Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning
EU Network of Excellence

Main Menu

· Home
· Contacts
· Data System
· Documents
· Events Calendar
· Forums
· Job M@RKET
· Links
· MarBEF Open Archive
· Network Description
· Outreach
· Photo Gallery
· Quality Assurance
· Register of Resources
· Research Projects
· Rules and Guidelines
· Training
· Weekly News Bulletin
· Wiki
· Worldconference


Last 3 Job opportunities View latest job opportunities RSS feed

>> Go to Job M@RKET

Last 2 forum posts View MarBEF Forum RSS feed

 Field course on sharks in South Africa (June 2011)
 training opportunity in basic taxonomy

>> Go to forums


Who's Online

Currently 51 guest(s) online
Currently 0 member(s) online





MarBEF Open Archive (MOA)

MarBEF OA logo
Introduction | Search

[ report an error in this record ]basket (0): add | show Printer-friendly version

Performance comparison of two biotic indices measuring the ecological status of water bodies in the Southern Baltic and Gulf of Lions
Fleischer, D.; Grémare, A.; Labrune, C.; Rumohr, H.; Vanden Berghe, E.; Zettler, M.L. (2007). Performance comparison of two biotic indices measuring the ecological status of water bodies in the Southern Baltic and Gulf of Lions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54(10): 1598-1606.
In: Marine Pollution Bulletin. Macmillan: London. ISSN 0025-326X
Peer reviewed article  

Available in  Authors 
    Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee: Open Repository 124062 [ download pdf ]

Author keywords
    Biotic indices; AMBI; BQI; sampling effort; benthic macrofauna; water framework directive; southern Baltic; Gulf of lions; Mediterranean

Authors  Top 
  • Fleischer, D.
  • Grémare, A.
  • Labrune, C.
  • Rumohr, H.
  • Vanden Berghe, E.
  • Zettler, M.L.

    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 cales 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.

All data in IMIS is subject to the VLIZ privacy policy Top | Authors