Diaz Robert J, Solan Martin, Valente Raymond M
Biological Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 1346, Route 1208, Greate Road, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2004 Nov;73(3):165-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.06.004.
We have assessed the current state of knowledge relative to methods used in assessing sub-tidal benthic habitat quality and the classification of benthic habitats. While our main focus is on marine habitat, we extensively draw on knowledge gained in freshwater systems where benthic assessment procedures are at an advanced stage of maturity. We found a broad range of sophistication/complication in terms of the methods applied in assessing and mapping benthic habitats. The simplest index or metric involved some assessment of species richness, while the most complicated required utilizing multi-variate analysis. The simplest mapping attempts equated physical substrate with benthic habitat while the most sophisticated relied on extensive environmental preference and groundtruth data for species of concern. The leading edge of methods for benthic habitat mapping involves combining the advances in optical and acoustic methods that allow for routine classifying and mapping of the seafloor with biological and habitat data for species of concern. The objective of this melding of dispirit methods is to produce benthic habitat maps with broad system wide coverage and sound biological underpinning. It is clear that the disparity in information density between the physical and biological sides of the equation currently hinder applicability and acceptability of benthic habitat mapping efforts. In addition to the lack of basic information on the biological and environmental tolerances of targeted species, the proliferation of metrics for characterizing and assessing biological conditions further clouds the usefulness of any broad scale mapping attempt. The problem of data density mismatch between physical and biological methods will likely not be solved until acoustic methods can routinely resolve the elusive biological components that make a physical substrate a habitat.
我们评估了与潮下带底栖生境质量评估方法及底栖生境分类相关的当前知识状况。虽然我们主要关注海洋生境,但我们广泛借鉴了淡水系统中所获得的知识,在淡水系统中底栖生物评估程序已处于成熟的高级阶段。我们发现,在用于评估和绘制底栖生境的方法方面,存在广泛的复杂程度差异。最简单的指标或度量涉及对物种丰富度的某种评估,而最复杂的则需要利用多变量分析。最简单的绘图尝试将物理基质等同于底栖生境,而最复杂的则依赖于针对相关物种的广泛环境偏好和实地数据。底栖生境绘图方法的前沿涉及将光学和声学方法的进展相结合,这些进展使得能够对海底进行常规分类和绘图,并结合相关物种的生物和生境数据。这种不同方法融合的目标是生成具有广泛系统覆盖范围和可靠生物学基础的底栖生境图。显然,目前方程式中物理和生物方面信息密度的差异阻碍了底栖生境绘图工作的适用性和可接受性。除了缺乏关于目标物种的生物学和环境耐受性的基本信息外,用于表征和评估生物状况的指标激增进一步模糊了任何大规模绘图尝试的有用性。在声学方法能够常规解析使物理基质成为生境的难以捉摸的生物成分之前,物理和生物方法之间的数据密度不匹配问题可能无法得到解决。