ecological indices based on macrobenthos: the case of ambi and m-ambi in assessing seafloor...

Ecological indices based on macrobenthos:

the case of AMBI and M-AMBI in assessing seafloor integrity status

Dr Angel BORJA

Marine Research Division

[email protected]

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


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


Impacts on benthos


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


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




- 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.







© 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


EXTREM.

POLLUTED


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


EXTREM.

POLLUTED


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


• 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


http://ambi.azti.es/

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



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




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




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)


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)


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.


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.


Ecological theory of AMBIAMBI developmentAMBI validationApplications: aquaculture


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


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)


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


Reference conditions and status

Ecological StatusReference Variation

HighNone or small

GoodSlight

ModerateModerate

PoorImportant

BadStrong Resto

re

Pre

ven

t d

eg

rad

iati

on


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


Muxika, I., A. Borja, J. Bald, 2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 16-29.



Borja, A., D. Dauer, A, Grémare, 2012. Ecological Indicators, 12: 1-7.



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.



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


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


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





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



Borja et al., 2011. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(3): 499-513..



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



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


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


(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.

http://ambi.azti.es/

(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



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

ecological indices based on macrobenthos: the case of ambi and m-ambi in assessing seafloor...

Documents