Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 156:709 | Cite as

The impact of seabed disturbance on nematode communities: linking field and laboratory observations

  • M. Schratzberger
  • N. Lampadariou
  • P. J. Somerfield
  • L. Vandepitte
  • E. Vanden Berghe
Original Paper

Abstract

Physical disturbance is a key factor in controlling the spatial and temporal composition of shallow-water benthic communities. Like shallow waters, deeper waters are increasingly subject to a range of anthropogenic disturbances, which can lead to significant alterations in sedimentation patterns. These alterations often exceed naturally occurring changes. We used a combined analysis of six independent data sets arising from large-scale field surveys and small-scale laboratory experiments to investigate the effects of seabed disturbance on nematode communities. Disturbance response was documented as a function of disturbance type (coastal development, dredged material disposal, bottom trawling, glacial fjord) and intensity (low, medium, high). Natural and man-induced seabed disturbance exerted differential effects on exposed populations, generating changes in the taxonomic (genus) and functional (feeding type) attributes of their assemblages. The genus composition of nematode assemblages from geographically separate seas converged with increased level of various types of man-made disturbance. Assemblages present along a gradient of natural disturbance in a glacial fjord followed an opposite response vector, suggesting that community changes induced by anthropogenic activities, or experimental treatments simulating the principal impacts of these, inherently differ from disturbance of natural origin. Changes in trophic diversity and structure were primarily driven by factors confounded with physical disturbance, such as metal contamination. Coupling the results of analyses at multiple scales proved a useful means of providing deeper insights into the general response of ecological communities to environmental change.

Keywords

Meiofauna Nematode Community Physical Disturbance Bottom Trawling Coastal Development 
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

This work is a contribution to the responsive mode project Manuela (Meiobenthic and nematode biodiversity: unravelling ecological and latitudinal aspects) within the EU FP6 Network of Excellence MarBEF (contract no. GOCE-CT-2003-505446). MS received financial support from Defra (project ME4118, Environmental indicators: a structured approach to the evaluation of impacts arising from human activities at sea). PJS acknowledges financial support from the UK NERC and Defra (project ME3109, Assessment of marine biodiversity linked to ecosystems).

