Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 152, Issue 4, pp 845–854 | Cite as

Endofauna differences between two temperate marine sponges (Demospongiae; Haplosclerida; Chalinidae) from southwest Australia

  • D. A. Abdo
Research Article

Abstract

The endofaunal assemblages associated with two species of sponge from the family Chalinidae (Haliclona sp. 1 and Haliclona sp. 2) were studied at four locations along the south west coast of Australia. The species have distinct morphologies and inhabit similar microhabitats; there is also considerable scientific interest in Haliclona sp. 1 (green Haliclona) due to the unique bioactive compound it produces. A total of 948 and 287 endofaunal individuals were found associated with 16 specimens of both the green Haliclona and Haliclona sp. 2 (brown Haliclona), respectively. Twenty-four endofaunal taxa were found (from mysid shrimps to teleost fish), with the brown Haliclona having a greater density of endofaunal species and individuals than the green Haliclona. The endofaunal assemblages of both species of sponge were significantly different, but only the endofaunal assemblage within the green Haliclona differed significantly among locations. Differences in the abundance and biomass of associated endofauna of each species of sponge can be related to differences in their morphologies, size and internal structure. In the green Haliclona, differences in endofaunal assemblages among locations are unlikely to be due to environmental influences as taxa discriminating each locations assemblage were common to both species of sponge. Numerous endofaunal individuals were found to be reproductively active, and it is clear that the species of sponge provide important habitats for their associated endofauna. This provision of habitat needs to be taken into account when harvesting green Haliclona biomass for supply of its target bioactive compound for further pharmaceutical development.

Keywords

Sponge Polychaete Internal Space Sponge Species Brittle Star 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The editorial assistance of Dr Jane Fromont, Dr Gary Kendrick, Dr Justin McDonald and Stephen Whalan is greatly appreciated, as are the comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers. This research was supported by a University of Western Australia Postgraduate Award and complied with all current laws of Australia. Special thanks are given to Linda Heap, Caine Delacy, Diego Kendrick, David Gull and Craig Lebens (and Lebens Diving Services) for their help in the field.

