Search

Benthic macrofauna are used extensively for environmental assessment, but the area sampled and sieve sizes used to capture animals often differ among studies. Here, we sampled 80 sites using 3 different sized sampling areas (0.1, 0.05, 0.0071 m2) and sieved those sediments through each of 2 screen sizes (0.5, 1 mm) to evaluate their effect on number of individuals, number of species, dominance, nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) ordination, and benthic community condition indices that are used to assess sediment quality in California. Sample area had little effect on abundance but substantially affected numbers of species, which are not easily scaled to a standard area. Sieve size had a substantial effect on both measures, with the 1-mm screen capturing only 74% of the species and 68% of the individuals collected in the 0.5-mm screen. These differences, though, had little effect on the ability to differentiate samples along gradients in ordination space. Benthic indices generally ranked sample condition in the same order regardless of gear, although the absolute scoring of condition was affected by gear type. The largest differences in condition assessment were observed for the 0.0071-m2 gear. Benthic indices based on numbers of species were more affected than those based on relative abundance, primarily because we were unable to scale species number to a common area as we did for abundance. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2012; 8: 649-658. © 2010 SETAC [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A multimetric benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) was developed using data from five Chesapeake Bay sampling programs conducted between 1972 and 1991. Attributes of the index were selected by comparing the response of 17 candidate measures of benthic condition (metrics) between a set of minimally affected reference sites and at all other sites for which data were available. This procedure was conducted independently for each of seven habitats defined by salinity and substrate. Fifteen of the 17 candidate metrics differed significantly between reference sites and other sites for at least one habitat. No metric differed significantly in all seven habitats; however, four metrics, species diversity, abundance, biomass, and percent of abundance aspollution-indicative taxa, differed in six habitats. The index was calculated by scoring each selected metric as 5, 3, or 1 depending on whether its value at a site approximated, deviated slightly from, or deviated greatly from conditions at the best reference sites. Validation based on independent data collected between 1992 and 1994 indicated that the index correctly distinguished stressed sites from reference sites 93% of the time, with the highest validation rates occurringin high salinity habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Benthic indices are typically developed independently by habitat, making their incorporation into large geographic scale assessments potentially problematic because of scaling inequities. A potential solution is to establish common scaling using expert best professional judgment (BPJ). To test if experts from different geographies agree on condition assessment, sixteen experts from four regions in USA and Europe were provided species-abundance data for twelve sites per region. They ranked samples from best to worst condition and classified samples into four condition (quality) categories. Site rankings were highly correlated among experts, regardless of whether they were assessing samples from their home region. There was also good agreement on condition category, though agreement was better for samples at extremes of the disturbance gradient. The absence of regional bias suggests that expert judgment is a viable means for establishing a uniform scale to calibrate indices consistently across geographic regions., ((c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Studies designed to measure anthropogenic impacts on marine benthic communities depend on the ability of taxonomists to consistently discriminate, identify, and count benthic organisms. To quantify errors and discrepancies in identification and enumeration, 20 samples were completely reprocessed by another one of four participating laboratories. Errors were detected in 13.0% of the data records, affecting total abundance by 2.1%, numbers of taxa by 3.4%, and identification accuracy by 4.7%. Paired t-tests were used to test for differences in the Benthic Response Index (BRI), total abundance, numbers of taxa, and the Shannon-Wiener index between the original and the reanalysis data. Differences in the BRI were statistically insignificant. Although statistically significant differences were observed for numbers of taxa, total abundance, and the Shannon-Wiener index, the differences were small in comparison to the magnitude of differences typically observed between anthropogenically affected and reference sites.