The AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) requires less geographically-specific calibration than other benthic indices, but has not performed as well in US coastal waters as it has in the European waters for which it was originally developed. Here we examine the extent of improvement in index performance when the Ecological Group (EG) classifications on which AMBI is based are derived using local expertise. Twenty-three US benthic experts developed EG scores for each of three regions in the United States, as well as for the US as a whole. Index performance was then compared using: (1) EG scores specific to a region, (2) national EG scores, (3) national EG scores supplemented with standard international EG scores for taxa that the US experts were not able to make assignments, and (4) standard international EG scores. Performance of each scheme was evaluated by diagnosis of condition at pre-defined good/bad sites, concordance with existing local benthic indices, and independence from natural environmental gradients. The AMBI performed best when using the national EG assignments augmented with standard international EG values. The AMBI using this hybrid EG scheme performed well in differentiating apriori good and bad sites (>80% correct classification rate) and AMBI scores were both concordant and correlated (rs=0.4–0.7) with those of existing local indices. Nearly all of the results suggest that assigning the EG values in the framework of local biogeographic conditions produced a better-performing version of AMBI. The improved index performance, however, was tempered with apparent biases in score distribution. The AMBI, regardless of EG scheme, tended to compress ratings away from the extremes and toward the moderate condition and there was a bias with salinity, where high quality sites received increasingly poorer condition scores with decreasing salinity.

Benthic indices to support aquatic environmental condition assessments have been more effectively developed for higher than lower salinity habitats. Here we quantify agreement among benthic experts using best professional judgment to assess community condition of mesohaline and tidal freshwater samples from the San Francisco Estuary and Delta, and compare that to a previous study for San Francisco Estuary polyhaline samples. Benthic species abundance data from 20 sites in each habitat were provided to 7 tidal freshwater, and 8 mesohaline, experts who ranked the samples from best to worst condition and placed the samples into 4 condition categories. The average correlation among expert's condition rankings was only 0.38 and 0.29 in the mesohaline and tidal freshwater habitats, respectively, compared to 0.92 in the previous polyhaline study. Pair-wise agreement among expert condition categories averaged 41% and 39%, compared to 70% in the polyhaline. Based on post-exercise discussions among the experts, the differences in agreement among habitats appears related to the use of different indicator taxa and to disturbance regimes in the lower salinity habitats that select for higher proportions of tolerant taxa, confounding assessments at the current level of understanding of benthic response in these habitats. Regardless of the reason, the absence of a clear conceptual model and agreement among benthic ecologists about benthic condition makes index development more difficult in low salinity estuarine and tidal freshwater habitats. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In this lecture, given on 16 June 2004, the author expounds on the definition of Matter and Form in the science of Kabbalah, and the boundaries of our perception of the two. He also explains about the difference between the perspective of Kabbalah and the perspective of conventional science with regard to one's perception of reality. The last section of the lecture touches on the essence of spiritual perception (attainment) and the way by which it is enhanced.