Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database
2009
Grémare, A. | Labrune, C. | Vanden Berghe, E. | Amouroux, J.M. | Bachelet, G. | Zettler, M.L. | Vanaverbeke, J. | Fleischer, D. | Bigot, L. | Maire, O. | Deflandre, B. | Craeymeersch, J.A. | Degraer, S. | Dounas, C. | Duineveld, G. | Heip, C.H.R. | Herrmann, M. | Hummel, H. | Karakassis, I. | Kedra, M. | Kendall, M.A. | Kingston, P. | Laudien, J. | Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. | Rachor, E. | Sardá, R. | Speybroeck, J. | Van Hoey, G. | Vincx, M. | Whomersley, P. | Willems, W. | Wlodarska-Kowalczuk, M. | Zenetos, A.
The pan-European MacroBen database was used to compare the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and the Benthic Quality Index (BQI<sub>ES</sub>), 2 biotic indices which rely on 2 distinct assessments of species sensitivity/tolerance (i.e. AMBI EG and BQI E[S<sub<50</sub>]<sub>0.05</sub>) and which up to now have only been compared on restricted data sets. A total of 12 409 stations were selected from the database. This subset (indicator database) was later divided into 4 marine and 1 estuarine subareas. We computed E(S<sub>50</sub>)<sub>0.0</sub> in 643 taxa, which accounted for 91.8% of the total abundances in the whole marine indicator database. AMBI EG and E(S<sub>50</sub>)<sub>0.05</sub> correlated poorly. Marked heterogeneities in E(S<sub>50</sub>)<sub>0.0</sub> between the marine and estuarine North Sea and between the 4 marine subareas suggest that sensitivity/tolerance levels vary among geographical areas. High values of AMBI were always associated with low values of BQI<sub>ES</sub>, which underlines the coherence of these 2 indices in identifying stations with a bad ecological status (ES). Conversely, low values of AMBI were sometimes associated with low values of BQI<sub>ES</sub> resulting in the attribution of a good ES by AMBI and a bad ES by BQI<sub>ES</sub>. This was caused by the dominance of species classified as sensitive by AMBI and tolerant by BQI<sub>ES</sub>. Some of these species are known to be sensitive to natural disturbance, which highlights the tendency of BQI<sub>ES</sub> to automatically classify dominant species as tolerant. Both indices thus present weaknesses in their way of assessing sensitivity/tolerance levels (i.e. existence of a single sensitivity/tolerance list for AMBI and the tight relationship between dominance and tolerance for BQI<sub>ES</sub>). Futurestudies should focus on the (1) clarification of the sensitivity/tolerance levels of the species identifiedas problematic, and (2) assessment of the relationships between AMBI EG and E(S<sub>50</sub>)<sub>0.05</sub> within and between combinations of geographical areas and habitats.
Show more [+] Less [-]Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by AVANO