Cited by 300Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates

Jones, F. Chris·2008·Environmental Reviews

Abstract

Changing the taxonomic scale of a biotic-assemblage dataset influences our ability to detect ecological patterns. In bioassessments, a test-site’s biological community is compared against a benchmark to indicate ecosystem condition, but the taxonomic resolution needed to judge impairment reliably is the subject of much scientific debate. This paper reviews taxonomic sufficiency for freshwater benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessments. Three main issues are discussed: (1) the ecological significance of different taxonomic aggregations; (2) trade-offs involving taxonomic detail and information content versus money, time, expertise, and data quality; and (3) sampling- and analytical-method-specific factors affecting taxonomic sufficiency. Although Species should be the default taxonomic level for bioassessments, taxonomic sufficiency is chiefly determined by a study’s purpose, and pragmatism often dictates reduced detail. When a taxonomic-minimalism approach is necessary, a quantitative criterion for taxonomic sufficiency should be specified; this criterion should be based on an optimization of cost-benefit trade-offs associated with different taxonomic scales. Mixed-level aggregations, as well as morpho-species and ecological-trait classifications should be considered in this optimization process. Looking to the future, closer ties between taxonomists and bioassessment researchers would benefit both of their disciplines. Such coordination would provide the autoecological information and better diagnostic tools (such as keys and molecular methods) needed for biomonitoring, and better (and more widespread) biomonitoring would fuel taxonomy’s resurgence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/a07-010

Cites

196 of 196 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 198 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, F. C.
Affiliations
Trent University (CA)
Corresponding author
Jones, F. Chris
Venue
Environmental Reviews
Published
2008-12
Volume
16
Issue
NA
Pages
45-69
ISSN
  • 1181-8700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1208-6053
OpenAlex
W2039104568
Cited by
300
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Environmental Reviews (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
taxonomic sufficiency, taxonomic resolution, freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates, bioassessment, biomonitoring, ecological condition assessment, cost-benefit trade-off, species-level classification, ecological characteristics, autecology, diagnostic key, molecular biology techniques

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