Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:04:52.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential response of meio- and macrofauna to in situ burial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2009

P. Whomersley ,
M. Huxham ,
M. Schratzberger  and
S. Bolam
P. Whomersley*
Affiliation:
Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
M. Huxham
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, Scotland
M. Schratzberger
Affiliation:
Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
S. Bolam
Affiliation:
Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: P. Whomersley, Centre for the Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Benthic nematode and macrofaunal communities are regularly utilized in impact studies. However, very few studies are carried out utilizing both communities. A literature search using the search engine Scopus (www.Scopus.com) covering the last twenty years, using the keywords ‘Macrofauna’ and ‘Disturbance’ then ‘Meiofauna’ and ‘Disturbance’ and finally ‘Macrofauna and Meiofauna’ and ‘Disturbance’, gave 210, 115 and 36 hits respectively. To assess the differential response of meio- and macrofauna to in situ burial a replicated random block designed field experiment was carried out over a 9-month period on an intertidal mud flat. In situ burial was achieved by spreading 4 cm of anoxic mud on top of each treatment plot at two different intensities. Differences in the response of the two faunal communities over time were assessed using both univariate and multivariate techniques. Clear differences in community behaviour over time and in response to the different intensities of disturbance were observed. Overall macrofauna were found to be more sensitive to physical disturbance than meiofaunal nematodes, although, attributes of meiofaunal nematode communities were more sensitive to the initial impacts of disturbance. The observed community-specific responses and sensitivities of meiofauna and macrofauna to the physical disturbance associated with in situ burial highlights the importance of using both faunal types in the assessment of the effects of seabed disturbance in the marine environment.

