Minutes of the 3rd meeting in Vigo 8/9-11- 2001

European Aquatic Modelling  Network (EAMN)

 

Working Group on “Raw Data” (WG1)

 

State-of-the-art

After setting up the general structure of the state-of-the-art report in Trondheim and developing questionnaires, the WG1 was starting to collect information and prepared preliminary drafts before meeting again in Vigo.

The questionnaires were send out to all members of the COST Action after the Trondheim meeting. Analyses and presentations of the preliminary results of the questionnaires during the Vigo meeting showed that this information represents a fruitful contribution to the state-of-the-art report. Although we received about 70 questionnaires the preliminary analyses showed that some experts we are aware have not yet send their forms. Therefore we decided to extend the deadline for sending back required information to 1 Dec 2001.

Contents of State-of-the-Art report see Appendix.

 

New and final deadlines for the state-of-the-art report

 

1 Dec 2001: Last chance to send back questionnaires

 

1 Feb 2002: Drafts of State-of-the-Art reports

 

1 Mar 2002: Comments on State-of-the-Art reports from all COST members

 

1 Apr 2002: Final version of State-of-the-Art reports

 

Research needs

Information on research needs were collected via e-mail request. A list of research needs was presented during the Vigo meeting. A draft report will be prepared and send out before the Finnland meeting.

 

Preparation of Finnland meeting 30/31 Mai 2002

 

The main tasks for the Finnland meeting will be:

 

 

 

 

Structure of the State-of-the-Art report of the WG1

(including responsibilities)

 

Instrumentation (I) & Measurement Techniques (MT)

 

1.      State of the Art

1.1.    Best available I&MT

1.1.1.           Parameters

1.1.1.1.      Velocity

1.1.1.2.      Shear Stresses

1.1.1.3.      Water depth

1.1.1.4.      Discharge

1.1.1.5.      Morphology

1.1.1.6.      Suspended Load

1.1.1.7.      Bed Load

1.1.2.           Instruments

1.1.2.1.      Velocity

1.1.2.2.      Shear Stress

1.1.2.3.      Water depth

1.1.2.4.      Discharge

1.1.2.5.      Morphology

1.1.2.6.      Suspended Load

1.1.2.7.      Bed Load

1.2.    Available I&MT of the Cost-Members (out of questionaires)

1.2.1.           Details see chapter 1.1

1.3.    I&M for further use (definition)

1.3.1.           High, good, moderate status of I & MT

1.3.2.           Highest resolution

1.3.3.           Easiest handling

1.3.4.           „Cheapest and best“

2.      Research needs

2.1.    I for data collection - velocity, morphology, substrate, cover

2.2.    MT for data collection - velocity, morphology, substrate, cover

2.3.    Data interpolation in space

2.4.    Grid dimensions (for key species, single parameters ...)

2.5.    Data quality (1-2-3 D, resolution, single point, time series ...)

2.6.    Exchange of information (other working groups) !!

3.     Data structure

3.1.    Best available data structure (distribution in space)

3.2.    Digital terrain model (morphology)

3.3.    Velocities       

3.3.1.           2+3D vectors

3.3.2.           Mean velocities

3.3.3.           Bottom near velocities

3.4.    Substrate

3.4.1.           Maps (overlay)

3.4.2.           Grain size 

3.4.3.           Percentage

3.5.    Cover

3.5.1.           Maps

3.6.    Discharge

3.7.    Water levels

4.      Grid size

4.1.    Amount of collected data

4.2.    Grid size

4.2.1.           Grid size for key species

4.2.2.           Grid size for single parameters

4.3.    High quality interpolation modules (costs)

4.4.    Widening and lowering the grid size (10/10/10cm – meters)

4.4.1.           (single key species, bottom near, open water zone .. )

 

 

5.     Output

5.1.    Cuts of the DTM

5.2.    Specific information

5.2.1.           examples: equivelocitylines in a cross section

5.2.2.           shear stress in a longitudinal cut

5.2.3.           water levels (different discharges)

6.     Problems

 

 

6.1.   lots of different I&M

6.2.     “gap“ old and new technologies (Comparison of data,..)

6.3.    huge amount of data (management problems)

6.4.    costs

 

Macroinvertebrates

 

1. Objectives  Javier Alba-Tercedor, Maria Angeles Puig, Timo Muotka, Peter Goethals, Nikolai Friberg & Alain Dohet

2. Sampling sites and protocols  Javier Alba-Tercedor, Timo Muotka, Peter Goethals, Nikolai Friberg & Alain Dohet

2.1. Protocols and standardisation  Javier Alba-Tercedor, Alain Dohet & Peter Goethals

2.1.1. Training  Javier Alba-Tercedor

2.1.2. Sampling  Javier Alba-Tercedor

2.1.3. Sample processing  Javier Alba-Tercedor

2.1.4. Identification  Alain Dohet

2.1.5. Database setup and maintenance  Peter Goethals

2.2. Scale (spatial/temporal resolution)  Timo Muotka, Nikolai Friberg & Alain Dohet

2.2.1. Micro-habitats (size of sample)  Timo Muotka

2.2.2. Meso-habitats (morphological entities: riffles, pools, ...)  Timo Muotka

2.2.3. Macro-habitats (river stretch)  Timo Muotka

2.2.4. Different identification level and additional measurements   Timo Muotka, Nikolai Friberg & Alain Dohet

2.3. Sampling design  Peter Goethals

2.4. Sampling methods  Peter Goethals

2.5. Comparison of standard methods between different European countries  Javier Alba-Tercedor

3. Identification level  Alain Dohet

3.1. Taxonomists (identification keys)  Alain Dohet

3.2. Identification costs  Alain Dohet

4. Relations between physical and biological components  Nikolai Friberg & Maria Angeles Puig

5. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)  Javier Alba-Tercedor, Alain Dohet & Peter Goethals

5.1. Training  Javier Alba-Tercedor

5.2. Sampling  Javier Alba-Tercedor

5.3. Sample processing  Javier Alba-Tercedor

5.4. Identification  Alain Dohet

5.5. Database setup and maintenance  Peter Goethals

6. Conclusions  Javier Alba-Tercedor, Maria Angeles Puig, Timo Muotka, Peter Goethals, Nikolai Friberg & Alain Dohet

Fish

 

-          Fish data sampling

-          Microhabitat modelling (Responsibility: proposed Ari Husko, draft received)

-          Mesohabitat modelling (Responsibility: proposed Teppo Vehanen, draft received)

-          Catchment scale (Responsibility: Armin Peter)

 

-          Single species/life stage versus community modelling (Responsibility: Stefan Schmutz, draft received)

 

-          Habitat supplied population modelling (Responsibility: Dave Scruton)

 

-          Experimental channels (Testing and validation under controlled conditions) (Responsibility: Mari Nyakänen, draft received)

 

-          Measurement of physical habitat from a fish perspective

-          Microhabitat modelling including bioenergetic models (Responsibility: Jo Halvard)

-          Mesohabitat modelling (Responsibility: Jo Halvard)

-          Catchment scale (Responsibility: Armin Peter, Berthold Kappus)