Member State report / Art11 / 2014-2020 / D4 / Sweden / Baltic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 11 Monitoring programmes (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2014-10-15; 2020-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D4 Food webs/D1 Ecosystems |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Reported by | Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management |
| Report date | 2014-10-31; 2020-10-16 |
| Report access |
2014 data
2020 data
| Monitoring programme | Monitoring programme name | MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Birds |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Fish |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_Mammals |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D1_4_6_WaterColumnHabitats |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
MP_D3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring programme | Reference existing programme | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monitoring programme | Marine Unit ID | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q4e - Programme ID | BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Birds-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
BALSE-Fish-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
ANSSE-mammals-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-PEL-D14 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
BALSE-COMFISH-D3 |
|
| Q4f - Programme description |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
|
| Q5e - Natural variability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Q5d - Adequacy for assessment of GES | Q5d - Adequate data | N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
| Q5d - Adequacy for assessment of GES | Q5d - Established methods | N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q5d - Adequacy for assessment of GES | Q5d - Adequate understanding of GES | N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q5d - Adequacy for assessment of GES | Q5d - Adequate capacity | Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q5f - Description of programme for GES assessment |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats and chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet.
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, table
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
e. See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats (last section)
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
a. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
b. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
c. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
d. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
e. See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
|
| Q5g - Gap-filling date for GES assessment | By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
After2020 |
After2020 |
After2020 |
After2020 |
After2020 |
|
| Q5h - Plans to implement monitoring for GES assessment |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
|
| Q6a -Relevant targets | Q6a - Environmental target | C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
A.1 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
C.3 C.4 |
||||||||||||
| Q6a -Relevant targets | Q6a - Associated indicator | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q6b - Adequacy for assessment of targets | Q6b_SuitableData | N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q6b - Adequacy for assessment of targets | Q6b_EstablishedMethods | N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q6b - Adequacy for assessment of targets | Q6d_AdequateCapacity | Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Q6c - Target updating | Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
| Q6d - Description of programme for targets assessment |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Bedömning av tillräcklighet, section Miljökvalitetsnormer
|
|
| Q6e - Gap-filling date for targets assessment | By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2020 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2020 |
By2018 |
By2020 |
By2018 |
By2020 |
By2018 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
|
| Q6f - Plans to implement monitoring for targets assessment |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Slutsatser
|
|
| Q7a - Relevant activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Q7b - Description of monitoring of activities |
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Fåglar (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - fisk (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald – Marina däggdjur (D1 och 4), chapter Programmets generella ansats, and Slutsatser (Noise)
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See Programme Pelagiska livsmiljöer, Chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
See programme Biologisk mångfald - Kommersiellt nyttjade fiskar och skaldjur (D3), chapter Programmets generella ansats
|
|
| Q7c - Relevant measures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Adequate data | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Established methods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Adequate understanding of GES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Adequate capacity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Addresses activities and pressures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7e - Adequacy for assessment of measures | Q7d - Addresses effectiveness of measures | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7d - Description of monitoring for measures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q7f - Gap-filling date for activities and measures | By2020 |
By2014 |
By2020 |
By2014 |
By2020 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2018 |
By2014 |
By2018 |
By2014 |
By2018 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
By2014 |
|
| Q8a - Links to existing Monitoring Programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Reference sub-programme | Sub-programme ID | BALSE-Birds-D14-Hackande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Hackande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Overvintrande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Overvintrande |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Havsorn |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Havsorn |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Al |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Al |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Lax |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Lax |
BALSE-Fish-D14-Kust |
BALSE-Fish-D14-Kust |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Fiskhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Fiskhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Salhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Salhalsa |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Sal |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Sal |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Tumlare |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Tumlare |
BALSE-EUTRO-D514-Syre |
BALSE-EUTRO-D514-Syre |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Algblomning |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Algblomning |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Pigment |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Pigment |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Vaxtplankton |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Vaxtplankton |
||||||||||||
| Reference sub-programme | Sub-programme name | Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Water column - chemical characteristics |
Water column - chemical characteristics |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Other |
Other |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - mortality/injury rates from fisheries (targeted and/or incidental) |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - mortality/injury rates from fisheries (targeted and/or incidental) |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
| Q4g - Sub-programmes | Sub-programme ID | BALSE-Birds-D14-Hackande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Hackande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Overvintrande |
BALSE-Birds-D14-Overvintrande |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Havsorn |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Havsorn |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Al |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Al |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Lax |
BALSE-COMFISH-D314-Lax |
BALSE-Fish-D14-Kust |
BALSE-Fish-D14-Kust |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Fiskhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Fiskhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Salhalsa |
BALSE-HAZ-D814-Salhalsa |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Sal |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Sal |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Tumlare |
BALSE-mammals-D14-Tumlare |
BALSE-EUTRO-D514-Syre |
BALSE-EUTRO-D514-Syre |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Algblomning |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Algblomning |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Pigment |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Pigment |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Vaxtplankton |
BALSE-PEL-D145-Vaxtplankton |
||||||||||||
| Q4g - Sub-programmes | Sub-programme name | Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - health status |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Water column - chemical characteristics |
Water column - chemical characteristics |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Other |
Other |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Plankton blooms (biomass, frequency) |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - mortality/injury rates from fisheries (targeted and/or incidental) |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - mortality/injury rates from fisheries (targeted and/or incidental) |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
| Q4k - Monitoring purpose | StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
StateImpact |
|||||||||||||
| Q4l - Links of monitoring programmes of other Directives and Conventions | "Sub-programme Marine breeding birds abundance in HELCOM Monitoring Manual
Data from the sub-programme contribute to:
Birds Directive
African European Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) and the Ramsar convention. |
"Sub-programme Marine breeding birds abundance in HELCOM Monitoring Manual
Data from the sub-programme contribute to:
Birds Directive
African European Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) and the Ramsar convention. |
Sub-programme Marine wintering birds abundance in HELCOM Monitoring Manual
Data from the sub-programme contribute to:
Birds Directive
Habitats Directive
African European Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) and the Ramsar convention.
The monitoring of wintering seabirds are part of the international seabird surveys which are coordinated by Wetlands International. |
Sub-programme Marine wintering birds abundance in HELCOM Monitoring Manual
Data from the sub-programme contribute to:
Birds Directive
Habitats Directive
African European Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) and the Ramsar convention.
