Re: NANFA-L-- Diversity Indicies

Bruce Stallsmith (fundulus at
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:24:47 -0400

The limit to IBI use is that different IBIs are designed for different
areas. And not just southeast, midwest, but for different stream or lake
environments, e.g. Appalachian Highland or not. The major advantage of IBI
is that you can give a seemingly strong, scientific number to people like
members of Congress who don't know anything about anything. The use of IBI
out of context can be a serious example of GIGO.

--Bruce Stallsmith
in the diverse Tennessee Valley
Huntsville, AL, US of A

>From: dlmcneely at
>Reply-To: nanfa-l at
>To: nanfa-l at
>Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Diversity Indicies
>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:49:49 -0500
>Todd, I'm not sure why you've only "caught rumor" of an index that
>weights species differently. James Karr developed and others
>elaborated a metric called the "Index of Biotic Integrity." It is
>applicable differently in different places, and has been so applied by
>state and other agencies. There is some controversy regarding its
>usefulness, but a good bit of work has used it. Look for it and you'll
>find it.
>David L. McNeely, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
>Langston University; P.O. Box 1500
>Langston, OK 73050; email: dlmcneely at
>telephone: (405) 466-6025; fax: 405) 466-3307
>home page
>"Where are we going?" "I don't know, are we there yet?"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at