Environmental impact studies on marine communities: Pragmatical considerations
Abstract
The measurement of changes in the structure of natural marine communities is widely used for the detection and monitoring of man's impact on the sea. Such studies are almost always a compromise between the scientific ideal and political, financial and logistical constraints. This paper considers a number of these constraints, suggests some possible solutions, and discusses the consequences (in terms of loss of information) of adopting strategies which might be considered suboptimal. Identification of all organisms in a community to species level is a major time and cost constraint. Many recent studies have shown that very little information is lost by working at a taxonomic level higher than species (e.g. family or even phylum). This implies a functional coherence of species within each higher taxon. Indeed, there are theoretical reasons, and some empirical evidence, for supposing that community responses to human perturbations may be more easily detected above the noise of natural variability by working at high taxonomic levels. Many environmental impacts, for example oil spillages from tankers, are accidental and it is unusual to have the luxury of a time‐series of data from the site prior to the incident. Good spatial control samples may also be difficult to obtain in a heterogeneous environment. Absolute rather than comparative measures of community degradation are valuable in this context. Methods which fall into this category include comparisons of community structure w…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The overall distribution of prey numbers consumed by lionfish between years was statistically significant but not biologically significant, indicated by a low global R statistic.
“In the case of number of prey, the low global R statistic indicates that the overall distribution of prey numbers consumed between years, although statistically significant (because of large sample sizes; Warwick 1993, Warwick & Clarke 2001), was not biologically significant.”
From Diet of invasive lionfish on hard bottom reefs of the Southeast USA: insights from stomach contents and stable isotopes (2011) · cites this paper as Warwick 1993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jones, F. C. (2008) · Environmental Reviews · doi:10.1139/a07-010 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Muñoz, R., Currin, C., & Whitfield, P. (2011) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps09154 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
- Authors
- WARWICK, R. M.
- Affiliations
- Plymouth Marine Laboratory (GB)
- Corresponding author
- WARWICK, R. M.
- ORCID
- WARWICK, R. M.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63-80
- ISSN
- 0307-692X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128954175
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 16.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Biology and Ecology Research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
- Keywords
- environmental impact assessment, marine pollution monitoring, taxonomic levels, oil spills, human disturbance, marine organisms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review