The monitoring of wintering seabirds are part of the international seabird surveys which are coordinated by Wetlands International. |
Sub-programme Marine bird health in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
Sub-programme Marine bird health in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
Monitoring is part of the Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Migratory fish |
Monitoring is part of the Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Migratory fish |
Monitoring is part of the Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Migratory fish |
Monitoring is part of the Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Migratory fish |
WFD monitoring
Monitoring for the Habitats directive
CFP
HELCOM Monitoring Manual - sub-programme Costal fish |
WFD monitoring
Monitoring for the Habitats directive
CFP
HELCOM Monitoring Manual - sub-programme Costal fish |
"HELCOM COMBINE supporting programme
http://helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and-assessment/manuals-and-guidelines/combine-manual" |
"HELCOM COMBINE supporting programme
http://helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and-assessment/manuals-and-guidelines/combine-manual" |
Sub-programme Health status in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
Sub-programme Health status in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
Habitats Directive
Helcom monitoring manual - Sub-programme Seal abundance |
Habitats Directive
Helcom monitoring manual - Sub-programme Seal abundance |
Habitats Directive
Helcom monitoring manual - Sub-programme 3: Harbour porpoise abundance |
Habitats Directive
Helcom monitoring manual - Sub-programme 3: Harbour porpoise abundance |
WFD monitoring programme
Sub-programme O2, pH, pCO2, H2S in Helcom monitoring manual |
WFD monitoring programme
Sub-programme O2, pH, pCO2, H2S in Helcom monitoring manual |
OSPAR JAMP theme E
|
OSPAR JAMP theme E
|
"WFD monitoring programme
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Pigments |
"WFD monitoring programme
Helcom monitoring manual - sub-programme Pigments |
"WFD monitoring programme
Sub-programme Species composition, abundance and biomass in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
"WFD monitoring programme
Sub-programme Species composition, abundance and biomass in HELCOM Monitoring Manual |
|||||||||||||
| Q5c - Features | Q5c - Habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q5c - Features | Q5c - Species list |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Q5c - Features | Q5c - Physical/Chemical features | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q5c - Features | Q5c - Pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9a - Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Q5a - GES criteria | Relevant GES criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Q5b - GES indicators | Relevant GES indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Species distribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Species population size |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Species population characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Species impacts |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Habitat distribution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Habitat extent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Habitat condition (physical-chemical) |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Habitat condition (biological) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (state/impact) | Habitat impacts |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (pressures) | Pressure input | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (pressures) | Pressure output | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b - Parameters monitored (activity) | Activity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9b Parameters monitored (other) | Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q41 Spatial scope | WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_TW WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_TW WFD_CW TerritorialWaters EEZ BeyondMSwaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters |
WFD_CW TerritorialWaters |
|||||||||||||
| Q4j - Description of spatial scope |
See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Rumslig och tidssmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Rumslig och tidssmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - ål, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - ål, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - lax, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - lax, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig omfattning
|
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig omfattning
|
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
Se sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
Se sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Växtplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
See sub-programme Växtplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
|
|||||||||||||
| Marine Unit IDs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Q4h - Temporal scope | Start date- End date | 2010-9999 |
2010-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1965-9999 |
1965-9999 |
2004-9999 |
2004-9999 |
2004-9999 |
2004-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1977-9999 |
1977-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1975-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
- |
- |
1902-9999 |
1902-9999 |
2002-9999 |
2002-9999 |
1982-9999 |
1982-9999 |
1983-9999 |
1983-9999 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Q9h - Temporal resolution of sampling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Q9c - Monitoring method | "Censuses of breeding seabirds in the Bothnian Bay
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vasterbotten/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/Publikationer/2010/Samordnad%20%C3%B6vervakning%20kustf%C3%A5gel%20BV.pdf |
"Censuses of breeding seabirds in the Bothnian Bay
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vasterbotten/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/Publikationer/2010/Samordnad%20%C3%B6vervakning%20kustf%C3%A5gel%20BV.pdf |
Standardized censuses of wintering birds, in accordance with IWC methods. Censuses of birds - individual counts of staging and wintering seabirds - BIN 16.1 and BIN 16.3, Naturvårdsverket 1978 http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/BIN_F_16_sjofagel.pdf |
Standardized censuses of wintering birds, in accordance with IWC methods. Censuses of birds - individual counts of staging and wintering seabirds - BIN 16.1 and BIN 16.3, Naturvårdsverket 1978 http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/BIN_F_16_sjofagel.pdf |
"Undersökningstyp Havsörn, bestånd
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/havsorn.pdf" |
"Undersökningstyp Havsörn, bestånd
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/havsorn.pdf" |
Test fishing is carried out according to methods under revison and descriptions of methods will be avalible on the web in the future. |
Test fishing is carried out according to methods under revison and descriptions of methods will be avalible on the web in the future. |
Test fishing is carried out according to methods under revison and descriptions of methods will be avalible on the web in the future. |
Test fishing is carried out according to methods under revison and descriptions of methods will be avalible on the web in the future. |
Test fishing with nets according to the Swedish monitoring method described in "Provfiske i Östersjöns kustområden- Djupstratifierat provfiske med Nordiska kustöversiktsnät". https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280005491/1348912813575/undersokstyp-provfiske-ostersjon-kustomraden-djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.pdf |
Test fishing with nets according to the Swedish monitoring method described in "Provfiske i Östersjöns kustområden- Djupstratifierat provfiske med Nordiska kustöversiktsnät". https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280005491/1348912813575/undersokstyp-provfiske-ostersjon-kustomraden-djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.pdf |
"Undersökningstyp Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk – biologiska effekter på subcellulär och cellulär nivå
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/fiskhalso.pdf" |
"Undersökningstyp Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk – biologiska effekter på subcellulär och cellulär nivå
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/fiskhalso.pdf" |
"Undersökningstyp Patologi hos gråsäl, vikaresäl och knubbsäl
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/salpatologi.pdf" |
"Undersökningstyp Patologi hos gråsäl, vikaresäl och knubbsäl
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/vagledning/miljoovervakning/Handledning/Metoder/Undersokningstyper/kust%20och%20hav/salpatologi.pdf" |
Bestånd av knubbsäl och
vikaresäl
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280003193/1348912813047/Metodbeskrivning+Best%C3%A5nd+av+knubbs%C3%A4l+och+vikares%C3%A4l.pdf
Gråsälbestånd
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280003206/1348912813096/Metodbeskrivning+Gr%C3%A5s%C3%A4lsbest%C3%A5nd.pdf
"Gråsälsbestånd" will soon be replaced by an updated version at the following webpage:
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/miljoovervakningens-metoder-och-undersokningstyper-inom-programomrade-kust-och-hav.html |
Bestånd av knubbsäl och
vikaresäl
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280003193/1348912813047/Metodbeskrivning+Best%C3%A5nd+av+knubbs%C3%A4l+och+vikares%C3%A4l.pdf
Gråsälbestånd
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb280003206/1348912813096/Metodbeskrivning+Gr%C3%A5s%C3%A4lsbest%C3%A5nd.pdf
"Gråsälsbestånd" will soon be replaced by an updated version at the following webpage:
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/miljoovervakningens-metoder-och-undersokningstyper-inom-programomrade-kust-och-hav.html |
The SAMBAH surveys; Acoustic monitoring.
http://www.sambah.org/Methods.htm |
The SAMBAH surveys; Acoustic monitoring.
http://www.sambah.org/Methods.htm |
Undersökningstyp: Syrehalt i bottenvatten, https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb2800020/1348912814827/Syrehalt+i+bottenvatten.pdf |
Undersökningstyp: Syrehalt i bottenvatten, https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.64f5b3211343cffddb2800020/1348912814827/Syrehalt+i+bottenvatten.pdf |
The satellite calibrate their data against a fixed buoy each day as it passes over the buoy. The satellites reading is then compared with the buoy's registration. The raw data that are are transmitted from the satellite are brought together and each pixel in the images gets a mark of quality and areas where the images have missed some areas are marked. |
The satellite calibrate their data against a fixed buoy each day as it passes over the buoy. The satellites reading is then compared with the buoy's registration. The raw data that are are transmitted from the satellite are brought together and each pixel in the images gets a mark of quality and areas where the images have missed some areas are marked. |
HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b, se Annex HC-C-4 för metod), will be replaced with HELCOM monitoring manual. |
HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b, se Annex HC-C-4 för metod), will be replaced with HELCOM monitoring manual. |
"Växtplankton - HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b, se Annex C6)
Primärproduktion - HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b)" |
"Växtplankton - HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b, se Annex C6)
Primärproduktion - HELCOM COMBINE Manual (Helcom 2014b)" |
|||||||||||||
| Q9d - Description of alteration to method | Time series started before 2002 are carried out according to the Swedish monitoring method described in "Provfiske med kustöversikttsnät, nätlänkar och ryssjor ". |
Time series started before 2002 are carried out according to the Swedish monitoring method described in "Provfiske med kustöversikttsnät, nätlänkar och ryssjor ". |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q9e - Quality assurance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Q9f - Quality control | Unknown |
Unknown |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
Unknown |
Unknown |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
RealValidation |
RealValidation |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
DelayedValidation |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
OtherQC |
|||||||||||||
| Q9g - Spatial resolution of sampling | Q9g - Proportion of area covered % | 50 |
50 |
20 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
39 |
39 |
10 |
10 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
||||||||||||||||||
| Q9g - Spatial resolution of sampling | Q9g - No. of samples | 120 counting units annually. |
120 counting units annually. |
Approximately 410 counting units annually. In addition, country wide survey are carried out at irregular intervals, the last in 2004 |
Approximately 410 counting units annually. In addition, country wide survey are carried out at irregular intervals, the last in 2004 |
Details about breeding sites are not available, but all known sites are included in monitoring |
Details about breeding sites are not available, but all known sites are included in monitoring |
Approximate number of samples expected to be taken from the assessment area and Proportion of geographic scope covered by sampling is also unknown since it depends on the activity of the commercial fishery. |
Approximate number of samples expected to be taken from the assessment area and Proportion of geographic scope covered by sampling is also unknown since it depends on the activity of the commercial fishery. |
Approximate number of samples expected to be taken from the assessment area and Proportion of geographic scope covered by sampling is unknown since it is difficult to estimate. |
Approximate number of samples expected to be taken from the assessment area and Proportion of geographic scope covered by sampling is unknown since it is difficult to estimate. |
1 sample from 12 locations = 12 samples/year |
1 sample from 12 locations = 12 samples/year |
25 samples from 3 locations = 75 samples/year |
25 samples from 3 locations = 75 samples/year |
Seals found dead each day, all year, and hunted grey seals collected during hunting season (15 April- 31 December); hence number varies. Geographic scope depends on found and reported dead seals, as well as hunted seals; hence it varies. |
Seals found dead each day, all year, and hunted grey seals collected during hunting season (15 April- 31 December); hence number varies. Geographic scope depends on found and reported dead seals, as well as hunted seals; hence it varies. |
1 count per year a week during the moult |
1 count per year a week during the moult |
100 acoustic locations during 2, 5 years (2011-2013). No information regarding the next survey. |
100 acoustic locations during 2, 5 years (2011-2013). No information regarding the next survey. |
5091 samples from 547 locations during 2011 |
5091 samples from 547 locations during 2011 |
"Remote sensing - 1 image per day during three months = 92 images
Harmful algaes - 2-24 samples from 19 locations = 230 samples/year" |
"Remote sensing - 1 image per day during three months = 92 images
Harmful algaes - 2-24 samples from 19 locations = 230 samples/year" |
1-26 samples from 132 locations = 531 samples/year |
1-26 samples from 132 locations = 531 samples/year |
1-26 samples from 41 locations = 313 samples/year |
1-26 samples from 41 locations = 313 samples/year |
||||||||||||
| Q9i - Description of sample representivity | See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning" |
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning" |
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Rumslig och tidssmässig täckning.
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, parameter table. |
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Rumslig och tidssmässig täckning.
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, parameter table. |
See sub-programme Migrerande fisk - ål, parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Migrerande fisk - ål, parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Migrerande fisk - Lax, parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Migrerande fisk - Lax, parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig omfattning |
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig omfattning |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
Found drowned animals are collected every day the whole year and samples from animals are also collected during hunting season: April 15- December 31 |
Found drowned animals are collected every day the whole year and samples from animals are also collected during hunting season: April 15- December 31 |
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, the parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning and Metoder (QA/QC) |
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, the parameter table and chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning and Metoder (QA/QC) |
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, parameter table. |
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, parameter table. |
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning |
See sub-programme Växyplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
See sub-programme Växyplankton och pelagiska bakterier, parameter table. |
See sub-programme Växyplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Rumslig och tidsmässig täckning
See sub-programme Växyplankton och pelagiska bakterier, parameter table. |
|||||||||||||
| Q10a - Scale for aggregation of data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Q10b - Other scale for aggregation of data | See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Häckande sjöfågel, chapter Metoder |
Since the surveys are part of an international project, Swedish data can be aggregated with the other participating countries' data at different geographical levels. |
Since the surveys are part of an international project, Swedish data can be aggregated with the other participating countries' data at different geographical levels. |
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Metoder |
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Metoder |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c - Data type | UnprocessedData |
UnprocessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData DataProducts Simulated |
UnprocessedData DataProducts Simulated |
UnprocessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData DataProducts |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
UnprocessedData ProcessedData |
||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c - Data access mechanism | LocationNationalDC |
LocationNationalDC |
LocationInternationalDC |
LocationInternationalDC |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
LocationNationalDC |
LocationNationalDC |
LocationNationalDC |
LocationNationalDC |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
LocationNationalDC |
LocationNationalDC |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
URLdownload |
||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c - Data access rights | Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
Open |
||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c - INSPIRE standard | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c Date data are available | 2016-01 |
2016-01 |
2014-01 |
2014-01 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
2014-09 |
||||||||||||
| Q10c - Access to monitoring data | Q10c - Data update frequency | Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Other |
Other |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Other |
Other |
Yearly |
Yearly |
||||||||||||||||
| Q10d - Description of data access |
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Var finns data, and Metoder
|
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Var finns data, and Metoder
|
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Övervintrande sjöfågel, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Reproduktion hos havsörn, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - ål, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - ål, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - lax, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Migrerande fiskarter - lax, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Kustprovfiske, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos kustfisk, chapter Var finns data
|
Se sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Var finns data
|
Se sub-programme Hälsotillstånd hos säl, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av säl, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Bestånd av tumlare, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Pelagialens egenskaper - Syrekoncentration, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Var finns data?
|
See sub-programme Skadliga algblomningar, chapter Var finns data?
|
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Växyplankton - Pigment, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Växtplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Var finns data
|
See sub-programme Växtplankton och pelagiska bakterier, chapter Var finns data
|
|||||||||||||
Descriptor |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
D4/D1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring strategy description |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Several monitoring programmes provide data on the state of species, which could be assigned to different trophic guilds in the marine food web, from benthic habitats and plankton community to mobile species in the top of the food chain. Monitoring of pressures and activities can also provide insight to why impacts in the food web occur. However, there are still need for more research to connect the dots before being able to understand the dynamics of the food webs in full.
Research on how to assess the state of food webs is still under development and it remains to be seen whether the current monitoring of different trophic guilds are sufficient or not. It is important to be able to understand the dynamics of the plankton community based on both species composition and the degree of autotrophy or heterotrophy. The monitoring of the bacterial community together with the phytoplankton community is central to the analysis of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy, but this balance is only assessed to a limited extent.
In addition, it is important to be able to use detailed information on variation in food preferences of relevant predators, i.e. zooplankton, fish, birds and marine mammals. Changes in the species' state of health, such as nutritional and reproductive status in marine mammals, breeding success in birds and weight/length ratio in the fish community are also important parameters to be able to assess food webs. Monitoring of these parameters need sufficient frequency and spatial resolution, taking into account the range of the species.
There are no targets in place specifically linked to marine food webs, however, the targets for hazardous substances, eutrophication, marine litter, underwater noise and fishing activities are indirectly relevant to achieve good status also for D4.
Just as for the targets the links between the human activities and pressures and how they may impact the populations and communities are not yet crystal clear. Several measures may cause positive changes in the marine species populations and communities, but there´s not yet full insight in how the monitoring and assessment methods in place could be used to detect positive changes in the food web as the result of measures. |
Coverage of GES criteria |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Gaps and plans |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Length-weight calculations of zooplankton biomass are deficient in both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, why Gothenburg University and SMHI have been commissioned to review this. The Helcom methods may not be used successfully because the species composition and other factors differ significantly between the southern Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The presence of gelatinous zooplankton, such as jellyfish, can also significantly affect the food web, which is why monitoring of this group has started in 2020 (see programme Zooplankton).
Monitoring of benthic habitats also provides important data, as these governs, e.g. food supply and access to species' habitats. There is still a lack of knowledge about how benthic data can be used in the assessment of food webs. However, a pilot study is underway within Ospar to produce assessments in the Kattegat based on Ecological Network analysis (ENA) and existing food web models such as EcoPath. The purpose of these assessments is to identify deviations from a reference condition and they thus illustrate an unnatural variation over time. This will however not necessarily include defining thresholds, as it has not yet been possible to distinguish between good and bad environmental status.
