Search

A comprehensive Mediterranean data set has been used to address 3 questions associated with the use of sensitivity/ tolerance based biotic indices to infer the Ecological Quality status (EcoQs) of benthic habitats. Our results showed: (1) a significant effect of the reference database on derived sensitivity/tolerance measure (ES500.05) as well as associated Benthic Quality Index values and derived EcoQs; (2) a lack of correlation neither between BQI and AZTIMarine Biotic Index values nor between BQI andMultivariate-AZTIMarine Biotic Index values; (3) a lack of correlation between the values of the Benthic Habitat Quality Index (index derived fromSediment Profile Imagery) and those of either of the 3 tested biotic indices; and (4) a general agreement between the 3 tested biotic indices in describing the lack of global trend for the EcoQs of the Gulf of Lions despite the occurrence of significant changes in benthic macrofauna composition between 1998 and 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two biotic indices, ATZI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) and Benthic Quality Index (BQI) have been recently introduced within the EC Water Framework Directive to assess the quality of marine habitats: both are based on sensitivity/tolerance classification and quantitative information on the composition of soft-bottom macrofauna. Their performance, especially with regard to sampling effort was assessed based on two data sets collected in Southern Baltic and one from the Gulf of Lions Mediterranean. AMBI was not affected by sampling effort but BQI was. Two modifications were proposed for BQI (i.e., BQI) (1) the removal of the scaling term (i.e., BQIW), and (2) the replacement of the scaling term by different scaling term (i.e., BQIES). Both modified BQIs were largely independent of sampling effort. Variability was slightly lower for BQIW than for BQIES. BQI was highly correlated with BQIW and with BQIES both in the Southern Baltic and in the Gulf of Lions. However, the proportions of stations, which were not attributed the same ecological quality status (EcoQ) when using BQI and its two modified forms were always high. Differences in ecological classification were mostly due to the scales used to infer EcoQ. Based on this study we recommend to use BQIES in future studies because it apparently constitutes the best compromise in (1) being independent of sampling effort, (2) limiting the variability in computation in relation with sampling effort, (3) being correlated with BQI and corresponding EcoQ. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The ecological quality of the Gulf of Lions coast was assessed using three biotic indices (H′, AMBI and BQI). The three indices correlated positively. The positive correlation between AMBI and BQI was surprising and was mostly due to the fact that the dominant species Ditrupa arietina featured a low ES500.05 but was classified in GI by AMBI. Both H′ and BQI were efficient in distinguishing impacted from un-impacted sites but AMBI was not. Differences between H′ and BQI were mainly due to the scale used to translate indices in terms of EcoQ. The three indices were able to detect the major changes in macrofauna composition, which occurred in the Bay of Banyuls-sur-Mer during the last 40years. However, the interpretations of such changes in terms of EcoQ differed between indices. These results are discussed relative to the characteristics of the tested indices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]