Estuaries Vol. 20, No. 1, p.

149-158 March 1997

An Estuarine Benthic Index of

Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for
Chesapeake Bay
STEI'HEN B. WEISBERG L9 LINDA C . SCHAFFNER
j. A N A N D A RANASINGIIE ROBERT J. DIAZ
Versar, Inc. School of Marine Science
9200 Rumsey Road The College of William and Mary
Columbia, Maryland 21045 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

DANIEL M. DAUER JE~'FREY B. FRITHSEN

Department of Biological Sciences Versar, Inc.
Old Dominion University 9200 Rum~wy Road
Norfolk, Virginia 23529 Columbia, Maryland 21045
ABSTRACT: A multimetric b e n t h i c i n d e x o f biotic integrity (B-IBI) was d e v e l o p e d u s i n g data f r o m five C h e s a p e a k e
Bay s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m s c o n d u c t e d b e t w e e n 1972 a n d 1991. Attributes o f the i n d e x were selected by c o m p a r i n g the
r e s p o n s e o f 17 candidate m e a s u r e s o f benthic condition (metrics) between a set o f minimally a f f e c t e d reference sites
a n d at all o t h e r sites f o r w h i c h d a t a were available. This p r o c e d u r e was c o n d u c t e d independently for each o f s e v e n
habitats d e f i n e d by salinity a n d substrate. Fifteen o f the 17 candidate metrics d i f f e r e d significantly b e t w e e n r e f e r e n c e
sites a n d o t h e r sites for at least o n e habitat. N o meeric d i f f e r e d significantly in all s e v e n habitats; however, f o u r metrics,
species diversity, a b u n d a n c e , biomass, a n d p e r c e n t o f a b u n d a n c e as pollution-indicative taxa, d i f f e r e d in six habitats.
T h e i n d e x was calculated by scoring each selected metric as 5, 3, or 1 d e p e n d i n g on w h e t h e r its value at a site approx-
imated, deviated slightly f r o m , or deviated greatly f r o m conditions at the best r e f e r e n c e sites. Validation b a s e d on
independent data collected b e t w e e n 1992 a n d 1994 indicated that the i n d e x correctly distinguished slxessed sites f r o m
r e f e r e n c e sites 93% o f the time, with the highest validation rates o c c u r r i n g in high salinity habitats.

Introduction cause, unlike most pelagic fauna, benthic assem-

Benthic invertebrates are used extensively as in-
dicators o f estuarine e n v i r o n m e n t a l status and
trends because n u m e r o u s studies have demonstrat-
ed that b e n t h o s respond predictably to many kinds
of natural and a n t h r o p o g e n i c stress (Pearson and
Rosenberg 1978; Dauer 1993; T a p p e t al. 1993; Wil-
son and Jeffrey 1994). Many characteristics of ben-
thic assemblages make them useful indicators (Bil-
yard 1987), the most i m p o r t a n t o f which are relat-
ed to their exposure to stress and the diversity of
their response. Exposure to hypoxia is typically
greatest in near-bottom waters and a n t h r o p o g e n i c
c o n t a m i n a n t s o f t e n a c c u m u l a t e in s e d i m e n t s
where b e n t h o s live. Benthic organisms generally
have limited mobility and c a n n o t avoid these ad-
verse conditions (Wass 1967). This immobility is
advantageous in e n v i r o m n e n t a l assessments be-
C o r r e s p o n d i n g author.
-~Present address: S o u t h e r n California Coastal Water Re-
search Program, 7171 Fenwick Lane, Westminster, California
92683; tele 714/894-2222; fax 714/894-9699; e-mail stevew@
sccwrp.org.
blages r e f l e c t local e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s
(Gray 1979). T h e structure o f benthic assemblages
responds to many kinds o f stress because these as-
sentblages typically include organisms with a wide
range of physiological tolerances, feeding modes,
and trophic interactions (Pearson and Rosenberg
1978; Rhoads et al. 1978; Boesch and Rosenberg
1981).
Although descriptions of benthic assemblages
have been useful for characterizing environmental
conditions and gradients at local scales, benthic as-
semblages have not yet b e e n used to their full po-
tential as indicators in regional-scale studies o r
studies o f entire estuaries because the structure of
benthic assemblages also reflects natural variation
related to salinity, sediment type, latitude, and
d e p t h (Boesch 1973, 1977; Dauer et al. 1984, 1987;
Holland et al. 1987; Schaffner et al. 1987; Snel-
grove and Butman 1994: H e i p and Craeymeersch
1995). Benthic assemblages rarely are used to as-
sess ecological condition across habitats because of
the difficulty in separating variation in the condi-
tion o f the assemblage caused by habitat differ-

9 1997 Estuarine Research Federation 149

"150 S.B. Weisb0rg et al.
TABLE t_ Data sources used in developing the Chesapeake Bay B-IBI.
Data .'-;oulce Time Period
Chesapeake Bay Benthic 1984-1994
Monitoring Program, Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring
Program, Virginia 1985-1994
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) 1990-1993
James River Study 1971-1972
Wolf Trap 1987-1991
ences trom variation caused by natural and anthro-
pogenic stresses. In site-specific assessments o f ben-
thic assemblages, the p r o b l e m o f a c c o u n t i n g for
habitat-induced variation is minimized by using
nearby reference sites from the same kind o f hab-
itat. Benthic assessments also are used frequently
in studies of trends, where the p r o b l e m of habitat-
i n d u c e d variation can be minimized by r e t u r n i n g
to the same site or area,
O n e a p p r o a c h used to integrate biotic responses
and a c c o u n t for natural habitat variations in the
freshwater e n v i r o n m e n t is to define habitat-specific
reference conditions (Karr 1991; Kerans a n d Karr
1994; D e S h o n 1995). This a p p r o a c h defines ex-
pected conditions at sites free o f a n t h r o p o g e n i c
stress, and then assigns categorical values for vari-
ous descriptive metrics by c o m p a r i s o n with obser-
vations at reference sites. T h e result is a multi-met-
ric index o f biotic condition, frequently referred
to as an index o f biotic integrity (IBI). We bor-
rowed from that a p p r o a c h to develop a benthic
index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for use with sum-
m e r estuarine benthic c o m m u n i t i e s o f Chesapeake
Bay.
Methods
Macrobenthic infaunal data from five Chesa-
peake Bay sampling programs, each o f which used
a 0.5-mm sieve a n d identified organisms to the low-
est possible t a x o n o m i c level, were used to develop
the B-IBI (Table 1). T a x o n o m i c inconsistencies
a m o n g p r o g r a m s were eliminated by cross-corre-
lating the species lists, identifying differences in
n o m e n c l a t u r e , and consulting the taxonomist for
each p r o g r a m to resolve discrepancies. Data col-
lected before 1992 were used to calibrate the in-
dex; data collected between 1992 a n d 1994 were
used to validate the index. If a sile was sampled
m o r e than once d u r i n g a summer, which we de-
fined as July 15 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 30, only the
first sample was used in the calibration dataset.
O u r analytical a p p r o a c h was similar to the o n e
Karr et al. (1986) used to develop c o m p a r a b l e in-
dices for freshwater fish a n d involved four activi-
Number of
Sampling Gear and Summer
Sampling Krea (rod Samples References
Petite Ponar (0.025) 1,814 Ranasingheet al.
Van Veen (0.1) (1994a)
Box Corer (0.022)
Box Corer (0.0184) 180 Dauerand Alden (1995)
Van Veen (0.044) 293 Paul et al. (1992)
Ponar (0.05) 28 Diaz (1989)
Box Corer (0.063) 4 Schaffner(unpublished data)
ties: selecting measures of benthic macroinverte-
brate assemblages (referred to by Karr as metrics)
that differ between references and d e g r a d e d areas;
identifying quantitative thresholds that differenti-
ate between d e g r a d e d and reference areas for each
selected metric; c o m b i n i n g metric scores to devel-
op an index that identifies the condition o f the
assemblage at a site; a n d validating the index with
an i n d e p e n d e n t dataset,
Attributes o f the index were selected by com-
paring response o f the benthic assemblage be-
tween minimally affected reference sites and all
o t h e r sites in o u r database. Reference sites were
selected from o u r dataset by first eliminating sites
within highly developed watersheds and locations
near known point-source discharges. The remain-
ing sites were e x a m i n e d to identify those where no
c o n t a m i n a n t e x c e e d e d L o n g et al.'s (1995) effects
range-median (ER-M) c o n c e n t r a t i o n , total organic
c o n t e n t of the sediment was less than 2%, and dis-
solved oxygen c o n c e n t r a t i o n was consistently high.
Dissolved oxygen c o n c e n t r a t i o n was considered to
be consistently high if the site had no r e c o r d e d
m e a s u r e m e n t below 2 ppm, 90% o f the observa-
tions were above 3 ppm, and at least 80% o f the
m e a s u r e m e n t s were above 5 ppm. Sites for which
less than five i n d e p e n d e n t oxygen m e a s u r e m e n t s
were available were selected as reference sites only
if they were in a region classified by the Chesa-
peake Bay P r o g r a m as being free of" dissolved ox-
ygen stress (Magnien et al. 1995). O n e of the sam-
pling p r o g r a m s (EMAP) included a 10-d, acute
sediment bioassay using the a m p h i p o d Ampelisca
abdita for each site. Bioassay survival also had to
exceed 80% o f control survival for sites sampled
by this p r o g r a m to be selected as reference sites.
Two criteria were used to c o m p a r e metric values
between reference sites and o t h e r sites in the cal-
ibration dataset. First, a M a n n - W h i m e y U-test was
used to test for differences in mean. Second, dis-
tributions were c o m p a r e d using a Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test. T h e latter criterion was particularly
i m p o r t a n t for the a b u n d a n c e a n d biomass metrics
 Benthic Index for ChesapeakeBay 151

