Wu Hai Yan, Fu Shi Feng, Cai Xiao Qiong, Chen Qing Hui
Third Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration, Xiamen 361005, Fujian, China.
Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2018 Jun;29(6):2051-2058. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201806.032.
Three benthic biotic indices, AZTI marine biotic index (AMBI), benthic opportunistic polychaetes amphipods (BOPA), and benthic polychaetes amphipods (BPA), combined with Shannon diversity index (H) were applied in ecological quality status (EQS) assessment, to investigate their suitability at four bays and an estuary in Fujian Province. The results showed that there were substantial differences in the performance of these indices. There were only four sites with the same assessment grades using different indices, accounting for 8.7% of the applied sites. AMBI classified 76.1% of the sites as "Good", while 89.1% of the sites were classified as "High" using BOPA. The assessment results of BPA and H showed obvious gradient changes. For the bay areas, all the BOPA, BPA and AMBI values had no significant correlation with dissolved inorganic phosphate (DIP) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) concentrations, suggesting that these indices did not respond to eutrophication pressure. The H value was significantly and negatively correlated with DIN concentration. For the estuarine area, the three indices, i.e . BOPA, BPA and AMBI, had significantly positive correlations with DIN and DIP, and there was no clear spatial variation in the assessment grades of these indices with the distance toward sea. The results suggested that BOPA, BPA and AMBI would overestimate the EQS and would show no response to the eutrophication pressure in estuarine area. Similar to the result from the bay areas,H value in the estuary area was significantly and negatively correlated to DIN. Meanwhile, the assessment grades of the seven sections in the estuary tended to increase with the distance toward the sea. In summary, our results suggested that BOPA, BPA and AMBI would not be suitable for the EQS assessment for Fujian coastal area, while H would be more suitable as it could respond to the main anthropogenic pressures.
将三个底栖生物指数，即AZTI海洋生物指数（AMBI）、底栖机会性多毛类-双壳类指数（BOPA）和底栖多毛类-双壳类指数（BPA），与香农多样性指数（H）相结合，应用于生态质量状况（EQS）评估，以研究它们在福建省四个海湾和一个河口的适用性。结果表明，这些指数的表现存在显著差异。使用不同指数时，只有4个站点具有相同的评估等级，占应用站点的8.7%。AMBI将76.1%的站点分类为“良好”，而使用BOPA时，89.1%的站点被分类为“高”。BPA和H的评估结果显示出明显的梯度变化。对于海湾区域，所有BOPA、BPA和AMBI值与溶解无机磷（DIP）和溶解无机氮（DIN）浓度均无显著相关性，表明这些指数对富营养化压力没有响应。H值与DIN浓度呈显著负相关。对于河口区域，BOPA、BPA和AMBI这三个指数与DIN和DIP均呈显著正相关，并且这些指数的评估等级随离海距离没有明显的空间变化。结果表明，BOPA、BPA和AMBI会高估EQS，并且对河口区域的富营养化压力没有响应。与海湾区域的结果类似，河口区域的H值与DIN也呈显著负相关。同时，河口七个断面的评估等级倾向于随离海距离增加。总之，我们的结果表明，BOPA、BPA和AMBI不适用于福建沿海地区的EQS评估，而H更适合，因为它可以响应主要的人为压力。