How assessment of food webs can be further developed will be discussed in both HELCOM and OSPAR in the coming years based on the outcome of the pilot study in OSPAR and the Bonus projects XWebs and BlueWebs. SwAM also observe the developments in other research projects, such as EcoChange, and research funded by the Environmental Research Grant, where food web interactions and their impact are studied and where the results can be translated into improved monitoring for D4. For the development of the monitoring of the various trophic guilds, see the strategies for mammals, seabirds, fish and pelagic and benthic habitats. |
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coverage of targets |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Related measures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coverage of measures |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Related monitoring programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programme code |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-coastalfish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4-offshorefish |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D3D4D6-seafloormegafauna |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seabirds |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-seals |
SE-D1D4-zooplankton |
SE-D1D4-zooplankton |
SE-D1D4-zooplankton |
SE-D1D4-zooplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-macrophytes |
SE-D1D4D5-macrophytes |
SE-D1D4D5-macrophytes |
SE-D1D4D5-macrophytes |
SE-D1D4D5-macrophytes |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D5-phytoplankton |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D6D7-benthab |
SE-D1D4D8-mammalhealth |
SE-D1D4D8-mammalhealth |
SE-D1D4D8-mammalhealth |
SE-D1D4D8-mammalhealth |
SE-D1D4D8-mammalhealth |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D5D6-macrozoobenthos |
SE-D4D8-eagle |
SE-D4D8-eagle |
Programme name |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Coastal fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Offshore fish |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Macrozoobenthos - on the seafloor |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seabirds |
Seals |
Seals |
Seals |
Seals |
Seals |
Seals |
Zooplankton |
Zooplankton |
Zooplankton |
Zooplankton |
Macrophytes |
Macrophytes |
Macrophytes |
Macrophytes |
Macrophytes |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Phytoplankton (including pelagic bacteria and harmful algal blooms) |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Benthic habitats |
Marine mammals health status |
Marine mammals health status |
Marine mammals health status |
Marine mammals health status |
Marine mammals health status |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
Macrozoobenthos - infauna |
White-tailed eagle productivity |
White-tailed eagle productivity |
Update type |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Old programme codes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Programme description |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Coastal fish refer to the fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the coastal ecosystem, such as flounder (Platichthys flesus), perch (Perca fluviatilis) and eelpout (Zoarces viviparus). Coastal fish monitoring (trawls, nets, hydroacoustics) aims to describe changes in the fishing community as a whole, in terms of species composition, relative occurrence of different species and size structure. In addition, changes at species level are followed up by analyzing changes in the number and size structure of the most common species in the catch. In some surveys, individual sampling of selected species is performed. The individual sampling aims to provide information about, for example, individual weight and condition, and provides material for further analysis of, for example, age and fish health.
The state of coastal fish reflects the coastal ecosystem and the impact of small-scale coastal fishing and recreational fishing (see programmes Commercial fisheries and Recreational fisheries). Long-term changes in the abundance of different functional groups of coastal fish can also be affected by eutrophication, deteriorating habitats and changes in predation. The latter may be due to imbalance in the food web due to human impact such as fishing and loss of important habitats.
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started in 1960 while in the North Sea it started in 1969.
Abramis bjoerkna, Arnoglossus laterna, Callionymus lyra, Chelidonichthys gurnardus, Myoxocephalus scorpius and Trachinus draco are also monitored but they were not included in the element lists for Coastal fish nor Commercial fish |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
Offshore fish refers to those fish species that live a significant part of their lives in the open sea off the coast, such as herring, sprat and cod. The monitoring of these species and also commercial crustaceans such as crabfish, North Sea shrimp and lobster is coordinated between several countries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea area, and takes place via acoustic methods and trawl surveys. Data are also collected by sampling on board commercial fishing boats and catches in ports.
Several of the species monitored are used in commercial fishing (see programme Commercial fisheries) and all surveys described here are carried out within the framework of the data collection on fish and fisheries governed by EU legislation ((EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019 / 909 and (EU) 2019/910). The data collection forms the basis for the scientific basis for the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the information is used in the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to produce a basis for the fishing quotas decided by the EU. Data collection is also done for bycatches in the fishery, see programme Bycatch.
Trawling of demersal fish in the North Sea (IBTS) started 1972
Trawling of demersal fish in the Baltic Sea (BITS) started 1978
Acoustic survey of pelagic fish (BIAS) started 1978 (Baltic Sea only)
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Baltic Sea and Kattegat stareted 1996
Sampling on board commercial fishing boats in the Skagerrak started 2002
Sampling of commercial catches in ports: different starting years for different species
Frequency: Trawl surveys are carried out 6-monthly and control of fisheries 3-monthly. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
What is currently included in the targeted monitoring is the ten-legged crustacean Nephrops norvegicus. The species is nocturnal and lives on and buried in solid clay bottoms. Along the coast of Sweden, the species occur in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. Nephrops norvegicus is an important commercial species that is fished through bottom trawling. In addition to Nephrops norvegicus, other species that live in the same habitat, such as sea pens and other coral animals, can be injured or die as a result of trawling. The purpose of monitoring Nephrops norvegicus is to map the abundance of the species in areas that are fished. This is done in a UWTV survey (Under Water TV), ie by filming the seabed with an underwater camera and counting the number of inhabited holes per unit area. During the monitoring, the effects of trawling can also be assessed.
The geographical coverage of the monitoring is based on the main catchment areas and is thus expected to cover the species main distribution areas. Data collection (in accordance with EU legislation (EU) 2017/1004, (EU) 2019/909 and (EU) 2019/910) through UWTV is coordinated by ICES's working group WGNEPS between several countries in the North Sea area. |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
Seabirds are an important part of the marine ecosystem, as most species are high up in the food chain. The monitoring of breeding and wintering birds along the coast and in the offshore areas aims to follow the population development over time, which can be affected by changing conditions in the food web but also by the direct impact that arises from a number of different human activities. The status of seabirds therefore gives a general indication of the state of the ecosystem and corresponds to the cumulative impact of different pressures.
Breeding and wintering birds are nationally monitored annually along the Swedish coast. Standardized inventories of wintering birds along the coast of Sweden have been ongoing annually since 1967 and are coordinated internationally within the International Waterbird Census. Breeding birds have been monitored on a large scale since 2010. At the local level, monitoring of breeding coastal birds is also carried out in a number of coastal counties, where several of the programmes are linked to the national programme.
With an approximate six-year interval, inventories of wintering seabird species in the offshore areas are carried out, in order to supplement the annual inventories. These inventories are coordinated internationally and were first carried out in 1992-93. In 2020, inventories will be carried out in the offshore sea areas within the HELCOM and OSPAR regions in order to improve knowledge of the species that live there, especially hareld (Clangula hyemalis). The inventories are coordinated with other countries around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea through the working group JWGbird.
Somateria mollissima (Anas molissima) is also monitored, but was not in the element list |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
In Sweden, there are three species of seals - grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Each species have a custumized national monitoring programme for estimating the poulation abundance. The aim of monitoring the abundance and distribution of seals is to detect long-term effects of human activities affecting seals as a result of hunting, bycatch, hazardous substances and changes in the food web.
Grey seal monitoring started in 1989
Harbour seal monitoring started in 1988
Ringed seal monitoring started in 1995 |
Zooplankton are located between phytoplankton and fish in the food web and thus constitute an important link as they can reduce the amount of phytoplankton acting as predators and at the same time act as food for species higher up in the trophy levels such as fish. Different groups of zooplankton have different functions in the food web as some are herbivores and others carnivores. By monitoring abundance, species diversity, and the biomass of zooplankton, one can thus capture potential changes in the food web as a result of, for example, eutrophication, fishing or other human activities.
Zooplankton monitoring started in the Baltic Sea in the early 1970s, but regular data is only available at data hosts from 1994. In the North Sea, regular monitoring started in 1998. Since 2007, continuous sampling of gelatinous zooplankton has been ongoing at Släggö in Gullmarsfjorden and in 2020 the monitoring was extended to other zooplankton stations. |
Zooplankton are located between phytoplankton and fish in the food web and thus constitute an important link as they can reduce the amount of phytoplankton acting as predators and at the same time act as food for species higher up in the trophy levels such as fish. Different groups of zooplankton have different functions in the food web as some are herbivores and others carnivores. By monitoring abundance, species diversity, and the biomass of zooplankton, one can thus capture potential changes in the food web as a result of, for example, eutrophication, fishing or other human activities.
