Sediment size influences habitat selection and use by groundwater macrofauna and meiofauna
Understanding environmental factors that influence obligate groundwater dwelling (stygobiotic) fauna is crucial for groundwater ecosystem monitoring and management. Field studies have indicated geological factors are a major influence on the abundance and richness of stygofauna, however the precise mechanisms and true influence of the aquifer sediment matrix on biota is unclear. In this study we examined the habitat use and preferences, in terms of sediment particle sizes, of stygobiotic meiofauna (Harpacticoida and Cyclopoida Copepoda), and macroinvertebrates (Amphipoda and Syncarida) using laboratory microcosms. We first tested the ability of each taxon to use (move into) clay (< 0.06 mm), sand (0.3–0.7 mm) and gravel sediments (2–4 mm). Subsequently, the preference for each sediment was compared by examining the distribution of animals in microcosms containing two different sediment types. Both the harpacticoids and cyclopoids were able to use clay, whereas larger amphipods and syncarids mostly remained on the sediment surface. All taxa were able to use sand and gravel substrates. Amphipods preferred gravel over sand and clay. Both copepods and syncarids preferred sand and gravel over clay, but showed no preference between gravel and sand. This study demonstrates the general inability of some stygobiotic macroinvertebrates to use clay sediments and overall differences in sediment use among stygobiotic meio- and macrofauna. From these findings, the typically heterogenous distributions and diversity of stygofauna observed in field studies may be related to variability in sediment composition.
KeywordsStygofauna Habitat preference Groundwater ecology Aquifer
This work was funded by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation project MQ1501 and Australian Research Council project LP130100508. We are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by three anonymous reviewers.
- Asmyhr MG (2013) Biodiversity assessment and conservation of groundwater ecosystems. PhD Thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Belanger J (2013) Appendage diversity and modes of locomotion: walking. In: Watling L, Theil M (eds) The natural history of crustacea; functional morphology and diversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 262–275Google Scholar
- Dorgan K, Jumars PA, Johnson B, Boudreau B (2006) Macrofaunal burrowing: the medium is the message. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 48:85–121Google Scholar
- Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Hose GC, Asmyhr MG, Cooper SJB, Humphreys WF (2015a) Down under down under: austral groundwater life. In: Stow A, Maclean N, Holwell GI (eds) Austral ark. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 512–536Google Scholar
- Hose GC, Sreekanth J, Barron O, Pollino C (2015) Stygofauna in Australian Groundwater Systems: Extent of knowledge. In: Report to Australian Coal Association Research Program. Macquarie University and CSIROGoogle Scholar
- Mermillod-Blondin F, Winiarski T, Foulquier A, Perrissin A, Marmonier P (2015) Links between sediment structures and ecological processes in the hyporheic zone: ground-penetrating radar as a non-invasive tool to detect subsurface biologically active zones. Ecohydrology 8:626–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stakman W (1966) The relation between particle size, pore size and hydraulic conductivity of sand separates. In: Proceedings of the Wageningen Symposium. Water in the unsaturated zone. International Association of Scientific Hydrology, The Netherlands, pp 373–384Google Scholar
- Tomlinson M (2008) A framework for determining environmental water requirements for alluvial aquifer ecosystems. PhD Thesis. University of New England, Armidale, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- White T (2018) The effect of drawdown on the movement of groundwater invertebrates. In: Unpublished Maters thesis. Macquarie University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar