Ecological indices based on macrobenthos:
the case of AMBI and M-AMBI in assessing seafloor integrity status
Dr Angel BORJA
Marine Research Division
Introduction: Impacts on benthos AMBI (AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index) as indicator
of impact Ecological theory Development Validation Applications (response to pressures)
Ecological status (M-AMBI) Reference conditions and status Response to pressures
Advantages and disadvantages
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
• Advantages of using it as indicator:– Real affection to biota (species-community level)– Global indicator of pollution– Integrated information through time – Short life-span species: fast recovery (good change indicators)– Easy-work ecosystem component
• Disadvantages as indicator:– Taxonomists are needed– High economic cost– Slow delivery of results
Impacts on benthos
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Which kind of biological approaches can be used?: Qualitative values: cover (for macroalgae), etc. Basic variables: taxonomy lists, richness, density,
biomass, diversity and evenness Different analyses: ABC curves, MDS, Canoco,
Primer, multimetric approaches, etc. Biotic indices: old methods, but recently refreshed
by new indices. In our case, the AMBI (AZTI Marine Biotic Index) and
M-AMBI (multivariate AMBI). They can be used in the MSFD for 2 of the indicators
of seafloor integrity: sensitive/opportunistic species (AMBI) and multimetric indices (M-AMBI)
Impacts on benthos
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Impacts on benthos
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Developing an index
Borja, A., D. Dauer, 2008. Ecological Indicators, 8: 331-337.
• Adaptive strategies– Reproductive (r): short
life-cycle, fast growth, early sexual maturity, larvae through the year and direct development = opportunists
– Competitive (k): long life-cycle, slow growth, high biomass.
– Tolerant (T): species not affected
– Not viable: azoic situation
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Ecological theory of AMBI
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
+ ORGANIC MATTER ENRICHMENT -
Abundance
Biomass
Richness
Peak of opportunistic species
PEARSON & ROSENBERG (1978)MODEL
• Initial State = Normal zone– Rich biocenosis in individuals and species– Many species exclusive from the biocenosis, linked to grain-size– High diversity
• Slight unbalance = Ecotone I = Disequilibrium zone– Exclusive species decrease in number and abundance– Tolerant species proliferate, pioneer species appear– Diversity decreases
• Pronounced disequilibrium = Disequilibrium zone = Polluted– Representative species disappear, opportunists dominate– Diversity very low– In extreme cases presence of 1 or 2 species
• Fauna disappears = Azoic Zone
Ecological theory of AMBI
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
- Group I: Species very sensitive to disturbance, present under unpolluted conditions (initial state): specialist carnivores, some deposit-feeding tubicolous polychaetes.- Group II: Species indifferent to disturbance, present in low densities, non-significant variations with time (from initial state, to slight unbalance), suspension feeders, less selective carnivores, scavengers.- Group III: Species tolerant to excess organic matter enrichment. They occur under normal conditions, but are stimulated by organic enrichment (slight unbalance situations), surface deposit-feeding species, as tubicolous spionids.- Group IV: Second-order opportunistic species (slight to pronounced unbalanced situations). Mainly small sized polychaetes: subsurface deposit-feeders, such as cirratulids.- Group V: First-order opportunistic species (pronounced unbalanced situations). These are deposit-feeders, which proliferate in reduced sediments.
Ecological theory of AMBI
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Ecological theory of AMBI
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
© AZTI-Tecnalia
Unbalanced Polluted Very pollutedNormal
Group ISensitive
Group IIIndifferent
Group IIITolerant
Group IVOpportunistic
Group VOpportunistic
Increasing gradient of impact or disturbance
AMBI = ((0 * %GI) + (1.5 * %GII) + (3 * %GIII) + (4.5 * %GIV) + (6 * %GV))/100
BIOTIC COEFFICIENT
BIOTIC INDEX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
IV
V
III
II
I
1 2 3 4 650
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
GR
OU
PS
0 1 2 3 4 65 7
AZ
OIC
SE
DIM
EN
T
MEANLY POLLUTEDUNPOLLUTED HEAVILY `POLLUTED
EXTREM.
