Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning
EU Network of Excellence

 
Main Menu

· Home
· Contacts
· Data Systems
· Documents
· FAQ
· Links
· MarBEF Open Archive
· Network Description
· Outreach
· Photo Gallery
· Quality Assurance
· Register of Resources
· Research Projects
· Rules and Guidelines
· Training
· Wiki
· Worldconference

 

Register of Resources (RoR)

 People  |  Datasets  |  Literature  |  Institutes  |  Projects 

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

Evaluation of the European Fish Index: false-positive and false-negative error rate to detect disturbance and consistency with alternative fish indices
Quataert, P.; Breine, J.; Simoens, I. (2007). Evaluation of the European Fish Index: false-positive and false-negative error rate to detect disturbance and consistency with alternative fish indices. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 14(6): 465-472. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00573.x
In: Fisheries Management and Ecology. Blackwel Science Ltd.: Oxford. ISSN 0969-997X; e-ISSN 1365-2400
Peer reviewed article  

Available in  Authors 

Keywords
    Indexes
    Products > Animal products > Products > Fish products > Products > Fish
    Properties > Errors
    Properties > False negative results
    Properties > False positive results
Author keywords
    error curve; false-negative error; false-positive error; fish index; precision

Authors  Top 
  • Quataert, P.
  • Breine, J.
  • Simoens, I.

Abstract
    An important requirement for meeting obligations under the European Water Framework Directive is the development of a fish-based index that is able to predict the ecological status of surface waters, and particularly be able to distinguish between (nearly) pristine and disturbed conditions. The European Fish Index (EFI), based on the concept of the Index of Biological Integrity, was developed alongside alternative models such as the Spatially Based Method on a European level (SBM-EU), for this purpose. A critical issue about these models is that they are simple to use but are able to predict whether a site is disturbed with a high degree of precision. From this perspective, two prediction errors need to be small: falsely declaring a site disturbed when it is not (falsepositive error; FP) and wrongly classifying a disturbed site as undisturbed (false-negative error, FN). For the EFI, the overall FP rate was 22% and the FN rate was 19%. The performance was better for the SBM-EU method with a smaller FP rate of 7% and an FN rate of 20%, but the EFI is preferred because, with only marginal loss of precision, it is far less complex. The EFI consists of a single model based on 10 fish metrics, while the SBM-EU comprises 12 models covering 49 metrics. Comparison of the EFI with existing national or regional fish-based assessment methods found major discrepancies that make intercalibration between these methods impractical.

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


If any information here appears to be incorrect, please contact us
Back to Register of Resources
 
Quick links

MarBEF WIKI

Erasmus Mundus Master of Science in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation (EMBC)
Outreach

Science
Responsive Mode Programme (RMP) - Marie Nordstrom, copyright Aspden Rebecca

WoRMS
part of WoRMS logo

ERMS 2.0
Epinephelus marginatus Picture: JG Harmelin

EurOBIS

Geographic System

Datasets

 


Web site hosted and maintained by Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) - Contact data-at-marbef.org