Senckenbergiana maritima

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 269–281 | Cite as

Epibenthic diversity in the North Sea

  • Ruth Zühlke
  • John Alvsvåg
  • Ingeborg de Boois
  • John Cotter
  • Siegfried Ehrich
  • Alex Ford
  • Hilmar Hinz
  • Astrid Jarre-Teichmann
  • Simon Jennings
  • Ingrid Kröncke
  • John Lancaster
  • Gerjan Piet
  • Philip Prince
Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

In 1999 the epibenthic fauna of the North Sea was investigated using the 3rd quarter ‘International Bottom Trawl Survey’ of five European countries. Altogether 241 stations were sampled covering 143 ICES rectangles.

The objectives of the project were (i) to analyse epibenthic diversity patterns in the North Sea, (ii) to identify the spatial distribution of faunal communities and (iii) to relate environmental factors as well as fishing effort to species diversity.

Epibenthic fauna was clearly divided between the southern North Sea and the central-northern North Sea, roughly along the 50 m depth line. The separation was based on an overall higher number of species in the central and northern North Sea and a change in the species composition from north to south.

Sessile fauna including erect, branching species like bryozoans and hydrozoans were particularly diverse along a corridor in the central-northern North Sea between 56° and 58°N, coinciding with the area between the 50 m and 100 m depth line. Cluster analysis, based on the structure of the community, confirmed the north-south gradient found for species diversity. Separation of clusters was driven to a great extent by species occurring predominantly or exclusively north of the 50 m contour line. Few species were exclusive to the south, but a number of scavenging species were found here more frequently and in higher numbers.

Depth was positively correlated with the diversity of free-living fauna, whereas the type of sediment showed no significant relationship with variations in numbers of species. Beam-trawling effort was negatively correlated with the diversity of sessile fauna.