POLLUTED
INCREASING POLLUTION
SLIGHTLY POLLUTED
BAD
STATUS
POOR
STATUS
MODERATE
STATUS
GOOD
STATUS
HIGH
STATUS
POLLUTION
WFD
BIOTIC COEFFICIENT
BIOTIC INDEX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
IV
V
III
II
I
1 2 3 4 650
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
GR
OU
PS
0 1 2 3 4 65 7
AZ
OIC
SE
DIM
EN
T
MEANLY POLLUTEDUNPOLLUTED HEAVILY `POLLUTED
EXTREM.
POLLUTED
INCREASING POLLUTION
SLIGHTLY POLLUTED
BAD
STATUS
POOR
STATUS
MODERATE
STATUS
GOOD
STATUS
HIGH
STATUS
POLLUTION
WFD
BIOTIC INDEX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
IV
V
III
II
I
1 2 3 4 650
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
OF
GR
OU
PS
0 1 2 3 4 65 7
AZ
OIC
SE
DIM
EN
T
MEANLY POLLUTEDUNPOLLUTED HEAVILY `POLLUTED
EXTREM.
POLLUTED
INCREASING POLLUTION
SLIGHTLY POLLUTED
BAD
STATUS
POOR
STATUS
MODERATE
STATUS
GOOD
STATUS
HIGH
STATUS
POLLUTION
WFD
AMBI
Biotic Coefficient
Dominating Ecological Group
Benthic Community Health Site Disturbance
Classification 0.0 < BC 0.2 I Normal 0.2 < BC 1.2 Impoverished
Undisturbed
1.2 < BC 3.3 III Unbalanced Slightly disturbed 3.3 < BC 4.3 Transitional to pollution 4.3 < BC 5.0 IV-V Polluted
Meanly disturbed
5.0 < BC 5.5 Transitional to heavy pollution 5.5 < BC 6.0 V Heavy polluted
Heavily disturbed
Azoic Azoic Azoic Extremely disturbed
AMBIAMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
Biotic Coefficient
Dominating Ecological Group
Benthic Community Health Site Disturbance
Classification 0.0 < BC 0.2 I Normal 0.2 < BC 1.2 Impoverished
Undisturbed
1.2 < BC 3.3 III Unbalanced Slightly disturbed 3.3 < BC 4.3 Transitional to pollution 4.3 < BC 5.0 IV-V Polluted
Meanly disturbed
5.0 < BC 5.5 Transitional to heavy pollution 5.5 < BC 6.0 V Heavy polluted
Heavily disturbed
Azoic Azoic Azoic Extremely disturbed
AMBIAMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
AMBI
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI development
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
• You can consult our web page (http://ambi.azti.es) and obtain our free AMBI software to calculate and represent the index.
• This approach includes the classification of 6,500 species from the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific, etc. (it is updated regularly).
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI development
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
OX
ÍGE
NO
DIS
UE
LTO
(ml.
l-1)
AMBI
DIS
SO
LV
ED
OX
YG
EN
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
PO
TE
NC
IAL
RE
DO
X (
mV
)
AMBI
RE
DO
X P
OT
EN
TIA
L (
mV
)
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validation
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
Zn
ZIN
C
AMBI
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
Pb
LE
AD
AMBI
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
Cu
CO
PP
ER
AMBI
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
Cr
CH
RO
MIU
M
AMBI
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
Cd
CA
DM
IUM
AMBI
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validation
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ÍNDICE BIÓTICO
PO
RC
EN
TAJE
%ERL-Hg
%ERL-Ni
%ERL-PbP
ER
CE
NT
AG
E
AMBI
0
10
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
INDICE BIÓTICO
PO
RC
EN
TAJE
%ERL-Cr
%ERL-Cu
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
AMBI
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
AMBI0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
INDICE BIÓTICO
PO
RC
EN
TAJE
%ERL-DDT
%ERL-PAH
%ERL-PCB
AMBI
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validation
Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Pérez, 2000. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(12): 1100-1114.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
12
3
4
5
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Badalona
Besòs River
Barcelona
SPAIN
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cardell, M. J. (1996). Estructura y dinámica de la macrofauna bentónica en sedimentos marinos sometidos a vertidos domésticos e industriales: Efecto de las aguas y lodos residuales de la planta depuradora de Sant Adrià de Besòs (Barcelonès). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Barcelona, 450 pp.
