Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:21:12.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harpacticoid copepod colonization of coral fragments in a tropical reef lagoon (Zanzibar, Tanzania)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2011

M. Callens ,
H. Gheerardyn ,
S.G.M. Ndaro ,
M. De Troch  and
A. Vanreusel
M. Callens*
Affiliation:
Marine Biology Section, Biology Department, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Aquatic Biology, K.U. Leuven—KULAK, E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
H. Gheerardyn
Affiliation:
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
S.G.M. Ndaro
Affiliation:
Department of Aquatic Environment and Conservation, University of Dar Es Salaam, PO Box 35064, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
M. De Troch
Affiliation:
Marine Biology Section, Biology Department, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
A. Vanreusel
Affiliation:
Marine Biology Section, Biology Department, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: M. Callens, Aquatic Biology, K.U. Leuven—KULAK, E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Colonization experiments were conducted in a tropical lagoon (Zanzibar Island, off the coast of Tanzania) to investigate the temporal dynamics and mode of colonization of the harpacticoid copepods community on dead coral fragments. There was fast colonization of the coral fragments attaining a substantial diversity after only two days. The ability to colonize dead coral fragments is thought to be related to the morphology and life style of different harpacticoid species. Phytal taxa (e.g. Tisbidae) were fast colonizers, reaching high abundances during the initial colonization phase. Sediment-associated and eurytopic taxa (e.g. Ameiridae, Miraciidae and Ectinosomatidae) showed lower colonization rates and became the dominant group during the later colonization phase. Most species are able to colonize the coral fragments through the water column. However, colonization along the substrate surface is also considered to be an important colonization mode, especially for sediment-associated taxa, which showed lower colonization rates when migration through the sediment was hindered.

Keywords

dead coral substratesharpacticoid copepodscommunity structurecolonization experimentstemporal dynamicsIndian Ocean
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 92 , Issue 7 , November 2012 , pp. 1535 - 1545
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011

