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. Kedra; M. 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

doi:10.3354/meps08030

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 journal › A1: Web of Science-article › peer-review

51 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 language	English
Journal	Marine Ecology-Progress Series
Volume	382
Pages (from-to)	297-311
Number of pages	15
ISSN	0171-8630
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08030
Publication status	Published - 2009

Access to Document

10.3354/meps08030

Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on a soft-bottom macrozoobenthos pan-European databaseSubmitted manuscript, 694 KB

Cite this

Gremare, 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., Degraer, S., Dounas, C., Duineveld, G., Heip, C., Herrmann, M., Hummel, H., Karakassis, I., ... Zenetos, A. (2009). Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 382, 297-311. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08030

Gremare, 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. ; Degraer, S. ; Dounas, C. ; Duineveld, G. ; Heip, C. ; Herrmann, M. ; Hummel, H. ; Karakassis, I. ; Kedra, M. ; Kendall, M. ; Kingston, P. ; Laudien, J. ; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. ; Rachor, E. ; Sarda, R. ; Speybroeck, J. ; Van Hoey, Gert ; Vincx, M. ; Whomersley, P. ; Willems, W. ; Wlodarska-Kowaiczuk, M. ; Zenetos, A. / Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database. In: Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 2009 ; Vol. 382. pp. 297-311.

@article{17df49ff04b4402ea53f85b2b9da986c,

title = "Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database",

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.",

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

year = "2009",

doi = "10.3354/meps08030",

language = "English",

volume = "382",

pages = "297--311",

journal = "Marine Ecology-Progress Series",

issn = "0171-8630",

publisher = "Inter-Research",

}

Gremare, A, Labrune, C, Vanden Berghe, E, Amouroux, JM, Bachelet, G, Zettler, ML, Vanaverbeke, J, Fleischer, D, Bigot, L, Maire, O, Deflandre, B, Craeymeersch, J, Degraer, S, Dounas, C, Duineveld, G, Heip, C, Herrmann, M, Hummel, H, Karakassis, I, Kedra, M, Kendall, M, Kingston, P, Laudien, J, Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A, Rachor, E, Sarda, R, Speybroeck, J, Van Hoey, G, Vincx, M, Whomersley, P, Willems, W, Wlodarska-Kowaiczuk, M & Zenetos, A 2009, 'Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database', Marine Ecology-Progress Series, vol. 382, pp. 297-311. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08030

Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database. / Gremare, 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.; Degraer, S.; Dounas, C.; Duineveld, G.; Heip, C.; Herrmann, M.; Hummel, H.; Karakassis, I.; Kedra, M.; Kendall, M.; Kingston, P.; Laudien, J.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.; Rachor, E.; Sarda, R.; Speybroeck, J.; Van Hoey, Gert; Vincx, M.; Whomersley, P.; Willems, W.; Wlodarska-Kowaiczuk, M.; Zenetos, A.

In: Marine Ecology-Progress Series, Vol. 382, 2009, p. 297-311.

Research output: Contribution to journal › A1: Web of Science-article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database

AU - Gremare, A.

AU - Labrune, C.

AU - Vanden Berghe, E.

AU - Amouroux, J. M.

AU - Bachelet, G.

AU - Zettler, M. L.

AU - Vanaverbeke, J.

AU - Fleischer, D.

AU - Bigot, L.

AU - Maire, O.

AU - Deflandre, B.

AU - Craeymeersch, J.

AU - Degraer, S.

AU - Dounas, C.

AU - Duineveld, G.

AU - Heip, C.

AU - Herrmann, M.

AU - Hummel, H.

AU - Karakassis, I.

AU - Kedra, M.

AU - Kendall, M.

AU - Kingston, P.

AU - Laudien, J.

AU - Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.

AU - Rachor, E.

AU - Sarda, R.

AU - Speybroeck, J.

AU - Van Hoey, Gert

AU - Vincx, M.

AU - Whomersley, P.

AU - Willems, W.

AU - Wlodarska-Kowaiczuk, M.

AU - Zenetos, A.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.3354/meps08030

DO - 10.3354/meps08030

M3 - A1: Web of Science-article

VL - 382

SP - 297

EP - 311

JO - Marine Ecology-Progress Series

JF - Marine Ecology-Progress Series

SN - 0171-8630

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this