Ros, J., Cardell, M.J., Alva, V., Palacín, C. & Llobet, I. (1990). Comunidades sobre fondos blandos afectados por un aporte masivo de lodos y aguas residuales (litoral frente a Barcelona, Mediterráneo Occidental): Resultados preliminares. Actas VI Simposio Ibérico de Estudios del Bentos Marino, Palma de Mallorca, 1, 407-423.
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: submarine outfall (Barcelone)
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
V IV III II I AMBI
Eco
logi
cal G
roup
s
AM
BI
Oxygen sat.
Oxy
gen
Sat
urat
ion
Water treatment started
AHV closed
Biological treatment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7Adapted from Borja et al., 2006 (MEPS)
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: Nervión estuary (Spain)
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7A
MB
I val
ues
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3965 1961 963 463 510 950 2000 4025
AM
BI v
alu
esED
HD
MD
SD
ED
HD
MD
SD
UD
UD
T H I S T L E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5000 3000 1000 500 250 250 500 1000 3000 5000
AM
BI
va
lue
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5000 3000 1000 500 250 250 500 1000 3000 5000
AM
BI
va
lue
s
ED
HD
MD
SD
ED
HD
MD
SD
UD
UD
B e r y l B
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2000 950 500 130 250 500 850 1200 2000 3000 5000
AM
BI v
alu
es
ED
HD
MD
SD
UD
B e r y l B
y = -0.0037x + 5.354
R2 = 0.8618
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
DISTANCE (m)
AM
BI v
alu
es
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
DISTANCE (m)
AM
BI v
alu
es
y = 0.5707Ln(x) - 0.8734
R2 = 0.8351
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
AM
BI
TOTAL HYDRO CARBON
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: drill-cuttings (North Sea)
Muxika, I., A. Borja, W. Bonne, 2005. Ecological Indicators, 5: 19-31.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
01234567
0 5 10 25 C
Cephalonia Ithaki Sounion
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: fish farm (Greece)
Muxika, I., A. Borja, W. Bonne, 2005. Ecological Indicators, 5: 19-31.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: aquaculture
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Borja, A., J.G. Rodríguez, K. Black, A. Bodoy, C. Emblow, T.F. Fernandes, J. Forte, I. Karakassis, I. Muxika, T.D. Nickell, N. Papageorgiou, F. Pranovi, K. Sevastou, P. Tomassetti, D. Angel, 2009. Assessing the suitability of a range of benthic indices in the evaluation of environmental impact of fin and shellfish aquaculture located in sites across Europe. Aquaculture, 293: 231-240.
Dependent variable Abundance Richness Diversity AMBI log(ind. m-2) (nr. of taxa) (ind. bit-1)
intercept 4.2703645 -7.524 1.774 4.496 De=Depth (square root (meters)) 8.402 0.397 -0.0486
C=Current speed (log(cm s-1)) -1.072 -1.615 P=Production (t year-1) -0.000335 -0.000599 -0.00104 0.000665
Di=Distance to cages (log(1+meters)) 3.514 0.534 -0.593 Multiple R-squared 0.226 0.252 0.413 0.451
p-value <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: aquaculture
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100 150
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100 150
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30
1
2
3
4
5
0 100 200 300
d = 15 ms = 3 cm s-1
1500
100
1500
d = 40 ms = 3 cm s-1
d = 60 ms = 3 cm s-1
1500
distance to cages (m)
AM
BI
AM
BI
AM
BI
d = 15 ms = 8 cm s-1
1500
d = 15 ms = 14 cm s-1
d = 40 ms = 8 cm s-1
d = 60 ms = 8 cm s-1
d = 40 ms = 14 cm s-1
distance to cages (m) distance to cages (m)
d = 60 ms = 14 cm s-1
800100
800
100800
100800
100800
1500
100800
100800
1500
1500
100800
1500
100800
1500
Borja et al., 2009. Aquaculture, 293: 231-240.
Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: harbour (Spain)
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
RíoTordera
Blanes
GIRONA
1
65
43
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mean
Co
efic
ient
e B
iótic
o (B
C)
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3
Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Highly disturbed
Moderately disturbed
Slightly disturb
Undisturbed
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and status
Ecological StatusReference Variation
HighNone or small
GoodSlight
ModerateModerate
PoorImportant
BadStrong Resto
re
Pre
ven
t d
eg
rad
iati
on
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusStretches Type I Type II Type III Type IV
Oligo/Mesohaline C. edule-S. plana C. edule-S. plana C. edule-S. plana -Polyhaline - V. fasciata/P. arenarius V. fasciata -Euhaline - A. alba/P. arenarius A. alba T. tenuis-V. fasciata
Bad status: all 0, except AMBI= 6
High statusIndicator C. edule-S. plana V. fasciata P. arenarius A. alba T. tenuis-V. fasciata
Richness (nr sp.) 13 32 9 40 42Diversity (bit.ind-1) 2.5 3.8 2 3.5 4
AMBI 2.8 2 1 2.1 1
Muxika, I., A. Borja, J. Bald, 2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 16-29.
We use diversity, richness and AMBI in assessing quality = M-AMBI.
4 13Richness
SYSTEMS SIZE SAMPLE Nº REPLICATES SIEVECoastal 0.1 m2 3 1 mm
Estuarine 0.25 m2 3 1 mm
MP
A : High status
B : Bad status
3
1
Factor 1
Fact
or 2
2
3
HG
B
Factor 3
R: 13H’: 2.5AMBI: 2.8
R: 0H’: 0AMBI: 6
R: 4H’: 1.6AMBI: 3.3
Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) or M-AMBI: between 0 and 1, depending on boundaries between quality classes, the ecological status is assessed
Reference conditions and status
Muxika, I., A. Borja, J. Bald, 2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 16-29.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and status
Borja, A., D. Dauer, A, Grémare, 2012. Ecological Indicators, 12: 1-7.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and status
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
20 km
20 km
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
M-A
MB
I
E-N20 E-N30
H
B
G
M
P
Borja, A., I. Muxika, J.G. Rodríguez, 2009. Marine Ecology, 30: 214-227.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
20 km
20 km
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
M-A
MB
I
E-O5 E-O10
H
B
G
M
P
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
2001 2002 2005 2006
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
20 km
20 km
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
M-A
MB
I
E-OI10 E-OI15 E-OI20
H
B
G
M
P
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
H
B
G
M
P
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1994
1995
1996
1997
1997
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003
2004
2005
2006
2006
OX
YG
EN
SA
TU
RA
TIO
N (
%) E-OI10
E-OI15
E-OI20
Borja, A., I. Muxika, J.G. Rodríguez, 2009. Marine Ecology, 30: 214-227.
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
Borja, A., I. Muxika, J.G. Rodríguez, 2009. Marine Ecology, 30: 214-227.
Years MAMBI±SD Years MAMBI±SDMompás-Pasaia 41 Discharge removal 1996 to 2001 0.34±0.13 2002 to 2007 0.85±0.13 -6.56 p<0.005
Getaria-Higer45
1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
1996, 2001, 2002, 2003
47 2002 2003, 2004Butroe 12 Discharge removal 1995 to 1997 0.66±0.02 1998 to 2001 0.79±0.03 -7.84 p<0.005Butroe 12 2002
11 2002, 2003
Oka17 Dredging
1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005
0.55±0.071995, 1999, 2000, 2003,
20040.39±0.04 4.28 p<0.005
Outer Nervión7 Dredging
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
0.84±0.16 2002, 2003 0.38±0.16 3.44 p<0.05
Orio 35 Land reclamation 1999, 2000, 2001 0.48±0.02 2002, 2003 0.32±0.06 3.93 p<0.00535 Marina construction 2004, 2005 0.59±0.07 2006, 2007 0.48±0.07 1.63 NS
Before Pressure or Action After Pressure or Action
0.50±0.060.81±0.02
0.53±0.110.80±0.04Sediment disposal
1999, 2000, 2001
Significancet-StudentPressure/ActionStations
5.53 p<0.005
Dredging 8.50 p<0.005
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
Borja et al., 2011. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(3): 499-513..