Zooplankton monitoring started in the Baltic Sea in the early 1970s, but regular data is only available at data hosts from 1994. In the North Sea, regular monitoring started in 1998. Since 2007, continuous sampling of gelatinous zooplankton has been ongoing at Släggö in Gullmarsfjorden and in 2020 the monitoring was extended to other zooplankton stations. |
Zooplankton are located between phytoplankton and fish in the food web and thus constitute an important link as they can reduce the amount of phytoplankton acting as predators and at the same time act as food for species higher up in the trophy levels such as fish. Different groups of zooplankton have different functions in the food web as some are herbivores and others carnivores. By monitoring abundance, species diversity, and the biomass of zooplankton, one can thus capture potential changes in the food web as a result of, for example, eutrophication, fishing or other human activities.
Zooplankton monitoring started in the Baltic Sea in the early 1970s, but regular data is only available at data hosts from 1994. In the North Sea, regular monitoring started in 1998. Since 2007, continuous sampling of gelatinous zooplankton has been ongoing at Släggö in Gullmarsfjorden and in 2020 the monitoring was extended to other zooplankton stations. |
Zooplankton are located between phytoplankton and fish in the food web and thus constitute an important link as they can reduce the amount of phytoplankton acting as predators and at the same time act as food for species higher up in the trophy levels such as fish. Different groups of zooplankton have different functions in the food web as some are herbivores and others carnivores. By monitoring abundance, species diversity, and the biomass of zooplankton, one can thus capture potential changes in the food web as a result of, for example, eutrophication, fishing or other human activities.
Zooplankton monitoring started in the Baltic Sea in the early 1970s, but regular data is only available at data hosts from 1994. In the North Sea, regular monitoring started in 1998. Since 2007, continuous sampling of gelatinous zooplankton has been ongoing at Släggö in Gullmarsfjorden and in 2020 the monitoring was extended to other zooplankton stations. |
The purpose of monitoring macrophytes on hard- and sedimentbottom communities are to follow longterm changes in the marine environment due to changes in water transparency, nutrient enrichment and physical disturbance, and indirect effects due to changes in foodwebs.
During 2016-2019 the monitoring programme was revised. New methods for monitoring of hardbottom vegetation has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme. New methods for monitoring of sediment communities with vegetation/eelgrass has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme.
Sweden is also developing integrated methods for monitoring shallow habitats using satellites or drones to supplement the current in situ monitoring.
Sampling primarily every year, every other year or every third year |
The purpose of monitoring macrophytes on hard- and sedimentbottom communities are to follow longterm changes in the marine environment due to changes in water transparency, nutrient enrichment and physical disturbance, and indirect effects due to changes in foodwebs.
During 2016-2019 the monitoring programme was revised. New methods for monitoring of hardbottom vegetation has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme. New methods for monitoring of sediment communities with vegetation/eelgrass has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme.
Sweden is also developing integrated methods for monitoring shallow habitats using satellites or drones to supplement the current in situ monitoring.
Sampling primarily every year, every other year or every third year |
The purpose of monitoring macrophytes on hard- and sedimentbottom communities are to follow longterm changes in the marine environment due to changes in water transparency, nutrient enrichment and physical disturbance, and indirect effects due to changes in foodwebs.
During 2016-2019 the monitoring programme was revised. New methods for monitoring of hardbottom vegetation has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme. New methods for monitoring of sediment communities with vegetation/eelgrass has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme.
Sweden is also developing integrated methods for monitoring shallow habitats using satellites or drones to supplement the current in situ monitoring.
Sampling primarily every year, every other year or every third year |
The purpose of monitoring macrophytes on hard- and sedimentbottom communities are to follow longterm changes in the marine environment due to changes in water transparency, nutrient enrichment and physical disturbance, and indirect effects due to changes in foodwebs.
During 2016-2019 the monitoring programme was revised. New methods for monitoring of hardbottom vegetation has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme. New methods for monitoring of sediment communities with vegetation/eelgrass has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme.
Sweden is also developing integrated methods for monitoring shallow habitats using satellites or drones to supplement the current in situ monitoring.
Sampling primarily every year, every other year or every third year |
The purpose of monitoring macrophytes on hard- and sedimentbottom communities are to follow longterm changes in the marine environment due to changes in water transparency, nutrient enrichment and physical disturbance, and indirect effects due to changes in foodwebs.
During 2016-2019 the monitoring programme was revised. New methods for monitoring of hardbottom vegetation has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme. New methods for monitoring of sediment communities with vegetation/eelgrass has started and additional areas and stations has been added the national programme.
Sweden is also developing integrated methods for monitoring shallow habitats using satellites or drones to supplement the current in situ monitoring.
Sampling primarily every year, every other year or every third year |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
The purposes of monitoring phytoplankton, blooms, bacterioplankton and primary production are to follow short- and longterm effects of eutrophication, climate change and changes in foodwebs.
Monitoring is conducted in both offshore and coastal areas as well as in areas with more pressures in terms of run-offs and point sources.
Starting year: Regular monitoring of phytoplankton started in 1983 in the Baltic Sea and 1986 in the North Sea. Chorophyll a has been monitored since 1982. Earliest data on bacterioplankton is available from 1989 and primary production from 1979. Algae blooms has been monitored using remote sensing since 2002.
Specify frequency: 1-26 times a year
Algae blooms – Daily
There is an ongoing work on developing improved methods and, above all, collaboration in the area of remotely analyzed chlorophyll using satellites. |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Mapping and monitoring of benthic habitats is of crucial importance for all environmental management at sea, from a functioning ecosystem-based marine environment management to meeting the various requirements of environmental legislation. The need for continuous and comprehensive monitoring covering the biological components of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive and the WFD has been clarified in recent reporting cycles. Corresponding needs also exist within the national environmental goals, from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the current challenges of tackling climate change. The new objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (2021-2030) require functioning monitoring systems that provide comprehensive information for protection, assessment of permits, action planning and evaluation (of protection, permit modification and implemented measures).
Monitoring is needed for sustainable fisheries regulation and coastal planning linked to exploitation, as well as for the management of transport routes and energy production, and last but not least to ensure a functioning network of protected areas and a functioning beach protection.
The monitoring of benthic habitats is largely dependent on technical solutions. Methods for monitoring are under development and will, together with monitoring of pressures (see program Physical disturbance and loss), provide a basis for assessing the condition of the benthic habitats and how they are affected by various human activities. The Habitats Directive's assessment in 2019 shows that physical impact on conservation status in the form of construction, ports, dredging and bottom trawling predominates in the North Sea, while water quality, hazardous substances and nutrient load instead have a greater derogatory impact on habitats in the Baltic Sea.
In order to be able to respond to the requirements in an integrated manner, a development of coordinated methods is underway that can deliver the necessary data on benthic habitats. The pilot phase of a survey and monitoring of shallow marine areas using satellite, aerial and drone images and biological sampling will be completed in 2020 and the established monitoring method will be tested and fine-tuned in 2021. The studies include testing of methods from satellite to biological sampling both in the Baltic Sea and on the West Coast. The overall monitoring of shallow benthic environments strives to be able to annually measure shallow marine areas completely (all of Sweden) w |
Marine mammals are top predators in the food chain, which increases the probability of detecting changes in ecosystems and high levels of hazardous substances. Substances found in low levels in fish can be enriched and detected in high levels in seals and porpoises, which makes them suitable as indicator organisms for early detection of changes in the environment.
The primary aim of the monitoring is to study the long-term effects of hazardous substances and other human activities affecting the marine environment by documenting population development for grey seals, harbor seals, ringed seals and harbor porpoises in combination with studies of cause of death, health, diseases and chemical analyzes.
