

Fontinalis squamosa 16

Galium palustre 9

Glyceria aquatica 11

Glyceria fluitans 14

Name

Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Groenlandia densa 11

Heleochloris pallida 17

Hildenbrandia 15

Hippuris vulgaris 12

Hottonia palustris 12

Hydrocharis morsus-ranae 11

Hygrohypnum duriusculum 19

Hygrohypnum luridum 19

Hygrohypnum ochraceum 19

Hydrodictyon 6

Hyocomium armoricum 20

Hydrocotyle vulgaris 14

Hydrurus 16

Iris pseudacorus 10

Isnardia palustris 13

Isoëtes boryana 18

Isoëtes lacustris 17

Jungermannia atrovirens 19

Jungermannia gracillima 20

Juncus articulatus 12

Juncus bufonius 12

Juncus bulbosus 16

Juncus conglomeratus 9

Juncus effusus 8

Juncus filiformis 14

Juncus inflexus 8

Juncus subnodulosus 17

Lagarosiphon major 9

Lemanea 15

Leersia oryzoides 7

Lemna gibba 5

Lemna minor 10

Lemna trisulca 12

Leptomitus 0

Littorella uniflora 15

Lobelia dortmanna 17

Lotus pedunculatus 9

Luronium natans 14

Lycopus europaeus 11

Name

Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Lyngbya 10

Lysimachia nummularia 11

Lysimachia vulgaris 9

Lythrum portula 12

Lythrum salicaria 9

Marsupella aquatica 19

Marsupella emarginata 20

Melosira 10

Mentha aquatica 12

Mentha arvensis 11

Mentha longifolia 12

Menyanthes trifoliata 16

Microspora 12

Montia fontana 15

Monostroma 13

Mougeotia 13

Myosotis scorpioides 12

Myriophyllum alterniflorum 13

Myriophyllum aquaticum 9

Myriophyllum spicatum 8

Myriophyllum verticillatum 12

Najas marina 5

Najas minor 6

Nardia compressa 20

Nardia scalaris 20

Nasturtium officinale 11

Nitella flexilis 14

Nitella gracilis 14

Nitella mucronata 14

Nitella translucens 14

Nostoc 9

Nuphar lutea 9

Nuphar pumila 16

Nymphaea alba 12

Nymphoides peltata 10

Octodiceras fontanum 7

Oedogonium 6

Oenanthe aquatica 11

Oenanthe crocata 12

Name

Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Oenanthe fluviatilis 10

Orthotrichum rivulare 15

Oscillatoria 11

Osmunda regalis 14

Phalaris arundinacea 10

Philonotis calcarea 18

Phormidium 13

Phragmites australis 9

Potentilla palustris 16

Polygonum amphibium 9

Polygonum hydropiper 8

Polygonum lapathifolium 8

Polygonum persicaria 8

Porella pinnata 12

Potamogeton acutifolius 12

Potamogeton alpinus 13

Potamogeton berchtoldii 9

Potamogeton coloratus 20

Potamogeton compressus 6

Potamogeton crispus 7

Potamogeton friesii 10

Potamogeton gramineus 13

Potamogeton lucens 7

Potamogeton natans 12

Potamogeton nodosus 4

Potamogeton obtusifolius 10

Potamogeton panormitanus 9

Potamogeton pectinatus 2

Potamogeton perfoliatus 9

Potamogeton polygonifolius 17

Potamogeton praelongus 13

Potamogeton trichoides 7

Racomitrium aciculare 18

Ranunculus aquatilis 11

Ranunculus circinatus 10

Ranunculus flammula 16

Ranunculus fluitans 10

Ranunculus hederaceus 12

Ranunculus lingua 11

Name

Specific value Stenoecy coefficient

Ranunculus ololeucos 19

Ranunculus omiophyllus 19

Ranunculus peltatus 12

Ranunculus penicillatus 12

Ranunculus repens 9

Ranunculus reptans 19

Ranunculus trichophyllus 11

Rhizoclonium 4

Rhynchostegium riparioides 12

Riccardia chamedryfolia 15

Riccardia multifida 15

Riccia fluitans 8

Rorippa amphibia 9

Rorippa palustris 10

Rumex hydrolapathum 9

Sagittaria sagittifolia 6

Salvinia natans 7

Samolus valerandi 13

Scapania paludosa 20

Scapania undulata 17

Schizomeris 1

Scirpus fluitans 18

Scirpus lacustris 8

Scirpus sylvaticus 10

Schoenoplectus pungens 13

Schistidium rivulare 15

Scutellaria galericulata 10

Sirogonium 12

Sparganium angustifolium 19

Sparganium emersum fo. brevifolium 13

Sparganium emersum 9

Sparganium emersum fo. longissimum 7

Sparganium erectum 10

Sparganium minimum 15

Sphagnum denticulatum 20

Sphagnum palustre 20

Spirogyra 10

Spirodela polyrhiza 6

Sphaerotilus 1

Name

Macrophyte taxonomic composition:

The taxonomic composition of hydrophytes is assessed on species level. Hydrophytes include angiosperms, charophytes and some mosses. Other macroalgae (e.g.

Hydrodiction sp.) are not included. Only submerged, floating-leaved and free floating macrophytes are considered as indicators.

Table A.21

The German species abundance scale.

Macrophyte abundance:

The species composition uses a 5 classes of abundance, see Table A.21. The abundance of the species for each depth zone at each transect is recorded separately.

Composition and abundance of phytobenthos:

Only benthic diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) are used as indicators for Phytobenthos. In order to obtain a representative distribution, 500 valves are determined in a prepared slide to the species level. The frequencies are presented as percentages.

Bacterial tufts:

Bacterial tufts are not used in the assessment of the quality element, because of lack of data and information for suitable indicators and its reference values.

Summary

For the German method macrophtes and diatoms are assessed separately and then combined to one EQR. The lake assessment is calculated as the mean of transect results.

Macrophytes:

 Reference index (RI): relative abundance of the macrophyte species of three different typespecific ecological species groups (reference indicators, indifferent taxa, degradation indicators; according to growth depth, most taxa are assigned to different groups);  Limit of vegetation: used as an additional criteria;  Dominant stands: used as an additional criteria if a single species (e.g. Elodea canadensis/nuttallii or Myriophyllum spicatum) reaches at least 80% of total plant quantity (see below).

Phytobenthos:

 Trophic-Index (TISüd(South)): diatom index related to trophic status according to Hofmann (1999);  Quotient of Reference Species" (RAQ): number of the diatom species of two different ecological species groups (reference indicators (A) and degradation indicators (C)).

How are these indicators monitored?

Sampling strategy

Macrophytes

Each transect covers a minimum of 20 m of homogeneous shoreline and is divided into 0-1 m, 1-2 m, 2-4 m and >4 m depth classes. Transects can be surveyed either using SCUBA or by boat using a water viewer and a double rake with rope. For data analyses, the macrophyte abundance data is transformed into "plant abundance" using the function y = x 3 .

Phytobenthos

Preferably stones are sampled in their original position and the periphyton (Aufwuchs) or sediment cover is scratched off with a tea spoon, spatula or a similar device and is transferred into a labeled wide neck sampling container. Generally, sampling is carried out in the open water and not amidst dense stands of macrophytes. The sampling depth should exceed 30 cm. Fluctuations of the water level must be kept in mind when scheduling sampling dates. If mainly sand or soft sediments are present, the upper millimetres are lifted off with a spoon.

The sites are the same as surveyd for macrophytes. The sampling can be done together once during summer.

Numbers of samples per lake

Macrophytes

According to lake size and shape, usage of shore and catchment area 4 to 30 transects (=sites) are investigated. Each transect covers a minimum of 20 m of homogeneous shoreline (=width) and reaches from shore to vegetation limit (=variable length). If transects are investigated by a rake, at least five samples are taken in each depth class (20 samples per transect). Macrophyte abundance is recorded for each depth class separately but not for each sample.

Phytobenthos

At each transect approximately 5 stones or subsamples are sampled.

When is monitored and with which frequency?

Macrophytes

Samples are taken once in the middle of growing season i.e. 15 th June-15 th August.

Phytobenthos

The sampling can be done together with macrophyte monitoring once during summer.

Use of equipment

Macrophytes

Sampling can be done in two different ways:

 using SCUBA equipment;  by boat, using a water viewer in combination with a double rake connected to a rope.

In any case sampling bags and cool bags are used to store species for later determination (mosses, charophytes).

Phytobenthos

Samples are taken with a tea spoon, spatula or a similar device and transferred into a labeled wide neck sampling jar. Diatoms are preserved by adding ethanol.

Analysis of sample and level of determination

Macrophytes

Most plants are determined to species in the field, and partly validated in the laboratory.

Charophytes and mosses are determined to genus or higher taxa in the field and collected for species determination. (2000,2002), LANGE-BERTALOT (1993[START_REF]ÖNORM M6231: Guidelines for the ecological survey and evaluation of stagnant surface waters[END_REF], LANGE-BERTALOT & MOSER (1994), LANGE-BERTALOT & METZELTIN (1996).

Phytobenthos

Assessment

Data requirements

A software tool for the automatically calculation of the German assessment is available.

The following information is needed for correct assessment:

 lake type according to LAWA;  macrophyte lake type (for macrophyte assessment);

 diatom lake type (for diatom assessment);  natural/ artificial/ HMWB;  changes in waterlevel;  vegetation limit with plausibility;  maximum lake depth;  in case of depopulation of macrophytes give possible reason;  for each taxon: growthform (submerged/emerged), abundance (5 classes for macrophytes), percentage (for diatoms), depth zone (for macrophytes).

Methods of calculation

Macrophytes

Prior to performing any calculations, the nominally scaled values of plant abundance are converted into metric quantities using the following function:

macrophyte abundance³ = quantity

The taxa occurring at the sampling site will be assigned to type specific species groups (compare Table A.25 and Table A.26). Taxa found in differing depth zones are treated as different taxa (e.g. taxon A in 0-1 m, taxon A in 1-2 m, …). The quantities of the different species will be summed up separately for each group and for all submerged species of a sampling site.