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
Callier, M. D., M. Richard, C. W. McKindsey, P. Archambault, G. Desrosiers, 2009. Responses of benthic macrofauna and biogeochemical fluxes to various levels of mussel biodeposition: An in situ "benthocosm" experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58: 1544-1553.
AMBI & M-AMBI useAMBI
AMBI and M-AMBI
Reference conditions and statusResponse of M-AMBI to pressures
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
AMBI M-AMBIDenmark XGermany X XNetherlands X OUK XIreland XFrance X XSpain X XPortugal X OItaly X XSlovenia X XGreece OCyprus OBulgaria X XRomania X X
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
AMBI and M-AMBI can be used with density and biomass
y = 0.8576x + 0.0227R² = 0.8114
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
M-b
AM
BI
M-AMBI
Bad Poor Moderate Good High
Cai, W., Á. Borja, L. Liu, W. Meng, I. Muxika, J.G. Rodríguez (in press). Assessing benthic health under multiple human pressures in Bohai Bay (China), using density and biomass in calculating AMBI and M-AMBI. Marine Ecology
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
(i) AMBI and M-AMBI have been validated with a large set of environmental
pressures and impact sources (near 300 and 70 references, respectively).
(ii) AMBI and M-AMBI are easy to use, having freely-available software, with
an updated species list with 6,500 taxa (http://ambi.azti.es)
(iii) AMBI has guidelines for use (Borja & Muxika, 2005. Mar. Poll. Bull).
(iv) AMBI and M-AMBI are efficient in detecting time and spatial impact
gradients.
(v) AMBI is insensitive to seasonal variability (in absence of external impacts)
(vi) AMBI is independent from sample size
(vii) AMBI and M-AMBI have been verified in a very large number of
geographical areas.
(viii) AMBI and M-AMBI are useful in advising policy-makers (comprehensive
pictures for non-scientists).
(ix) M-AMBI has been intercalibrated within the Water Framework Directive.
(i) The robustness of AMBI is reduced with low number of taxa (1 to 3) and/or
individuals (including naturally-stressed locations).
(ii) AMBI does not work well with physical impacts: sand extraction, fish
trawling, etc. (but, M-AMBI works in some of these cases)
(iii) In order to avoid ambiguous results, calculate the AMBI values for each of
the replicates, then to derive the mean value.
(iv) Be careful with high unassigned percentage of taxa (>20%) in AMBI.
(v) The assignation of taxa to the ecological groups, together with taxonomy
problems (synonyms, etc.) could lead to misclassification problems. The
assignation requires some consensus between the scientific community.
(vi) M-AMBI needs clear sampling protocols, since diversity and richness
depend on sample size
(vii) The status assessment depends on the boundaries set in the AMBI and
M-AMBI scale values. Changing the boundaries would alter the final
classification (as in other methods).
(viii) It is better to use M-AMBI with a minimum of 50 stations
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Introduction AMBI M-AMBI Advantages Disadvantages
Final comments
(i) Algorithms of M-AMBI: each software uses different algorithms when
calculating Factor Analysis, producing different M-AMBI values. Use AMBI
software.
(ii) For M-AMBI: derive always adequate reference conditions for each
ecotope/type
(iii) Both methods are practical and pragmatic, easy to understand by the
society
(iv) AMBI software runs only in PC
(v) Finally, if you know a method working anywhere, under all pressures, all
circumstances, etc., please, let me know!!!
Dr Ángel Borja ([email protected])FP7 DEVOTES Project: www.devotes-project.euResearchGate Profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angel_Borja/ Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=245091062&trk=tab_pro