Marine mammals (bycatch, hunted or found dead for unknown reasons) are collected and investigated each year. Monitoring of Baltic seal healths started in 1975 and was expanded with ongoing health and disease monitoring of marine mammals in 2020.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects.
Comment: D8C2 was not in the list for the feature Adverse effects on species and habitats, but this criteria is relevant for this programme. |
Marine mammals are top predators in the food chain, which increases the probability of detecting changes in ecosystems and high levels of hazardous substances. Substances found in low levels in fish can be enriched and detected in high levels in seals and porpoises, which makes them suitable as indicator organisms for early detection of changes in the environment.
The primary aim of the monitoring is to study the long-term effects of hazardous substances and other human activities affecting the marine environment by documenting population development for grey seals, harbor seals, ringed seals and harbor porpoises in combination with studies of cause of death, health, diseases and chemical analyzes.
Marine mammals (bycatch, hunted or found dead for unknown reasons) are collected and investigated each year. Monitoring of Baltic seal healths started in 1975 and was expanded with ongoing health and disease monitoring of marine mammals in 2020.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects.
Comment: D8C2 was not in the list for the feature Adverse effects on species and habitats, but this criteria is relevant for this programme. |
Marine mammals are top predators in the food chain, which increases the probability of detecting changes in ecosystems and high levels of hazardous substances. Substances found in low levels in fish can be enriched and detected in high levels in seals and porpoises, which makes them suitable as indicator organisms for early detection of changes in the environment.
The primary aim of the monitoring is to study the long-term effects of hazardous substances and other human activities affecting the marine environment by documenting population development for grey seals, harbor seals, ringed seals and harbor porpoises in combination with studies of cause of death, health, diseases and chemical analyzes.
Marine mammals (bycatch, hunted or found dead for unknown reasons) are collected and investigated each year. Monitoring of Baltic seal healths started in 1975 and was expanded with ongoing health and disease monitoring of marine mammals in 2020.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects.
Comment: D8C2 was not in the list for the feature Adverse effects on species and habitats, but this criteria is relevant for this programme. |
Marine mammals are top predators in the food chain, which increases the probability of detecting changes in ecosystems and high levels of hazardous substances. Substances found in low levels in fish can be enriched and detected in high levels in seals and porpoises, which makes them suitable as indicator organisms for early detection of changes in the environment.
The primary aim of the monitoring is to study the long-term effects of hazardous substances and other human activities affecting the marine environment by documenting population development for grey seals, harbor seals, ringed seals and harbor porpoises in combination with studies of cause of death, health, diseases and chemical analyzes.
Marine mammals (bycatch, hunted or found dead for unknown reasons) are collected and investigated each year. Monitoring of Baltic seal healths started in 1975 and was expanded with ongoing health and disease monitoring of marine mammals in 2020.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects.
Comment: D8C2 was not in the list for the feature Adverse effects on species and habitats, but this criteria is relevant for this programme. |
Marine mammals are top predators in the food chain, which increases the probability of detecting changes in ecosystems and high levels of hazardous substances. Substances found in low levels in fish can be enriched and detected in high levels in seals and porpoises, which makes them suitable as indicator organisms for early detection of changes in the environment.
The primary aim of the monitoring is to study the long-term effects of hazardous substances and other human activities affecting the marine environment by documenting population development for grey seals, harbor seals, ringed seals and harbor porpoises in combination with studies of cause of death, health, diseases and chemical analyzes.
Marine mammals (bycatch, hunted or found dead for unknown reasons) are collected and investigated each year. Monitoring of Baltic seal healths started in 1975 and was expanded with ongoing health and disease monitoring of marine mammals in 2020.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects.
Comment: D8C2 was not in the list for the feature Adverse effects on species and habitats, but this criteria is relevant for this programme. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
Sediment-living macrofauna have a size that is captured on a 1 mm sieve and include many different animal groups e.g. polychaetes, molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans.
The aim is to follow long-term trends in the marine environment as a result of organic loading and oxygen deficiency by documenting changes in the structure of the sediment-living macrofauna communities.
Sampling primarily every year or every other year
Monitoring in the Baltic Sea started 1971, and 1972 in the North Sea. |
White-tailed eagles are at the top of the food chain in the Baltic Sea, which makes the species particularly exposed to hazardous substances. White-tailed eagles can show high levels of persistent organic compounds that are also enriched in their adipose tissue. The white-tailed eagle was one of the earliest animal species to signal the problems of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea, which was expressed as a greatly reduced reproductive success. The primary purpose of the monitoring is to study effects and demonstrate long-term load changes of hazardous substances in the marine environment by documenting the reproductive capacity and population development of the white-tailed eagle population along the Swedish Baltic coast. Observed reproduction figures are compared with background levels from the time before the impact of environmental toxins.
Other than the main areas that are included in national monitoring there are also monitoring in other areas based on voulontary actions, but this is mostly conducted by elderly persons, so the future of these ations are rather uncertain, therefore we only included MRU:s covered by national monitoring.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects. |
White-tailed eagles are at the top of the food chain in the Baltic Sea, which makes the species particularly exposed to hazardous substances. White-tailed eagles can show high levels of persistent organic compounds that are also enriched in their adipose tissue. The white-tailed eagle was one of the earliest animal species to signal the problems of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea, which was expressed as a greatly reduced reproductive success. The primary purpose of the monitoring is to study effects and demonstrate long-term load changes of hazardous substances in the marine environment by documenting the reproductive capacity and population development of the white-tailed eagle population along the Swedish Baltic coast. Observed reproduction figures are compared with background levels from the time before the impact of environmental toxins.
Other than the main areas that are included in national monitoring there are also monitoring in other areas based on voulontary actions, but this is mostly conducted by elderly persons, so the future of these ations are rather uncertain, therefore we only included MRU:s covered by national monitoring.
