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 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 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)

Response of Benthic Macrofauna to Eutrophication in a Mesocosm Experiment: Ecosystem Resilience Prevents Hypoxic Conditions

“…In the context of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), a series of benthic indicators were developed and have been widely used, including the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) (Borja et al, 2000) and its multivariate version M-AMBI (Muxika et al, 2007), the Benthic Index (BENTIX) (Simboura and Zenetos, 2002), the Benthic Quality Index (BQI) (Rosenberg et al, 2004) and the BQI-Family (Dimitriou et al, 2012). As reported in numerous publications (Borja et al, 2003(Borja et al, , 2008Simboura and Reizopoulou, 2007;Gremare et al, 2009;Subida et al, 2012;Karakassis et al, 2013;Moraitis et al, 2013;Simboura et al, 2016), these indices have been found to be suitable tools for assessing the Ecological Status (ES) of coastal marine ecosystems.…”

Performance comparison of biotic indices measuring the ecological status base on soft-bottom macroinvertebrates: a study along the shallow Gomishan lagoon (Southeast Caspian Sea)

“…Many researchers (LABRUNE et al, 2006;BLANCHET et al, 2008;BAKALEM et al, 2009;DAUVIN et al, 2009;GRÉMARE et al, 2009;RANASINGHE et al, 2009) have highlighted the differences in assessments produced by the various benthic indicators. These differences are caused by several things, in particular by the fact that the indicators do not use the same method for species classification (e.g., the AMBI classifies species into Ecological Groups following PEARSON and ROSENBERG's concept.…”

Polychaete/amphipod ratios: An approach to validating simple benthic indicators

“…a given species was included in a single ecological group) (Borja et al, 2000(Borja et al, , 2011. Others suggested that it is possible to observe different responses of species to organic matter, stress and pollution according to local and regional particularities (Grémare et al, 2009;Zettler et al, 2013). This could correspond to the existence of distinct adapted populations that can respond differently to pollution and, therefore, and be classified in several ecological groups in function to their sensitivity (Grémare et al, 2009;Zettler et al, 2013).…”

“…Others suggested that it is possible to observe different responses of species to organic matter, stress and pollution according to local and regional particularities (Grémare et al, 2009;Zettler et al, 2013). This could correspond to the existence of distinct adapted populations that can respond differently to pollution and, therefore, and be classified in several ecological groups in function to their sensitivity (Grémare et al, 2009;Zettler et al, 2013). Species sensitivities, tolerances and preferences could change along environmental gradients and between different biogeographic zones (Leonardsson et al, 2015).…”