Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPOIKANE SANDRAen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPORTIELJE ROBen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDENYS LUCen_GB
dc.contributor.authorELFERTS DIDZISen_GB
dc.contributor.authorKELLY MARTYNen_GB
dc.contributor.authorKOLADA AGNIEZSKAen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMAEMETS HELLEen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPHILLIPS GEOFFen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSONDERGAARD MARTINen_GB
dc.contributor.authorWILLBY NIGELen_GB
dc.contributor.authorVAN DEN BERG MARCELen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-22T00:22:39Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-20en_GB
dc.date.available2018-07-22T00:22:39Z-
dc.date.created2018-07-16en_GB
dc.date.issued2018en_GB
dc.date.submitted2018-05-14en_GB
dc.identifier.citationECOLOGICAL INDICATORS vol. 94 no. Part 1 p. 185-197en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1470-160Xen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X1830503Xen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC111950-
dc.description.abstractThe European Water Framework Directive has been adopted by Member States to assess and manage the ecological integrity of surface waters. Specific challenges include harmonizing diverse assessment systems across Europe, linking ecological assessment to restoration measures and reaching a common view on ʽgoodʼ ecological status. In this study, nine national macrophyte-based approaches for assessing ecological status were compared and harmonized, using a large dataset of 539 European lakes. A macrophyte common metric, representing the average standardized view of each lake by all countries, was used to compare national methods. This was also shown to reflect the total phosphorus (r2=0.32), total nitrogen (r2=0.22) as well as chlorophyll-a (r2=0.35-0.38) gradients, providing a link between ecological data, stressors and management decisions. Despite differing assessment approaches and initial differences in classification, a consensus was reached on how type-specific macrophyte assemblages change across the ecological status gradient and where ecological status boundaries should lie. A marked decline in submerged vegetation, especially Charophyta (characterizing ʽgoodʼ status), and an increase in abundance of free-floating plants (characterizing ʽless than goodʼ status) were the most significant changes along the ecological status gradient. Macrophyte communities of ʽgoodʼ status lakes were diverse with many charophytes and several Potamogeton species. A large number of taxa occurred across the entire gradient, but only a minority dominated at ʽless than goodʼ status, including filamentous algae, lemnids, nymphaeids, and several elodeids (e.g., Zannichellia palustris and Elodea nuttallii). Our findings establish a ʽguiding imageʼ of the macrophyte community at ʽgoodʼ ecological status in hard-water lakes of the Central-Baltic region of Europe.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resourcesen_GB
dc.format.mediumOnlineen_GB
dc.languageENGen_GB
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE BVen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJRC111950en_GB
dc.titleMacrophyte assessment in European lakes: Diverse approaches but convergent views of ʽgoodʼ ecological statusen_GB
dc.typeArticles in periodicals and booksen_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.056en_GB
JRC Directorate:Sustainable Resources

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.