During 2020-2021, the monitoring of the effects of hazardous substances will be evaluated in order to be able to optimize the monitoring programmes both in terms of coverage and costs and to provide a better basis for state assessment and determining the causes of the effects. |
Monitoring purpose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other policies and conventions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional cooperation - coordinating body |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Regional cooperation - countries involved |
DK |
DK |
DK |
DK |
DK |
DK |
DK |
FI |
FI |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regional cooperation - implementation level |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
Coordinated data collection |
||||||||||
Monitoring details |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Features |
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Wading birds
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Other pelagic habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Eutrophication
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Coastal ecosystems
|
Adverse effects on species or habitats
|
|
Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GES criteria |
D1C2 |
D1C3 |
D1C4 |
D3C2 |
D3C3 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C3 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D3C1 |
D3C2 |
D3C3 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C3 |
D3C2 |
D3C3 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D4C3 |
D4C3 |
D6C5 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D4C1 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D4C3 |
D4C3 |
D1C2 |
D1C4 |
D4C1 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D1C6 |
D1C6 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D5C6 |
D5C7 |
D6C5 |
D1C6 |
D4C1 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D4C4 |
D4C4 |
D5C2 |
D5C3 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D6C3 |
D6C3 |
D6C4 |
D6C4 |
D6C5 |
D6C5 |
D7C2 |
D7C2 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D4C4 |
D4C4 |
NotRelevan |
D4C1 |
D4C1 |
D4C2 |
D4C2 |
D5C8 |
D6C5 |
D4C4 |
D8C2 |
Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parameter Other |
Developmental state of gonads Presence of parasite |
Mass |
Species composition |
Mass Size distribution Developmental state of gona |
Mass Size distribution Developmental state of gona |
Species composition |
Age distribution Sex distribution |
Age distribution Sex distribution |
Age distribution Sex distribution |
Abundance (number of individuals) Size distributio |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Abundance (number of individuals) Species composit |
Abundance (number of individuals) Species composit |
Population growth rate (in %) |
Abundance (number of individuals) Distribution (ra |
Abundance (number of individuals) Distribution (ra |
Population growth rate (in %) |
Population growth rate (in %) |
Abundance (number of individuals), Biomass, Specie |
Abundance (number of individuals) Biomass Species |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Oxygen debt |
Oxygen debt |
Species composition Abundance (number of individua |
Species composition Cell counts Biomass Productivi |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Cell counts |
Cell counts |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Distribution (pattern) Distribution (range) Distri |
Distribution (pattern) Distribution (range) Distri |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Relative abundance within community (of pelagic an |
Extent Distribution (pattern) Distribution (range) |
Extent Distribution (pattern) Distribution (range) |
Mass Cause of death Blubber thickness Sexual matu |
Mass Blubber thickness Cause of death Presence of |
Fecundity (breeding rate) |
Fecundity (breeding rate) |
Cause of death Presence of parasites Claw lesion |
Species composition |
Species composition |
Biomass Species composition |
Abundance (number of individuals) Biomass Species |
Breeding success Brood size |
Productivity Breeding success Brood size |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spatial scope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine reporting units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Temporal scope (start date - end date) |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
1972-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
2011-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1967-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1988-9999 |
1994-9999 |
1994-9999 |
1994-9999 |
1994-9999 |
1993-9999 |
1993-9999 |
1993-9999 |
1993-9999 |
1993-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
1979-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
2022-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1975-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1971-9999 |
1965-9999 |
1965-9999 |
Monitoring frequency |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
2-weekly |
2-weekly |
2-weekly |
2-weekly |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Other |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Monitoring type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method other |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-i-ostersjons-kustomraden---djupstratifierat-provfiske-med-nordiska-kustoversiktsnat.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/provfiske-med-kustoversiktsnat-natlankar-och-ryssjor-pa-kustnara-grunt-vatten.html
Monitoring of vendace, which resides in the free water column are done with special sonar (vendace survey). These register the amount of fish on a predetermined distance. Trawl hauls are carried out at regular intervals to estimate the size composition. In addition to this, vendace is also sampled through on-board and harbor sampling in commercial fishing. This sampling is described in more detail in programmes Offshore fish and By-catch (for non-target species)." |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/en/eu-and-international/international-cooperation/data-collection-framework-dcf/efforts-in-sweden.html |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Cooperative%20Research%20Report%20(CRR)/CRR340.pdf |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
"Wintering birds: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1172153/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Breeding birds: https://www.fageltaxering.lu.se/inventera/metoder/kustfagelrutorna/metodik-kustfagelrutor" |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
All three seal species are monitored using either helicopter (grey seal) or fixed wing aircrafts (Harbour seal and Ringed seal) in combination with surveylance camera and visual observation. Al three monitoring methods will be described in 2020. |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/djurplankton-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/geleplankton.html" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/djurplankton-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/geleplankton.html" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/djurplankton-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/geleplankton.html" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/djurplankton-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/geleplankton.html" |
The monitoring methods used will be described in 2020. |
The monitoring methods used will be described in 2020. |
The monitoring methods used will be described in 2020. |
The monitoring methods used will be described in 2020. |
The monitoring methods used will be described in 2020. |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/vaxtplankton.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/bakteriell-syrekonsumtion.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/hydrografi-och-narsalter-trendovervakning.html
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/primarproduktion.html
https://www.smhi.se/data/oceanografi/algsituationen" |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
A review of existing methods has shown that there is no single method that can meet all data needs. Therefore, the current focus is on developing a concept based on combined methods, where one or more sub-methods can deliver large-scale coverage while other sub-methods can deliver more accurate spatial and/or biological data. The results from the various sub-methods must be able to be seamlessly linked so that together they form a functioning monitoring system. One possibility that is being investigated is the use of Sentinel 2 satellite data to create a comprehensive and uniform image throughout Sweden (scale 10 x 10 meters) in combination with drones that can locally create image mosaics of benthic vegetation (with an accuracy of a few centimeters) and biological sampling of the vegetation, which in turn enables more accurate species identification and other biological factors. Pilot surveys in 2019 have shown that the method has the potential to cover benthic habitats down to medium visibility depths.
Deeper benthic environments (below the visibility depth limit) require monitoring based on comprehensive substrate and depth models based on data from different types of remote mapping (especially different sonar-based methods). The technical possibilities for producing and modeling bottom information in the same accuracy as shallower areas were initially investigated in 2019 within the National Marine Mapping (NMK) project and showed great potential. Development of reliable and usable models is, however, limited by the lack of measurement data of sufficiently high quality for parts of Sweden's sea area and by the fact that large parts of the existing data are unavailable. |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/patologi-hos-grasal-vikaresal-och-knubbsal.html
Selected harbour porpoises are examined at the laboratories of the Swedish Veterinary Institute in collaboration with the staff of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
During inspection before autopsy, the following biological data are noted:
Sex, external dimensions, weight, any damage to the body,
During autopsy the following biological data are noted:
Nutrient condition / blubber thickness, sexual maturity, pregnancy, external damage, including any damage from human activities (eg fishing nets), organ damage, including microscopic examination and X-ray if necessary, infectious substances, parasites and other diseases, stomach contents, age
" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/patologi-hos-grasal-vikaresal-och-knubbsal.html
Selected harbour porpoises are examined at the laboratories of the Swedish Veterinary Institute in collaboration with the staff of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
During inspection before autopsy, the following biological data are noted:
Sex, external dimensions, weight, any damage to the body,
During autopsy the following biological data are noted:
Nutrient condition / blubber thickness, sexual maturity, pregnancy, external damage, including any damage from human activities (eg fishing nets), organ damage, including microscopic examination and X-ray if necessary, infectious substances, parasites and other diseases, stomach contents, age
" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/patologi-hos-grasal-vikaresal-och-knubbsal.html
Selected harbour porpoises are examined at the laboratories of the Swedish Veterinary Institute in collaboration with the staff of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
During inspection before autopsy, the following biological data are noted:
Sex, external dimensions, weight, any damage to the body,
During autopsy the following biological data are noted:
Nutrient condition / blubber thickness, sexual maturity, pregnancy, external damage, including any damage from human activities (eg fishing nets), organ damage, including microscopic examination and X-ray if necessary, infectious substances, parasites and other diseases, stomach contents, age
" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/patologi-hos-grasal-vikaresal-och-knubbsal.html
Selected harbour porpoises are examined at the laboratories of the Swedish Veterinary Institute in collaboration with the staff of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
During inspection before autopsy, the following biological data are noted:
Sex, external dimensions, weight, any damage to the body,
During autopsy the following biological data are noted:
Nutrient condition / blubber thickness, sexual maturity, pregnancy, external damage, including any damage from human activities (eg fishing nets), organ damage, including microscopic examination and X-ray if necessary, infectious substances, parasites and other diseases, stomach contents, age
" |
"https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/patologi-hos-grasal-vikaresal-och-knubbsal.html
Selected harbour porpoises are examined at the laboratories of the Swedish Veterinary Institute in collaboration with the staff of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
During inspection before autopsy, the following biological data are noted:
Sex, external dimensions, weight, any damage to the body,
During autopsy the following biological data are noted:
Nutrient condition / blubber thickness, sexual maturity, pregnancy, external damage, including any damage from human activities (eg fishing nets), organ damage, including microscopic examination and X-ray if necessary, infectious substances, parasites and other diseases, stomach contents, age
" |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/vagledning--lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/mjukbottenlevande-makrofauna-trend--och-omradesovervakning.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/havsorn-bestand.html |
https://www.havochvatten.se/vagledning-foreskrifter-och-lagar/vagledningar/ovriga-vagledningar/undersokningstyper-for-miljoovervakning/undersokningstyper/havsorn-bestand.html |
Quality control |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
The quality assurance is conducted by strictly following standardized methodology. Quality control takes place within the data hosting for coastal fish. Data is quality checked electronically via a sequence of routine questions and approved manually after a controller specially appointed for the purpose has approved the quality of the material.
