...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Marine ecology progress series >Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database
【24h】

Comparison of the performances of two biotic indices based on the MacroBen database

机译：基于MacroBen数据库的两种生物指标的性能比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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) assessment of the relationships between AMBI EG and E(S_(50))_(0.05) within and between combinations of geographical areas and habitats.
机译：泛欧洲的MacroBen数据库用于比较AZTI海洋生物指数（AMBI）和底栖生物质量指数（BQI_（ES）），这两种生物指数依赖于对物种敏感性/耐受性的2种不同评估（即AMBI EG和BQI） E [S_（50）] _（0.05）），并且到目前为止仅在受限数据集上进行了比较。从数据库中总共选择了12 409个站点。该子集（指标数据库）随后被划分为4个海洋和1个河口分区。我们计算了643个分类单元中的E（S_（50））_（0.05），占整个海洋指标数据库中总丰度的91.8％。 AMBI EG和E（S_（50））_（0.05）相关性很差。海洋和河口北海之间以及4个海洋分区之间E（S_（50））_（0.05）的明显异质性表明，敏感度/耐受度水平在不同地理区域之间有所不同。 AMBI的高值始终与BQI_（ES）的低值相关联，这突显了这两个指数在识别生态状况差（ES）的台站时的一致性。相反，AMBI的低值有时与BQI_（ES）的低值相关联，从而导致AMBI归因于良好的ES，而BQI_（ES）归因于不良的ES。这是由于被AMBI归类为敏感物种，被BQI_（ES）归为宽容物种的优势。已知其中一些物种对自然干扰敏感，这突出了BQI_（ES）自动将优势物种分类为耐受物种的趋势。因此，这两个指数在评估敏感性/耐受性水平的方式上都存在弱点（即存在AMBI的单个敏感性/耐受性列表以及BQI_（ES）的显性和耐受性之间的紧密关系）。未来的研究应侧重于（1）明确识别为有问题物种的敏感性/耐受性水平，以及（2）评估组合内和组合之间AMBI EG与E（S_（50））_（0.05）之间的关系地理区域和栖息地。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号