TABLE 2. Mean values by habitat for each candidate metric at reference sites (top number) and at all other sites (bottom number).
Shading in the Table: Top number boldface indicates pair is different by Mann-Whitney test; bottom number boldface indicates
different by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. N/A = data unavailable for that habitat.
High High
Tidal Low Mesohaline Mesohaline Polyhaline Potvhaline
Freshwater Oligohaline Mesohalinc Sand Mud Sand Mud

Species l)iversity
Shannon-Weiner 1.89 2.49 2.41 3.35 2.84 4.06 3.55
1.90 1.84 1.84 2.44 1.66 2.88 1.10
Productivity
Abundance (# m ~) 3,849 2,052 1,954 2,765 1,319 4,122 2,770
6,713 3,163 2,669 3,541 1,681 2,878 2,140
Biomass (g dry) (wt m -2) 10.7 26.5 9.6 19.9 8.4 29.9 8.1
21.9 28.9 18.7 5.8 2.9 10.0 0.9
Species composition
9 Percent of biom~ss as 24.5 0.8 0.9 2.8 9 2.3 5.9
pollution-indicative taxa N/A 1 8.4 N/A 55.4 6.3 24.8
Percent of abundance 29.4 22.4 2.4 11.6 26.5 12.1 22.9
pollution-indicative taxa 45.9 27.8 19.1 19.3 48.7 32.4 58.9
Percent of biomass as 18 89.1 83 78.9 65.3 71.2 63.2
pollution-sensitive taxa N/A 66.9 26.9 N/A 20. l 66.1 40.4
Percent of abundance 12.8 44.8 30.6 40.3 29.5 48.5 39.9
as pollution-sensitive taxa 4.7 28.3 25.7 20.8 10.3 29.3 8.4
Trophic composition
Percent of abundance 15.1 11.8 22.9 37.4 23.1 35.3 41.8
as carnivores or omnivores 10.1 15 18.3 23.8 15.6 32.8 19,9
Percent of abundance 66.6 37.8 23.8 24.3 21.4 25.1 21.4
as deep deposit feeders 69.6 35.1 21.8 21.3 18 12.4 9.4
Percent of abundance 6.5 16.7 1.2 7.0 4.8 10.6 3.1
as suspension feeders 11.3 13.6 8.3 15.4 6.4 9.0 4.9
Percent of abundance 10.4 33.7 52.1 31.4 50.8 29.0 33.7
as interface feeders 8.4 35.2 48.1 39.4 46.7 35.3 39.1
Depth distribution below sediment-water interface
Percent of taxa 31.4 20.0 37.6 26.8 35.1 47.6 35.5
deeper than 5 cm N/A 4.2 18.1 N/A 19.9 47.1 15.2
Percent of taxa 8.7 6.7 20.0 8.2 10.7 22.0 9.3
deeper than 10 cm N/A 0 6.9 N/A 3.3 30.1 6.1
Percent of abundance 11.1 8.6 27.7 11.7 21.4 34.9 16.6
deeper than 5 cm N/A 0.7 8.9 N/A 5.2 32 7
Percent of abundance 1.9 1.5 8.(1 2.4 5.6 16.6 4.2
deeper than 10 cm N/A 0 1.1 N/A 0.8 16.3 2.4
Percent of biomass 14.1 10.0 68.8 63.6 61.6 58.3 42
deeper than 5 cm N/A 3 17 N/A 11.5 68.5 17.4
Percent of bioma~s 3.3 1.7 48.3 31.6 29.9 28.5 24.9
deeper than 10 cm N/A 0 3 N/A 1 33.8 10.6

b e c a u s e t h e a n t i c i p a t e d r e s p o n s e a t d e g r a d e d sites
c o u l d b e h i g h e r o r l o w e r t h a n a t r e f e r e n c e sites,
d e p e n d i n g o n t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e stress.
9W e t e s t e d 17 c a n d i d a t e m e t r i c s r e p r e s e n t i n g
m e a s u r e s o f s p e c i e s diversity, p r o d u c t i v i t y , s p e c i e s
composition, depth distribution, and trophic com-
p o s i t i o n ( T a b l e 2). T o e n s u r e t h a t t h e i n t l e x w o u l d
b e a p p l i c a b l e to a w i d e a r r a y o f d a t a s e t s , w e at-
t e m p t e d to i d e n t i f y m e t r i c s t h a t h a v e b e e n s h o w n
t o b e l e a s t s e n s i t i v e to c o l l e c t i o n g e a r ( E w i n g e t al.
1988). Metrics based upon individual species were
a v o i d e d in f a v o r o f a s s e m b l a g e m e a s u r e s , w h i c h
c a n b e e q u a l l y s e n s i t i v e to t h e e f f e c t s o f p o l l u t i o n
b u t less s e n s i t i v e to s m a l l c h a n g e s i n h a b i t a t , s u c h
as s a l i n i t y a n d s u b s t r a t e t y p e ( W a r w i c k 19881.
Species were classitied into feeding guilds using
literature descriptions of feeding behavior (Jorgen-
s e n 1966; B o u s f i e l d 1973; F a u c h a l d a n d J u m a r s
1979; D a u e r e t al. 1 9 8 1 ) ; a c o m p l e t e list o f t a x a
i n c l u d e d in e a c h g u i l d is a v a i l a b l e in R a n a s i n g h e
e t al. ( 1 9 9 4 b ) . I,ists o f p o l l u t i o n - i n d i c a t i v e ( T a b l e
3) a n d p o l l u t i o n - s e n s i t i v e ( T a b l e 4) t a x a w e r e d e -
v e l o p e d u s i n g a t w o - s t e p p r o c e d u r e . First, c a n d i -
date taxa were identified based on known oppor-
tunistic or equilibrium life-history characteristics
( B o e s c h 1973; G r a s s l e a n d G r a s s l e 1974; M c C a l l
152 S.B. Weisberg et al.

