eh, cik patiikami vadiit europu ar kljuudainaam veestuleem :)Dear Ellis and Jenica,


Thank you very much for your report, you really have done a great job.

Anyway I have some rather important issues :

1) Now Lakes-Central GIG has contribution from UK experts and additional input from Netherlands and Poland, so the indicator list has changed substantially (please find enclosed this table, I would like to stress that we should include these changes in the report);

2) there is no explanations on symbols in your table (at least not in the Central lakes chapter):

If x means “presence of the given species in the given lake type” – than it is NOT correct, because

- it could be that this species was included in the initial species list of countries (only these species were kept which were included in at least 3 lists of countries)

- It could be that this species is present but no knowledge on its indicator value exists (we have not asked for the presence/absence of species, but only the indicator value !)

3) I would like to define 2 groups – reference species and impacted state species (and 2 subgroups within each group – the most “typical” reference species and “possible”: reference species ) . Is it necessary to put ImpE+ and ImpE- ? for me it seems like synonyms to Ref and Imp, because anyway we talk about eutrophication pressure,


4) it’s necessary to give clear definitions what do we mean with “reference species” and “impacted state species”

For example, our definition sounds :

“Reference species” – likely to decrease across the pressure gradient, likely to be dominant (in significant abundance) in high status lakes

“Impacted state species” – likely to become dominant across the pressure gradient (can occur in low number in high status lakes)

“Tolerance species” – are not impacted significantly by the increase of pressure (eutrophication)

Ref species can be present at impacted state, impacted species can be present in low numbers in reference conditions: Significant abundance and relative proportions are the points !


As well as clear definition how the common view was derived (you have already, but I would like to add):

- most of countries share the similar opinion

- no one statement is contradictory to the main opinion


5) The last but not least: I think that it is really necessary to include names of all the people which have contributed to this work

I gave you this list without agreement of Lakes Central GIG members, but I hope that there will be no troubles, ,,only the input of Lakes-Central GIG should be clearly stated .


Ok, I understand that it is not so easy to make all these changes before deadlines,,,

But I hope that my comments will be valuable for your work.

Best wishes