The Reference Index is calculated according to the following formula (Equation 1):

Equation 1: Calculation of the Reference Index The RI is an expression of the "plant quantity" ratio of type-specific sensitive taxa, dominating at reference conditions, compared to the "plant quantity" of insensitive taxa and is therefore a tool for estimating the deviation of observed macrophyte communities Equation 2Transformation of the module RISeen/Lakes (Reference IndexSeen/Lakes Macrophytes) on a scale from 0 to 1.

100 Q Q Q RI g C A n 1 i gi n 1 i Ci n 1 i Ai          RI = Reference Index QAi =

MMP = Module Macrophyte Assessment

RISeen/Lakes= type specifically calculated Reference IndexSeen/Lakes

The classification of the EQR values into the categories of ecological status is based on the definitions for ecological status, given by Annex V of the WFD (Table A.23)

RI M

In all ecoregions the reason for an absence of macrophytes and therefore an unreliable module Macrophytes must be determined. If, for example due to physicochemical parameters, structural modifications (embankments), mowing, introduction of fish or other anthropogenic influences a macrophyte depopulation is proved, must be downgraded to the RI value -100.

Phytobenthos: trophic index

The indicative species of the trophic index which were found at the littoral site to be assessed and their percentages are the basis for calculating the Trophic Index according to Hofmann (1999) (Equation 3).

Phytobenthos: "Quotient of Reference Species" (RAQ)

The type specific occurrence in different ecological conditions is used to distinguish two different species groups.

For assessment the quotient of reference species is determined under consideration of the type specific reference species and their ecological groups. Only the number of species is considered whereas the abundance of the individual species is neglected (compare Equation 5).

Equation 5: Calculation of the Quotient of Reference Species for the lakes of the North German Lowland

The RAQ-values are transformed according to equation 6. The overall assessment of the component Phytobenthos-Diatoms is carried out by a combination of the modules "Trophic-Index (TI)" and "Quotient of Reference Species (RAQ)". For this purpose the arithmetic mean of the results is determined to obtain the Diatom-IndexSeen (DISeen(Lakes)) following Equation 7.

Combination of the metrics Macrophytes and Diatoms

Calculation of the index is carried out according to Equation 8. If an individual module cannot be considered reliable, the Macrophyte-Phytobenthos Index for lakes (M&PSeen/Lakes) corresponds to the reliably calculated module. However, the result must critically be verified.

Equation 8: Calculation of the Index M&PSeen/Lakes for determination of the ecological status in case of two reliable modules.

M&Pseen/Lakes = Macrophyte & Phytobenthos-Index for lakes MMP = Module Macrophytes

MD = Module Diatoms

According to lake types, the M&PSeen/Lakes-values are assigned to ecological quality classes.

The classification of the EQR values into the categories of ecological status is based on the definitions for ecological status, given by Annex V of the WFD (

Table A.24). 5 , 0 * ) 1 (   RAQ M RAQ 2 M M DI TI RAQ Seen   2 & / M M P M D MP Lakes Seen  
A Pistia stratiotes_0_1 C Potamogeton acutifolius_0_1 C Potamogeton acutifolius_1_2 C Potamogeton acutifolius_2_4 C Potamogeton acutifolius_>4 C Potamogeton alpinus_0_1 A Potamogeton alpinus_1_2 A Potamogeton alpinus_2_4 A Potamogeton alpinus_>4 A Potamogeton berchtoldii_0_1 B Potamogeton berchtoldii_1_2 B Potamogeton berchtoldii_2_4 B Potamogeton berchtoldii_>4 B Potamogeton compressus_0_1 C Potamogeton compressus_1_2 C Potamogeton compressus_2_4 C Potamogeton compressus_>4 C Potamogeton crispus_0_1 C Potamogeton crispus_1_2 C Potamogeton crispus_2_4 C Potamogeton crispus_>4 C Potamogeton filiformis_0_1 A Potamogeton filiformis_1_2 A Potamogeton filiformis_2_4 A Potamogeton filiformis_>4 A Potamogeton friesii_0_1 C Potamogeton friesii_1_2 C lfd. Nr. Taxon_Tiefenstufe AK(s) Potamogeton friesii_2_4 B Potamogeton friesii_>4 B Potamogeton gramineus_0_1 A Potamogeton gramineus_1_2 A Potamogeton gramineus_2_4 A Potamogeton gramineus_>4 A Potamogeton lucens_0_1 C Potamogeton lucens_1_2 C Potamogeton lucens_2_4 B Potamogeton lucens_>4 B Potamogeton natans_0_1 B Potamogeton natans_1_2 B Potamogeton natans_2_4 B Potamogeton natans_>4 B Potamogeton nodosus_0_1 C Potamogeton nodosus_1_2 C Potamogeton nodosus_2_4 C Potamogeton nodosus_>4 C Potamogeton obtusifolius_0_1 C Potamogeton obtusifolius_1_2 C Potamogeton obtusifolius_2_4 C Potamogeton obtusifolius_>4 C Potamogeton pectinatus_0_1 C Potamogeton pectinatus_1_2 C Potamogeton pectinatus_2_4 C Potamogeton pectinatus_>4 B Potamogeton perfoliatus_0_1 B Potamogeton perfoliatus_1_2 B Potamogeton perfoliatus_2_4 B Potamogeton perfoliatus_>4 B Potamogeton polygonifolius_0_1 Potamogeton polygonifolius_1_2 Potamogeton polygonifolius_2_4 Potamogeton polygonifolius_>4 Potamogeton praelongus_0_1 B Potamogeton praelongus_1_2 B Potamogeton praelongus_2_4 B Potamogeton praelongus_>4 B Potamogeton

Introduction

The Italian macrophytes assessment method was developed using historical data from Italian lakes (32 lakes) and from the GIG Alpine lakes dataset including natural lakes of the Alpine ecoregion, belonging to L-AL3 and L-AL4 types: L-AL3 are Lowland or midaltitude(50-800 m.a.s.l.) , deep, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large; L-AL4 are medium or low altitude lakes (200-800 m a.s.l.), calcareous (alk > 1meq/l), with a surface area higher than 0.5 km 2 and an average depth lower than 15 m. During the second phase of the intercalibration exercise we have modified the first version of the assessment method adopted by the Italian law in 2006 and it will adopted at the next updating of the specific set of rules. The information collected related to aquatic macrophytes in lakes belonging to the following 3 categories: submerged, rooted floating-leaved and freely floating, according to the taxonomic classification by Flora of Italy [START_REF] Pignatti | La Flora d'Italia[END_REF]. These categories include both the lower plants such as seagrass both mosses (eg. Fontinalis), ferns (eg. Salvinia) and sessile macro-algae (eg. Chara) and colony forming macroscopically visible aggregates.

Metric description: sampling, analyses, principles for setting reference value and boundaries

Sampling strategies

MacroIMMI is a transect -based method and the investigation procedure for each body of water is composed of 4 stages: I.

Gathering preliminary information about the presence of macrophytes through consultation and frequent users of the lake and the literature search.

II.

Identification of sites based on information collected during Phase 1 and the outcome of the preparatory reconnaissance sampling.

III.

Description of the environmental characteristics of sites and land close to the sites themselves.

IV. Enforcement of observations or samples along the transects.

Sites, continuous area of the shore where it is possible to identify an homogeneous community in terms of specific composition, that despite having similar characteristics between them are distributed on separate stretches of coastline are considered separate sites and, as such, are all samples. For each site one transect must be covered, and among the trasect all the depth zone must be sampled. The abundance of the recorded species is determined according to Kolher five class scale.

Calculation of EQR for all metrics

Reference values and class boundaries for all the metrics were calculated using the values of the whole AlpGIG dataset. Reference values correspond to the median value of the reference lakes. As H/G boundary the 10th %ile of the values of the reference lakes was taken. The GM, MP and PB metric boundaries were set using equidistant class widths on a log scale.

Maximum depth colonization (Z-cmax)

As it suggests, Maximum Depth of Colonisation is the maximum depth at which plants were recorded in the entire water body. For this metric we have distinct reference values and boundary classes for each intercalibration typologies, L-AL3 and L-AL4 see Table A.26.

Trophic score (sk)

Trophic score Sk is calculated by weighted average of the abundance of the single species scores Vk for each site. In a second step all Sk values are weighted according to the length of the shoreline of each site to obtain the final value for the lake.

 

  k k k k A v A = s 1

Ak= species abundance

Vk= trophic score of species k Vk were obtained by weighted average abundance of macrophytes on log of Total Phosphorus and then rescaled to between 0 and 1, with an increase of ecological quality in a ascending order.

Dissimilarity index

Species composition of the current transects is compared with the species composition of the reference sites. The Bray&Curtis (BC) distance between current transects and reference ones is calculated using the maximum abundance recorded in the different depth zones. Then dissimilarity index is obtained subtracting BC value from 1.

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 1 -𝐵𝐶 𝐵𝐶 = 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑦&𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡

Lake types

According to Slovenian national lake typology [START_REF] Urbanič | Typology of lakes in Slovenia[END_REF]) two lake-types can be found in Slovenia. Lake Bled is described as deep-sub-Alpine lake, whereas Lake Bohinj as deep Alpine lake. However, in a development of the SMILE both lakes were considered as same type.

Assessment system

Reference sites

Criteria for selection of referene sites followed a national approach (Urbanič & Smolar-Žvanut 2005) where lake-specific and site-specific criteria are used addressing trophic status, pollution sources, lakeshore modifications and water use. In addition to national criteria some more site-specific criteria were used addressing land use in a 200 m belt:

 urbanisation = 0%  forest >90%
Based on these criteria 46 transects (sites) in the lake Bohinj were recognised as reference.

However, not all sites fulfilled criteria for calcualtion of all metrics included in the SMILE.

Pressure gradient

Pressure gradient used in the development of the SMILE was defined as combination of the mean annual total phosphorous concentration, land use (Corine Land Cover categories) in the 200 m belt and lakeshore morphological alteration class. Pressure gradient was defined on the scale between 0 and 100. Sampling sites used in the analyses covered half of the pressure gradient (low pressure sites to medium pressure sites were available). Three pressure classes were defined. Sites with a pressure score <10 were classified as pressure class 1, sites with a pressure score between 10 and 30 were classified as pressure class 2 and sites with a score between 30 and 60 as a pressure class 3. Sites with site scores >60 were not available.