Keywords

epifauna diversity fishing effort depth North Sea 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arndt, W. (1928): Porifera (Schwämme, Spongien). — In:Dahl, F. [Ed.]: Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 4. Teil: 1–94; Jena (Fischer).Google Scholar
  2. Barry, J. P. &Dayton, P. K (1991): Physical heterogeneity and the organisation of marine communities. — In:Kolasa, J. &Pickett, S. T. A. [Eds.]: Ecological heterogeneity: 270–180; New York (Springer).Google Scholar
  3. Basford, D. J. &Eleftheriou, A. &Raffaelli, D. (1989): The epifauna of the northern North Sea (56–61°N). — J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.,69: 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basford, D. J. &Eleftheriou, A. &Raffaelli, D. (1990): The infauna and epifauna of the northern North Sea. — Netherl. J. Sea Res.,25 (1/2): 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basford, D. J. &Eleftheriou, A. &Davies, I. M. &Irion, G. &Soltwedel, T. (1993): The ICES North Sea benthos survey: the sedimentary environment. — ICES J. mar. Sci.,50: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergman, M. J. N. &Hup, M. (1992): Direct effects of beam-trawling on macrofauna in a sandy sediment in the southern North Sea. — ICES J. mar. Sci.,49: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böggemann, M. (1998): Polychaeten aus der Deutschen Bucht. — Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg,202: 1–315.Google Scholar
  8. Borg, F. (1930): Moostierchen oder Bryozoa (Ectoprocta). — In:Dahl, F. [Ed.]: Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 17. Teil: 25–142; Jena (Fischer).Google Scholar
  9. Brazeiro, A. &Defeo, O. (1999): Effects of harvesting and density dependence on the demography of sandy beach populations: the yellow clamMesodesma mactroides of Uruguay. — Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.,182: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, K. R. &Warwick, R. M. (1994): Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. — Nat. Envir. Res. Counc, UK: 144 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Collie, J. S. &Escanero, G. A. &Valentine, P. C. (1997): Effects of bottom fishing on benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. — Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.,155: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dauer, D. M. &Tourtelotte, G. H. &Ewing, R. M. (1982): Oyster shells and artificial worm tubes: The role of refuges in structuring benthic communities of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. — Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol.,67 (5): 661–677.Google Scholar
  13. Duineveld, G. C. &Künitzer, A. A. &Niermann, U. &Wilde, P. de &Gray, J. S. (1991): The macrobenthos of the North Sea. — Netherl. J. Sea Res.,28 (1/2): 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyer, M. F. &Frey, W. G. &Frey, P. D. &Cranmer, G. J. (1983): Benthic regions within the North Sea. — J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.,63: 683–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frauenheim, K. &Neumann, V. &Thiel, H. &Türkay, M. (1989): The distribution of larger epifauna during summer and winter in the North Sea and its suitability for environmental monitoring. — Senckenbergiana mark.,20 (3/4): 101–118.Google Scholar
  16. Freese, L. &Auster, P. J. &Heifetz, J. &Wing, B. L. (1999): Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. — Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.,182: 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frid, C. L. J. &Hall, S. J. (1999): Inferring changes in North Sea benthos from fish stomach analysis. — Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.,184: 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glemarec, M. (1973): The benthic community of the European North Atlantic continental shelf. — Oceanogr. mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.,11: 263–289.Google Scholar
  19. Hartmann-Schröder, G. (1996): Polychaeta. — In:Dahl, F. [Ed.]: Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 58. Teil: 645 pp.; Jena (Fischer).Google Scholar
  20. Heip, C. &Basford, D. &Craeymeersch, J. A. &Dewarumez, J. M. &Dörjes, J. &Wilde, P. de &Duineveld, G. C. &Eleftheriou, A. &Herman, P. M. J. &Niermann, U. &Kingston, P. &Künitzer, A. &Rachor, E. &Rumohr, H. &Soetaert, K. &Soltwedel, T. (1992): Trends in biomass, density and diversity of North Sea macrofauna. — ICES J. mar. Sci.,49: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heip, C. &Craeymeersch, J. A. (1995): Benthic community structure in the North Sea. — Helgoländer Meeresunters.,49: 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill, M. O. (1973): Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. — Ecology,54 (2): 427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinz, H. (2000): Die Epifauna der erweiterten Deutschen Bucht und anderer Gebiete der Nordsee im Sommer 1998. — Diploma thesis Univ. Oldenburg: 106 pp. — [unpubl].Google Scholar
  24. Howson, C. M. &Picton, B. E. [Eds.] (1997): The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. — 508 pp.; Belfast and Ross-on-Wye (Ulster Mus. and The Mar. Conserv. Soc).Google Scholar
  25. Ingle, R. W. (1996): Shallow-water crabs. — Synopsis of the British Fauna (New Series), 25: 243 pp.; London (The Linnean Soc. of London).Google Scholar
