4.6 Article

A proposed integrated bioindex for the macrofouling biocoenosis of hard substrata in the lagoon of Venice

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 190-201

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2013.03.016

关键词

bioindex; ecological status; hard-substratum biocoenosis; biofouling; lagoon of Venice

资金

  1. Italian MIUR
  2. CORILA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioindices are often employed to evaluate the ecological status of an unstable habitat such as a lagoon. However, no bioindex to date has considered the macrofouling biocoenosis of hard substrata, which is characterised by a higher biodiversity than that of the benthic communities of soft substrata. We analysed the progression of the hard-substratum biocoenosis at two stations located in the southern basin of the lagoon of Venice using data collected monthly from artificial panels that were immersed continually for a period of one year. Our goal was to develop an integrated specific bioindex, according to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Europe, that is easy to calculate and provides a useful and immediate value for the ecological status on a logarithmic scale from 1 to 10. The bioindex proposed here takes into account species richness, covering area, and the Q-values of important physicochemical parameters (e.g., pH, salinity, temperature). To validate the bioindex, our sampling campaign was repeated for an additional year at the two previous stations and a third station in the central basin that had different hydrodynamic features and was subject to greater anthropogenic impact. The ecological status of the third station was poor-to-moderate, in contrast to the good status of the two stations in the southern basin. Seasonal changes in the bioindex values provide useful information on environmental changes because they indicate the moment of an ecological crisis as well as its causes and long-term effects. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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