Improvements of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI): Description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006)

By M. Coste, S. Boutry, J. Tison‐Rosebery, F. Delmas. 2009

212 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Organic chemicals jeopardize the health of freshwater ecosystems on the continental scale (2014, methodology): “The ecological status classification (high, good, moderate, poor, and bad) was based on biotic indices, namely (i) the multimetric IPR+ (33) for fish, (ii) the I2M2 (32) for invertebrates, and (iii) the IBD (35) for diatoms.”
Recovery potential of periphytic communities in a river impacted by a vineyard watershed (2010, unknown): “…to levels comparable to those of Saint-Joseph.220 221 Discussion222 1) Potential of diatoms in the assessment of multi-contamination.223 The BDI (Lenoir and Coste 1996; Coste et al. 2009) and SPI (Coste in Cemagref 1982)224 indices were originally designed to assess alterations in trophic status.”
A review of the alien and expansive species of freshwater cyanobacteria and algae in the Czech Republic (2010, background): “The following species are also considered to be nonnative: Thalassiosira baltica in the Great Lakes, USA (Edlund et al. 2000); Thalassiosira lacustris in the Ohio River tributaries (Smucker et al. 2008); Chara connivens in the Baltic Sea (Luther 1979); the tropical cyanobacteria Planktolyngbya micro”