ICP-WATERS REPORT 62/2001 Intercalibration 0005: Invertebrate fauna CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAMME ON ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF ACIDIFICATION OF RIVERS AND LAKES Intercalibration 0005: Invertebrate fauna ICP Waters Programme Subcentre Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries University of Bergen, April 2001 ICP Waters report 62/2001 Preface The International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Acidification of Rivers and Lakes (ICP Water) was established under the Executive Body of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution at its third session in Helsinki in July 1985. The Executive Body has also accepted Norway's offer to provide facilities for the Programme Centre, which has been established at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, NIVA. A programme subcentre is established at the Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries at University of Bergen. The ICP Water programme has been lead by Berit Kvæven, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. The Programme objective is to establish an international network of surface water monitoring sites and promote international harmonization of monitoring practices. One of the tools in this work is an inter-laboratory quality assurance test. The bias between analyses carried out by the individual participants of the Programme has to be clearly identified and controlled. We here report the results from the 5th intercalibration on invertebrate fauna. Bergen, April 2001 Gunnar G.Raddum ICP Waters report 62/2001 Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Methods 6 2.1 Preparation of test-samples 6 3. Results and discussion 7 4. Evaluation/conclusion 10 5. References 11 Appendix A. Identified species/genus 12 Appendix B. Reports and publications from the ICP Waters Programme 23 4 ICP Waters report 62/2001 1. Introduction The purpose of the biological intercalibration is to evaluate the quality of the biological material delivered to the Programme centre. The quality can influence on the evaluation of the acidification index, which is based on the species and their tolerance (Raddum et al. 1988, Fjellheim and Raddum 1990). The control is therefore important for evaluation of the significance of trends in the acidification index both for a specific site/watershed, as well as for comparisons of trends between different regions and countries. During the last years the material is also used for multivariate statistical analysis (Larsen et al. 1996). This type of data treatment is especially sensitive to the quality of the species identification. The intercalibration of biological material will in general put focus on the taxonomic work and through this be a basis for improving the quality and detect weak fields at the different laboratories. The methods for intercalibration of biological material were outlined in 1991 at the 7th task force meeting of the International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Acidification of Rivers and Lakes in Galway, Ireland. The different countries/laboratories have to know, first of all, their home fauna. Since the fauna in different geographical regions vary, it is necessary to prepare specific samples for each participating laboratory, based on their home fauna. It is a problem for the exercise of the intercalibration that it is not possible to use standardized samples for all participants. To solve this problem each laboratory send samples of invertebrates from their own monitoring sites to the Programme centre. Based on this material each laboratory receive individual test samples composed of the fauna from their own monitoring region. One problem with this procedure is that the Programme centre needs material from the different areas in the ICP Water region. This material have to be collected, identified and send by the participating laboratories to the centre for making test samples. For the tests carried out in 2000 only three laboratories sent material from their home region to the Programme centre. For the other participants we made samples based on Norwegian material and “left over” material received from other countries. Laboratory 5 participated for the first time in the intercalibration of invertebrates. The Laboratory was one of the laboratories that got Norwegian test material. The two other laboratories were number 2 and 3. It is suggested that the Norwegian fauna is quite similar to what Laboratory 3 has in their home region. For Laboratory 2 the Norwegian fauna will contain some species that do not exist in their country. The largest difference between the Norwegian fauna and “the laboratory home fauna” will be for Laboratory 5. They have informed us that they mainly work with water chemical issues, but want to build up expertise on invertebrates. They therefore wanted to take part in the test so they could get experience in this type of work. They have also informed us that about 30 % of the Norwegian fauna will not occur in their home region. They have therefore got the most unfair test samples. This and the situation of being a newcomer should be kept in mind when looking at the results. However, we have treated the results from all the laboratories in the same way. This is important for harmonising the biological database for later comparisons on a larger scale. 5 ICP Waters report 62/2001 2. Methods 2.1 Preparation of test-samples Three of the participating laboratories have delivered samples from their own region for the intercalibration in 2000. Between 250 and 300 identified invertebrates have been received. In addition we had some surplus material from earlier exercises, which also was used. All together the material made up a diverse pool of organisms on which the test-samples have been prepared. Species living in the home country of the laboratory have mainly been used in the test material, but in some cases species from other regions have been included in need of species. The other three participating laboratories did not send testmaterial to the Programme centre. For these participants we made testsamples based on Norwegian material and some surplus material from other countries. However, this is not fair for these laboratories since some of the species will not occur in their region. Identification When preparing the biological test-samples we try to be as accurate as possible when composing the samples concerning the species put in the sample as well as the number of individuals. To minimise possible faults the following procedure have been used for the three laboratories that have sent us material: The participating country has first identified the source material for the test samples. Two of us have verified the identification of the species/taxa as far as possible. The content of the two test samples for each laboratory, with respect to species and numbers, is listed in a table. Two persons control that the right number and species is placed in the samples according to the list. For the participants that did not send us material for making the test samples, we have used Norwegian – and surplus material from other countries. The participating laboratory has therefore not earlier identified the source material for these samples. Due to this the content of the test samples will only relay on the skill of the Programme centre, which is not an ideal situation. Except for this, the same procedure as mentioned for the other laboratories is followed. Damages of the material When handling invertebrates there is a risk of reducing the quality of the material with respect to taxonomic work. Important taxonomically parts as gills, legs, moth parts etc. can be lost/destroyed during handling connected with identification, sample composition and transportation. Contamination of larvae can also happen during these processes as well as during the identification work at the participating laboratories. All mentioned possibilities for faults may influence on the results of the identifications and disturb the results in a negative way. 6 ICP Waters report 62/2001 3. Results and discussion Six laboratories participated in the sixth intercalibration of invertebrates in 2000. Three of the laboratories number 1, 3 and 6 sent us source material, while the other three got samples based on Norwegian material. Laboratory 5 gives the number of individuals for sample 1, while identified species/taxa for sample 2 are indicated by x. We have therefore split the results from the laboratory into 5a (sample 1) and 5b (sample 2). The test samples delivered - and the results of the identification by the different laboratories are shown in Appendix Tables 1 - 6. For calculation of faults (in percent), we must take into account possible destructions of the material as mentioned above. Further, a wrong identification of a species is one fault even if the sample contain many individuals of the species. For some species, in the same genus, the time of sampling is important for discrimination between them. Faults made on species where time of sampling is important for determination have been neglected. Misidentification of species where important taxonomic characters easily disappear during handling, are also neglected. We have discriminated between "short coming" identification, probably due to damaged material, and virtual fault (wrong species - or genus name). From the factors mentioned above some subjective evaluation of the results have to be made when evaluating the quality of the determinations. For the evaluation it is also of interest to know the fraction of "short coming" identification. "Short coming" identification is given in percent of the number of individuals, and is named % identified. Mayflies Laboratory 1, 3 and 4 identified the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) without any faults (Figure 1). Also laboratory 6 was very good, but did not go to species level for all the individuals. Laboratory 2 identified all individuals to species level, but did some misidentifications. All together the result is regarded as well within the acceptable level. Laboratory 5 (5a and 5b) made more faults and the results are not regarded as acceptable for statistical analyses.