## 3 Results
### Benthic Assemblages
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**SYSTEM**} \\ \cline{3-11}  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**REM**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**RVS**} \\ \cline{3-11}  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**SECTORS**} \\ \cline{3-11}  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**PR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TA**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MU**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CO**} \\ \cline{2-11}
**Phylum/Class** & **Family** & **Genus/Specie/Type** & **SU** & **WI** & **SU** & **WI** & **SU** & **WI** & **SU** & **WI** \\ \hline
37 & Panopeidae & _Pampeus_ sp. & - & - & - & - & - & - & 5 & - \\ \hline
38 & & & _Penaeus vannamei_ & 1 & - & 1 & - & - & - & 1 & - \\ \hline
49 & & & _Protrachypene_ & 1 & 1 & - & 1 & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
39 & & & _Callincetes_ sp. & - & - & - & - & - & - & 1 & - \\ \hline
40 & & & _Microphys bicornutus_ & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2 & - \\ \hline
41 & Arthropoda, Malacostraca & & _Uca_ sp. & - & - & - & - & 4 & - & - & - \\ \hline
42 & & _Alpheus_ sp. & 2 & - & 4 & 2 & 1 & - & - & - \\ \hline
43 & & & _Chondrochelia_ sp. & - & 10 & 2 & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
44 & & & _Pseudoparatania_ sp. & - & - & - & - & 5 & - & - & - \\ \hline
45 & & & _Amphilochus_ sp. & - & 12 & - & - & - & 1 & - & - \\ \hline
46 & & & _Carcinolar_ sp. & 4 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & - & - \\ \hline
47 & & & _Balanus_ sp. & - & - & - & - & - & 1 & - \\ \hline
48 & & & _Mariqlux_ sp. & 1 & - & - & - & 1 & - & - & - \\ \hline
53 & Arthropoda, & & _Diptera_ & _NA_ & - & - & - & 1 & - & - & - \\ \hline
54 & Insecta & & _Chironomus_ sp. & - & 2 & - & 15 & - & 2 & - & - \\ \hline
50 & & & _Ohiotrichidae_ & & _Ohiotrix spiculata_ & - & 1 & - & 1 & - & - & - \\ \hline
51 & & & _Ohiotoridae_ & & _Ohioiderma_ & & & & & & & \\ \hline
52 & & & _Palnarita_ sp. & 2 & - & 1 & 2 & 2 & - & - & - \\ \hline
55 & & & _Bryozoa_ & Stenolaemata & Briozoa & - & - & - & - & - & 1 & - \\ \hline
56 & & & & _Anthozoa_ & & - & - & - & 1 & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._(H\({}^{\prime}\) = 1.758) versus RVS that showed a low level of diversity (H\({}^{\prime}\) = 1.311). There were differences between sampling periods (KW = 6.478, \(p\) < 0.05) but none between drainage types. Summer assemblages showed an intermediate diversity (H\({}^{\prime}\) = 1.824), but winter assemblages showed a low diversity (H\({}^{\prime}\) = 1.233). A significant seasonal decrease in benthic richness was observed (KW = 5.902, \(p\) < 0.05), finding richer assemblages in summer, with 9 \(\pm\) 5 benthic species per sampling site compared to 5 \(\pm\) 4 species in winter. Differences by sector were also observed (KW = 8.945, \(p\) < 0.05) between Tambillo with 10 \(\pm\) 5 species and Cojimies, 4 \(\pm\) 4, as well as between main systems (KW = 5.968, \(p\) < 0.05), where REM with 9 \(\pm\) 5 species per site surpassed RVS with 5 \(\pm\) 4 species. However, no differences in benthic richness were detected when considering the type of drainage (KW = 1.137, \(p\) > 0.05). The AMBI Index, which assesses the ecological status of marine environments, had a global mean of 2.481 and interpreted the study area as a slightly disturbed system with large differences by sector (F\({}_{3,36}\) = 11.78, \(p\) < 0.001). Thus, Tambillo (1.416 \(\pm\)0.583) and Palma Real (1.269 \(\pm\) 0.697) were interpreted as slightly disturbed sectors close to the condition of undisturbed sectors, while Muisne (3.175 \(\pm\) 0.808) was interpreted as a slightly disturbed sector close to a moderately disturbed condition, and Cojimies (4.06 \(\pm\) 2.199) as a moderately disturbed sector (Figure 7). The differences increase when contrasting principal systems (F\({}_{1,38}\) = 32.31, \(p\) < 0.001). REM (1.342 \(\pm\) 0.630), in a slightly disturbed condition, approached a situation of an undisturbed sector, while RVS (3.61 \(\pm\) 1.675) was found to be moderately disturbed. A similar situation was observed between natural drainages and modified drainages (F\({}_{1,38}\) = 5.729, \(p\) < 0.05).