Composite multi-metric index - Index of biotic integrity (IBI), Estuarine Biotic Integrity index (EBI)

AWAITING REVIEW

Indicator summary

Summary of indicator structure and function

Definition and/or background

The following is from Fulton et al 2004a -

This type of indicator has been around for some time in fields such as water quality, and it was discussed at a Canadian national workshop on objectives and indicators for ecosystem-based management held at Sidney, British Columbia (27 February - 2 March 2001) (Jamieson et al. 2001). It is a broad-based technique for assessing the relative ‘health’ of an animal community living in a particular ecosystem (Jamieson et al. 2001) or of condensing community or ecosystem level information in a single composite index. Information on multiple biotic and abiotic indicators is pooled to assess the overall structure and function of a community over time in comparison to reference areas or historical data. For example, selected measures may include diversity, richness or similarity; metrics of population dynamics; presence or absence of keystone, introduced or other species of interest; and dissolved oxygen levels in the water column, and these are evaluated against counterparts from reference areas and awarded a score from 1 through to 5. The higher the index score, the less degraded the system. Scores are then summed to produce an overall index (e.g. the IBI or EBI). The overall level of degradation is reflected in the overall score. Multivariate techniques such as PCA-principal component analysis can be applied as an adjunct for discriminating patterns as a method of investigating causes of degradation. As composite indices, like an IBI, integrate information about attributes from many species it overcomes many of the issues that can weaken individual indicators or indicator species (Rochet and Trenkel 2003). Unfortunately, composite indices are not problem free, as the indicators included in the calculation of the composite index and the relative weighting given to these constituent indicators can be important (Rochet and Trenkel 2003, Trenkel and Rochet 2003). With the attention being given to the issue of scoring systems for IBIs (Hughes et al. 1998, Miller et al. 1998, Trenkel and Rochet 2003) and multivariate or multi-dimensional indicators (Charvet et al. 2000, Pitcher and Preikhost 2001, Alder et al. 2002) this may not be a persistent problem. The technique has now been tested in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and reported in over 200 peer-reviewed publications (Jamieson et al. 2001). However, testing in the marine environment has been limited to date and is required. An IBI is currently being prepared for the coastal environment of Puget Sound and others are being put forward for estuarine systems around the world (Whitfield and Elliot 2002), but it is too early to report on their utility as indicators of the ecosystem effects of fishing. Nevertheless, the earliest reports on field trials indicate that the EBI is useful as an indicator of habitat quality for estuaries monitoring, as it correlates with habitat degradation (Deegan et al. 1997).

Attribute

Community structure and function, Ecosystem structure and function

Data required

The following is from Fulton et al 2004a -

Data for any selected metric, e.g. biomass; density; diversity; abundance; recruitment; abiotic measures etc.

Ecosystem applicability

The following is from Fulton et al 2004a -

Potentially applicable for any marine system, but it needs testing. Currently being trailed in a boreal closed system in Puget Sound.

Robustness

The following is from Fulton et al 2004a -

Potentially high: has potential as a first-order rapid assessment indicator, which could trigger further investigation. Advantages are that it is “user friendly” for managers and the broader lay and scientific communities. It is also conceptually simple, transportable, easy to teach and relatively inexpensive once the underlying data has been collected. Its disadvantages are that it is very simplistic, requires data from unfished reference areas (which are hard to locate), or from suitable historic data (which may not be available). Second, IBIs must be produced on a case-by-case basis-data and are not broadly applicable. Third, the index could be ambiguous, and for this reason should be interpreted in conjunction with other indicators of community level, such as ABC dominance curves, trophic indicators etc. Lastly, unless the constituent indices are chosen carefully, as an ecological indicator it can be no more “integrated” than single species assessments.

References

Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., Webb, H., and Slater, J. (2004a) Ecological indicators for the impacts of fishing on non-target species, communities and ecosystems: Review of potential indicators. AFMA Final Research Report, report Number R99/1546.

References that Fulton et al uses for this indicator:

Alder, J., D. Zeller, T. J. Pitcher, and R. Sumaila. 2002. A method for evaluating marine protected area management . Coastal Management 30: pp 121-31.

Charvet, S., B. Statzner, P. Usseglio-Polatera, and B. Dumont. 2000. Traits of benthic macroinvertebrates in semi-natural French streams: an initial application to biomonitoring in Europe (abstract) . Freshwater Biology 43, no. 2: pp 277-96.

Deegan, L.A., J.T. Finn, S.G. Ayvazian, C.A. Ryder-Kieffer, J. Buonaccorsi . 1997. Development and validation of an estuarine biotic integrity index. Estuaries  20: 601-617

Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, T. M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds, and D. P. Larsen. 1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblages’ integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences  55: pp 1618-31.

Jamieson, G.S., R. O'Boyle, J. Arbour, D. Cobb, S. Courtenay, R. Gregory, C. Levings, J. Munro, I. Perry, and H. Vandermeulen. 2001. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Objectives and Indicators for Ecosystem-based Management. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Proceedings Series, no. 2001/09.

Miller, D. L., P. M. Leonard, R. M. Hughes, J. R. Karr, P. B. Moyle, L. H. Schrader, B. A. Thompson, R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A. Fitzhugh, J. R. Gammon, D. B. Halliwell, P. L. Angermeier, and D. J. Orth. 1988. Regional applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries 13, no. 5: pp 12-20.

Pitcher, T. J., and D. Preikshot. 2001. RAPFISH: a rapid appraisal technique to evaluate the sustainability status of fisheries. Fisheries Research 49: pp 255-70.

Rochet, M.-J., and V. M. Trenkel. 2003. Which community indicators can measure the impact of fishing? a review and proposals. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60: pp 86-99.

Trenkel, V.M., and M.-J. Rochet. 2003. Performance of indicators derived from abundance estimates for detecting the impact of fishing on a fish community. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: pp 67-85.

Whitfield, A.K., and M. Elliot. 2002. Fishes as indicators of environmental and ecological changes within estuaries: a review of progress and some suggestions for the future. Journal of Fish Biology 61 (Supp A): pp 229-250

Background reading

Fulton, E.A., Fuller,M., Smith, A.D.M., and Punt, A. (2004) Ecological indicators of the ecosystem effects of fishing: Final report. AFMA Final Research Report, report Number R99/1546.

Citation

Page created by:Shavawn Donoghue

Last modified on: Apr 11, 2014 15:14

Versions: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1