Metrics, index calculation and classification

SMILE is a multimetric index consisting of three metrics;

1. Macrophyte Index [START_REF] Melzer | Die Makrophytenvegetation des Chiemsees. Informationsberichte Bayer[END_REF]), 2. Vegetation limit (m) and 3. Characae vegetation limit (m).

Reference values of selected metrics were defined as median values calculated using reference sites (transects) (Table A.33).

Table A.33

Reference values and lower anchors of three metrics used in Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE).

Metric Metric code Reference value Lower anchor

Macrophyte Index (Melzer 1999) MI 2.06 5

Vegetation limit (m) VL 6.5 0

Vegetation limit of Characae (m) VLC 6.5 0 SMILE index is calculated according to the equation:

𝑆𝑀𝐼𝐿𝐸 = 2 * 𝑀𝐼 + 𝑉𝐿 + 𝑉𝐿𝐶 4

Boundary values between ecological status classes were defined based on the distribution of the SMILE values among the three pressure classes (Figure A.3). However, due to absence of moderate to high pressure sites boundary values moderate/poor and poor/bad were defined by equidistant divison of the EQR gradient between good/moderate boundary and lower anchor (Table A.34). In order to combine EQR values of sites with phytobenthos data, EQR values were pieceweise lineary transformed and five equidistant classes were obtained (Table A.35 and Table A.36). Final classification of the lake is obtained calculating Lake-SMILE value averaging seven Site-SMILE values calculated at seven sites in the lake.

Community description at ecologial status boundary values

At the high/good boundary Macrophyte Index is increased by 10 %, whereas vegetation limit and vegetation limit of Characae is decreased to the depth of 4 m. At the good/moderate boundary Macrophyte Index is increased by 30 %, vegetation limit is decreased to the depth of 2 m and characae species (they are specific for our Alpine lakes) are absent (vegetation limit of Characae is 0).

5.

4

  index was built including mean annual total phosphorous concentration, land use in 200 m site-belt and lakeshore modification class (SI data). TP*: r² = 0.31 Secchi*: r² = 0.53 Chl a*: r² = 0.28 (*GIG-database)

Figure 6 . 1

 61 Figure 6.1 Relative share of plant mass of single species (WISER codes) on the overall plant mass as RPM. RPM = relative share of the plant mass of single species on the overall plant mass; Pall& Janauer, 1995)

Figure 8 . 1

 81 Figure 8.1 Relative share of plant mass (RPM) of single species (WISER codes) in good and in moderate status (Alpine-GIG database).

  Vllin = linearised vegetation limit Vl = vegetation limit [m below water surface (with one decimal place)]

  metric Trophic indication MIRef = MI as expected under reference conditions MITr = MI of current transect

  SDTr, Ref = Bray-Curtis Distance between current transect and reference transect PMImax Ref = maximum PMI of a species in a reference transect PMImax Tr = maximum PMI of a species in current transect i = current index of different plant species The EQRSC can be derived by an inversion of the minimum Bray-Curtis Distance of the dataset of a transect compared with the datasets of the reference sites: EQRSC = EQR, metric Species composition SDTr, Ref = Bray-Curtis Distance between current transect and reference transect i = current index of different reference data sets

Figure A. 1

 1 Figure A.1 Structure of the observation unit Number of samples per lake

  one observation unit on each major category of shore in order to provide the most representative image possible of the macrophyte population of the whole water body.

  Quantity of the i-th taxon of species group A QCi = Quantity of the i-th taxon of species group C Qgi = Quantity of the i-th taxon of all groups nA = Total number of taxa in group A nC = Total number of taxa in group C ng = Total number of taxa in all groups

Equation 3 :

 3 Trophic-Index according to Hofmann (1999) TISüd(South) of the i-th species For the combination with the "Quotient of Reference Species (RAQ)" the calculated values of the "Trophic-Index (TI)" are transformed according to the following equation 4. Equation 4: Transformation of the calculated trophic value TISüd(South) 𝑀 𝑇𝐼 𝑆ü𝑑 = 1 -((𝑇𝐼 𝑆ü𝑑 -1) * 0,25) MTISüd = Module Trophic-Index Süd(South) TISüd = calculated Trophic-IndexSüd(South)

  Transformation of the type specifically calculated quotient of reference species MRAQ = Module Quotient of Reference Species RAQ = calculated Quotient of Reference Species

Figure A. 3

 3 Figure A.3 Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE) in rensponse to pressure class (N = 45).

Table 2 .

 2 1 Overview of the metrics included in the national phytoplankton assessment methods. MP-macrophytes, Phb -phytobenthos.Table 2.2 Overview of the sampling and data processing of the national phytoplankton assessment methods

	Membe r State	Full BQE method	Taxonomic composition Abundance	Combination rule of metrics
	AT	only MP	Trophic index	Vegetation limit	Average
			Reference species index	Vegetation density
				Zonation
	FR	only MP	Species composition	Abundance of	Combined in one
			index	indicator taxa	metric
	GE	MP and	MP: Species composition	Abundance of	Average
		Phb*	index	indicator taxa
			Phb: Species composition	(Kohler and %),
			index" trophic index	vegetation limit,
				mass stands of
				selected taxa
	IT	only MP	Trophic score,	Vegetation limit	Average metric
			Dissimilarity index,		scores
			Percent frequency of
			exotic species
	SI	MP and	MP: Trophic index	Vegetation limit	Weighted average
		Phb*	Phb: Trophic index	Vegetation limit of
				charophytes
	*Macrophytes and phytobenthos intercalibrated separately
	Sampling and data processing
	All countries use similar sampling strategies and data processing techniques (Table 2.2.)

Table 2

 2 Table 2.4 summarizes the methodology used to derive ecological boundaries.

	MS	Austria	France	Germany	Italy	Slovenia
	Key source to	Historical	Existing list of	Historical	Expert	Existing
	derive RC	information,	least disturbed	information,	knowledge,	reference
		existing	condition sites	paleolimnologi	historical data	transects
		reference	according to	cal data,	(no reference
		transects and	national	existing	site in Italy
		expert	circular	reference	available)
		judgement		transects and	Use of the
				expert	reference sites
				judgement	of the IC
					database
	Geographical
	scope

.3 Overview of the methodologies used to derive the reference conditions for the national macrophyte assessment methods

Table 3 .

 3 1 List of the WFD compliance criteria and the WFD compliance checking process and resultsTable 4.1 Evaluation if IC feasibility regarding common IC types

	Common IC	Type characteristics	MS sharing IC common type
	type
	L-AL3	Altitude 50 -800 m	All MS: Yes
		Mean depth: >15 m
		Alkalinity > 1 meq/l
	L-AL4	Altitude: 200 -800 m	AUSTRIA, FRANCE, GERMANY,
		Mean depth: 3 -15 m	ITALY: Yes
		Alkalinity > 1 meq/l	Not in SLOVENIA

Table 4 .

 4 3 Evaluation if IC feasibility regarding assessment concept

	Method	Assessment concept	Remarks
	Austria	Submersed macrophytes in the entire littoral of	Data from emergent
		investigated transects from all habitats.	macrophytes are available, but
		Species composition indexes (reference species and	don't enter the assessment.
		trophic indication)	No Phytobenthos data available,
		Additional:	but other short-term reacting
		Overall macrophyte abundance	components as e.g. vegetation
		Vegetation limit	limit can substitute them
		Type-specific zonation
	France	Submersed macrophytes in the entire littoral of	Phytobenthos: under
		investigated transects from all habitats.	development
		Species composition and abundance index. Trophic
		level indicating taxa and stenoecy coefficient (300
		indicating taxa)
		Additional:
		Emergent macrophytes and macroalgae.
		But: The assessment is possible only with submersed
		macrophytes, too.
	Germany	Submersed macrophytes in the entire littoral of	Data from emergent
		investigated transects from all habitats.	macrophytes are available, but
		Macrophytes: Species composition index	don't enter the assessment.
		Additional:
		Vegetation limit
		mass stands of eutrophication indicating species
		Phytobenthos: Species composition index, trophic
		index
		EQRs are calculated for macrophytes and for
		phytobenthos separately.
		Combination rule for entire BQE Macrophytes &
		Phytobenthos:
		One ecological status index (EQR)
		But: The assessment is possible only with submersed
		macrophytes, too.
	Italy	Submersed macrophytes in the entire littoral are	For phytobenthos a new metric
		investigated using transects from all habitats.	(species composition index and
		Species composition indexes (reference species and	trophic index), proposed in the
		trophic indication)	phytobenthos IC group will be
		Additional:	testet: a mean between German
		Vegetation limit	and French phytobenthos
			approach.
	Slovenia	Submersed macrophytes in the entire littoral of	Data from emergent
		investigated transects from all habitats.	macrophytes are available, but
		Species composition index (trophic indication)	don't enter the assessment.
		Additional:	Phytobenthos assessment
		Vegetation limit	method is developed, however,
		Vegetation limit of Charophytes	separated from macrophytes.

Table 5 .

 5 1 Overview of the Alpine GIG macrophyte IC dataset

	Size of common dataset: total number	219 transects LAL3, 109 transects LAL4
	of sites
	Number of Member States	5
	Repackage/disaggregation of	Use of transect data (no disaggregation of lake
	samples/WB results?	data)
	Gradient of ecological quality	High to poor
	Coverage per ecological quality class	High: 19% of sites
		Good: 35% of sites
		Moderate: 39% of sites
		Poor: 7% of sites
		Bad: -

Table 5

 5

	Member State		Number of lake-transects
		Biological data	Physico-chemical data	Pressure data
	L-AL3
	Austria	43	7 lakes	7 lakes
	France	5	1 lake	1 lake
	Germany	64	13 lakes	13 lakes
	Italy	92	5 lakes	5 lakes
	Slovenia	15	2 lakes	2 lakes
	L-AL4
	Austria	30	3 lakes	3 lakes
	France	15	4 lakes	4 lakes
	Germany	21	4 lakes	4 lakes
	Italy	42	9 lakes	9 lakes
	Slovenia	1	1 lake	1 lake

.2 Description of data collection within the GIG per MS

Table 5 .