Keywords

differential responsemeiofaunamacrofaunain situ burial
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 89 , Issue 6 , September 2009 , pp. 1091 - 1098
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alves, F., Chicharo, L., Nogueira, A. and Regala, J. (2003) Changes in benthic community structure due to clam dredging on the Algarve coast and the importance of seasonal analysis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83, 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen, M.C. and Widdicombe, S. (2006) Comparison of the response of meio- and macrobenthos to disturbance and organic enrichment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen, M.C., Warwick, R.M. and Rosado, M.C. (1989) Meiobenthic and macrobenthic community structure along a putative pollution gradient in Southern Portugal. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20, 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolam, S.G., Whomersley, P. and Schratzberger, M. (2004) Macrofaunal recolonisation on intertidal mudflats: effects of sediment organic and sand content. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 306, 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolam, S.G., Schratzberger, M. and Whomersley, P. (2006) Macro- and meiofaunal recolonisation of dredged material used for habitat enhancement: temporal patterns in community development. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 1746–1775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bongers, T. and Ferris, H. (1999) Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 224–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth: Plymouth Marine Laboratory.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2006) PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Plymouth.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.R., Somerfield, P.J., Chapman, M. and Gee, J.M. (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J.H. (1978) Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coull, B.C. and Chandler, G.T. (1992) Pollution and meiofauna field, laboratory and mesocosm studies. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 30, 191–271.Google Scholar
Dial, R. and Roughgarden, J. (1998) Theory of marine communities: the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Ecology 79, 1412–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dye, A.H. (2006) Persistent effects of physical disturbance on meiobenthos in mangrove sediment. Marine Environmental Research 62, 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J.M., Austen, M.C., De Smet, G., Ferraro, T., McEvoy, A., Moore, S., Van Gausbeki, D., Vincx, M. and Warwick, R.M. (1992) Soft sediment meiofauna community responses to environmental pollution gradients in the German Bight and at a drilling site off the Dutch coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series 91, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J.P. (1973) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242, 344–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunter, C.G. (1992) Dispersal of intertidal invertebrates: a strategy to react to disturbances of different scales. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 30, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heip, C. (1992) Benthic studies: summary and conclusions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 91, 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxham, M., Roberts, I. and Bremner, J. (2000) A field test of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis in the soft-bottom intertidal. International Review of Hydrobiology 85, 379–394.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, B.R., de Wilde, P.A.W. and Creutzberg, F. (1981) Energy flow in a tidal flat ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 5, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampadariou, N., Hatziyanni, E. and Tselepides, A. (2005) Meiofaunal community structure in Thermaikos Gulf: response to intense trawling pressure. Continental Shelf Research 25, 2554–2569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, R.L. and Currie, D.J. (2001) The diversity–disturbance relationship: is it generally strong and peaked? Ecology 82, 3479–3492.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A.D. and Warwick, R.M. (1984) Meiofauna techniques. In Holme, N.A and McIntyre, A.D. (eds) Methods for the study of marine benthos. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 217–245.Google Scholar
Moore, C.G. and Bett, B.J. (1989) The use of meiofauna in marine pollution impact assessment. Zooological Journal of the Linnean Society 96, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C.G., Murison, D.J., Mohd Long, S. and Mills, D.J.L. (1987) The impact of oily discharges on meiobenthos of the North Sea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 316, 525–544.Google Scholar
Olafsson, E. (2003) Do macrofauna structure meiofauna assemblages in marine soft bottoms? A review of experimental studies. Vie et Milieu 53, 249–265.Google Scholar
Platt, H.M. and Warwick, R.M. (1980) The significance of free-living nematodes to the littoral ecosystem. In Price, J.H., Irvine, D.E.G. and. Farnham, W.F. (eds) Systematics Association Special Volume No. 17(b), ‘The shore environment, Volume 2: Ecosystems'. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. 729–759.Google Scholar
Pranovi, F., Da Ponte, F., Raicevich, S. and Giovanardi, O. (2004) A multidisciplinary study of mechanical clam harvesting in the Venice Lagoon. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffaelli, D.G. and Hawkins, S.J. (1996) Intertidal ecology. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandulli, R. and Giudici, M.N. (1989) Effects of organic enrichment on meiofauna: a laboratory study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schratzberger, M., Gee, J.M., Rees, H.L., Boyd, S.E. and Wall, C.M. (2000) The structure and taxonomic composition of sublittoral meiofauna assemblages as an indicator of the status of marine environments. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80, 969–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schratzberger, M., Dinmore, T. and Jennings, S. (2002a) Impacts of trawling on diversity biomass and structure of meiofauna assemblages. Marine Biology 140, 83–93.Google Scholar
Schratzberger, M., Wall, C.M., Reynolds, W.J., Reed, J. and Waldock, M.J. (2002b) Effects of paint-derived tributyltin on structure of estuarine nematode assemblages in experimental mesocosms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 272, 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwinghammer, P., Hargrave, B., Peer, D. and Hawkins, C.M. (1986) Partitioning of production and respiration among size groups of organisms in an intertidal benthic community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 31, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, K.M. and Coull, B.C. (1980) The response of meiofauna to sediment disturbance. Journal of Marine Biology and Ecology 46, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somerfield, P.J. and Warwick, R.M. (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes: a laboratory manual. Lowestoft, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research.Google Scholar
Somerfield, P.J., Rees, H.L. and Warwick, R.M. (1995) Interrelationships in community structure between shallow-water marine meiofauna and macrofauna in relation to dredgings disposal. Marine Ecology Progress Series 127, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somerfield, P.J., Cochrane, S.J., Dahle, S. and Pearson, T.H. (2006) Free-living nematodes and macrobenthos in a high latitude glacial fjord. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330, 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, R.J., Lindegarth, M., Siccha, M., Lenz, M., Molis, M., Wahl, M. and Pavia, H. (2007) Maximum species richness at intermediate frequencies of disturbance: consistency among levels of productivity. Ecology 88, 830–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tita, G., Desrosiers, M., Vinx, M. and Nozias, C. (2000) Predation and sediment disturbance effects of the intertidal polychaete Nereis virens (Sars) on associated meiofaunal assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 243, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M. (1981) Survival strategies of meiofauna. In Jones, N.V. and Wolff, J.M. (eds) Feeding and survival strategies of estuarine organisms. New York: Plenum, pp. 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M. (1986) Species size distributions of benthic and pelagic Metazoa: evidence for interaction. Marine Ecology Progress Series 34, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M. and Buchanan, J.B. (1971) The meiofauna off the coast of Northumberland. II. Seasonal stability of the nematode population. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 51, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M., Platt, H.M., Clarke, R.K., Agard, J. and Gobin, J. (1990) Analysis of macrobenthic and meiobenthic community structure in relation to pollution and disturbance in Hamilton Harbour, Bermuda. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 138, 199–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M., Dashfield, S.L. and Somerfield, P.J. (2006) The integral structure of a benthic infaunal assemblage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitlach, R.B. (1980) Patterns of resource utilization and coexistence in marine intertidal deposit-feeding communities. Journal of Marine Research 38, 743–765.Google Scholar
Zobrist, E.C. and Coull, B.C. (1992) Meiobenthic interactions with macrobenthic larvae and juveniles: an experimental assessment of the meiofaunal bottleneck. Marine Ecology Progress Series 88, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar