A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality.

By R. Díaz, M. Solan, R. Valente. Journal of Environmental Management, 2004

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12f8a6a80b3d17d94d1aa35efdb6338505324849

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

How many habitats are there in the sea (and where) (2008, background): “These reactions, however, led to many disconnected proposals (EEA, 2004; Connor et al., 2004; Diaz et al., 2004 ) that, so far, strongly limit our potential of monitoring the present state of habitats.”
Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive. (2007, methodology): “Hence, the use of different univariate and multivariate methodologies, metrics and indices, in measuring such response, has increased dramatically over recent years (see, for a useful summary of biotic indices, Diaz et al., 2004).”
A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators (2016, background): “…to water column habitats might be partially explained by the longer tradition in monitoring and status assessments of benthic communities (Díaz et al., 2004) and also because they are easier to conduct and interpret compared to the strongly spatially variable and stochastic water column…”
The FOBIMO (FOraminiferal BIo-MOnitoring) initiative—Towards a standardised protocol for soft-bottom benthic foraminiferal monitoring studies (2012, background): “These efforts have led to a profusion of “biotic indices”, which are mostly based on measures of diversity or relative proportions of various types of benthic indicator organisms (reviews in Diaz et al., 2004; Borja et al., 2007; Dauvin, 2007; Borja and Dauer, 2008; Josefson et al., 2009).”
The derivation, performance and role of univariate and multivariate indicators of benthic change : Case studies at differing spatial scales (2006, methodology): “The indices used here, which represent a subset of the major number of methods for analysing the benthos (Ferraro et al., 1989, 1991; Elliott, 1994; Diaz et al., 2004; Bortone, 2005) are unlikely to discriminate between subtle changes in community structure although are sufficient to detect large sc”
Long-term recovery of soft-bottom benthos following urban and industrial sewage treatment in the Nervión estuary (southern Bay of Biscay) (2006, background): “In this way, and in recent years, the interest in benthic indicators has increased dramatically, with a long list of new indicators proposed (see Diaz et al. 2004 for a review).”
Microplastic-Associated Biofilms: A Comparison of Freshwater and Marine Environments (2018, background): “There is a particular requirement to determine how this debris affects organisms at low trophic levels, such as invertebrates used for biomonitoring purposes [79, 80].”
Classifying Ecological Quality and Integrity of Estuaries (2011, background): “Hence, emphasis needs to be directed at understanding the complexities of estuarine system functioning rather than simplifying and scaling down the system into smaller components (Díaz et al., 2004).”
Benthic habitat mapping: A review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques (2011, background): “The studies outlined above which have utilized oceanographic data sets, all have a limit to the scale that they can resolve seafloor characteristics based on the maximum resolution of the data (usually tens of metres to tens of kilometres. See summary tables in - Kenny et al., 2003; Diaz et al., 200”
Linking temperate demersal fish species to habitat: scales, patterns and future directions (2013, background): “The data density mismatches between physical and biological methods will, however, remain unsolved unless acoustic methods can routinely resolve the elusive biological components that make a physical substrate a habitat (Diaz et al. 2004).”
Distinguishing marine habitat classification concepts for ecological data management (2009, neutral): “In contrast, terrestrial classifications have been primarily based on classification of plant communities (Devillers et al. 1991, Olson et al. 2001).”
Benchmarking DNA Metabarcoding for Biodiversity-Based Monitoring and Assessment (2016, positive): “As a result, the macroinvertebrate community has been largely used to develop biotic indices (Diaz et al., 2004; Pinto et al., 2009; Borja et al., 2015), such as the AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index (AMBI; Borja et al., 2000), used worldwide to assess the marine benthic status (Borja et al., 2015).”
Polychaete/amphipod ratios: An approach to validating simple benthic indicators (2016, neutral): “Introduction The development of benthic biological indicators that were ble to identify environmental status and potential anthropogenic mpacts (Diaz et al., 2004) has recently attracted much research ffort in Europe.”