 5 3 List of the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control and the data acceptance checking

	Data acceptance criteria	Data acceptance checking
	Data requirements (obligatory	Macrophyte data must be available for single lake-
	for ALL MS)	transects
		Macrophyte abundances must be given in a five level
		scale
	The sampling and analytical	Macrophyte data must be sampled from different depth
	methodology (ALL MS)	zones
		Information on the vegetation limit must be available for
		each transect
	Level of taxonomic precision	Species level is required
	required and taxalists with codes	WISER-CODES are used
	(ALL MS)
	The minimum number of sites /	No minimum number
	samples per intercalibration type

(For AUSTRIA, GERMANY and ITALY at

minimum data from 20 transects per IC type exist, FRANCE and SLOVENIA contributed data from a lower number of transects [FRANCE just started the investigations, SLOVENIA has only two WFD-relevant lakes])

Table 6

 6

	Criteria	Requirement
	Lake
	Trophic state	No deviation of the actual from the natural trophic state
	pH, salinity	No deviation from reference conditions
	Hydrology	Artificial water level fluctuations not larger than the range between the
		natural mean low water level (MNW) and the natural mean high water level
		(MHW)
	Transect	(at least 100 m shore length)
	Surrounding	No intensive agriculture or settlements in the near surrounding
	Nutrient input	No direct local nutrient input near the transect
	Hydrology	No tributary near the transect

.1 Overview of the Alpine GIG macrophyte GIG reference criteria Morphology No (or insignificant) artificial modifications of the shore line at the transect Other pressures No recreation area near the transect

Table 7

 7

	.1 The correlation coefficients (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each
	method with the common metric (PCM)
	Member State/Method	r	p	slope
	Austria	0.74	< 0.001	0.648
	France	0.83	< 0.001	0.689
	Germany	0.86	< 0.001	0.713
	Italy	0.74	< 0.001	0.756
	Slovenia	0.83	< 0.001	0.716

Table 7 .

 7 2 Comparison of national boundaries of Alpine GIG macrophyte assessment systems, using comparability criteria

	Member State	H/G boundary bias	G/M boundary bias Class agreement
	Requirement	<-0.250	<-0.25	<1.0
	Austria	0.269	0.11	0.44
	France	-0.169	-0.35 (-0.25*)	0.51
	Germany	0.484	0.38	0.43
	Italy	0.032	-0.15	0.42
	Slovenia	-0.175	-0.05	0.42
	Average	0.23 **	0.21 (0.19**)	0.45
	*after adjustment of the national boundary value

**calculated from absolute values of boundary bias

Table 7

 7

	Member	Classification	Ecological Quality Ratios
	State	Method	High-good boundary	Good-moderate boundary
	Austria	L-AL3 and L-AL4	0.80	0.60
	France	L-AL3 and L-AL4	0.92	0.69 -0.72*
	Germany	L-AL3 and L-AL4	0.76	0.51
	Italy	L-AL3 and L-AL4	0.80	0.60
	Slovenia	L-AL3	0.80	0.60

.3 Class boundaries of Alpine GIG macrophyte assessment systems to be included in the IC Decision *FR good-moderate boundary was moved from 0.69 to 0.72.

Table 7 .

 7 4 Final boundaries including German complete system for LAL4 type(Modules Macrophytes & Phytobenthos, in bold)

	Member State	National classification systems intercalibrated		Ecological Quality Ratios High-good Good-moderate boundary boundary
	Austria	AIM for Lakes (Austrian	L-AL3+L-AL4	0.80	0.60
		Index Macrophytes for
		lakes)
	France	IBML (French Macrophyte	L-AL3+L-AL4	0.92	0.72
		Index for Lakes)
	Germany PHYLIB for Lakes (German	L-AL3+L-AL4	0.76	0.51
		Assessment system for
		Macrophytes &
		Phytobenthos for lakes
		for implementation of the
		WFD) : Module
		Macrophytes
	Germany PHYLIB for Lakes (German	LAL4	0.74	0.47
		Assessment system for
		Macrophytes &
		Phytobenthos for lakes
		for implementation of the
		WFD): Modules
		Macrophytes &
		Phytobenthos
	Italy	MacroIMMI (Macrophytic	L-AL3+L-AL4	0.80	0.60
		index for the evaluation
		of the ecological quality
		of the Italian lakes)
	Slovenia	SMILE (Slovenian	L-AL3	0.80	0.60
		macrophyte-based index
		for lake ecosystems)
	8.

Description of boundary setting procedure and biological communities

	Ecological status classifications of national methods established individually by the
	Member States (see Table 2.4).Following biological quality element changes were
	detected along eutrophication gradient (see comparison with WFD Annex V normative
	definitions
	Table 17-21):

 Decrease of reference species;  Increase of tolerant species. decrease of sensitive species;  Increase of disturbance indicating species;  Decrease of vegetation limit;  Specific vegetation zones (and communities) disappear;  Change of vegetation density (both directions are possible).

Table 8

 8

		.1 Comparisons with WFD Annex V normative definitions for Austrian macrophyte
		assessment system
	Ecol status	Normative definition (WFD)	Interpretation	EQR
	High	"The taxonomic composition	All metrics correspond totally or nearly	>0.8
		corresponds totally or nearly	totally to undisturbed conditions.
		totally to undisturbed conditions.
		There are no detectable changes
		in the average macrophytic […]
		abundance. […]"
	Good	"There are slight changes in the	All metrics differ slightly from	0.8-0.6
		composition and abundance of	undisturbed conditions.
		macrophytic […] taxa compared	Or (in cases of re-oligotrophication):
		to the type-specific communities.	Vegetation density, position of the depth
		[…]"	spread boundary and zoning correspond
			nearly totally to undisturbed conditions.
			Macrophyte Index differs slightly and the
			species composition differs remarkably
			(re-oligotrophication is completed only
			in the water body)
	Moderate	"The composition of macrophytic	All metrics differ moderately from	0.6-0.4
		[…] taxa differ moderately from	undisturbed conditions.
		the type-specific communities	Or (in cases of re-oligotrophication):
		and are significantly more	Vegetation density corresponds nearly
		distorted than those observed at	totally to undisturbed conditions. Other
		good quality. Moderate changes	metrics differ more than moderately (re-
		in the average macrophytic […]	oligotrophication in progress).
		abundance are evident. […]"
	Poor	Macrophyte "communities	All metrics deviate substantially from	0.4-0.2
		deviate substantially from those	undisturbed conditions.
		normally associated with the	Or (in cases of re-oligotrophication): Only
		surface water body type under	the vegetation density corresponds more
		undisturbed conditions".	or less to undisturbed conditions. Other
			metrics differ remarkable (re-
			oligotrophication starting).
	Bad	"Large portions of the relevant	Very low macrophyte abundances or lack	≤0.2
		biological communities normally	of macrophytes without natural reasons.
		associated with the surface water
		body type under undisturbed
		conditions are absent".

Table A .2 Abundance classes referred to as PMI and explanation PMI Verbal description Explanation

 A

	1	Very rare	Only single plants, up to about 5 specimens (individual plants)
	2	Rare	About 6 to 10 specimens (individual plants), scattered over
			investigated section; up to 5 single plant stands
	3	Common	Cannot be overlooked, but still not frequent or abundant; "can
			be found without searching for"
	4	Abundant	Frequent, but not in masses; incomplete coverage with large
			gaps
	5	Very abundant, in	Dominant, more or less overall; clearly more than 50% (ca.
		masses	75%) cover

Table A .

 A 3 Table 3 CMI scale[START_REF] Pall | Austrian Index Macrophytes (AIM-Module 1) for lakes: a Water Framework Directive compliant assessment system for lakes using aquatic macrophytes[END_REF]

	CMI	CMIraw, CMIA raw	Verbal description
	1	>0 -<2	Single plants, cover <1%
	2	2 -<3	Single plant stands
	3	3 -<4	Scattered plant growth, but low cover
	4	4 -<5	Mostly dense vegetation, but with large gaps
	5	5	Dense vegetation, clearly more than 50% (~ 75%)
			cover

Index range Degree of nutrient enrichment Trophic state class

	1.00 -1.99	Very low	Ultraoligotrophic and oligotrophic
	2.00 -2.49	Low	Oligo-mesotrophic
	2.50 -2.99	Moderate	Mesotrophic
	3.00 -3.49	Considerable	Meso-eutrophic
	3.50 -3.99	Heavy	Eutrophic
	4.00 -5.00	Very heavy	Eu-and hypertrophic

Table A .

 A 7 Reference values for the metrics of the different lake types

	Lake type	Vd	Vl[m]	Z	Ti [MI]	Sc
		[CMI
		raw]
	Lakes of the Central	4.4	9.0	Cha_sw* )	2.00	type specific
	Highlands, perialpine			Cha_md &		data base
	region, calcareous			Spe_pw
				Cha_dw
	Lakes of the Northern	4.9	17.0	Cha_sw	1.50	type specific
	Limestone Foothills			Cha_md		data base
	<600m			Cha_dw
	Lakes of the Northern	4.5	15.1	Cha_sw	1.25	type specific
	Limestone Foothills			Cha_md		data base
	>600m			Cha_dw
	Lakes of the Central	4.8	15.1	Cha_sw	1.50	type specific
	Crystalline Alps			Cha_md		data base
				Cha_dw
	Lakes of the Southern	4.7	14.2	Cha_sw	1.50	type specific
	Limestone Alps			Cha_md		data base
	Limestone<600m			Cha_dw
	Lakes of the Southern	4.6	16.6	Cha_sw	1.25	type specific
	Limestone Alps			Cha_md		data base
	>600m			Cha_dw

  Vegetation density CMIA raw Ref = Average CMI raw of reference condition CMIA raw Tr = Average CMI raw of current transect Table A.8 gives the definitions of the different status classes and the corresponding values of CMI-deviation and EQRVd. (For explanation of CMI-values see Table A.2.) Table A.8 Boundary setting for the metric Vegetation density

	Status	Definitions and interpretation	Deviation	Range
			CMIA raw	EQRVl
	High	There are no detectable changes in the average	<1	>0.8 -
		macrophytic abundance. The macrophyte vegetation is		1.0
		within the expected abundance value of the reference
		conditions.
	Good	The macrophyte abundance differs only slightly from	1 -<2	>0.6 -
		that normally associated with the lake type under		0.8
		undisturbed conditions.
	Moderate Moderate changes in the average macrophytic	2 -<3	>0.4 -
		abundance are evident.		0.6
	Poor	The macrophyte abundance deviates substantially from	3 -<4	>0.2 -
		the one normally associated with the lake type under		0.4
		undisturbed conditions.
	Bad	Large portions of the macrophyte community normally	4	0.2
		associated with the lake type under undisturbed
		conditions are absent. Very low abundances.

