The development,use, and misuse of biocriteria with an emphasis on the index of biotic integrity |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Education, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150090, China;2. School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China;1. Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;2. CAVElab Computational & Applied Vegetation Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;3. Laboratory of Hydrology and Water Management, Department of Forest and Water Management, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;4. College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Department of Forestry, Biodiversity and Tourism, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda;1. University of Texas, Permian Basin, 4901 East University, Odessa, TX 79762, USA;2. University of Münich and CESifo, Shackstrasse 4, 80539 Münich, Germany;2. Department of Paediatrics, Division of Paediatric Cardiology, Western University, London, Canada;3. Children’s Health Research Institute, London, Canada;4. Paediatric Cardiopulmonary Research Laboratory, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada;5. Department of Paediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Biocriteria can provide valuable tools for determining use attainment and detecting impairment. Unfortunately, however, biocriteria are sometimes hastily developed, and the underlying metrics either not calibrated properly or not calibrated at all. In this paper, the process of developing biocriteria is reviewed and problems in three basic areas are identified; field collections, metric development, and data analysis. With regard to field sampling, it was found that a greater degree of standardization is needed because variability increases when each investigator is left to choose what gear to sample with, when to sample, and with what intensity.To improve metric performance, several recommendations were made: (1) expectations and scoring for each metric should be based solely on field data; (2) states should not take scoring criteria developed in other states and assume that they apply in their state, unless they have overlapping ecoregions; (3) the slope of the of the 95th percentile line should be determined statistically, rather than by eye; (4) the minimum data set needed to develop defensible metrics needs to be investigated; (5) metric scoring should be based only on data from ‘least impacted’ sites; and (6) metrics that are overly redundant should be eliminated from multi-metric indices. Finally, it was found that accuracy and precision have not been adequately addressed. Round-robin testing should be used to establish the variance of each sampling method. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
