Assessing benthic community condition in Chesapeake Bay: does the use of different benthic indices matter?

  • Roberto J. Llansó
  • Jon H. Vølstad
  • Daniel M. Dauer
  • Jodi R. Dew
Article

Abstract

Federal and state environmental agencies conduct several programs to characterize the environmental condition of Chesapeake Bay. These programs use different benthic indices and survey designs, and have produced assessments that differ in the estimate of the extent of benthic community degradation in Chesapeake Bay. Provided that the survey designs are unbiased, differences may exist in the ability of these indices to identify environmental degradation. In this study we compared the results of three indices calculated on the same data, and the assessments of two programs: the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). We examined the level of agreement of index results using site-based measures of agreement, evaluated sampling designs and statistical estimation methods, and tested for significant differences in assessments. Comparison of ratings of individual sites was done within separate categories of water and sediment quality to identify which indices summarize best pollution problems in Chesapeake Bay. The use of different benthic indices by these programs produced assessments that differed significantly in the estimate of degradation. A larger fraction of poor sites was classified as good by the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program’s Virginian Province and MAIA benthic indices compared to the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity, although overall classification efficiencies were similar for all indices. Differences in survey design also contributed to differences in assessments. The relative difference between the indices remained the same when they were applied to an independent dataset, suggesting that the indices can be calibrated to produce consistent results.

Keywords

Benthic communities Benthic index Benthic index of biotic integrity Biological indicators Chesapeake Bay Comparison of methods Degradation 

References

  1. Agresti, A (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Alden, R. A. III, Dauer, D. M., Ranasinghe, J. A., Scott, L. C., & Llansó, R. J. (2002). Statistical verification of the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity. Environmetrics, 13, 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benaka, L. (Ed.) (1999). Fish habitat: Essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. B., & Weisberg, S. B. (2003). Southern California’s marine monitoring system ten years after the national research council evaluation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borja, A. (2005). The European water framework directive: A challenge for nearshore, coastal and continental shelf research. Continental Shelf Research, 25, 1768–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borja, A., Josefson, A. B., Miles, A., Muxika, I., Olsgard, F., Phillips, G., et al. (2007). An approach to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European water framework directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borja, A., Dauer, D. M., Diaz, R. J., Llansó, R. J., Muxika, I., Rodríguez, J. G., et al. (2008). Assessing estuarine benthic quality conditions in Chesapeake Bay: A comparison of three indices. Ecological Indicators, 8, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, P. M. (1990). The sediment quality triad approach to determining pollution-induced degradation. The Science of the Total Environment, 97/98, 815–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dauer, D. M., & Llansó, R. J. (2003). Spatial scales and probability based sampling in determining levels of benthic community degradation in the Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diaz, R. J. (1992). Ecosystem assessment using estuarine and marine benthic community structure. In A. Burton (Ed.), Contaminated sediment toxicity assessment (pp. 67–85). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  11. Diaz, R. J., Solan, M., & Valente, R. M. (2004). A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartwell, S. I., & Hameedi, J. (2007). Magnitude and extent of contaminated sediment and toxicity in Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 47. Silver Spring, VA: NOAA National Ocean Service.Google Scholar
  13. Hyland, J. F., Balthis, W. L., Engle, V. D., Long, E. R., Paul, J. F., Summers, J. K., et al. (2003). Incidence of stress in benthic communities along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts within different ranges of sediment contamination from chemical mixtures. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiddon, J. A., Paul, J. F., Buffum, H. W., Strobel, C. S., Hale, S. S., Cobb, D., et al. (2003). Ecological condition of US Mid-Atlantic estuaries, 1997–1998. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 1224–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Llansó, R. J. (2002). Methods for calculating the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity. Retrieved 10 July 2008, from http://www.baybenthos.versar.com/docs/ChesBaybibi.pdf.
  16. Llansó, R. J., Scott, L. C., Hyland, J. L., Dauer, D. M., Russell, D. E., & Kutz, F. W. (2002). An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. II. Index development. Estuaries, 25, 1231–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Llansó, R. J., Dauer, D. M., Vølstad, J. H., & Scott, L. C. (2003). Application of the benthic index of biotic integrity to environmental monitoring in Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Llansó, R. J., Dauer, D. M., & Vølstad, J. H. (2008). Assessing ecological integrity for impaired waters decisions in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.11.011.
  19. Paul, J. F., Scott, K. J., Campbell, D. E., Gentile, J. H., Strobel, C. S., Valente, R. M., et al. (2001). Developing and applying a benthic index of estuarine condition for the Virginian Biogeographic Province. Ecological Indicators, 1, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pearson, T. H., & Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 16, 229–311.Google Scholar
  21. Rakocinski, C. F., Brown, S. S., Gaston, G. R., Heard, R. W., Walker, W. W., & Summers, J. K. (2000). Species-abundance-biomass responses by estuarine macrobenthos to sediment contamination. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery, 7, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranasinghe, J. A., Frithsen, J. B., Kutz, F. W., Paul, J. F., Russell, D. E., Batiuk, R. A., et al. (2002). Application of two indices of benthic community condition in Chesapeake Bay. Environmetrics, 13, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schenker, N., & Gentleman, J. F. (2001). On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. The American Statistician, 55, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. USEPA (2000). Clean water action plan: Coastal research and monitoring strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy Workgroup.Google Scholar
  25. USEPA (2003). Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Washington, DC: Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office.Google Scholar
  26. Weisberg, S. B., Ranasinghe, J. A., Dauer, D. M., Schaffner, L. C., Diaz, R. J., & Frithsen, J. B. (1997). An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 20, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto J. Llansó
    • 1
  • Jon H. Vølstad
    • 1
    • 3
  • Daniel M. Dauer
    • 2
  • Jodi R. Dew
    • 1
  1. 1.Versar, Inc.ColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Marine ResearchBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations