Natural ecological variability and analytical design can bias the derived value of a biotic index through the variable influence of indicator body-size, abundance, richness, and ascribed tolerance scores. Descriptive statistics highlight this risk for 26 aquatic indicator systems; detailed analysis is provided for contrasting weighted-average indices applying the example of the BMWP, which has the best supporting data. Differences in body size between taxa from respective tolerance classes is a common feature of indicator systems; in some it represents a trend ranging from comparatively small pollution tolerant to larger intolerant organisms. Under this scenario, the propensity to collect a greater proportion of smaller organisms is associated with negative bias however, positive bias may occur when equipment (e.g. mesh-size) selectively samples larger organisms. Biotic indices are often derived from systems where indicator taxa are unevenly distributed along the gradient of tolerance classes. Such skews in indicator richness can distort index values in the direction of taxonomically rich indicator classes with the subsequent degree of bias related to the treatment of abundance data. The misclassification of indicator taxa causes bias that varies with the magnitude of the misclassification, the relative abundance of misclassified taxa and the treatment of abundance data. These artifacts of assessment design can compromise the ability to monitor biological quality. The statistical treatment of abundance data and the manipulation of indicator assignment and class richness can be used to improve index accuracy. While advances in methods of data collection (i.e. DNA barcoding) may facilitate improvement, the scope to reduce systematic bias is ultimately limited to a strategy of optimal compromise. The shortfall in accuracy must be addressed by statistical pragmatism. At any particular site, the net bias is a probabilistic function of the sample data, resulting in an error variance around an average deviation. Following standardized protocols and assigning precise reference conditions, the error variance of their comparative ratio (test-site:reference) can be measured and used to estimate the accuracy of the resultant assessment.
CESAM – Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies & Department of Biology, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal
Recommended Citation:
Kieran A. Monaghan. Four Reasons to Question the Accuracy of a Biotic Index; the Risk of Metric Bias and the Scope to Improve Accuracy[J]. PLOS ONE,2016-01-01,11(7)