Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database

A. Gremare, C. Labrune, E. Vanden Berghe, J. M. Amouroux, G. Bachelet, M. L. Zettler, J. Vanaverbeke, D. Fleischer, L. Bigot, O. Maire, B. Deflandre, J. Craeymeersch, S. Degraer, C. Dounas, G. Duineveld, C. Heip, M. Herrmann, H. Hummel, I. Karakassis, M. KedraM. Kendall, P. Kingston, J. Laudien, A. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, E. Rachor, R. Sarda, J. Speybroeck, Gert Van Hoey, M. Vincx, P. Whomersley, W. Willems, M. Wlodarska-Kowaiczuk, A. Zenetos

    Research output: Contribution to journalA1: Web of Science-articlepeer-review

    49 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The pan-European MacroBen database was used to compare the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and the Benthic Quality Index (BQI(ES)), 2 biotic indices which rely on 2 distinct assessments of species sensitivity/tolerance (i.e. AMBI EG and BQI E[S(50)](0.05)) and which up to now have only been compared on restricted data sets. A total of 12409 stations were selected from the database. This subset (indicator database) was later divided into 4 marine and 1 estuarine subareas. We computed E(S(50))(0.05) in 643 taxa, which accounted for 91.8 of the total abundances in the whole marine indicator database. AMBI EG and E(S(50))(0.05) correlated poorly, Marked heterogeneities in E(S(50))(0.05) 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(ES), 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(ES) resulting in the attribution of a good ES by AMBI and a bad ES by BQI(ES), This was caused by the dominance of species classified as sensitive by AMBI and tolerant by BQI(ES). Some of these species are known to be sensitive to natural disturbance, which highlights the tendency of BQI(ES) 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(ES)). Future studies should focus on the (1) clarification of the sensitivity/tolerance levels of the species identified as problematic, and (2) assessment of the relationships between AMBI EG and E(S(50))(0.05) within and between combinations of geographical areas and habitats.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalMarine Ecology-Progress Series
    Volume382
    Pages (from-to)297-311
    Number of pages15
    ISSN0171-8630
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2009

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this