Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 203–211 | Cite as

Chlorophyll reference conditions for European lake types used for intercalibration of ecological status

  • L. CarvalhoEmail author
  • A. Solimini
  • G. Phillips
  • M. van den Berg
  • O-P. Pietiläinen
  • A. Lyche Solheim
  • S. Poikane
  • U. Mischke


The Water Framework Directive (WFD), requires European Member States to assess the “ecological status” of surface waters. As part of this, many European countries have developed an ecological quality classification scheme for chlorophyll concentrations as a measure of phytoplankton abundance. The assessment of ecological quality must be based on the degree of divergence of a water body from an appropriate baseline, or ‘reference condition’. It is, therefore, necessary to determine chlorophyll reference conditions for all European lake types. This involves examining how chlorophyll concentrations vary by lake type, in the absence of any nutrient pressures from agriculture or wastewater. For this purpose, a dataset of 540 European lakes considered to be in a relatively undisturbed reference condition has been assembled, including data on chlorophyll concentration, altitude, mean depth, alkalinity, humic content, surface area and geographical region. Chlorophyll was found to vary with lake type and geographical region, and to be naturally highest in low-altitude, very shallow, high alkalinity and humic lake types and naturally lowest in clear, deep, low alkalinity lakes. The results suggest that light and mineral availability are important drivers of chlorophyll concentrations in undisturbed lakes. Descriptive statistics (median and percentiles) of chlorophyll concentrations were calculated from populations of lakes in this reference lake dataset and used to derive lake-type specific reference chlorophyll concentrations. These reference conditions can be applied, through a comparison with observed chlorophyll concentrations at a site, in the assessments of ecological status and provide a consistent baseline to adopt for European countries.


Lake Phytoplankton Water Framework Directive Baseline Rebecca 



This study was partly financed by the European Framework 6 Project REBECCA ‘Relationships Between Ecological and Chemical Status of Surface Waters’, Contract No.: SSPI-CT-2003-502158. We would like to thank our colleagues in the project, GIG representatives and other national bodies for providing data. We also thank Jannicke Moe (NIVA) for her invaluable work building up the REBECCA Project lake database.


  1. Anonymous (2003) River and lakes—typology, reference conditions and classification systems. Guidance No 10. CIS Working Group 2.3 REFCOND, European Communities, Luxembourg, 87p.Google Scholar
  2. Arvola L, Eloranta P, Järvinen M, Keskitalo J, Holopainen A-L (1999) Phytoplankton. In: Eloranta P, Keskitalo J (eds) Limnology of humic waters. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 137–171Google Scholar
  3. Bennion H, Fluin J, Simpson GL (2004) Assessing eutrophication and reference conditions for Scotish freshwater lochs using subfossil diatoms. J Appl Ecol 41:124–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardoso AC, Solimini A, Premazzi G, Carvalho L, Lyche Solheim A, Rekolainen S (2007) Phosphorus reference concentrations in European lakes. Hydrobiologia 584:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillon PJ, Kirchner WB (1975) The effects of geology and land use on the export of phosphorus from watersheds. Water Res 9:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Maindonald J, Braun J (2007) Data analysis and graphics using R. An example based approach, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Moe SJ, Dudley B, Ptacnik R (2008) REBECCA databases: experiences from compilation and analyses of monitoring data from 5,000 lakes in 20 European countries. Aquat Ecol (this issue), doi: 10.1007/s10452-008-9190-y Google Scholar
  8. Münster U (1999) Bioavailability of nutrients. In: Eloranta P, Keskitalo J (eds) Limnology of humic waters. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  9. Nürnberg GK, Shaw M (1999) Productivity of clear and humic lakes: nutrients, phytoplankton, bacteria. Hydrobiologia 382:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Salonen K, Holopainen A-L, Keskitalo J (2002) Regular high contribution of Gonyostomum semen to phytoplankton biomass in a small humic lake. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 28:488–491Google Scholar
  11. Scheffer M (1998) The ecology of shallow lakes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Van de Bund W, Cardoso AC, Heiskanen A-S, Nõges P (2004) Overview of common intercalibration types.
  13. Vighi M, Chiaudani G (1985) A simple method to estimate lake phosphorus concentrations resulting from natural, background, loadings. Water Res 19:987–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Carvalho
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Solimini
    • 2
  • G. Phillips
    • 3
  • M. van den Berg
    • 4
  • O-P. Pietiläinen
    • 5
  • A. Lyche Solheim
    • 2
    • 6
  • S. Poikane
    • 2
  • U. Mischke
    • 7
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Joint Research Centre (JRC)IspraItaly
  3. 3.Environment Agency (EA)ReadingUK
  4. 4.Institute for Inland Water Management (RIZA)LelystadNetherlands
  5. 5.Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  6. 6.Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)OsloNorway
  7. 7.Leibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei (IGB)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations