IMIS | Lifewatch regional portal

You are here


[ report an error in this record ]basket (0): add | show Print this page

Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database
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. (2009). Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 382: 297-311.
In: Marine Ecology Progress Series. Inter-Research: Oldendorf/Luhe. ISSN 0171-8630; e-ISSN 1616-1599, more
Peer reviewed article  

Available in  Authors 

Author keywords
    AZTI Marine Biotic Index · Benthic Quality Index · Macrozoobenthos · Water framework directive

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

    The pan-European MacroBen database was used to compare the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and the Benthic Quality Index (BQIES), 2 biotic indices which rely on 2 distinct assessments of species sensitivity/tolerance (i.e. AMBI EG and BQI E[S]0.05) 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(S50)0.0 in 643 taxa, which accounted for 91.8% of the total abundances in the whole marine indicator database. AMBI EG and E(S50)0.05 correlated poorly. Marked heterogeneities in E(S50)0.0 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 BQIES, 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 BQIES resulting in the attribution of a good ES by AMBI and a bad ES by BQIES. This was caused by the dominance of species classified as sensitive by AMBI and tolerant by BQIES. Some of these species are known to be sensitive to natural disturbance, which highlights the tendency of BQIES 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 BQIES). 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(S50)0.05 within and between combinations of geographical areas and habitats.

All data in the Integrated Marine Information System (IMIS) is subject to the VLIZ privacy policy Top | Authors