ABSTRACT1. The European Water Framework Directive requires the determination of ecological status in European fresh and saline waters. This is to be through the establishment of a typology of surface water bodies, the determination of reference (high status) conditions in each element (ecotype) of the typology and of lower grades of status (good, moderate, poor and bad) for each ecotype. It then requires classification of the status of the water bodies and their restoration to at least 'good status' in a specified period.2. Though there are many methods for assessing water quality, none has the scope of that defined in the Directive. The provisions of the Directive require a wide range of variables to be measured and give only general guidance as to how systems of classification should be established. This raises issues of comparability across States and of the costs of making the determinations.3. Using expert workshops and subsequent field testing, a practicable pan-European typology and classification system has been developed for shallow lakes, which can easily be extended to all lakes. It is parsimonious in its choice of determinands, but based on current limnological understanding and therefore as cost-effective as possible.4. A core typology is described, which can be expanded easily in particular States to meet local conditions. The core includes 48 ecotypes across the entire European climate gradient and incorporates climate, lake area, geology of the catchment and conductivity.5. The classification system is founded on a liberal interpretation of Annexes in the Directive and uses variables that are inexpensive to measure and ecologically relevant. The need for taxonomic expertise is minimized.6. The scheme has been through eight iterations, two of which were tested in the field on tranches of 66 lakes. The final version, Version 8, is offered for operational testing and further refinement by statutory authorities.

1. Results are analysed from 11 experiments in which effects of fish addition and nutrient loading on shallow lakes were studied in mesocosms. The experiments, five in 1998, six in 1999, were carried out in six lakes, distributed from Finland to southern Spain, according to a standard protocol. 2. Effects of the treatments on 29 standard chemical, phytoplankton and zooplankton variables are examined to assess the relative importance of bottom-up (nutrient enrichment) and top-down (fish predation) effects. For each year, the experiments in different locations are treated as replicates in a meta-analysis. Results of individual experiments are then compared in terms of the patterns of significant influences of nutrient addition and fish predation with these overall results (the baseline), and between years in the same location. 3. The overall meta-analysis gave consistent results across the 2 years, with nutrient loading influencing all of the chemical variables, and on average 31% of primary producer and 39% of zooplankton variables. In contrast, fish influenced none of the chemical variables, 11% of the primary producer and 44% of the zooplankton variables. Nutrient effects on the system were thus about three times greater than fish effects, although fish effects were not inconsiderable. 4. The relative importance of nutrients and fish in individual experiments often differed between years at the same location and effects deviated to varying degrees from the baseline. These deviations were treated as measures of consistency (predictability) of conclusions in repeat experiments. Consistency increased southwards and this is interpreted as a consequence of more variable annual weather northwards. 5. The influence of nutrient loading was greater southwards and this was probably manifested through naturally greater annual macrophyte abundance in warmer locations in consequence of the longer plant growing-season. There was no trend in the relative importance of fish effects with latitude but this may partly be an artefact of the simple fish Correspondence: Brian Moss,

Summary 1. Shallow lake ecosystems are normally dominated by submerged and emergent plants. Biological stabilising mechanisms help preserve this dominance. The systems may switch to dominance by phytoplankton, however, with loss of submerged plants. This process usually takes place against a background of increasing nutrient loadings but also requires additional switch mechanisms, which damage the plants or interfere with their stabilising mechanisms. 2. The extent to which the details or even major features of this general model may change with geographical location are not clear. Manipulation of the fish community (biomanipulation) has often been used to clear the water of algae and restore the aquatic plants in northerly locations, but it is again not clear whether this is equally appropriate at lower latitudes. 3. Eleven parallel experiments (collectively the International Mesocosm Experiment, IME) were carried out in six lakes in Finland, Sweden, England, the Netherlands and Spain in 1998 and 1999 to investigate the between‐year and large‐scale spatial variation in relationships between nutrient loading and zooplanktivorous fish on submerged plant and plankton communities in shallow lakes. 4. Comparability of experiments in different locations was achieved to a high degree. Cross‐laboratory comparisons of chemical analyses revealed some systematic differences between laboratories. These are unlikely to lead to major misinterpretations. 5. Nutrient addition, overall, had its greatest effect on water chemistry then substantial effects on phytoplankton and zooplankton. Fish addition had its major effect on zooplankton and did not systematically change the water chemistry. There was no trend in the relative importance of fish effects with latitude, but nutrient addition affected more variables with decreasing latitude. 6. The relative importance of top‐down and bottom‐up influences on the plankton differed in different locations and between years at the same location. The outcome of the experiments in different years was more predictable with decreasing latitude and this was attributed to more variable weather at higher latitudes that created more variable starting conditions for the experiments.

No abstract

SUMMARY1. Responses of zooplankton to nutrient enrichment and fish predation were studied in 1998 and 1999 by carrying out parallel mesocosm experiments in six lakes across Europe. 2. Zooplankton community structure, biomass and responses to nutrient and fish manipulation showed geographical and year-to-year differences. Fish had a greater influence than nutrients in regulating zooplankton biomass and especially the relative abundances of different functional groups of zooplankton. When fish reduced the biomass of large crustaceans, there was a complementary increase in the biomasses of smaller crustacean species and rotifers. 3. High abundance of submerged macrophytes provided refuge for zooplankton against fish predation but this refuge effect differed notably in magnitude among sites. 4. Large crustacean grazers (Daphnia, Diaphanosoma, Sida and Simocephalus) were crucial in controlling algal biomass, while smaller crustacean grazers and rotifers were of minor importance. Large grazers were able to control phytoplankton biomass even under hypereutrophic conditions (up to 1600 lg TP L )1 ) when grazer biomass was high (>80-90 lg dry mass L )1 ) or accounted for >30% of the grazer community.5. The littoral zooplankton community was less resistant to change following nutrient enrichment in southern Spain, at high temperatures (close to 30°C), than at lower temperatures (17-23°C) characterising the other sites. This lower resistance was because of a greater importance of nutrients than zooplankton in controlling algal biomass. 6. Apart from the reduced role of large crustacean grazers at the lowest latitude, no consistent geographical patterns were observed in the responses of zooplankton communities to nutrient and fish manipulation.