TABLE 3. Taxa defined as pollution-indicative in the Chesa- TAB1.E 4. Taxa defined as pollution-sensitive in the Chesa-
peake Bay B-IBI. peake Bay B-IBI.

Annelida : Polychaeta Annelida : Oligochaeta Coelenterata : Anthozoa Mollusca : Bivalvia

AsabeUides oculata Aulodrilus limnobius Ceriantheopsis americanu5 Anadara ovalis
Capitella spp. A ulod~ilus paucichae/a Anadara transversa
Hypereteone heteropoda A ulodrilus pigueti Annelida : Polychaeta Cyrtopleura costata
Leitoscoloplo~ fragTlis Aulodrilus pluriseta Asychis elongata Dosinia discus
Paraprionospio pinnata Bothrioneurum vqdovskyanum Bhawania heteroseta Ensis directus
Streblospio benedicti FIaber cf. speciosu,~ Chaetopterus variepedatus Macoma balthica
,M'thropoda : ]nsecta L~ochaetides curvosetosus Clymenella toruata Mercenarza mercenaria
Isochaetides ]reyi Diopatra cuprea Mya arenaria
Chironomus spp. Limnodrilus hoffmeiste,q Glycera americana Rangia cuneata
Cladotanytarsu.~ spp. Potamothrix vejdovskvi Glycinde solitalia Spisula solidissima
Coelotanypus spp. Quistadvilus multisetosus l,oimia medusa Tagelus divisus
Glyptotendipes spp. Tubificid immatures without Mao'oclymer~ zonalis "lhgelus plebeius
Polypedilum tripodura capilliform chaetae Marenzelleria virdis Tellina agilis
Prockulius sublettei Mediomastus ambiseta
Tanypus spp. Mollusca : Bivalvia Echinodermata : Ophiuroidea
Nephtys picta
Mulinia klteralis Spiochaetopterus costarum Microphiopholis atra
Nucula proxima Spiophanes bombyx
Arthropoda
Alpheus heterochaelis
1977; R h o a d s et al. 1978; G r a y 1979; R h o a d s a n d
Biffarius bifo,mis
B o y e r 1982; W a r w i c k 1986; D a u e r 1993). S e c o n d , Callianassa setimanus
t h e list was v e r i f i e d a n d a m e n d e d by c o m p a r i n g Cyathura polita
t h e a b u n d a n c e o f e a c h t a x a at t h e r e f e r e n c e sites Listriella clymenellae
with a b u n d a n c e at sites f r o m t h e c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a - SquiUa empusa
set t h a t h a d k n o w n p o l l u t i o n stress. Sites in t h e
c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a s e t w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to b e p o l l u -
t i o n - s t r e s s e d if a n y s e d i m e n t c o n t a m i n a n t e x c e e d - 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e s w e r e s c o r e d as 3, a n d v a l u e s a b o v e
e d t h e L o n g et al. (1995) ER-M c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d t h e 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e w e r e s c o r e d a s 5. M e t r i c s c o r e s
survival in s e d i m e n t t o x i c i t y tests was less t h a n 8 0 % w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o an i n d e x by c o m p u t i n g t h e
of control (where toxicity data were available), or m e a n s c o r e a c r o s s all m e t r i c s f o r w h i c h t h r e s h o l d s
t o t a l o r g a n i c c a r b o n in t h e s e d i m e n t e x c e e d e d 3%, were developed. Assemblages with an average
o r d i s s o l v e d o x y g e n c o n t e n t was low. A site was c o n - s c o r e less t h a n t h r e e a r e c o n s i d e r e d s t r e s s e d , as
s i d e r e d to h a v e low d i s s o l v e d o x y g e n if t h e m e a - t h e y have m e t r i c values t h a t o n a v e r a g e a r e less
s u r e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n was b e l o w 0.5 p p m o n a n y oc- t h a n v a l u e s at t h e p o o r e s t r e f e r e n c e sites.
c a s i o n , o r b e l o w 2 p p m o n at l e a s t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t Two o f t h e m e t r i c s , a b u n d a n c e a n d b i o m a s s , re-
d a t e s w i t h i n a year. s p o n d b i m o d a l l y ; t h a t is, t h e r e s p o n s e c a n b e g r e a t -
M e t r i c s w e r e s e l e c t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r e a c h o f sev- e r t h a n at r e f e r e n c e sites with m o d e r a t e d e g r e e s
e n h a b i t a t s ( T a b l e 5). T h e seven h a b i t a t s t r a t a w e r e o f stress a n d less t h a n a t r e f e r e n c e sites with h i g h e r
e s t a b l i s h e d by c l u s t e r analysis ( B r a y - C u r t i s similar- d e g r e e s o f stress ( P e a r s o n a n d R o s e n b e r g 1978;
ity c o e f f i c i e n t ; t l e x i b l e s o r t i n g ; 13 = - 0 . 2 5 ) o f t h e D a u e r a n d C o n n e r 1980; F e r r a r o e t al. 1991). F o r
c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a s e t to i d e n t i f y d o m i n a n t assem- t h e s e m e t r i c s , t h e s c o r i n g was m o d i f i e d so t h a t
b l a g e s in C h e s a p e a k e Bay, a n d by analysis o f vari- both exceptionally high (those exceeding the 95th
a n c e to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r salinity, g r a i n size, p e r c e n t i l e at r e f e r e n c e sites) a n d low ( < 5 t h per-
depth, and latitude differed significandy among c e n t i l e ) r e s p o n s e s w e r e s c o r e d as a 1. V a l u e s be-
g r o u p s o f sites d e f i n e d by t h e d i f f e r e n t assem- t w e e n t h e 5 t h a n d 25th p e r c e n t i l e s o r b e t w e e n t h e
b l a g e s ( R a n a s i n g h e et al. in p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
Thresholds for the selected metrics wcrc based TABI,E 5. Habitat definitions used in the Chesapeake Bay
o n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f v a l u e s f o r t h e m e t r i c at t h e B-IBI (N/A = not applicable).
r e f e r e n c e sites. T h e IBI a p p r o a c h involves s c o r i n g Bottom Silt-clay
e a c h m e t r i c as 5, 3, o r 1, d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r Salinity (<63 p.) Content
Habitat (%,c) by Weigh! (%)
its v a l u e at a site a p p r o x i m a t e s , d e v i a t e s slightly, o r
d e v i a t e s g r e a t l y f r o m c o n d i t i o n s at r e f e r e n c e sites Tidal freshwater 0-0.5 N/A
Oligohalirte >-0.'5-5 N/A
( K a r r et ai. 1986). T h r e s h o l d v a l u e s w e r e estab- I.ow Mesohaline ----5-12 N/A
l i s h e d as a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e 5 t h a n d 5 0 t h ( m e d i a n ) High Mesohaline sand >-12-18 0-40
p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s l o t r e f e r e n c e sites in e a c h h a b i - High Mesohaline mud >-12-18 >40
tat. F o r e a c h m e t r i c , v a l u e s b e l o w t h e 5th p e r c e n - Polyhaline sand -> 18 0~,0
Polyhaline mud >-18 >40
tile w e r e s c o r e d as 1; v a l u e s b e t w e e n t h e 5th a n d