Table A .

 A 10 gives the used definitions and interpretations of the different status classes and the corresponding deviation of vegetation zones and EQRZ values.

	Status	Definitions and interpretation	Reduction value (rv)	Range EQRZ
	Poor	Macrophyte communities deviate substantially from	-0.6	>0.2 -0.4
		those normally associated with the surface water body	-0.7
		type under undisturbed conditions.
		Two of the defined vegetation zones are missing
		completely.
		or
		Three of the defined vegetation zones are replaced by
	Table A.10	Boundary setting for the metric Characteristic zonation other macrophytes.
	Status High Bad	Definitions and interpretation or Two vegetation zones are missing completely and one The taxonomic composition and abundance corresponds totally or nearly totally to undisturbed shows only low abundance. Large portions of the macrophyte community normally associated with the lake type under undisturbed conditions. All plant groups corresponding to the defined conditions are absent.	Reduction value (rv) 0 -0.1	Range EQRZ >0.8 -1.0
		vegetation zones are present in sufficient abundance
		(CMI 3).
		or
		The abundance of not more than one of the defined
		plant groups differs slightly from reference conditions
		(CMI <3)
	Good	There are slight changes in the composition and	-0.2	>0.6 -0.8
		abundance of macrophytic taxa compared to the type-	-0.2; -0.3
		specific community.
		One of the defined vegetation zones is not represented
		by the plant group expected for this lake type, but
		represented by other macrophyte species belonging to
		this vegetation zone in another lake type.
		or
		All defined vegetation zones are present, but two or
		three of them not in sufficient abundance (CMI <3).
	Moderate The composition and abundance of macrophytic taxa	-0.4	>0.4 -0.6
		differ moderately from the type-specific communities.	-0.4; -0.5
		Two of the defined vegetation zones are not
		represented by the expected plant groups, but by other
		macrophyte taxa (representatives of these zones in
		other lake types).
		or
		One defined vegetation zone is missing completely (no
		macrophytes) and the abundance of one or two other
		zones is lower than expected (CMI <3)

Two of the defined vegetation zones are missing completely and one is replaced by other macrophytes. or Three vegetation zones are missing completely Total lack of macrophytes without natural reasons.

Table A .

 A 11 Boundary setting for the metric Trophic Indication

	Status	Definitions and interpretation	Deviatio n MI	Range EQRTI
		Only disturbance indicators or highly eutrophication
		tolerant species are left in probably low abundances.
		Very high values up to the maximum value of
		Macrophyte Index can be reached.
	Status	Definitions and interpretation	Deviatio n MI	Range EQRTI
	High	The macrophyte species present indicate totally or nearly	<0.5	>0.8 -
		totally the trophic state under undisturbed conditions.		1.0
		Any taxa present, which are related to higher trophic
		levels, are uncommon or rare, their presence will not be
		indicative to disturbance. The Macrophyte Index differs
		not remarkably from the value expected at reference
		conditions.
	Good	The majority of taxa present indicates the type specific	0.5 -<1	>0.6 -
		trophic basic state, but taxa showing a higher trophic		0.8
		state and therefore commonly not found at reference
		conditions may constitute a significant part of the flora.
		The Macrophyte Index differs slightly from the value
		expected for reference conditions.
	Moderat	Taxa from outside the type specific list, particularly	1 -<1.5	>0.4 -
	e	pollution-tolerant species, may dominate the flora.		0.6
		Therefore the Macrophyte Index differs moderately from
		the value expected for reference conditions.
	Poor	Macrophyte communities deviate substantially from	1.5 -<2	>0.2 -
		those normally associated with the surface water body		0.4
		type under undisturbed conditions.
		The lack of eutrophication sensitive species leads to high
		values of the Macrophyte Index.
	Bad	Large portions of the macrophyte community normally	2	0.2
		associated with the lake type under undisturbed
		conditions are absent.

Table A .

 A 12 gives the used definitions and interpretations of the different status classes and the corresponding deviation of Sorensen-Distance-and EQRTI values.

	EQRVd = EQR, metric Vegetation density
	EQRVl = EQR, metric Vegetation limit
	EQRZ = EQR, metric Characteristic zonation
	EQRSC = EQR, metric Species composition
	Table A.12	Boundary setting for the metric Species composition
	Status		Definitions and interpretation					Sorensen Index	Range EQRVl
	High		The taxonomic composition corresponds totally or nearly	0.0 -<0.2 >0.8 -
			totally to undisturbed conditions. Nearly all the taxa		1.0
			present will be within their expected abundance values at
			reference condition.
	Good		There are slight changes in the composition and		0.2 -	>0.6 -
			abundance of macrophytic taxa compared to the type-	<0.4	0.8
			specific communities.
	Moderate The taxonomic composition will differ moderately from	0.4 -	>0.4 -
			the type specific reference condition. As few as half of the	<0.6	0.6
			taxa present may be regularly found in the type specific
			taxa list. Many taxa will be outside their expected
			abundance at reference condition.
	Poor		Macrophyte communities deviate substantially from those	0.6 -	>0.2 -
			normally associated with the surface water body type	<0.8	0.4
			under undisturbed conditions.
	Bad		Large portions of the macrophyte community normally	0.8 -1.0	0.2
			associated with the lake type under undisturbed
			conditions are absent.
	EQR		EQR Vd		EQR Vl		EQR	Z		EQR	TI		EQR	SC	Eq. 11
	Tr
							5
	EQRTr = EQR of current transect

Table A

 A

	Status Pall, K., 2009. Methods for establishing Macrophyte Vegetation Fingerprints of Lakes -a Definition given by the WFD Interpretation EQR
	Bad new Mapping Method and useful Tools for Data Evaluation and Interpretation. Aquatic Large portions of the relevant Very low macrophyte abundances or lack 0.2
	.13 Botany. Status High Pall, K., V. Moser, S. Mayerhofer & R. Till, 2005. Makrophyten-basierte Typisierung der biological communities of macrophytes without natural reasons. and Boundary setting and EQR-values for the entire lake Definition given by the WFD Interpretation EQR The taxonomic composition corresponds totally or nearly totally to undisturbed Vegetation density, Vegetation limit, Characteristic zonation, Macrophyte Index and Species composition correspond 1.0 -normally associated with the below surface water body type under Seen Österreichs. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Land-und undisturbed conditions are absent. Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft sowie der Landesregierung Salzburg, 62 <0.8 pp.
	conditions. There are no Schutten, J., J. Dainty & A. J. Davy, 2004. Wave-induced hydraulic forces on submerged totally or nearly totally to undisturbed
	detectable changes in the aquatic plants in shallow lakes. Annals of Botany 93: 333-341. conditions.
		average macrophytic […]
		abundance. […]
	Good	There are slight changes in the	Vegetation density, Vegetation limit,	0.8 -
		composition and abundance	Characteristic zonation, Macrophyte Index	>0.6
		of macrophytic […] taxa	and Species composition differ slightly
		compared to the type-specific	from undisturbed conditions.
		communities. […]	Or (in cases of reoligotrophication):
			Vegetation density and Vegetation limit
			correspond nearly totally to undisturbed
			conditions, Characteristic zonation and
			the Macrophyte Index differ slightly, the
			specific set of species moderately from
			undisturbed conditions
			(reoligotrophication complete only in the
			water body).
	Moderate The composition of	Vegetation density, Vegetation limit,	0.6 -
		macrophytic […] taxa differs	Characteristic zonation, Macrophyte Index	>0.4
		moderately from the type-	and Species composition differ
		specific communities and is	moderately from undisturbed conditions.
		significantly more distorted	Or (in cases of reoligotrophication):
		than that observed at good	Vegetation density corresponds nearly
		quality. Moderate changes in	totally to undisturbed conditions, the
		the average macrophytic […]	Vegetation limit deviates slightly from
		abundance are evident. […]	undisturbed conditions, Characteristic
			zonation, Macrophyte Index and the
			specific set of species differ remarkably
			(reoligotrophication in progress).
	Poor	Macrophyte communities	Vegetation density, Vegetation limit,	0.4 -
		deviate substantially from	Characteristic zonation, Macrophyte Index	>0.2
		those normally associated with	and Species composition deviate
		the surface water body type	substantially from undisturbed conditions.
		under undisturbed conditions.	Or (in cases of reoligotrophication): The
			Vegetation density differs only slightly
			from undisturbed conditions. Vegetation
			limit, Characteristic zonation, Macrophyte
			Index and Species composition differ
			remarkably (reoligotrophication starting).

Littoral zone: abundance index Description Profiles: abundance index

				Description
	1	A few isolated	1	A few fragments of stem
		specimens
	2	A few patches	2	Frequent fragments of stem or
				a few whole plants
	3	Fairly frequent small	3	Fragments all over the teeth
		patches		of the rake
	4	Discontinuous large	4	Taxon abundant
		patches
	5	Continuous cover	5

Table A .

 A 15 Description of the types of riparian zone defined in the French assessment method.