References

  1. Abdo DA, Seager JW, Harvey ES, McDonald JI, Kendrick GA, Shortis MR (2006) Efficiently measuring complex sessile epibenthic organisms using a novel photogrammetric technique. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 339:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  3. Barthel D (1997) Fish eggs and pentacrinoids in Weddell Sea hexactinellids: further examples for the structuring role of sponges in Antarctic benthic ecosystems. Polar Biol 17:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betancourt-Lozano M, Gonzalez-Farias F, Gonzalez-Acosta B, Garcia-Gasca A, Bastida-Zavala JR (1998) Variation of antimicrobial activity of the sponge Aplysina fistularis (Pallas 1766) and its relation to associated fauna. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 223:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler MJ, Dolan TW, Hunt JH, Rose KA, Herrnkind WF (2005) Recruitment in degraded marine habitats: a spatially explicit, individual-based model for spiny lobster. Ecol Appl 15:902–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman MG, People J, Blockley D (2005) Intertidal assemblages associated with natural corallina turf and invasive mussel beds. Biodiversity Conserv 14:1761–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chigbu P (2004) Assessment of the potential impact of the mysid shrimp, Neomysis mercedis, on Daphnia. J Plankton Res 26:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:118–127Google Scholar
  9. Connell SD (2007) Subtidal temperate rocky habitats: habitat heterogeneity at local to continental scales. In: Connell SD, Gillanders BM (eds) Marine Ecology. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 378–401Google Scholar
  10. Creswell GR, Golding TJ (1980) Observations of a south flowing current in the southeastern Indian Ocean. Deep-Sea Res 27A:449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duarte LFL, Nalesso RC (1996) The sponge Zygomycale parishii (Bowerbank) and its endobiotic fauna. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 42:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois S, Commito JA, Olivier F, Retie’re C (2006) Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 68:635–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson KL, Beutler JA, Cardellina JH, Boyd MR (1997) Salicylihalamides A and B, Novel cytotoxic macrolides from the marine sponge Haliclona sp. J Org Chem 62:8188–8192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fromont J (1999) Reproduction of some demosponges in a temperate Australian shallow water habitat. Mem Qld Mus 44:185–192Google Scholar
  16. Hewitt JE, Thrush SF, Halliday J, Duffy C (2005) The importance of small-scale habitat structure for maintaining beta diversity. Ecology 86:1619–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ilan M, Loya Y, Kolbasov GA, Brickner I (1999) Sponge-inhabiting barnacles on the Red Sea coral reefs. Mar Biol 1999:709–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson JBC (2001) What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:5411–5418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgensen NM, Christie H (2003) Diurnal, horizontal and vertical dispersal of kelp-associated fauna. Hydrobiologia 503:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jumars PA (2006) Habitat coupling by mid-latitude, subtidal, marine mysids: import-subsidized omnivores. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 45: In PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Koukouras A, Russo A, Voultsiadou-Koukoura E, Arvanitidis C, Stefanidou D (1996) Macrofuana associated with sponge species of different morphology. Mar Ecol 17:569–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moran MJ, Stephenson PC (2000) Effects of otter trawling on macrobenthos and management of demersal scalefish fisheries on the continental shelf of north-western Australia. ICES J Mar Sci 57:510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neves G, Omena E (2003) Influence of sponge morphology on the composition of the polychaete associated fauna from Rocas Atoll, northeast Brazil. Coral Reefs 22:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norderhaug KM, Christie H, Rinde E (2002) Colonisation of kelp imitations by epiphyte and holdfast fauna: a study of mobility patterns. Mar Biol 141:965–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pearse AS (1950) Notes on the inhabitants of certain sponges at Bimini. Ecology 31:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peattie ME, Hoare R (1981) The sublittoral ecology of the Menai Strait: The sponge Halichondria panicea (Pallas) and its associated fauna. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 13:621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. People J (2006) Mussel beds on different types of structures support different macroinvertebrate assemblages. Aust Ecol 21:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Puce S, Calcinai B, Bavestrello G, Cerrano C, Gravili C, Boero F (2005) Hydrozoa (Cnidaria) symbiotic with porifera: a review. Mar Ecol 26:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ribeiro SM, Omena EP, Muricy G (2003) Macrofauna associated to Mycale microstigmatosa (Porifera, Demospongia) in Rio de Janeiro State, SE Brazil. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 57:951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell BD, Gillanders BM, Connell SD (2005) Proximity and size of neighbouring habitat affects invertebrate diversity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 296:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryer CH, Stoner AW, Titgen RH (2004) Behavioural mechanisms underlying the refuge value of benthic habitat structure for two flatfishes with differing anti-predator strategies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Serejo CS (1998) Gammaridean and Caprellidean fauna (Crustacea) associated with the sponge Dysidea fragilis Johnston at Arraial do Cabo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Bull Mar Sci 63:363–385Google Scholar
  33. Skilleter GA, Russell BD, Degnan BM, Garson MJ (2005) Living in a potentially toxic environment: comparisons of endofauna in two congeneric sponges from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 304:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turon X, Codina M, Tarjuelo I, Uriz MJ, Becerro MA (2000) Mass recruitment of Ophiothrix fragilis (Ophiuroidea) on sponges: settlement patterns and post settlement dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 200:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wendt PH, Van Dolah RF, O’Rourke CB (1985) A comparative study of the invertebrate macrofauna associated with seven sponge and coral species collected from the South Atlantic Bight. J Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc 101:187–203Google Scholar
  36. Wilhelm FM, Hamann J, Burns CW (2002) Mysid predation on amphipods and Daphnia in a shallow coastal lake: prey selection and effects of macrophytes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1901–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams SL, Keck KL (2001) Seagrass community ecology. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, pp 317–337Google Scholar
  38. Wooldridge TH, Webb P (1988) Predator-prey interactions between two species of estuarine mysid shrimps. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 50:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wulff JL (2006) Ecological interactions of marine sponges. Can J Zool 84:146–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Plant Biology (M090), Faculty of Natural and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations