Multiple fish-based indices of biotic integrity (FIBI) exist to estimate stream health using fish community structure. Yet, these metrics require different amounts of data and may result in different interpretations of stream health. We compared functionality of “low-metric” (5 metrics) and “metric-rich” (12 metrics) coldwater FIBIs for estimating stream health in 138 coldwater streams of northeastern Iowa, USA. Then, we investigated associations between FIBI scores and environmental factors at local and catchment scales using mixed effects linear regression. FIBI scores from both protocols were positively correlated (R² = 0.77); the majority of streams scored fair (n = 31, mean = 45; fair) using the metric-rich index but scored very poor using the low-metric index (n = 35, mean score = 25; poor). FIBI scores were higher (mean = good) when Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis were present with both indices. When Brook Trout were absent, scores were lower and less variable with the low-metric index (mean = 19.63; poor) compared to the metric-rich index (mean = 40.38; fair). Local habitat was more related to both FIBI scores than catchment-scale habitat: maximum daily stream temperature and bare bank severity index were negatively correlated with both FIBI scores whereas canopy coverage correlated positively with metric-rich FIBI scores. Brook Trout presence was indicative of coldwater stream health for both indices. Our results suggest the metric-rich FIBI index has improved ability to differentiate lower quality sites due to increased sensitivity. Our results can be used to improve stream health estimates and restoration prioritizations.

存在多种基于鱼类的生物完整性指数 (FIBI)，以使用鱼类群落结构来估计河流健康。然而，这些指标需要不同数量的数据，并可能导致对流健康的不同解释。我们比较了“低度量”（5 个度量）和“度量丰富”（12 个度量）冷水 FIBI 的功能，用于估计美国爱荷华州东北部 138 条冷水溪流的健康状况。然后，我们使用混合效应线性回归研究了当地和流域尺度的 FIBI 分数与环境因素之间的关联。两种协议的 FIBI 分数呈正相关（R ²  = 0.77）；大多数流使用指标丰富的指数得分一般（n  = 31，平均值 = 45；一般），但使用低指标指数得分很差（n  = 35，平均分 = 25；较差的）。当 Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis时，FIBI 得分较高（平均值 = 好）两个指数都存在。当 Brook Trout 缺席时，与指标丰富的指数（平均值 = 40.38；一般）相比，低指标指数（平均值 = 19.63；差）的分数较低且变化较小。与流域尺度栖息地相比，当地栖息地与 FIBI 评分的相关性更高：每日最高河流温度和裸露河岸严重程度指数与 FIBI 评分呈负相关，而树冠覆盖率与指标丰富的 FIBI 评分呈正相关。布鲁克鳟鱼的存在表明两个指数的冷水溪流健康。我们的结果表明，由于灵敏度提高，指标丰富的 FIBI 指数提高了区分较低质量站点的能力。我们的结果可用于改进河流健康估计和恢复优先级。