75th a n d 95th percentiles were scored as 3, a n d
values between the 25th a n d 75th percentiles of
the values at r e f e r e n c e sites were scored as 5.
T h e i n d e x was validated by e x a m i n i n g its re-
sponse at a new set o f r e f e r e n c e sites a n d a new
set o f sites with known e n v i r o n m e n t a l stress. Data
used for validation were collected between 1992
a n d 1994 a n d were i n d e p e n d e n t o f data used to
calibrate the index. Criteria for defining r e f e r e n c e
sites a n d known stressed sites f r o m the validation
dataset were the same as those described for the
calibration dataset.
T h e index was f u r t h e r validated by e x a m i n i n g
the consistency of the i n d e x response at sites that
were s a m p l e d m o r e than o n c e d u r i n g a summer.
This test, suggested by Stewart a n d L o a r (1994) as
a prerequisite for biological indices, e x a m i n e s in-
dex stability assuming that the quality o f the site
should n o t c h a n g e appreciably d u r i n g the index
period.
Results
O n e h u n d r e d f o u r t e e n sites f r o m the Chesa-
p e a k e Bay database m e t o u r criteria as r e f e r e n c e
sites for d e v e l o p i n g the B-IBI. At least 10 r e f e r e n c e
sites were identified f r o m each habitat e x c e p t the
oligohaline habitat, for which only seven r e f e r e n c e
sites were available. Biomass a n d d e p t h metrics
could n o t be evaluated in the tidal freshwater a n d
high m e s o h a l i n e sand habitats, t h o u g h , because
n o t all s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m s p a r t i t i o n e d samples by
d e p t h within the s e d i m e n t or m e a s u r e d biomass
individually by t a x o n o m i c groups.
Fifteen of the 17 candidate metrics differed sig-
nificantly in m e a n or in distribution between ref-
e r e n c e sites a n d all o t h e r sites in the calibration
dataset for at least o n e habitat (Table 2). No metric
differed significantly in all seven habitats; however,
f o u r metrics, species diversity, a b u n d a n c e , biomass
a n d p e r c e n t o f a b u n d a n c e as pollution-indicative
taxa, differed in six habitats. T h e n u m b e r of met-
rics that differed significantly between r e f e r e n c e
sites a n d all o t h e r sites was considerably g r e a t e r in
high salinity t h a n in low salinity (Table 2). Four-
teen o f the 17 metrics differed significantly at ref-
e r e n c e sites in polyhaline m u d c o m p a r e d with only
t h r e e in tidal freshwater, a n d o n e in the oligoha-
line habitat.
Table 6 lists the selected metrics a n d their
thresholds. We i n c o r p o r a t e d each metric that dif-
fered significantly in six habitats into the index for
all habitats because in each case the direction o f
the r e s p o n s e was the same in the seventh habitat
a n d in m o s t cases the difference was significant at
a marginally lower a l p h a level. We also limited the
n u m b e r of r e d u n d a n t metrics within a habitat to
avoid over-weighting individual p r o p e r t i e s o f the
Benthic Indexfor ChesapeakeBay 153
assemblage. For instance, we selected either abun-
dance-based or biomass-based metrics o f species
composition, b u t n o t both. We also limited the in-
dex to a single depth-distribution metric, a n d sin-
gle trophic c o m p o s i t i o n metric, within each habi-
tat.
T h e B-IBI classified 93% of the validation sites
correctly (Table 7). T h e lowest classification effi-
ciency by habitat was 50% in high m e s o h a l i n e
sand, but this was based on only two samples. Clas-
sification efficiency was generally p o o r e r in low sa-
linities. Cumulative classification efficiency for hab-
itats with salinity less than 18%o was 84%, whereas
classification efficiency was 97% for salinities above
18%o (Table 7).
T h e i n d e x was stable within the s u m m e r i n d e x
period, with an overall correlation o f 0.97 between
the first a n d second s a m p l i n g visits to a site. T h e
correlation between the first a n d second sampling
visits was g r e a t e r than 0.9 in all habitats, a n d for
six habitats the correlation e x c e e d e d 0.95 (Table
8). In all habitats except the oligohaline a n d me-
sohaline sand, m o r e than 80% o f the sites s a m p l e d
twice d u r i n g the same s u m m e r classified the same
(Table 8). Most o f the sites that classified differ-
ently between the two visits were sites for which
index values were similar for b o t h visits but were
close to, a n d on either side of, the threshold value
o f 3.
Discussion
D e v e l o p m e n t o f the B-IBI was based u p o n quan-
tifying established principles of benthic ecology,
n o t on d e v e l o p i n g new ones. T h e principles were
based largely on the p a r a d i g m o f Pearson a n d Ro-
s e n b e r g (1978), which holds that b e n t h i c assem-
blages r e s p o n d to i m p r o v e m e n t s in habitat quality
in three progressive stages: the a b u n d a n c e o f or-
ganisms increases; species diversity increases as
new taxa are able to survive at the site; a n d the
d o m i n a n t species at the site c h a n g e f r o m pollu-
tion-tolerant to pollution-sensitive species. In o u r
work, this p a r a d i g m was s u p p l e m e n t e d with as-
s u m p t i o n s that the a b u n d a n c e a n d diversity o f spe-
cies o c c u r r i n g d e e p e r in the s e d i m e n t should be
g r e a t e r at r e f e r e n c e sites than at d e g r a d e d sites
(Warwick 1986; Schaffner 1990; D a u e r 1993) a n d
that the distribution o f b e n t h o s a m o n g feeding
guilds should be m o r e diverse at r e f e r e n c e sites
(Word 1978).
Each of these principles was successful at distin-
guishing r e f e r e n c e sites f r o m d e g r a d e d sites within
at least s o m e habitats o f C h e s a p e a k e Bay (Table 2).
W h e n applied individually to the validation data-
set, however, n o n e o f the metrics derived f r o m
these principles were as effective at distinguishing
between r e f e r e n c e sites a n d d e g r a d e d sites as the
154 S.B. Weisberg et al.

TABLE 6. T l u e s h o l d s u s e d to score each metric o f the C h e s a p e a k e Bay B-IBI.