  26. Jennings, S. &Kaiser, M. J. (1998): The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. — Adv. mar. Biol.,34: 201–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jennings, S. &Lancaster, J. &Woolmer, A. &Cotter, J. (1999a): Distribution, diversity and abundance of epibenthic fauna in the North Sea. — J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.,79: 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jennings, S. &Alvsvåg, J. &Cotter, A. J. R. &Ehrich, S. &Greenstreet, S. P. R. &Jarre-Teichmann, A. &Mergardt, N. &Rijnsdorp, A. D. &Smedstad, O. (1999b): Fishing effects in northeast Atlantic shelf seas: patterns in fishing effort, diversity and community structure.III. International trawling effort in the North Sea: an analysis of spatial and temporal trends. — Fish. Res.,40: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiser, M. J. &Spencer, B. E. (1996): The effects of beam-trawl disturbance on infaunal communities in different habitats. — J. anim. Ecol.,65: 348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaiser, M. J. &Armstrong, P. J. &Dare, P. J. &Flatt, R. P. (1998): Benthic communities associated with a heavily fished scallop ground in the English Channel. — J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.,78 (4): 1045–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaiser, M. J. &Ramsay, K. &Richardson, C. A. &Spencer, F. E. &Brand, A. R. (2000): Chronic fishing disturbance has changed shelf sea benthic communities. — J. anim. Ecol.,69: 494–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kröncke, I. (1992): Macrofauna standing stock of the Dogger Bank. A comparison: III.1950–54 versus 1985–1987. A final summary. — Helgoländer Meeresunters.,46: 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kühne, S. &Rachor, E. (1996): The macrofauna of a stony sand area in the German Bight (North Sea). — Helgoländer Meeresunters.,50: 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langton, R. W. &Robinson, W. E. (1990): Faunal association on scallop grounds in the western Gulf of Maine. — J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol.,144: 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, A. J. &Ramster, J. W. (1981): Atlas of the seas around the British Isles. — Lowestoft: MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research.Google Scholar
  36. Lindeboom, H. J. &deGroot, S. J. [Eds.] (1998): Impact-II. The effects of different types of fisheries on the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems. — NIOZ Rapport 1998-1- RIVO-DLO Report C003/98.Google Scholar
  37. Pax, F. (1928): Anthozoa. — In:Dahl, F. [Ed.]: Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 4. Teil: 187–240; Jena (Fischer).Google Scholar
  38. Petersen, C. G. J. (1914): Valuation of the sea. II. The animal communities of the sea bottom and their importance for marine zoogeography. — Rep. Dan. Biol. Stn.: 1–44.Google Scholar
  39. Petersen, C. G. J. (1918): The sea bottom and its production of sea-food. — Rep. Dan. Biol. Stn.: 1–62.Google Scholar
  40. Prena, J. &Schwinghamer, P. &Rowell, T. W. &Gordon, D. C. &Gilkinson, K. D. &Vass, W. P. &McKeown, D. L. (1999): Experimental otter trawling on a sandy bottom ecosystem of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland: analysis of trawl bycatch and effects on epifauna. — Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.,181: 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramsey, K. &Kaiser, M. J. &Hughes, R. N. (1998): Response of benthic scavengers to fishing disturbance by towed gears in different habitats. — J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol.,224: 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rees, H. L. &Pendle, M. A. &Waldock, R. &Limpenny, D. S. &Boyd, S. E. (1999): A comparison of benthic biodiversity in the North Sea, English Channel, and Celtic Seas. — ICES J. mar. Sci.,56: 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riesen, W. &Reise, K. (1982): Macrobenthos of the subtidal Wadden Sea: revisited after 55 years. — Helgoländer Meeresunters.,35: 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rijnsdorp, A. D. &Buijs, A. M. &Storbeck, F. &Visser, E. (1998): Micro-scale distribution of beam trawl effort in the southern North Sea between 1993 and 1996 in relation to the trawling frequency of the sea bed and the impact on benthic organisms. — ICES J. mar. Sci.,55: 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sainsbury, K. J. (1987): Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the continental shelf of northwestern Australia. — In:Polovina, J. J. &Ralston, S. [Eds.]: Tropical Snappers and Groupers — Biology and Fisheries Management: 465–503; Boulder CO (Westview Press).Google Scholar
  46. Tuck, I. D. &Bailey, N. &Harding, M. &Sangster, G. &Howell, T. &Graham, M. &Breen, M. (2000): The impact of water jet dredging for razor clams,Ensis spp., in a shallow sandy subtidal environment. — J. Sea Res.,43 (1): 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walton, C. L. (1907): Actiniae collected by the S.S. “Huxley” in the North Sea during the summer of 1907. — J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.: 215–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Zühlke
    • 1
  • John Alvsvåg
    • 5
  • Ingeborg de Boois
    • 6
  • John Cotter
    • 2
  • Siegfried Ehrich
    • 3
  • Alex Ford
    • 1
  • Hilmar Hinz
    • 4
  • Astrid Jarre-Teichmann
    • 7
  • Simon Jennings
    • 2
  • Ingrid Kröncke
    • 4
  • John Lancaster
    • 1
  • Gerjan Piet
    • 6
  • Philip Prince
    • 7
  1. 1.Biological SciencesUniversity of Wales SwanseaSwanseaU.K.
  2. 2.CEFASLowestoftEngland, U.K.
  3. 3.Institut für SeefischereiBundesforschungsanstalt für FischereiHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Forschungsinstitut SenckenbergWilhelmshavenGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Marine ResearchBergenNorway
  6. 6.Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research (RIVO)IjmuidenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Danish Institute for Fisheries ResearchHirtshalsDenmark

Personalised recommendations