References

  1. Alongi DM (1985) Effects of physical disturbance on population dynamics and trophic interactions among microbes and meiofauna. J Mar Res 43:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0511:CAOPCA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armonies W (1994) Drifting meio- and macrobenthic invertebrates on tidal flats in Königshafen: a review. Helgol Wiss Meeresunters 48:299–320. doi: 10.1007/BF02367043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd SE, Rees HL, Richardson CA (2000) Nematodes as sensitive indicators of change at dredged material disposal sites. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 51:805–819. doi: 10.1006/ecss.2000.0722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasekara WU, Frid CLJ (1998) A laboratory assessment of the survival and vertical movement of two epibenthic gastropod species, Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) and Littorina littorea (Linnaeus), after burial in sediment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 221:191–207. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00123-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke KR, Ainsworth M (1993) A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental variables. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 92:205–219. doi: 10.3354/meps092205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6. user manual. Primer-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1998a) A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. J Appl Ecol 35:523–531. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.3540523.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1998b) Quantifying structural redundancy in ecological communities. Oecologia 113:278–289. doi: 10.1007/s004420050379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001a) A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 216:265–278. doi: 10.3354/meps216265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001b) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. Primer-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330:55–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Gorley RN (2008) Testing of null hypotheses in exploratory community analyses: similarity profiles and biota-environment linkage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366:56–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collie JS, Hall SJ, Kaiser MJ, Poiner IR (2000) A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. J Anim Ecol 69:785–789. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00434.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Commito JA, Tita G (2002) Differential dispersal rates in an intertidal meiofauna assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 268:237–256. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(01)00386-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310. doi: 10.1126/science.199.4335.1302 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coull BC, Chandler GT (1992) Pollution and meiofauna: field, laboratory and mesocosm studies. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 30:191–271Google Scholar
  19. Death RG, Winterbourn MJ (1995) Diversity patterns in stream benthic invertebrate communities: the influence of habitat stability. Ecology 76:1446–1460. doi: 10.2307/1938147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dernie KM, Kaiser MJ, Warwick RM (2003) Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance. J Anim Ecol 72:1043–1056. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00775.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Draggan S, Reisa JJ (1980) Controlling toxic substances: historical perspective and future research needs. In: Giesy JP (ed) Microcosms in ecological research. Technical Information Centre, US Department of Energy, Springfield, p 45Google Scholar
  22. Ellis J, Cummings V, Hewitt J, Thrush S, Norkko A (2002) Determining effects of suspended sediment on condition of a suspension feeding bivalve (Atrina zelandica): results of a survey, a laboratory experiment and a field transplant experiment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 267:147–174. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(01)00355-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fegley SR (1988) Experimental variation of near-bottom current speeds and its effect on depth distribution of sand-living meiofauna. Mar Biol (Berl) 95:183–191. doi: 10.1007/BF00409004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernandez-Duque E, Veleggia C (1993) Meta-analysis: a valuable tool in conservation research. Conserv Biol 8:555–561. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020555.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaston GR, Rakocinski CF, Brown SS, Cleveland CM (1998) Trophic function in estuaries: response of macrobenthos to natural and contaminant gradients. Mar Freshw Res 49:833–846. doi: 10.1071/MF97089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giesy JP, Odum EP (1980) Microcosmology: introductory comments. In: Giesy JP (ed) Microcosms in ecological research. Technical Information Centre, US Department of Energy, Springfield, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  27. Hagerman GM, Rieger RM (1981) Dispersal of benthic meiofauna by wave and current action in Bogue Sound, North Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol (Berl) 2:245–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0485.1981.tb00099.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall SJ (1994) Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 32:179–239Google Scholar
  29. Heip C, Vincx M, Vranken G (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 23:399–489Google Scholar
  30. Heip C, Huys R, Vincx M, Vanreusel A, Smol N, Herman R, Herman PMJ (1990) Composition, distribution, biomass and production of North Sea meiofauna. Neth J Sea Res 26:333–342. doi: 10.1016/0077-7579(90)90095-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hill MO (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427–432. doi: 10.2307/1934352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huston MA (1994) Biological diversity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Jayasree K, Warwick RM (1977) Free-living marine nematodes of a polluted sandy beach in the Firth of Clyde, Scotland: description of seven new species. J Nat Hist 11:289–302. doi: 10.1080/00222937700770211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jennings S, Kaiser MJ (1998) The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Adv Mar Biol 34:201–352. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2881(08)60212-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen P (1984) Ecology of benthic and epiphytic nematodes in brackish water. Hydrobiologia 108:201–217Google Scholar
  36. Karakassis I, Papadopoulou KN, Dafnomili EN, Plaiti W, Wilkinson M (1993) Preliminary study of the environmental contitions of Iraklion harbour. Proceedings of the 4th national symposium in oceanography and fisheries, Rhodes, Greece, pp 397–400Google Scholar
  37. Kern JC (1990) Active and passive aspects of meiobenthic copepod dispersal at two sites near Mustang Island, Texas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60:211–223. doi: 10.3354/meps060211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lampadariou N, Austen MC, Robertson N, Vlachonis G (1997) Analysis of meiobenthic community structure in relation to pollution and disturbance in Iraklion harbour, Greece. Vie Milieu 47:9–24Google Scholar
  39. Lee HJ, Vanhove S, Peck LS, Vincx M (2001) Recolonisation of meiofauna after catastrophic iceberg scouring in shallow Antarctic sediments. Polar Biol 24:918–925. doi: 10.1007/s003000100300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leffler JW (1980) Microcosmology: theoretical applications of biological models. In: Giesy JP (ed) Microcosms in ecological research. Technical Information Centre, US Department of Energy, Springfield, pp 14–29Google Scholar
  41. Lopez-Jamar E, Mejuto J (1988) Infaunal benthic recolonisation after dredging operations in La Coruna Bay, NW Spain. Cah Biol Mar 29:37–49Google Scholar