	Type

Description of the vegetation and/or modifications of the riparian zone Natural habitats

		Areas with artificial banks and infrastructures: controlled shore vegetation,
		woodland clearance, accumulations of litter, dumping, rubble, walls, dykes,
		artificial revetment, artificial beaches, roads and tracks, hydraulic workings, etc.
	1	Typical wetland riparian	Bog, Fringing reeds, Boggy heath, Marsh, Water
		types	meadows, Megaphorbs, Helophytic vegetation
			growing in hummocks, Hygrophilic forest / wet
			woodland (Alnus-Salix), etc.
	2	Riparian zone colonised by	Mixed deciduous forest, Coniferous forest,
		dry-land shrubs and bushes	Bushes and shrubs, Heathland/ ericacae heath,
			etc.
	3	Riparian zone not colonised	Scrubland, Tall plants, Rocky shoreline,
		by dry-land shrubs and	Beaches/bare ground, etc.
		bushes
	Artificial areas or areas visibly subjected to human pressure
	4	Ports, moorings, jetties, marinas docks, boats

Table A .

 A 16 and Table A.17 give an example for input files of environmental data and macrophyte data.

	Table A.17	Example of macrophyte data (perpendicular profile)
	Contact point	Depth	Substratum 1 Substratum 2 Taxa code	Abundance
	1		1		D			NAJMIN	1
	2		1,2		D	S		NAJMIN	2
	3		1,3		D			NAJMIN	2
	Table A.16	Example of environmental data
	Code	Area	Altitud e	Perim eter	Volume	Level fluctuat ion	Max. depth	Mean depth	Resid ence time	Alcalin ity
	BOU73	43.9	231.5	44330.8	36000000 00	0.7	145	81	2555	2.6
	ECH33	57.6	13	66504.4	21000000 0	1	10	3.64	665	0.56

  Table A.19

	Table A.19	Spearman correlation between the pressures variables and the EQR value
	Variables		B-Alc	B-Aci	H-Alc
	NK		0.18	-0.47*	0.12
	Chlo a		-0.29	-0.22	-0.14
	TP		0.17	-0.72*	-0.08
	PO4		0.06	-0.48*	0.39
	Population density	-0.39	-0.38	-0.19
	Urban area		-0.57*	-0.32	-0.19
	Agricultural area	0.06	-0.42	-0.3
	Intensive agricultural area	0.06	-0.21	-0.39
	Type 4 (as described in the national	-0.3	0.16	-0.56*
	protocol)
	Total pressures LHS	0.09	-0.12	-0.18

Table A

 A

	.20	Specific values and stenoecy coefficients of indicator species
	Name		Specific value	Stenoecy coefficient
	Acorus calamus	7	3
	Agrostis stolonifera	10	1
	Alisma lanceolatum	9	2
	Alisma plantago-aquatica	8	2
	Amblystegium fluviatile	11	2
	Amblystegium riparium	5	2
	Amblystegium tenax	15	2
	Aneura pinguis		14	2
	Apium inundatum	17	3
	Apium nodiflorum	10	1
	Audouinella		13	2
	Aulacomnium palustre	15	2
	Azolla filiculoides	6	3
	Baldellia ranunculoides	13	2
	Baldellia repens	12	3
	Bangia		10	2
	Batrachospermum	16	2
	Berula erecta		14	2
	Bidens frondosa	7	3
	Bidens tripartita	8	3
	Binuclearia		14	2
	Bolboschoenus maritimus	11	2
	Brachythecium plumosum	18	3
	Brachythecium rivulare	15	2
	Butomus umbellatus	9	2
	Caltha palustris	13	1
	Calliergonella cuspidata	11	1
	Calliergon giganteum	14	2

Table A

 A

	MP		(	Seen	100 100 ) 	*	5 , 0
		.23		Classification of the EQR values into the categories of ecological status
	ecological status		Range of EQR	Definition given by the WFD	Interpretation
	High			>0.76			"The taxonomic composition	EQR values lie within the
								corresponds totally or nearly totally	range of reference sites.
								to undisturbed conditions. There are
								no detectable changes in the
								average macrophytic […]
								abundance. […]"
	Good			0.51 to 0.76	"There are slight changes in the	EQR values are slightly
								composition and abundance of	below high status and
								macrophytic […] taxa compared to	always positive (Taxa of
								the type-specific communities. […]"	species group A have
								higher abundances than
								species group C taxa).
	Moderate	0.26 to 0.75	"The composition of macrophytic	EQR values are around
								[…] taxa differ moderately from the	zero or negative (species
								type specific communities and-are	group C taxa equal or
								significantly more distorted than	slightly outweigh species
								those observed at good quality.	group A taxa).
								Moderate changes in the average
								macrophytic […] abundance are
								evident. […]"
	Poor			0.01 to 0.25	Macrophyte "communities deviate	EQR values are very low
								substantially from those normally	(species group A taxa are
								associated with the surface water	nearly replaced by species
								body type under undisturbed	group C taxa).
								conditions".
	Bad			< 0.01			"Large portions of the relevant	Very low macrophyte
								biological communities normally	abundances without
								associated with the surface water	natural reasons.
								body type under undisturbed	(Calculation of RI/EQR is
								conditions are	often not possible)

Table A .

 A 24 Classification of the EQR values into the categories of ecological status

	lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr. lfd. Nr.	Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe Taxon_Tiefenstufe	AK(s) AK(s) AK(s) AK(s) AK(s) AK(s) AK(s) AK(s)
		Alisma plantago-aquatica_2_4 Ceratophyllum demersum_2_4 Chara globularis_1_2 Drepanocladus fluitans_0_1 Equisetum fluviatile_>4 Lemna gibba_2_4 Myriophyllum heterophyllum_0_1 Nymphoides peltata_0_1	B C B B B C C B
		Alisma plantago-aquatica_>4 Ceratophyllum demersum_>4 Chara globularis_2_4 Drepanocladus fluitans_1_2 Fontinalis antipyretica_0_1 Lemna minor_0_1 Myriophyllum heterophyllum_1_2 Nymphoides peltata_1_2	B C a B B C C B
		Brachythecium rivulare_0_1 Ceratophyllum submersum_0_1 Chara globularis_>4 Drepanocladus fluitans_2_4 Fontinalis antipyretica_1_2 Lemna minor_1_2 Myriophyllum heterophyllum_2_4 Nymphoides peltata_2_4	B C A B B C C B
		Brachythecium rivulare_1_2 Ceratophyllum submersum_1_2 Chara hispida_0_1 Drepanocladus fluitans_>4 Fontinalis antipyretica_2_4 Lemna minuta_0_1 Myriophyllum heterophyllum_>4 Peplis portula_0_1	B C A B B C C
	Ecological	Range of EQR Brachythecium rivulare_2_4 Definition given by the WFD B Ceratophyllum submersum_2_4 C Chara hispida_1_2 A Elatine hexandra_0_1 Fontinalis antipyretica_>4 B Lemna trisulca_0_1 C Myriophyllum spicatum_0_1 B Peplis portula_1_2
	status	Brachythecium rivulare_>4 Ceratophyllum submersum_>4 Chara hispida_2_4 Elatine hexandra_1_2 Fontinalis hypnoides_0_1 Lemna trisulca_1_2 Myriophyllum spicatum_1_2 Persicaria amphibia_0_1	B C A B C B B
	High	>0.74 Butomus umbellatus_0_1 Chara aspera var. curta_0_1 "The taxonomic composition corresponds totally or C A Chara hispida_>4 A Elatine hexandra_2_4 Fontinalis hypnoides_1_2 B Lemna trisulca_2_4 C Myriophyllum spicatum_2_4 B Persicaria amphibia_1_2 B
		nearly totally to undisturbed conditions. There are no C Chara aspera var. curta_1_2 Butomus umbellatus_1_2 A Chara intermedia_0_1 A Elatine hexandra_>4 Fontinalis hypnoides_2_4 B Lemna trisulca_>4 B Myriophyllum spicatum_>4 B Persicaria amphibia_2_4 B
		detectable changes in the average macrophytic […] C Chara aspera var. curta_2_4 Butomus umbellatus_2_4 A Chara intermedia_1_2 A Elatine hydropiper_0_1 Fontinalis hypnoides_>4 B Lemna turionifera_0_1 C Myriophyllum verticillatum_0_1 B Persicaria amphibia_>4 B
		abundance. […]" Chara aspera var. curta_>4 Butomus umbellatus_>4 Chara intermedia_2_4 Elatine hydropiper_1_2 Fontinalis squamosa_0_1 Leptodictyum riparium_0_1 Myriophyllum verticillatum_1_2 Phalaris arundinacea_0_1	C A A B B B B
	Good	0.47 to 0.74 Calliergonella cuspidata_0_1 "There are slight changes in the composition and B Chara aspera_0_1 A Chara intermedia_>4 A Elatine hydropiper_2_4 Fontinalis squamosa_1_2 B Leptodictyum riparium_1_2 B Myriophyllum verticillatum_2_4 B Phalaris arundinacea_1_2 B abundance of […] taxa compared to the type-specific communities. […]" Calliergonella cuspidata_1_2 B Chara aspera_1_2 A Chara polyacantha_0_1 A Elatine hydropiper_>4 Fontinalis squamosa_2_4 B Leptodictyum riparium_2_4 B Myriophyllum verticillatum_>4 B Pilularia globulifera_0_1
	Moderate	0.26 to 0.46 Calliergonella cuspidata_2_4 "The composition of […] taxa differ moderately from B Chara aspera_2_4 A Chara polyacantha_1_2 A Elatine triandra_0_1 Fontinalis squamosa_>4 B Leptodictyum riparium_>4 B Najas flexilis_0_1 B
		the type specific communities and-are significantly Callitriche cophocarpa_0_1 C Chara aspera_>4 A Chara polyacantha_2_4 A Elatine triandra_1_2 Galium palustre ssp. palustre_0_1 B Littorella uniflora_0_1 A Najas flexilis_1_2 B
		more distorted than those observed at good quality. Callitriche cophocarpa_1_2 C Chara braunii_0_1 Chara polyacantha_>4 A Elatine triandra_2_4 Galium palustre ssp. palustre_1_2 B Littorella uniflora_1_2 A Najas flexilis_2_4 B
		Moderate changes in the average […] abundance are Callitriche cophocarpa_2_4 C Chara braunii_1_2 Chara rudis_0_1 A Elatine triandra_>4 Galium palustre ssp. palustre_2_4 B Littorella uniflora_2_4 A Najas flexilis_>4 B
		evident. […]" Galium palustre ssp. palustre_>4 Callitriche cophocarpa_>4 Chara braunii_2_4 Chara rudis_1_2 Eleocharis acicularis_0_1 Littorella uniflora_>4 Najas marina ssp. intermedia_0_1	C A B B A B
	Poor	0.04 to 0.25 Callitriche hamulata_0_1 Chara braunii_>4 Chara rudis_2_4 Eleocharis acicularis_1_2 Glyceria fluitans_0_1 Lobelia dortmanna_0_1 Najas marina ssp. intermedia_1_2 Macrophyte "communities deviate substantially from A A B B A B those normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions". Callitriche hamulata_1_2 A Chara contraria var. hispidula_0_1 B Chara rudis_>4 A Eleocharis acicularis_2_4 B Glyceria fluitans_2_4 B Lobelia dortmanna_1_2 A Najas marina ssp. intermedia_2_4 B
	Bad	< 0.03 Callitriche hamulata_2_4 Chara contraria var. hispidula_1_2 "Large portions of the relevant biological communities A B Chara strigosa_0_1 A Eleocharis acicularis_>4 B Glyceria fluitans_>4 B Lobelia dortmanna_2_4 A Najas marina ssp. intermedia_>4 B
		normally associated with the surface water body type A Chara contraria var. hispidula_2_4 Callitriche hamulata_>4 B Chara strigosa_1_2 A Eleocharis palustris_0_1 C Groenlandia densa_0_1 C Lobelia dortmanna_>4 A Najas marina_0_1 C
		under undisturbed conditions are Callitriche hermaphroditica_0_1 B Chara contraria var. hispidula_>4 A Chara strigosa_2_4 A Eleocharis palustris_1_2 C Groenlandia densa_1_2 C Luronium natans_0_1 A Najas marina_1_2 C
		Callitriche hermaphroditica_1_2 Chara contraria_0_1 Chara strigosa_>4 Eleocharis palustris_2_4 Groenlandia densa_2_4 Luronium natans_1_2 Najas marina_2_4	B B A C C A C
	Table A.25	Original list of type specific macrophyte indicator species. . Callitriche hermaphroditica_2_4 B Chara contraria_1_2 B Chara tomentosa_0_1 A Eleocharis palustris_>4 C Groenlandia densa_>4 C Luronium natans_2_4 A Najas marina_>4 C
		Callitriche hermaphroditica_>4 Chara contraria_2_4 Chara tomentosa_1_2 Elodea canadensis_0_1 Hippuris vulgaris_0_1 Luronium natans_>4 Najas minor_0_1	B a A C C A B
	lfd. Nr.	Taxon_Tiefenstufe Callitriche obtusangula_0_1 Chara contraria_>4 Chara tomentosa_2_4 Elodea canadensis_1_2 Hippuris vulgaris_1_2 Lycopus europaeus_0_1 Najas minor_1_2	AK(s) C A A C C B B
	1	Acorus calamus_0_1 Callitriche obtusangula_1_2 Chara delicatula_0_1 Chara tomentosa_>4 Elodea canadensis_2_4 Hippuris vulgaris_2_4 Lysimachia vulgaris_0_1 Najas minor_2_4	C C B A C C B A
	2	Acorus calamus_1_2 Callitriche obtusangula_2_4 Chara delicatula_1_2 Chara vulgaris_0_1 Elodea canadensis_>4 Hippuris vulgaris_>4 Lythrum salicaria_0_1 Najas minor_>4	C C B B C C B A
	3	Acorus calamus_2_4 Callitriche obtusangula_>4 Chara delicatula_2_4 Chara vulgaris_1_2 Elodea nuttallii_0_1 Hottonia palustris_0_1 Mentha aquatica_0_1 Nasturtium officinale_0_1	C C A B C A B B
	4	Acorus calamus_>4 Callitriche palustris_0_1 Chara delicatula_>4 Chara vulgaris_2_4 Elodea nuttallii_1_2 Hottonia palustris_1_2 Mentha aquatica_1_2 Nasturtium officinale_1_2	C A A B C A B B
	5	Alisma gramineum_0_1 Callitriche palustris_1_2 Chara denudata_0_1 Chara vulgaris_>4 Elodea nuttallii_2_4 Hottonia palustris_2_4 Mentha aquatica_2_4 Nitella batrachosperma_0_1	B A B a C A B A
	6	Alisma gramineum_1_2 Callitriche palustris_2_4 Chara denudata_1_2 Cladium mariscus_0_1 Elodea nuttallii_>4 Hottonia palustris_>4 Mentha aquatica_>4 Nitella batrachosperma_1_2	B A B B C A B A
	7	Alisma gramineum_2_4 Callitriche palustris_>4 Chara denudata_2_4 Cladium mariscus_1_2 Epilobium hirsutum_0_1 Hydrocharis morsus-ranae_0_1 Myosotis scorpioides_0_1 Nitella batrachosperma_2_4	B A B B B A B A
	8	Alisma gramineum_>4 Carex riparia_0_1 Chara denudata_>4 Cladium mariscus_2_4 Epilobium hirsutum_1_2 Hydrocharis morsus-ranae_1_2 Myosotis scorpioides_1_2 Nitella batrachosperma_>4	B B B B B A b A
	9	Alisma lanceolatum_0_1 Carex riparia_1_2 Chara filiformis_0_1 Cladium mariscus_>4 Epilobium hirsutum_2_4 Hydrocharis morsus-ranae_2_4 Myosotis scorpioides_2-4 Nitella capillaris_0_1	B B B B A b
	10	Alisma lanceolatum_1_2 Carex riparia_2_4 Chara filiformis_1_2 Drepanocladus aduncus_0_1 Epilobium hirsutum_>4 Hydrocharis morsus-ranae_>4 Myriophyllum alterniflorum_0_1 Nitella capillaris_1_2	B B B B A B
	11	Alisma lanceolatum_2_4 Carex riparia_>4 Chara filiformis_2_4 Drepanocladus aduncus_1_2 Equisetum fluviatile_0_1 Hydrocotyle vulgaris_0_1 Myriophyllum alterniflorum_1_2 Nitella capillaris_2_4	B B B B A A
	12	Alisma lanceolatum_>4 Ceratophyllum demersum_0_1 Chara filiformis_>4 Drepanocladus aduncus_2_4 Equisetum fluviatile_1_2 Hydrocotyle vulgaris_1_2 Myriophyllum alterniflorum_2_4 Nitella capillaris_>4	B C B B A A
	13	Alisma plantago-aquatica_0_1 Ceratophyllum demersum_1_2 Chara globularis_0_1 Drepanocladus aduncus_>4 Equisetum fluviatile_2_4 Hydrocotyle vulgaris_2_4 Myriophyllum alterniflorum_>4 Nitella flexilis_0_1	B C B B B A A B
	14	Alisma plantago-aquatica_1_2	B

Table A .

 A 27Boundaries value and classes for Z-cmax.

	Polymictic lakes
	1) Z-c max is not considered for polymictic lakes
	2) Z-c max for polymictic lakes has other boundaries, reported in Table A.28
	Table A.28	Boundaries value and classes for Z-cmax, only for polymictic lakes.
	Polymictic lakes	Z-cmax % of maximum	EQR
			depth		normalised
	REF		100		1
	H/G		70		0.8
	G/M		50		0.6
	M/P		40		0.4
	P/B		30		0.2
	Z-cmax	L-AL3 L-AL4	EQR normalised
	(m)
	REF	-18	-8.5	1
	H/G	-12	-6.5	0.8
	G/M	-8.4	-6	0.6
	M/P	-6	-4.5	0.4
	P/B	-4.3	-3.5	0.2

Table A

 A

	.29	Boundary value and classes for Sk
		Sk	EQR normalised	EQR
	REF	0.66
	H/G	0.95	0.8	0.63
	G/M	0.72	0.6	0.47
	M/P	0.48	0.4	0.31
	P/B	0.24	0.2	0.16

Table A .