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

Adams, A.J., Dahlgren, C.P., Kellison, G.T., Kendall, M.S., Layman, C.A., Ley, J.A., Nagelkerken, I. and Serafy, J.E. (2006) Nursery function of tropical back-reef systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318, 287–301.Google Scholar
Alongi, D.M. (1989) The role of soft-bottom benthic communities in tropical mangrove and coral reef ecosystems. Aquatic Sciences 1, 243–279.Google Scholar
Armenteros, M., Creagh, B. and González-Sansón, G. (2009) Distribution patterns of the meiofauna in coral reefs from the NW shelf of Cuba. Revisita de Investigación Marina 30, 37–43.Google Scholar
Atilla, N. and Fleeger, J.W. (2000) Meiofaunal colonization of artificial substrates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Ecology 21, 69–83.Google Scholar
Atilla, N., Wetzel, M.A. and Fleeger, J.W. (2003) Abundance and colonization potential of artificial hard substrate-associated meiofauna. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 287, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxshall, G.A. and Halsey, S.H. (2004) An introduction to copepod diversity. London: The Ray Society, 966 pp.Google Scholar
Chertoprud, E.S., Azovsky, A.I. and Sapozhnikov, F.V. (2005) Colonization of azoic sediments of different grain-size composition by littoral Harpacticoida: Copepoda. Oceanology 45, 698–706.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
Coull, B.C. (1977) Marine flora and fauna of the north-eastern United States. Copepoda: Harpacticoida. NOAA Technical Report NHFS Circular 399, 1–48.Google Scholar
Coull, B.C. (1999) Role of meiofauna in estuarine soft-bottom habitats. Australian Journal of Ecology 24, 327–343.Google Scholar
De Troch, M., Vandepitte, L., Raes, M., Suárez-Morales, E. and Vincx, M. (2005) A field colonization experiment with meiofauna and seagrass mimics: effect of time, distance and leaf surface area. Marine Biology 148, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheerardyn, H., De Troch, M., Ndaro, S.G.M., Raes, M., Vincx, M. and Vanreusel, A. (2008) Community structure and microhabitat preferences of harpacticoid copepods in a tropical reef lagoon (Zanzibar Island, Tanzania). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88, 747–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, O. (2009) Meiobenthology: the microscopic motile fauna of aquatic sediments. 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 527 pp.Google Scholar
Gray, J.S. (1985) Nitrogenous excretion by meiofauna from coral-reef sediments: Mecor 5. Marine Biology 89, 31–35.Google Scholar
Heip, C., Vincx, M. and Vranken, G. (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 23, 399–489.Google Scholar
Hicks, G.R.F. (1992) Tidal and diel fluctuations in abundance of meiobenthic copepods on an intertidal estuarine sandbank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 87, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, G.R.F. and Coull, B.C. (1983) The ecology of marine meiobenthic harpacticoid copepods. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 21, 67–175.Google Scholar
Huys, R., Gee, J.M., Moore, C.G. and Hamond, R. (1996) Marine and brackish water harpacticoid copepods. Part 1: keys and notes for identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (New Series), 51, Volume VII. Shrewsbury, UK: Field Studies Council, 352 pp.Google Scholar
Huys, R. (2009) Unresolved cases of type fixation, synonymy and homonymy in harpacticoid copepod nomenclature (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zootaxa 2183, 1–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klumpp, D.W., McKinnon, A.D. and Mundy, C.N. (1988) Motile cryptofauna of a coral reef: abundance distribution and trophic potential. Marine Ecology Progress Series 45, 95–108.Google Scholar
Kurdziel, J.P. and Bell, S.S. (1992) Emergence and dispersal of phytal dwelling copepods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 163, 43–64.Google Scholar
Lang, K. (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden I & II. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Lang, K. (1965) Copepoda Harpacticoidea from the Californian Pacific coast. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 10, 1–566.Google Scholar
Logan, D., Townsend, K.A., Townsend, K. and Tibbetts, I.R. (2008) Meiofauna sediment relations in leeward slope turf algae of Heron Island reef. Hydrobiologia 610, 269–276.Google Scholar
Montagna, P.A. (1984) In situ measurement of meiobenthic grazing rates on sediment bacteria and edaphic diatoms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 18, 119–130.Google Scholar
Moriarty, D.J.W., Pollard, P.C., Alongi, D.M., Wilkinson, C.R. and Gray, J.S. (1985) Bacterial productivity and trophic relationships with consumers on coral reefs (Mecor I). Proceedings of the 5th International Coral Reef Symposium 3, 457–462.Google Scholar
Ndaro, S.G.M. and Ólafsson, E. (1999) Soft-bottom fauna with emphasis on nematode assemblage structure in a tropical intertidal lagoon in Zanzibar, eastern Africa: I. spatial variability. Hydrobiologia 405, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noodt, W. (1971) Ecology of the Copepoda. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 76, 97–102.Google Scholar
Ólafsson, E., Ingólfsson, A. and Steinarsdóttir, M.B. (2001) Harpacticoid copepod communities of floating seaweed: controlling factors and implications for dispersal. Hydrobiologia 453/ 454, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M.A. (1988) Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implications for recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48, 81–91.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.A. and Gust, G. (1985) Dispersal of meiofauna in a turbulent tidal creek. Journal of Marine Research 43, 179–210.Google Scholar
Raes, M., De Troch, M., Ndaro, S.G.M., Muthumbi, A., Guilini, K. and Vanreusel, A. (2007) The structuring role of microhabitat type in coral degradation zones: a case study with marine nematodes from Kenya and Zanzibar. Coral Reefs 26, 113–126.Google Scholar
Sun, B. and Fleeger, J.W. (1994) Field experiments on the colonization of meiofauna into sediment depressions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 110, 167–175.Google Scholar
Thistle, D. and Sedlacek, L. (2004) Emergent and non-emergent species of harpacticoid copepods can be recognized morphologically. Marine Ecology Progress Series 266, 195–200.Google Scholar
Walters, K. and Bell, S.S. (1994) Significance of copepod emergence of benthic, pelagic and phytal linkages in a subtidal seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 108, 237–249.Google Scholar
Wells, J.B.J. (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa 1568, 1–872.Google Scholar