Scoring Criteria
5 3 1
Tidal Freshwater
Shannon-Weiner -> 1.8 1.0-1.8 <1.0
A b u n d a n c e (# m-'-') ->1,000-4,000 500-1,000 or ->4,000-10,000 < 5 0 0 or ->10,000
Biomass ( g m -z) ->0.5-3 0.25-0.5 or ->3-50 <0.25 or ->50
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<25 25-75 >75
Oligohaline
Shannon-Weiner ->2.5 1.9-2.5 < 1.9
A b u n d a n c e (# m -2) ->1,500-3,000 500-1,500 or ->3,000-8,000 < 5 0 0 or ->8,000
Biomass (g m z) ->3-25 0.5-3 or ->25-60 <0.5 or ->60
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<25 25-75 >75
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->40 10-40 <10
Low Mesohaline
Shannon-Weiner ->2.5 1.7-2.5 <1.7
A b u n d a n c e (# m -z) ->1,500-2,500 500-1,500 or ->2,500-6,000 < 5 0 0 or ->6,000
Biomass (g m -2) -> :>---10 1-5 or ->10-30 <1 or ->30
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<10 10-20 >20
Bioma.s.s o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->80 40--80 <40
Biomass > 5 cm below sediment-water interface (%) ->80 10-80 <10
High Mesohaline sand
Shannon-Weiner ->3.2 2.5-3.2 <2.5
A b u n d a n c e (# m-o-) -> 1,500-3,000 1,000-1,500 or ->3,000-5,000 <1,000 or ->5,000
Biomass (g m -2) ->3-15 1-3 or ->15-50 <1 or ->50
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<10 10-25 >25
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->40 10--40 <10
A b u n d a n c e o f carnivores a n d o m n i v o r e s (%) ->35 20-35 <20
High Mesohaline m u d
Shamlon-Weiner ->3.0 2.0-3.0 <2.0
A b u n d a n c e (# m -2) ->1,500-2,500 1,000-1,500 or ->2,500-5,000 <1,000 or ->5,000
Biomass ->2-10 0.5-2 or ->10-50 <1,000 or ->5,000
Biomass o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<5 5-30 > 30
Biomass o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->60 30-60 <30
A b u n d a n c e o f carnivores a n d o m n i v o r e s (%) -<25 10-25 <10
Biomass > 5 c m below sediment-water interface (%) ->60 10-60 <10
Polyhaline s a n d
Shannon-Weiner ->3-5 2.7-3.5 <2.7
A b u n d a n c e (# m -z) ->3,000-5,000 1,500-3,000 or ->5,000-8,000 <1,500 or ->8,000
Biomass (g m -~ ->5-20 1-5 or ->20-50 <1 or ->50
Biomass o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<5 5-15 >15
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->50 25-50 <25
A b u n d a n c e o f deep-deposit feeders (%) >25 10-25 <10
Polyhaline m u d
Shannon-Weiner ->3.3 2.4-3.3 <2.4
A b u n d a n c e (# m -2) ->1,500-3,000 1,000-1,500 or ->3,000-8,000 <1,000 or ->8,000
Biomass (g m -2) ->3-10 0.5-3 or ->10-30 <0.5 or ->30
Biomass o f pollution-indicative taxa (%) -<5 5-20 >20
Biomass o f pollution-sensitive taxa (%) ->60 30-60 <30
A b u n d a n c e of carnivores a n d o m n i v o r e s (%) ->40 25-40 <25
Taxa > 5 cm below sediment-water interface (%) ->40 10-40 <10

index that combines t h e m (Table 9). We attribute
this to the staged response o f b e n t h o s to stress, in
which different metrics display greater response
with different degrees o f p e r t u r b a t i o n (Pearson
and Rosenberg 1978); this illustrates o n e o f the
strengths of a multimetric a p p r o a c h (Karr 1991).
T h e use o f m u h i m e t r i c indices has been a d o p t e d
quite widely for fish but only recently for b e n t h o s
(Kerans and Karr 1994). Developing indices for es-
tuarine b e n t h o s is difficult because o f the lack o f
information a b o u t the life history or pollution sen-
sitivity o f most species; such i n f o r m a t i o n is neces-
sary to develop metrics such as p e r c e n t o f individ-
uals as pollution-indicative or pollution-sensitive
taxa. Controlled e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n to assess the pol-
lution tolerance o f individual taxa, which are nu-
 Benthic Index for ChesapeakeBay 155