  42. Mackey RL, Currie DJ (2001) The diversity–disturbance relationship: is it generally strong and peaked? Ecology 82:3479–3492Google Scholar
  43. Maurer D, Keck RT, Tinsman JC, Leathem WA, Wethe C, Lord C, Church TM (1986) Vertical migration and mortality of marine benthos in dredged material: a synthesis. Int Rev Ges Hydrobiol 71:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCarthy JM, Hein CL, Olden JD, vander Zanden MJ (2006) Coupling long-term studies with meta-analysis to investigate impacts of non-native crayfish on zoobenthic communities. Freshw Biol 51:224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01485.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Medina MH, Correa JA, Barata C (2007) Micro-evolution due to pollution: possible consequences for ecosystem responses to toxic stress. Chemosphere 67:2105–2114. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.12.024 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Modig H, Ólafsson E (1998) Responses of Baltic benthic invertebrates to hypoxic events. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 229:133–148. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00043-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore CG, Bett BJ (1989) The use of meiofauna in marine pollution impact assessment. Zool J Linn Soc 96:263–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1989.tb01831.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nichols FH, Thompson JK (1985) Persistence of an introduced mudflat community in South Francisco Bay, California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 24:83–97. doi: 10.3354/meps024083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palen WJ, Williamson CE, Clauser AA, Schindler DE (2005) Impact of UV-B exposure on amphibian embryos: linking species physiology and oviposition behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:1227–1234. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quinn G, Keough M (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Rakocinski CF, Brown SS, Gaston GR, Heard RW, Walker WW, Summers JK (1997) Macrobenthic responses to natural and contaminant-related gradients in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Ecol Appl 7:1278–1298. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[1278:MRTNAC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rome MS, Young-Williams AC, Davis GR, Hines AH (2005) Linking temperature and salinity tolerance to winter mortality of Chesapeake Bay blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 319:129–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2004.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schratzberger M, Jennings S (2002) Impacts of chronic trawling disturbance on meiofaunal communities. Mar Biol (Berl) 141:991–1000. doi: 10.1007/s00227-002-0895-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schratzberger M, Warwick RM (1998) Effects of physical disturbance on nematode communities in sand and mud: a microcosm experiment. Mar Biol (Berl) 130:643–650. doi: 10.1007/s002270050286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schratzberger M, Rees HL, Boyd SE (2000) Effects of simulated deposition of dredged material on structure of nematode assemblages: the role of contamination. Mar Biol (Berl) 137:613–622. doi: 10.1007/s002270000386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schratzberger M, Maxwell TAD, Warr K, Rogers SI (2008) Spatial variability of infaunal nematode and polychaete assemblages in two muddy subtidal habitats. Mar Biol (Berl) 153:621–642. doi: 10.1007/s00227-007-0836-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Somerfield PJ, Clarke KR (1995) Taxonomic levels, in marine community studies, revisited. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127:113–119. doi: 10.3354/meps127113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes: a laboratory manual. Ministry of AgricultureFisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, LowestoftGoogle Scholar
  59. Somerfield PJ, Rees HL, Warwick RM (1995) Interrelationships in community structure between shallow-water marine meiofauna and macrofauna in relation to dredging disposal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127:103–112. doi: 10.3354/meps127103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM, Moens T (2005) Chapter 6: Meiofauna techniques. In: Eleftheriou A, McIntyre A (eds) Methods for the study of marine benthos, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 229–272Google Scholar
  61. Somerfield PJ, Cochrane SJ, Dahle S, Pearson TH (2006) Free-living nematodes and macrobenthos in a high-latitude glacial fjord. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330:284–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sousa WP (1979) Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the non-equilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology 60:1225–1239. doi: 10.2307/1936969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sousa WP (1984) The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:353–391. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thistle D (1981) Natural physical disturbances and communities of marine soft bottoms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 6:223–228. doi: 10.3354/meps006223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tietjen JH (1980) Population structure and species composition of the free-living nematodes inhabiting sands of the New York Bight Apex. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 10:61–73. doi: 10.1016/S0302-3524(80)80049-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ullberg J, Ólafsson E (2003) Effects of biological disturbance by Monoporeia affinis (Amphipoda) on small-scale migration of marine nematodes in low-energy soft sediments. Mar Biol (Berl) 143:867–874. doi: 10.1007/s00227-003-1139-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vandepitte L, Vanaverbeke J, Vanhoorne B, Hernandez F, Campinas-Bezerra T, Mees J, Vanden Berghe E (2008) The MANUELA database: an integrated database on meiobenthos from European marine waters. Meiofauna Marina (submitted)Google Scholar
  68. Vincx M (1990) Diversity of the nematode communities in the Southern Bight of the North Sea. Neth J Sea Res 25:181–188. doi: 10.1016/0077-7579(90)90019-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warwick RM (1993) Environmental impact studies on marine communities: pragmatical considerations. Aust J Ecol 18:63–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1998) Taxonomic distinctness and environmental assessment. J Appl Ecol 35:532–543. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.3540532.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (2001) Practical measures of marine biodiversity based on relatedness of species. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 39:207–231Google Scholar
  72. Warwick RM, Platt HM, Clarke KR, Agard J, Gobin J (1990) Analysis of macrobenthic and meiobenthic community structure in relation to pollution and disturbance in Hamilton Harbour, Bermuda. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 138:119–142. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(90)90180-K CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wieser W (1953) Die Beziehung zwischen Mundhöhlengestalt, Ernährungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Ark Zool 4:439–484Google Scholar
  74. Wlodarsaka-Kowalczuk M, Pearson TH, Kendall MA (2005) Benthic response to chronic natural physical disturbance by glacial sedimentation in an Arctic fjord. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:31–34. doi: 10.3354/meps303031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Schratzberger
    • 1
  • N. Lampadariou
    • 2
  • P. J. Somerfield
    • 3
  • L. Vandepitte
    • 4
  • E. Vanden Berghe
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoftUK
  2. 2.Hellenic Centre for Marine ResearchInstitute of OceanographyIraklionGreece
  3. 3.Plymouth Marine LaboratoryPlymouthUK
  4. 4.Flanders Marine InstituteOostendeBelgium
  5. 5.Institute of Marine and Coastal SciencesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations