4.7 Article

The use of diversity indices for local assessment of marine sediment quality

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94636-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that as sediment conditions degrade in the Japanese region, the family density of benthic communities decreases and a few species become dominant. Local case studies showed that sites with multiple coexisting communities are affected by sediment degradation in terms of species density. However, community structure indices may become insensitive in the presence of community variability and small sample sizes, leading to potentially misleading or inaccurate estimates.
Diversity indices are commonly used to measure changes in marine benthic communities. However, the reliability (and therefore suitability) of these indices for detecting environmental change is often unclear because of small sample size and the inappropriate choice of communities for analysis. This study explored uncertainties in taxonomic density and two indices of community structure in our target region, Japan, and in two local areas within this region, and explored potential solutions. Our analysis of the Japanese regional dataset showed a decrease in family density and a dominance of a few species as sediment conditions become degraded. Local case studies showed that species density is affected by sediment degradation at sites where multiple communities coexist. However, two indices of community structure could become insensitive because of masking by community variability, and small sample size sometimes caused misleading or inaccurate estimates of these indices. We conclude that species density is a sensitive indicator of change in marine benthic communities, and emphasise that indices of community structure should only be used when the community structure of the target community is distinguishable from other coexisting communities and there is sufficient sample size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据