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

Abstract The Biological Diatom Index (BDI) is a standardized method routinely used in France for the surveillance of watercourse quality. This index is based on a list of 209 key species showing different pollution sensitivities. The pollution sensitivity, or “ecological profile”, is determined through the species presence probability values along a seven quality classes gradient. In a sample, the presence and abundance of species from this list are used to calculate the BDI score. Recently, water managers pointed out several weaknesses of this index: (a) the BDI fails to correctly assess water quality in acidobiontic and brackish conditions, and (b) pollution sensitivity and tolerance of several key species used to calculate the index need to be improved. This paper presents and discusses the new version of the BDI, called BDI-2006. 2802 samples were used to create this new index (samples collected on all French river types during the last thirty years), where 1063 diatom species were identified. For each sample, the community was described with species relative abundance, and relevant physico-chemical parameters were collected: pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand, ammonium, orthophosphates and nitrates. Eight hundreds and thirty eight key species were finally kept, including species typical of acidic and brackish waters, tropical taxa and abnormal forms of many widespread taxa (as evidence of toxicological impacts). The physico-chemical and the biological datasets were explored with classical analysis (Principal Component Analysis) and neural networks (Self-Organizing Maps), combined to draw the new key species ecological profiles. Comparing to the initial version of the BDI, several species profiles (Nitzschia paleacea for example) were clearly enhanced. This new version was adopted by the French standardisation authority (AFNOR) in October 2007.

[1]  M. Kelly,et al.  From pattern to process: understanding stream phytobenthic assemblages and implications for determining 'ecological status' , 2006 .

[2]  R. Stevenson Scale-Dependent Determinants and Consequences of Benthic Algal Heterogeneity , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[3]  Michael B. Griffith,et al.  Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams , 2005 .

[4]  E. A. Ferreira da Silva,et al.  Assessment of Water Quality in the Caima and Mau River Basins (Portugal) using Geochemical and Biological Indices , 2003 .

[5]  H. Ettl,et al.  Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa , 1985 .

[6]  Y-S Park,et al.  Typology of diatom communities and the influence of hydro-ecoregions: a study on the French hydrosystem scale. , 2005, Water research.

[7]  Young-Seuk Park,et al.  Water quality assessment using diatom assemblages and advanced modelling techniques , 2004 .

[8]  Valério D. Pillar,et al.  The bootstrapped ordination re‐examined , 1999 .

[9]  John Cairns,et al.  Algae as indicators of environmental change , 1994, Journal of Applied Phycology.

[10]  T. Duong,et al.  Cadmium Toxicity and Bioaccumulation in Freshwater Biofilms , 2008, Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[11]  E. C. Pielou The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections , 1966 .

[12]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  T. Kohonen Self-organized formation of topographically correct feature maps , 1982 .

[14]  Alan T. Herlihy,et al.  Assessment of streams of the eastern United States using a periphyton index of biotic integrity , 2003 .

[15]  Richard M. Heiberger,et al.  Statistical Analysis and Data Display: An Intermediate Course with Examples in S-Plus, R, and SAS , 2004 .

[16]  Sybille Wunsam,et al.  Diatom taxonomic and morphological changes as indicators of metal pollution and recovery in Lac Dufault (Québec, Canada) , 2004 .

[17]  J. Sinkeldam,et al.  A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands , 1994, Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology.

[18]  B. Hill,et al.  Ecoregions and benthic diatom assemblages in Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams, USA , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[19]  M. Coste,et al.  Diatomées invasives exotiques ou rares en France: principales observations effectuées au cours des dernières décennies , 2000 .

[20]  G. Hofmann Aufwuchs-Diatomeen in Seen und ihre Eignung als Indikatoren der Trophie , 1994 .

[21]  M. Kelly Short term dynamics of diatoms in an upland stream and implications for monitoring eutrophication. , 2003, Environmental pollution.

[22]  D. Charles,et al.  Benthic diatoms in USA rivers: distributions along spatial and environmental gradients , 2002 .

[23]  R. Archibald Diversity in some south African diatom associations and its relation to water quality , 1972 .

[24]  Friedrich Recknagel,et al.  Ecological Informatics: Understanding Ecology by Biologically-Inspired Computation , 2003 .

[25]  R. J. Stevenson,et al.  Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[26]  P. Dillon,et al.  Diatoms and biomonitoring: should cell size be accounted for? , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[27]  B. Biggs,et al.  The contribution of flood disturbance, catchment geology and land use to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems , 1995 .

[28]  Brian A. Whitton,et al.  Use of algae for monitoring rivers II , 1996 .

[29]  Leska S. Fore,et al.  Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.) , 2002 .

[30]  J. Gerritsen,et al.  Additive Biological Indices for Resource Management , 1995, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[31]  M. Coste,et al.  “Omnidia”: software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management , 1993 .