 A 30 Vk values for all species collected in Italy

	Species Species Species	Code Code Code	Vk Vk Vk
	Chara canescens Desv. & Lois Plagiomnium medium (B. & S.) T. Kop. Potamogeton filiformis Pers.	Cha can Pla med Pot fil	0,39 0,83 0,32
	Chara contraria A. Br. Rhizomnium punctatum (Hedw.) T. J. Kop. Potamogeton friesii Rupr.	Cha con Rhi pun Pot fri	0,34 0,83 0,28
	Chara delicatula Ag. Equisetum sp. Potamogeton gramineus L.	Cha del Equ sp. Pot gra	0,71 0,30 0,56
	Chara denudata Equisetum fluviatile L. Potamogeton lucens L.	Cha den Equ flu Pot luc	0,42 0,43 0,52
	Chara filiformis Equisetum palustre Potamogeton natans L.	Cha fil Equ pal Pot nat	0,25 0,30 0,38
	Chara globularis Thuill. Thelypteris palustris Potamogeton nodosus Poir.	Cha glo The pal Pot nod	0,55 0,33 0,00
	Chara gymnophylla A. Braun Callitriche hamulata Kutz ex W.D.J. Koch Potamogeton pectinatus L.	Cha gym Cal ham Pot pec	0,56 0,67 0,51
	Chara hispida L. Callitriche cophocarpa Potamogeton perfoliatus L.	Cha his Cal cop Pot per	0,29 0,45 0,60
	Chara intermedia A. Braun Callitriche obtusangula Le Gall Potamogeton praelongus Wulfen	Cha int Cal obt Pot pra	0,45 0,67 0,42
	Chara polyacantha A. Braun Ceratophyllum demersum L. Potamogeton pusillus L.	Cha pol Cer dem Pot pus	0,29 0,70 0,49
	Chara strigosa A. Braun Egeria densa Potamogeton x nitens Weber	Cha stri Ege den Pot nit	0,23 0,74 0,48
	Chara tomentosa Eleocharis acicularis (L) Roem et Schult Potamogeton sp.	Cha tom Ele aci Pot sp.	0,30 0,41 0,27
	Chara virgata Elodea canadensis Michx. Ranunculus aquatilis L.	Cha del Elo can Ran aqu	0,33 0,37 0,39
	Chara vulgaris L. Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H. St. John Ranunculus circinatus Sibth	Cha vul Elo nut Ran cir	0,55 0,62 0,43
	Chara sp. L. ex Vaillant Groenlandia densa (L.) Fourr. Ranunculus trichophyllus Chaix	Cha sp. Gro den Ran tri	0,61 0,49 0,68
	Nitella flexilis L. C.Ag. Hippuris vulgaris L. Ranunculus trichophyllus ssp. eradicatus Chaix	Nit fle Hip vul Ran era	0,44 0,49 0,25
	Nitella gracilis (Smith) Ag Lagarosiphon major Ranunculus	Nit gra Lag maj Ran sp.	0,51 0,66 0,55
	Nitella hyalina Lemna minor L. Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid	Nit hya Lem min Spi pol	0,52 0,40 0,80
	Nitella opaca Ag. Lemna trisulca L. Trapa natans L.	Nit opa Lem tri Tra nat	0,37 0,67 0,87
	Nitella syncarpa (Thuill.) Chevall. Littorella uniflora (L.) Ascherson Utricularia australis Thor	Nit syn Lit uni Utr aus	0,21 0,61 0,23
	Nitellopsis obtusa (Desv.) J. Groves Myriophyllum alterniflorum DC. Vallisneria spiralis L.	Nit obt Myr alt Val spi	0,32 0,00 0,76
	Tolypella glomerata Myriophyllum spicatum L. Zannichellia palustris L.	Tol glo Myr spi Zan pal	0,34 0,63 0,50
	Brachythecium rivulare Schimp. Myriophyllum verticillatum L.	Bra riv Myr ver	0,56 0,19
	Bryum sp. Najas flexilis (Willd.) Rostk. & W.L.E. Schmidt	Bry sp. Naj fle	0,39 0,29
	Calliergonella cuspidata Campylium stellatum Najas marina ssp. intermedia (Wolfg. ex Gorski) Casper	Cal cus Cam ste Naj int	0,83 0,81 0,43
	Cratoneuron filicinum Najas marina ssp. marina L.	Cra fil Naj mar	0,71 0,65
	Cratoneuron sp. (Sull.) Spruce Najas minor All.	Cra sp. Naj min	0,71 0,56
	Drepanocladus Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.	Dre sp. Nel nuc	0,83 0,94
	Fissidens adianthoides Hedw. Nuphar lutea (L.) Sibth. & Sm.	Fis adi Nup lut	0,80 0,65
	Fissidens sp. Hedw. Nuphar pumila (Timm) DC.	Fis sp. Nup pum	0,39 0,39
	Fontinalis antipyretica Hedw. Nuphar	Fon ant Nup sp.	0,47 0,39
	Fontinalis hypnoides Nymphaea alba L.	Fon hyp Nym alb	0,39 0,58
	Fontinalis sp. Nymphoides peltata (S. G. Gmelin) O. Kuntze	Fon sp. Nym pel	0,39 0,88
	Hygrohypnum sp. Persicaria amphibia (L.) Gray	Hyg sp. Per amp	0,83 0,43
	Leptodictyum riparium Potamogeton acutifolius Link	Lep rip Pot acu	0,52 0,39
	Palustriella commutata (Hedw.) Ochyra Potamogeton alpinus Balbis	Cra com Pot alp	0,71 0,26
	Platyhypnidium riparioides Potamogeton berchtoldii Fieber	Rhy rip Pot ber	0,56 0,00
	Species Plagiothecium sp. B., S. & G. Potamogeton crispus L.	Code Pla sp. Pot cri	Vk 0,71 0,51
	Chara aspera Deth. Ex Wild.	Cha asp	0,30

Table A

 A

	A.5 Slovenia
	.31	Boundary classes for Dissimilarity index
		EQR normalised
	REF
	H/G	0.8
	G/M	0.6
	M/P	0.4
	P/B	0.2

AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes), Slovenian macrophyte- based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE)

	Short description of the Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems
	(SMILE) given below incudes all crucial information for calculation of the SMILE and
	classification of the sampling sites in ecological status classess according to the Water
	Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/ES). Macrophyte data were obtained using the
	transect method (transects width is ca. 6 m) in two Alpine lakes (Bohinjsko jezero, Blejsko
	jezero).

Table A .

 A 34 Boundary setting between ecological status classes using Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE).

	Boundary	SMILE	Boundary setting
	High/Good	0,92	25 th percentile pressure class 1
	Good	0,53	25 th percentile pressure class 2
	/Moderate Moderate/Poo	0,36	Equidistant division (Good/Moderate-Lower
	r Poor /Bad	0,18	boundary) Equidistant division (Good/Moderate-Lower
			boundary)

Table A .

 A 35Piecewise linear transformation equations for Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE).

	Ecological status SMILE	Transformed SMILE
	High	>0.91	0.8+0.2*( SMILE-0.91)/(0.08)
	Good	0.53-0.91	0.6+0.2*( SMILE -0.52)/(0.38)
	Moderate	0.36-0.52	0.4+0.2*( SMILE -0.38)/(0.16)
	Poor	0.18-0.35	0.2+0.2*( SMILE -0.17)/(0.17)
	Bad	0.00-0.17	0.2*( SMILE)/(0.17)

Table A .

 A 36 Transformed boundary values between five ecological status classes using Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems (SMILE).

	Boundary	SMILE_transformed
	High/Good	0,8
	Good	0,6
	/Moderate Moderate/Poo	0,4
	r Poor /Bad	0,2

to100 transects, depending of lake size 3 to 8 observation units, depending of lake size

This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

Legal Notice

This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. JRC88126

Notetrophie= this score from 0 to 20 gives an estimation of the trophic level of the lake. It includes all the pressures linked or associated to the degradation of this trophic level (eutrophication, HYMO, general degradation, etc.)

Calculation rules

These rules allow a better representativeness of IBML metrics:  On the profiles and the littoral zone, at least 2 recorded taxa with CS and E are needed;  at least 3 observation units done on the lake;  the riparian types must be estimated on at least 70 % of the whole lake perimeter;  at least 50 % of the observation units (littoral zone or perpendicular profiles) including at least 2 taxa with CS and E.

Lake types

4 French lake types are defined according to the altitude and the alkalinity:

 B-Alc : low altitude (< 200 m) and high alkalinity (> 1 meq/l -1 );  B-Aci : low altitude (< 200 m) and low alkalinity (< 1 meq/l -1 );  H-Alc : high altitude (> 200 m) and high alkalinity (> 1 meq/l -1 );  H-Aci : high altitude (> 200 m) and low alkalinity (< 1 meq/l -1 ).

Normalization and standardization of the boundaries

A unified scale from "0" to "1" is suitable. The value "1" represents the best ecological status according to the WFD. The value "0" stands for the highest degree of degradation of a water body. First, the EQR values are normalized (where the minimum EQR value is 1/the reference value for "lakes types").

Then, the boundaries are transformed to EQR values, where H/G equals 0.8 and G/M equals 0.6 by a linear equation:

 B-Alc : y= 1.09*x -0.12  B-Aci : y= 1.13*x -0.15  H-Alc : y= 0.96*x -0.1  H-Aci : y=1.15*x -0.16 from reference communities. The resulting index values range from +100 (only species group A taxa) to -100 (only species group C taxa).

The additional criteria provided in Table A.22 used are type related correcting factors of the RI.

In order to calculate the Reference Index, the respective type specific characteristics and prerequisites have to be considered. In order to create a basis for comparison for the metrics Macrophytes and Diatoms and to obtain EQR values, the index values must be transformed. A unified scale from "0" to "1" is suitable. The value "1" represents the best ecological status according to the WFD, i.e. status class 1. The value "0" stands for the highest degree of degradation of a water body, i.e. status class 5. The transformation for the module "Macrophytes" (Reference Index, RI) is carried out according to Equation 2.

Summary

This document outlines how status is assigned for the biological quality element macrophytes and how boundaries will be assigned in Italy. We describe the Italian macrophytes assessment method, whose acronym is MacroIMMI (Macrophytic index for the evaluation of the ecological quality of the Italian lakes), composed by three metrics, Vegetation limit, Trophic score and Dissimilarity index and a threshold value (80%) for the abundance of the invasive species. The status assessment is based on lake type specific reference condition and consider species composition and abundance of hydrophytes of the lakes of the alpine region.

The final classification is obtained by the average of normalised EQR of the 3 single metrics as follows:

MacroIMMI = EQR Norm Sk + EQR Norm Zc _ lake + EQR Norm Dissimilarity _index 3

Additional criteria

When the abundance of exotic (Celesti-Grapow L., 2010) species is greater than 70 % of the total abundance of the macrophytes of the entire lake, the ecological status class is lowered to the previous class obtained from the calculation of MacroIMMI.

Calculation of normalised EQR

In order to allow combination of all metrics to a whole BQE assessment, each metric EQR has to be converted to the normalised scale with equal class widths and standardised class boundaries, where the HG, GM, MP, and PB boundaries are 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2 respectively. When using indices with classes ranges different from each other, the normalization equation is based on a linear interpolation between classes boundaries. Moreover, the interpolation process takes into account the reference value as upper limit of the High-Quality class (EQR and normalised EQR equal to 1) as well as the minimum EQR value as the lower threshold of the Bad-Quality class (normalised EQR equal to 0).

Therefore, the normalization equations will be different for each quality class, as below.

Reference values and class boundaries for each type

The approach to define reference sites of Alpine lakes, prepared by the Phytoplankton group of the Alpine GIG, was considered (see separate document of the Phytoplankton group). Furthermore the following criteria were used: In total, 83 lake assessment methods were submitted for the 2nd phase of the WFD intercalibration (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) and 62 intercalibrated and included in the EC Decision on Intercalibration (EC 2013). The intercalibration was carried out in the 13 Lake Geographical Intercalibration Groups according to the ecoregion and biological quality element. In this report we describe how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out in the Alpine Lake Macrophyte group.

Criteria Requirement

Lake