See also Quality guide for SLU's environmental data management: https://internt.slu.se/globalassets/mw/foma/verksamhetsstod/miljodatastod/kvalitetsguidesdokument/kvalitetsguiden-version-2.4.pdf |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
Monitoring programmes are reviewed within ICES groups (trawl surveys) and/or through evaluations by the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Data is registered in the national database FISKDATA2 according to the updated manual. The quality assurance includes control reading routines of entered data against protocols, automatic quality control of data within the database and manual quality control of data (identification of outliers). Data from trawl surveys are delivered to ICES database DATRAS. Before data is accepted into DATRAS, delivered data undergoes quality review. Quality assurance of age reading and determination of sexual maturity of fish takes place through annual calibrations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
ICES data center data type guidelines and reference images are used for quality assurance. Linns CCC is used as quality control of data to check that the counting is consistent between stations. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
The inventories of wintering and breeding seabirds follow a simple and well-documented methodology. Reporting is done via digital protocols that are sent to the Swedish Bird Taxation, which is the project manager for both inventories. Received protocols are checked before they are entered into the database. In case of doubt, they contact the rapporter. Furthermore, entered data is validated through a number of control questions. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
As seals move over large areas, coordinated monitoring is a prerequisite for obtaining a correct assessment of the population's distribution and abundance. The monitoring of seals is therefore coordinated between the countries concerned. |
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.55c45bd31543fcf8536bb64f/1463040882078/bilaga-till-djurplankton.pdf
|
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.55c45bd31543fcf8536bb64f/1463040882078/bilaga-till-djurplankton.pdf
|
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.55c45bd31543fcf8536bb64f/1463040882078/bilaga-till-djurplankton.pdf
|
https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.55c45bd31543fcf8536bb64f/1463040882078/bilaga-till-djurplankton.pdf
|
The quality assurance is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
All analyzes of the national samples are analyzed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. Sampling is also performed using quality-assured and accredited methodology. The results are intercalibrated by the laboratories participating in various test comparisons, as well as by self-arranged comparisons between the national monitoring contractors. There are also regular intercalibrations for phytoplankton and chlorophyll between the Baltic Sea countries, as well as annual knowledge transfer between experts from these laboratories. |
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Will be developed during test-phase
|
Autopsies or organ examinations are performed by a veterinarian or biologist with experience in the field of veterinary medical pathology and, if necessary, in collaboration with the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA). Laboratory analyzes are performed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. |
Autopsies or organ examinations are performed by a veterinarian or biologist with experience in the field of veterinary medical pathology and, if necessary, in collaboration with the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA). Laboratory analyzes are performed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. |
Autopsies or organ examinations are performed by a veterinarian or biologist with experience in the field of veterinary medical pathology and, if necessary, in collaboration with the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA). Laboratory analyzes are performed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. |
Autopsies or organ examinations are performed by a veterinarian or biologist with experience in the field of veterinary medical pathology and, if necessary, in collaboration with the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA). Laboratory analyzes are performed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. |
Autopsies or organ examinations are performed by a veterinarian or biologist with experience in the field of veterinary medical pathology and, if necessary, in collaboration with the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA). Laboratory analyzes are performed by Swedac-accredited laboratories. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The quality assurance work is following standardized methodology and partly by using Swedac-accredited laboratories. For the work of determining the species of the animals, it is of great importance to have access to people with good knowledge of taxonomy.
In surveys of sediment-living macrofauna, the count of the sorted animals is a very small source of error. On the other hand, variations in the species and wet weight determination can vary between performers and it is therefore important that the method description is followed and that they regularly participate in national and international ring tests. The data should be checked before delivery to the national data host SMHI that make standardized tests and link data to taxonomic databases. |
The monitoring method is based on locating settlements and determining what activity the sea eagles have engaged in at the settlements. There are several steps that can cause uncertainty in data. One such is, e.g., that newly built so-called alternative nests in previously known territories are not detected and the territory is therefore incorrectly interpreted as "inactive". The inspections of the settlements also include in many cases interpreting "negative data" or "zero data", ie to determine what happened in nests that at the (first) inventory did not have the presence of adult (brooding) sea eagles or young. It is very difficult from the ground to determine whether a seemingly "empty" nest has still been active during the current breeding season. Difficulty in determining the status of "empty" nests can lead to misinterpretations that affect the variable "breeding success" because only the number of active nests is included in this variable. With a helicopter and/or climbing, the possibility of a correct assessment is very good for experienced observers.
The inspections of the settlements that take place via climbing to the nest provide reliable data with regard to the number of young at the time of the inspection. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether all chicks registered in May-June reach flight-ready age. Breeding can fail at a later stage, for example due to a nest collapse or predation. Controls of nests from the ground systematically underestimate the litter size, as the eagles' large nests can make young difficult or impossible to detect if the nest is viewed from below. Only nests that have been climbed have therefore been included in the statistics for the Baltic Sea before. Complementing studies during 2017-2018 showed that the correspondence between controls from helicopters and controls via climbing to the nest is high, in about 90% of cases the same result was obtained. Collected data is quality controlled by the responsible project manager at the Swedish Museum of Natural History. Today, there is a need for increased quality assurance and the establishment of common routines for both inventory and registration of the variables within the monitoring. This applies in particular to the components of the variables that include nests that have not produced young. Digitization and supplementation of older inventory data is currently underway. |
The monitoring method is based on locating settlements and determining what activity the sea eagles have engaged in at the settlements. There are several steps that can cause uncertainty in data. One such is, e.g., that newly built so-called alternative nests in previously known territories are not detected and the territory is therefore incorrectly interpreted as "inactive". The inspections of the settlements also include in many cases interpreting "negative data" or "zero data", ie to determine what happened in nests that at the (first) inventory did not have the presence of adult (brooding) sea eagles or young. It is very difficult from the ground to determine whether a seemingly "empty" nest has still been active during the current breeding season. Difficulty in determining the status of "empty" nests can lead to misinterpretations that affect the variable "breeding success" because only the number of active nests is included in this variable. With a helicopter and/or climbing, the possibility of a correct assessment is very good for experienced observers.
The inspections of the settlements that take place via climbing to the nest provide reliable data with regard to the number of young at the time of the inspection. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether all chicks registered in May-June reach flight-ready age. Breeding can fail at a later stage, for example due to a nest collapse or predation. Controls of nests from the ground systematically underestimate the litter size, as the eagles' large nests can make young difficult or impossible to detect if the nest is viewed from below. Only nests that have been climbed have therefore been included in the statistics for the Baltic Sea before. Complementing studies during 2017-2018 showed that the correspondence between controls from helicopters and controls via climbing to the nest is high, in about 90% of cases the same result was obtained. Collected data is quality controlled by the responsible project manager at the Swedish Museum of Natural History. Today, there is a need for increased quality assurance and the establishment of common routines for both inventory and registration of the variables within the monitoring. This applies in particular to the components of the variables that include nests that have not produced young. Digitization and supplementation of older inventory data is currently underway. |
Data management |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
The raw data collected is stored in SLU Aqua's databases KUL (nets and vendace) and Fiskdata2 (coastal trawling in the North Sea). Data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request to datavard-fisk@slu.se. Common international data is stored at ICES. |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
Raw data is stored at SLU Aqua. This data is updated annually and aggregated data is made available upon request. Common international data is stored at ICES |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
A data hosting agreement with Lund University has been developed and work begun in 2019 to make large parts of the data publicly available and downloadable. Data from the winter counts are also available from the international coordinator of seabird inventories - Wetlands International. Data are fully available and can be obtained via contact with Swedish bird taxation via fageltaxering@biol.lu.se. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Reports from the initial pilot study will be published in the spring of 2021. For the time being, the data collected during the development work will be stored and managed by SwAM, but the management will be reviewed and may be transferred to another agency. |
Data is stored by the project manager at the Swedish Museum of Natural History. Data for official statistics are obtained from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. |
Data is stored by the project manager at the Swedish Museum of Natural History. Data for official statistics are obtained from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data access |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator/name |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Contact |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
miljoovervakning@havochvatten.se |
References |