TABI,E 7. Classification efficiency of the B-IBI for sites t-ore TABI.E 8. Classification consistency for sites visited more than
the validation dataset. once during a year.
Number of Percent Correctly Number of
Habitat Class Validation Samples Classified Site-Year
Combinations Percent of
Tidal freshwater 22 86.4 with Multiple Sites with Correlation
Summer Unchanged Between RGI
Oligohaline 5 80.0 ttabitat Class Samples Status Values
Low Mesohaline 29 82.3
High Mesohaline sand 2 50.0 Tidal freshwater 19 84.2 0.98
High Mesohaline mud 50 96.0 Oligohaline 34 76.5 0.97
Polyhaline sand 11 100.0 Low Mesohaline 103 92.2 0.98
Polyhaline mud 52 100.0 High Mesohaline sand 74 66.3 0.95
lligh Mesohaline mud 61) 85.0 0.96
Polyhaline sand 2 100.0 1.00
Polyhaline mud 35 97.1 0.91
m e r o u s for fish, a r e v e r y l i m i t e d f o r b e n t h o s . T h e
p o l l u t i o n t o l e r a n c e o f b e n t h o s typically is c a t e g o -
rized based on their life-history characteristics b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d in h i g h salin-
( D a u e r 1993), w h i c h in s o m e cases a r e a m b i g u o u s ity h a b i t a t s (e.g., P e a r s o n a n d R o s e n b e r g 1978)
o r i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r r e s p o n s e to p o l l u t i o n a n d m a y n o t b e e n t i r e l y a p p l i c a b l e to tidal fresh-
(Seitz a n d S c h a f f n e r 1995). water benthic communities. The principles devel-
O n e e x a m p l e o f this c o n f l i c t is o u r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o p e d fox" n o n t i d a l f i ' e s h w a t e r e n v i r o n m e n t s (Ker-
o f t h e c a p i t e l l i d p o l y c h a e t e Mediomastus ambiseta as a n s a n d K a r r 1994; L e n a t a n d B a r b o u r 1994) d i f f e r
a pollution-sensitive taxon. Most previous studies s u b s t a n t i a l l y f r o m t h o s e u s e d in e s t u a r i e s .
h a v e i d e n t i f i e d this w i d e s p r e a d s p e c i e s as o p p o r - O n e c o n s t r a i n t u p o n u s i n g t h e B-IBI is t h a t it
t u n i s t i c a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f p o l l u t i o n - s t r e s s e d sites i n c l u d e s s e v e r a l m e t r i c s t h a t w e r e n o t m e a s u r e d by
( G r a s s l e a n d G r a s s l e 1984; D a u e r 1993), O u r c o m - all b e n t h i c s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m s in C h e s a p e a k e Bay.
p a r i s o n o f its a b u n d a n c e a t r e f e r e n c e sites a n d an- M a n y h i s t o r i c C h e s a p e a k e Bay c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s
t h r o p o g e n i c a l l y s t r e s s e d sites s h o w e d t h e o p p o s i t e d i d n o t m e a s u r e b i o m a s s , a n d few o n g o i n g e f f o r t s
( T a b l e 10). W e c h o s e to rely o n t h e e m p i r i c a l d a t a p a r t i t i o n t h e s a m p l e s by d e p t h , as is r e q u i r e d f o r
f r o m C h e s a p e a k e Bay in d e v e l o p i n g o u r i n d e x , b u t m e t r i c s in t h e h i g h e r salinity strata. To m i n i m i z e
suggest that the classification of taxa into such the effect of missing biomass data, abundance-
g r o u p s is a f r u i t f u l a r e a f o r c o n s i s t e n t , c o n t r o l l e d based substitutes for the pollution-indicative and
experimentation. p o l l u t i o n - s e n s i t i v e c a t e g o r i e s a r e g i v e n ( T a b l e 11)
A l t h o u g h t h e p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h t h e B-IBI is b e c a u s e t h e s e m e t r i c s w e r e also s i g n i l i c a n t in all
b a s e d w e r e effective f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n habitats where biomass-based metrics were selected
sites o f h i g h a n d l o w quality, t h e y d i d n o t a p p l y f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e i n d e x . T o assess t h e effi~ct o f
e q u a l l y well in all h a b i t a t s . T h e n u m b e r o f m e t r i c s m i s s i n g d a m o n r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e i n d e x , we r e p e a t -
t h a t d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t w e e n sites o f h i g h a n d ed the validation step without using biomass data,
low q u a l i t y in t h e c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a s e t was c o n s i d - did the same without the depth-related dam, and
e r a b l y s m a l l e r in t h e t i d a l f r e s h w a t e r a n d o l i g o h a - a g a i n w i t h o u t e i t h e r o f t h e s e . O u r o v e r a l l classifi-
l i n e h a b i t a t , a n d i n d e x v a l i d a t i o n e f f i c i e n c y was c a t i o n e f f i c i e n c y w h e n b i o m a s s m e t r i c s w e r e re-
p r o g r e s s i v e l y w e a k e r at l o w e r salinities. F u r t h e r - m o v e d fell f r o m 9 3 % to 9 2 % . D r o p p i n g t h e d e p t h -
more, our validation for the tidal freshwater habi-
tat was n o t r i g o r o u s b e c a u s e o u r v a l i d a t i o n d a t a s e t TABI.E 9. Classification efficiency for each of the metrics used
d i d n o t i n c l u d e a n y d e g r a d e d sites, a n d t h e t h r e s h - in the B-IBI based on the validation data set. Metric testing was
o l d v a l u e s we i d e n t i f i e d f o r t i d a l f r e s h w a t e r w c r c limited to habitats for which thresholds were established.
low r e l a t i v e to t h o s e u s e d f o r t h e o t h e r h a b i t a t s . Pc-rcent of
We s u g g e s t c a u t i o n in u s i n g t h e t i d a l f r e s h w a t e r Sites
Correctly
c o m p o n e n t o f t h e B-IBI u n t i l f u r t h e r v a l i d a t i o n Classified
with a m o r e c o m p l e t e d a t a s e t c a n b e a c c o m - Shannon-Weiner diversity 89.5
plished. Abundance 82.5
T h e l o w e r v a l i d a t i o n e f f i c i e n c y f o r t h e i n d e x as Biomass 81.6
a whole and the smaller number of metrics that Percent of abundance as pollution-indicative taxa 72.1
Percent of biomass as pollution-indicative taxa 87.5
w o r k e d i n d i v i d u a l l y in low s a l i n i t i e s m a y b e d u e to Percent of abundance as pollution-sensitive taxa 90.2
t h e i n h e r e n t l y d i f f e r e n t f a u n a t h a t i n h a b i t t h e low Percent of biomass as pollution-sensitive taxa 82.4
salinity h a b i t a t s (i.e., d o m i n a t e d by o l i g o c h a e t e s Percent of abundance as carnivores and omnivores 71.2
a n d i n s e c t s i n s t e a d o f p o l y c h a e t e s , bivalves, a n d Percent of abundance as deep deposit fi=eders 90.9
crustaceans). The principles of benthic ecology Percent of biomass deeper than 5 cm 90.9
Percent of taxa deeper than 5 cm 65.7
u s e d to g e n e r a t e t h e list o f c a n d i d a t e m e t r i c s w e r e
156 s . B . Weisberg et al.

TABI.E i0. C o m p a r i s o n o f a b u n d a n c e a n d frequency of o c c u r r e n c e of Mediomastus amtnseta at reference a n d d e g r a d e d sites in all

habitats in which they were collected.

Abundance (number m ~) Frequencyof OcetlrFr162

(Percent of Sites)
Habitat Dataset Reference Sites Degraded S i t e s Rt:ference
Sites DegradedSites
Polyhaline s a n d Calibration 1,004 0 72 0
Polyhaline m u d Calibration 693 15 58 4
High Mesohaline sand Calibration 849 23 58 46
High Mesohaline m u d Calibration 409 9 30 3
Polyhaline sand Validation 2,073 0 77 0
Polyhaline m u d Validation 2,287 77 71 10
High Mesohaline m u d Validation 2,221 26 66 9

related metrics also resulted in a r e d u c t i o n in clas- e n r i c h m e n t of total organic c a r b o n (TOC), and

sification efficiency f r o m 93% to 92%. R e m o v i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these stresses. To increase the
biomass a n d depth-related metrics t o g e t h e r caused n u m b e r o f samples to address this question, we in-
n o f u r t h e r loss in classification efficiency. cluded samples f r o m the calibration dataset m e e t -
In e x a m i n i n g the validation results, we discov- ing o u r criteria as a n t h r o p o g e n i c a l l y stressed sites
e r e d a small n u m b e r o f instances in which just a in the analysis since these sites were used to only
few individuals caused the pollution-sensitive taxa a small d e g r e e in calibration. T h e B-IBI was most
metric to be scored as 5 when overall a b u n d a n c e effective at identifying hypoxia; it correctly identi-
in the sample was low. In such cases, a few stray fied m o r e than 95% o f hypoxic sites regardless of
organisms can artificially inflate the response. To w h e t h e r hypoxia o c c u r r e d alone or in c o m b i n a -
avoid this, we r e c o m m e n d assigning a m a x i m u m tion with o t h e r stresses (Table 12). T h e index iden-
score of 3 for the pollution-sensitive taxa metric if tified p o o r biotic conditions in the p r e s e n c e of
overall a b u n d a n c e at the site is less than at the c o n t a m i n a n t s a b o u t 90% o f the time but slightly
r e f e r e n c e sites (i.e., the 5th percentile IBI abun- less often w h e n c o m b i n e d with hypoxia or high
d a n c e threshold) for the habitat. T O C . Response to organic e n r i c h m e n t was poor-
O u r validation test showed a high overall classi- est; the i n d e x identified only a b o u t 70% o f the en-
fication efficiency, b u t it did n o t address w h e t h e r riched sites as having d e g r a d e d b e n t h i c c o m m u -
the i n d e x is equally sensitive to the m a n y different nities. T h e i n d e x may have b e e n less efficient at
types o f a n t h r o p o g e n i c stress o c c u r r i n g in Chesa- i d e n t i f y i n g o r g a n i c a l l y e n r i c h e d sites b e c a u s e
p e a k e Bay. To assess this, we r e p e a t e d the valida- c h a n g e s in the benthic assemblage at low levels of
tion step separately for several categories of stress, T O C e n r i c h m e n t are too small to be detected con-
including hypoxia, chemical c o n t a m i n a t i o n , a n d sistently with community-level attributes (Gray et
al. 1990). Alternatively, the d e c r e a s e d efficiency
may be a function of c h o o s i n g 3% T O C as a
TABLE 11. A b u n d a n c e - b a s e d t h r e s h o l d s that m a y be substitut- threshold for e n r i c h m e n t ; the efficiency o f the in-
ed for biomass-based thresholds.
dex increased to 100% as T O C levels e x c e e d e d
.'~2oring Criteria 4%.
5 3 1 S o m e a u t h o r s have suggested that hypoxic con-
I.ow Mesohaline ditions in p o r t i o n s o f C h e s a p e a k e Bay are caused
A h u n d a n c e o f pollution- by natural seasonal stratification o f the water col-
sensitive taxa (%) ->25 -5-25 <5 u m n r a t h e r than a n t h r o p o g e n i c influences (Offi-
High Mesohaline m u d cer et al. 1984; C o o p e r a n d Brush 1993). Only a
A b u n d a n c e of pollution- few of o u r sites were located in these deep, strati-
indicative taxa (%) --<5 5-30 >30 fied areas o f the bay, but we o b s e r v e d biotic re-
A b u n d a n c e of pollution- sponse to hypoxia to be the same, regardless o f the
sensitive taxa (%) ->60 30-60 <30 cause of the hypoxia. Thus, the index c a n n o t be
Polyhaline sand
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution- TABLE 12. Classification efficiency o f B-IBI by stressor, alone
indicative taxa (%) < 10 10-40 >40 a n d in c o m b i n a t i o n with o t h e r stressors.
Polyhaline m u d
Alone In Combination
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution-
indicative taxa (%) -<15 15--50 >50 Toxic c o n t a m i n a n t s 92.9% 88.1%
A b u n d a n c e o f pollution- Hypoxia 98.5% 96.4%
sensitive taxa (%) ->40 2..5-40 <25 Organic enrichment 68.8% 77.3%

used to distinguish natural from anthropogenic
stress.
Although factors like natural stress must be con-
sidered in interpreting results, the B-IBI allows sci-
entists to analyze and interpret benthic data in
ways not previously possible by providing a uni-
form scale for comparing the quality of the benthic
assemblage across habitats. This kind of informa-
tion can be used to identify areas of the bay most
in n e e d of m a n a g e m e n t action or to evaluate prog-
ress toward a set of environmental goals. The B-IBI
is an extension of an effort to establish benthic
restoration goals for Chesapeake Bay (Ranasinghe
et al. 1994b).
The B-IBI also facilitates c o m m u n i c a t i o n of com-
plex benthic data. Many tools used previously to
summarize benthic data, such as graphical models
(Warwick 1986; Dauer 1993) or multivariate tech-
niques (Warwick and Clarke 1991; Norris 1995),
are robust but require detailed explanations and
complex analytical techniques (McManus and Pau-
ly 1990). Some scientists have expressed concern
about indices that summarize too m u c h informa-
tion into a single n u m b e r (Elliot 1994). The simple
additive scaling and equal weighting of metrics in
the B-IBI allow users to examine its c o m p o n e n t
parts easily and to identify how each metric con-
tributes to the overall score. Also, use of the B-IBI
does not preclude examining and interpreting spe-
cies composition data, particularly for sites classi-
fied near the threshold of 3, if this is considered
necessary, desirable, or expedient.
ACKNOWI.EDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of T. Morris, N.
Mounfford, and A. Rodi in helping identity and resolve taxo-
nomic conflicts among the many Chesapeake Bay datasets. We
thank K. Summers for access to the EMAP data, which was an
important part of our calibration and validation datasets. We
also thank L. Scott, E Holland, M. Southerland, R. Eskin, R.
Magnien, M. Luckenbach, K. Mountford, and C. DeI.isle for
their comments on drafts of tile manuscript. Portions of this
work were supported by contract no. 68-D9-0166 from the l;'nit-
ed States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay
Program and by contract no. CB92-006-004 from the Maryland
Governor's Council on Chesapeake Bay Research; we thank our
contract officers, R. Batiuk and E Miller, for their assistance.
I ,ITERATURE CITED
BILYARD, G. R. 1987. The value of henthic infauna in marine
pollution monitoring studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:581-
585.
BORSCH, D. E 1973. Classification and community structure of
macrobenthos in the ttampton Roads area, Virginia. Marine
Biology 21:226-244.
BOESCH, D. E 1977. A new look at tile zonation of benthos
along the estuarine gradient, p. 245-266. hz B. C. Coull (ed.),
Ecology of Marine Benthos. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
BOESCt[, D. E AND R. ROSENBERG. 1981. Response to stress in
marine benthic communities, p. 179-200. In G. W. Barret and
Benthic Index for ChesapeakeBay 157
R. Rosenberg (eds.), Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
BOUSFIELD, E. L. 1973. Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipo-
da of New England. Cornell University Press, .Ithaca, New
York.
COOPER, S. R_ AND G. S. BRUSH. 1993. A 2500-year history of
anoxia and eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 16:
617-626.
DAUFR, D. M. 1993. Biological criteria, environmental health
" and estuarine macrobenthic community structure. Marine Pol-
httion Bulletin 26:249-257.
DAUER, D. M. AND R. W. ALDEN. 1995. Long-term trends in tile
macrobenthos and water quality of the lower Chesapeake Bay
(1985-1991). Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:840-850.
DAUER, D. M. AND W. G. CONNER. 1980. Effects of moderate
sewage on benthic polychaete populations. Estuarine and
Coastal Marine Science 10:335--346.
DAUER, D. M., R. M. EWING, AND A. J. RODI, JR. 1987. Macro-
benthic distribution within the sediment along an estuarine
salinity gradient. [nternatiouale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie
72:529-538.
DAUER, D. M., C. A. MAVBURY,AND R. M. EW]NG. 1981. Feeding
behavior and general ecology of several spionid polychaetes
from Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experinwntal Marine Biology
and Ecology 54:21-38.
DAUER, D. M., T. I,. STOKES,JR., H. R. BARKER,JR., R. M. EWING,
AXDJ. W. SOURBEER. 1984. Macrohenthic communities of the
lower Chesapeake Bay. IV. Baywide transects and the inner
continental shelf. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie
69:1-22.
DESHON, J. E. 1995. Development and application of the inver-
tebrate community index, p. 217-243. In W. P. Davis and T.
P. Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
DIAZ, R.J. 1989. Pollution and tidal benthic communities of
the James River Estuary, Virginia. Hydrobiologia 180:195-211.
ELLIOTT, M. 1994. The analysis of macrobenthic community
data. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28:62-64.
E~NC, R. M.,J. A. RANASINGHE,AND D. M. DAUFR. 1988. Com-
parison of five benthic sampling devices. Prepared for the
Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia.
FAUCHALD, K. AND P. A. JUMARS. 1979. The diet of worms. A
study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanog~'aphy and Marine
BioloKv Annual Rev/ew 17:19.'3--284.
FFRRARO, S. P., R. C. SWARTZ, F. A. COLF, AND D. W. SCHULTS.
1991. Temporal changes in the benthos along a pollution
gradient: Discriminating the effects of natural phenomena
from sewage-industrial wastewater effects. Estuarine Coastal and
She~ Science '~3:383-407.
GRA.';SLE,J. E AND J. E GRASSI.E. 1974. Opl)ortunistic life his-
tories and genetic systems in marine benthic polychaetes../0ur-
nal of Marine Research 32:25.'3---284.
GRASSLE,J. E AND J. E GI~.~.SSLE. 1984. The utility of studying
the effects of pollutants on single species populations in ben-
thos of mesocosms and coastal ecosystems, p. 621-642. tn H.
H. White (ed.), Concepts in Marine Pollution Measurements,
Maryland Sea Grant College, CoUege Park, Maryland.
GRAY, J. S. 1979. Pollution-induced changes in populations.
Transactions of the Royal Philosophical Society of London (B) 286:
545-561.
GRAV,J. S., K. R. ('LARr~, R. M. WARUlCK,AND G. HOBBS. 1990.
Detection of initial effects of pollution on marine benthos:
An example from the Ekofisk and Eldfisk oillields, North Sea.
Marine Ecology P~'ogress Series 66:285-299.
Hr.tP, C. AND J. A. CRAEVMEERSCH. 1995. Benthic community
structures in the North Sea. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen
49:313-328.
HOLLAND, A. E, A. SIIAU(,HNF,'.kSEY,AND M. H. HEIGEX,. 1987.
158 s.B. Weisberg et al.
Long-term variation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay benthos:
Spatial and temporal patterns. Estuaries 10:227-245.
JORGENSEN, C. B. 1966. Biology of Suspension Feeding. Perga-
mon Press, Oxford, England.
KARR,J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect
of water resource management. EcologicalApplications 1:66-84.
KARR,J. R., K. D. FAUSCH, P. L. ANGER.MElt-JR,e. R. YANT, AND I.
J. SCHLOSSER. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running
waters: A method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Il-
linois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.
KERANS, B. L. ANDJ. R. KARR. 1994. A benthic index of biotic
integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological
Applications 4: 768-785.
I,ENAT, D. R. AND M. T. BARBOUR. 1994. Using benthic macro-
invertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effective,wa-
ter-quality monitoring: Rapid bioasse~ment, p. 187-216. In S.
L. Loeb and A. Spacie (eds.), Biological Monitoring of Aquat-
ic Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
LONG, E. R., D. D. McDONAI.D, S. L. SMITH, AND F. D. CAI.DER.
199.5. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of
chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.
Environmental Management 19:81-95.
M.AGNIEN, R., D. BOWARD,AND S. BIEBER. 1995. The state of the
Chesapeake Bay 1995. Report by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program, Annap-
olis, Maryland.
McCAI.I., P. I.. 1977. Community patterns and adaptive strate-
gies of the infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. Journal of
Marine Research 35:221-266.
McMANuS J. W. AND D. PAt:t.v. 1990. Measuring ecological
stress: Variations on a theme by R. M. Warwick. Marine Biology
106:305-308.
NORRIS, R. H. 1995. Biological monitoring: The dilemna of
data analysis. Journal of the North American Biological .Society 14:
440--450.
OFFICER, C. B., R. B. BW,os, J. L. TArt', L. E. CRONIY, M. A. TYLER,
ANd W. R. BOYNTON. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin,
development and significance. Science 223:22-27.
PALl., J. E, K. J. SCOI'F, A. F. HOIA.AND, S. B. WEISBERG,J. K.
SUMMERS, AND A. ROBERTSON. 1992. The estuarine compo-
nent of the U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and As-
sessment Program. Ctwraistry and Ecology 7:93-116.
PEAR.SON, T. It. AND R. ROSFNBI-;RG. 1978. Macrobenthic succes-
sion in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the
marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual
Rev/ew 16:229-311.
RANASINGHE,J. A., L. C. S~;OTT, R. NEWPOR'r,AND S. B. WEISBFRG.
1994a. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program,
Long-Term Benthic Monitoring and Assessment Component.
I~evel I Comprehensive Report, July 1984--December 1993.
Prepared for the Maryland Depal-tment of the Et~ironment,
Baltimore, Maryland.
RANASINGHE,J. A., S. B. WEISBERG,J. B. FRITHSEN, D. M. DAUER,
L. C. SCHAFF'NER,AND R.J. DIAZ. 1994b. Uhesapeake Bay Ben-
thic Community Restoration Goals. Report CBP/TRS 107/94.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
RHOADS, D. C. AND L. F. BOYER. 1982. The effects of marine
benthos on physical properties of sediments: A successional
perspective, p. 3-52. In P. I.. McCall and M. S. Tevesz (eds.),
Animal-Sediment Relations. Plenum Press, New York.
RHOADS, D. C., P. L. McCALL, AND J. Y. YINGST. 1978. Distur-
bance and production on the estnarine sea floor. American
Scientist 66:577-586.
SCHAFFNER, L. C. 1990. Small-scale organism distributions and
patterns of species diversity: Evidence for positive interactions
in an estuarine benthic community. Marine Ecology Progress Se-
ries 61:107-117.
SCIIAFF'NER, L. C., R..]. DIAZ, C. R. OI.SON, AND I. L. LAPSEN.
1987. Faunal characteristics and sediment accumulation pro-
cesses in the James River Estuary, Virginia. Estuarine Coastal
and Shelf Science 25:211-226.
SEnz, R. D. AND I.. C. S(2~HAFFNER. 1995. Population ecology and
secondary production of the polychaete Loimia medusa ('Fer-
ebellidae). Marine Biology 121:701-711.
SNEL(,ROVE, P. V. AND C. A. BUTMA.N'. 1994. Animal-sediment
relationships revisited: Cause vs. effect. Oceanography and Ma-
ring Biology A n nual I~,view 32:111-177.
STEWART, A.J. ANDJ. M. LOAR. 1994. Spatial and temporal vari-
ation in biological monitoring data, p. 91-124. In S. L. Loeb
and A. Spacie (eds.), Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Sys-
tems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
TAPP,J. F., N. SHILLABEER,ANn C. M. ASHMAN. 1993. Continued
observation of the benthic fauna of the industrialised Tees
estuary, 1979-1990. Journal of Experinwntal Marine Biology and
Ecology 172:67-80.
WARWICK, R. M. 1986. A new method for detecting pollution
effects on marine macrobenthic communities. Marine Biology
92:557-562.
WARWlC;K, R. M. 1988. The level of taxonomic discrimination
required to detect pollution effects on marine macrobenthic
communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19:259-268.
WARWICK, R. M. ,tND K. R. CLARKE. 1991. A comparison of some
methods for analysing changes in benthic community struc-
ture. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United
Kingdom 71:225--244.
Wa.,;s, M. I,. 1967. Indicators of pollution, p. 271-183. In T. A.
Olsen and E Burgess (eds.), Pollution and Marine Ecology.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
WILSON, J. G. AND D. W. JEFFRFY. 1994. Benthic biological pol-
lution indices in estuaries, p. 3i 1-327. InJ. M. Kramer (ed.),
Biomonitoring of Coastal Waters and Estuaries. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
WORD, J. Q. 1978. The infaunal trophic index, p. 19-39. In W.
Bascom (ed.), Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report
for the Year 1978. Southern California (:oastal Water Re-
search Project, El Segunda, California.
Received for consideration, January I I, 1995
Accepted for publication, April 8, 1996