Marine Biology

, Volume 162, Issue 9, pp 1849–1863 | Cite as

Effect of background substrate on recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates to subtidal cobble-filled collectors

  • Lauren M. Ellis
  • Heather L. Hunt
  • Rémy Rochette
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The availability of suitable substrate for settlement can alter the behaviour of larvae of benthic marine invertebrates and consequently their settlement patterns. We tested the effect of the background substrate of a site (rocky vs sediment) on recruitment of invertebrates settling into standardized cobble-filled collectors deployed at shallow subtidal sites in the south-western Bay of Fundy, Canada, in 2009 and 2010. The assemblage of invertebrates that settled into the collectors differed significantly in both abundance and species composition between “paired sites” (≈0.003–0.009 km2 in area and 345–861 m apart) with rocky vs sediment background substrate, and markedly less so between paired sites comprised of rocky bottom. Species that are known to be rock-dwelling recruited in greater abundance to cobble-filled collectors at rocky sites, while those known to be sediment-dwelling recruited more to cobble-filled collectors at sediment sites. At the smaller spatial scale of patches of sediment within one site (14–107 m apart), differences in abundance but not species composition were detected between collectors on the two types of background substrate. This study supports the idea that larvae of some species of marine invertebrates respond to substrate at a larger spatial scale than their immediate location of settlement.

Keywords

Fine Sediment Substrate Type Cobble Paired Site Larval Behaviour 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would particularly like to thank Marie-Josée Maltais, Brent Wilson, and Greg Wittig for their assistance in the laboratory and field, and Pat Fitzgerald, the crew of the Fundy Spray, and BLee Williams for their expertise in the field. Peter Lawton, Michelle Greenlaw, and Mike Strong at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ St. Andrews Biological Station assisted with site selection based on historical knowledge and bottom mapping data. We would also like to thank many people who assisted with preparation, deployment, and processing of the collectors: R. Curtner, E. Boyd, J. Moore, L. Haddon, M. Wilcox, G. Sigurdsson, B. Morse, M.-J. Abgrall, M. Haar, L. Jennings, C. Browne, B. Irish, G. Côté, S. Khair, J. Bakker, J. Leonard, C. Weinheimer, S. Dunstan, B. Devereux, D. Pelletier, and B. MacBriarty. This study was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project grant to RR and HH.

Supplementary material

227_2015_2717_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (149 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 149 kb)
227_2015_2717_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (514 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 514 kb)

References

  1. Botero L, Atema J (1982) Behaviour and substrate selection during larval settling in the lobster Homarus americanus. J Crustacean Biol 2:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broitman BR, Blanchette CA, Menge BA, Lubchenco J, Krenz C, Foley M, Gaines SD (2008) Spatial and temporal patterns of invertebrate recruitment along the west coast of the United States. Ecol Monogr 78:403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butman CA (1987) Larval settlement of soft sediment invertebrates: the spatial scales of pattern explained by active habitat selection and the emerging role of hydrodynamical processes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 25:113–165Google Scholar
  4. Butman CA, Grassle JP, Webb CM (1988) Substrate choices made by marine larvae settling in still water and in a flume flow. Nature 333:771–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, p 5.6Google Scholar
  6. Crimaldi JP, Thompson JK, Rosman JH, Lowe RJ, Koseff JR (2002) Hydrodynamics of larval settlement: the influence of turbulent stress events at potential recruitment sites. Limnol Oceanogr 47:1137–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Amours O, Scheibling RE (2007) Effect of wave exposure on morphology, attachment strength and survival of the invasive green alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 351:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkin C, Marshall DJ (2007) Desperate larvae: influence of deferred costs and habitat requirements on habitat selection. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 335:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis LM (2013) Monitoring marine biodiversity: testing the effects of the substrate of a site on recruitment in cobble-filled collectors. MSc thesis, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Saint JohnGoogle Scholar
  10. Flores AAV, Cruz J, Paula J (2002) Temporal and spatial patterns of settlement of brachyuran crab megalopae at a rocky coast in Central Portugal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 229:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Folk RL (1965) Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill’s, Austin, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  12. Forward RB Jr, Tankersley RA, Welch JM (2003) Selective tidal-stream transport of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus, an overview. Bull Mar Sci 72:347–365Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs HL, Mullineaux LS, Solow AR (2004) Sinking behavior of gastropod larvae (Ilyanassa obsoleta) in turbulence. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1937–1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs HL, Neubert MG, Mullineaux LS (2007) Effects of turbulence-mediated larval behavior on larval supply and settlement in tidal currents. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1156–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaines S, Roughgarden J (1985) Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:3707–3711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaylord B, Hodin J, Ferner MC (2013) Turbulent shear spurs settlement in larval sea urchins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:6901–6906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1996) Physical and biological factors influencing mussel (Mytilus trossulus, M. edulis) settlement on a wave-exposed rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 142:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt HL, Scheibling RE (1997) Role of early post-settlement mortality in the recruitment of benthic marine invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 155:269–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irish BL (2014) Role of predators in the recruitment of invertebrates in two rocky subtidal communities in the southwest Bay of Fundy, NB. MSc thesis, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeffery CJ (2000) Settlement in different-sized patches by the gregarious intertidal barnacle Chamaesipho tasmanica Foster and Anderson in New South Wales. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 252:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jennings LB, Hunt HL (2010) Settlement, recruitment and potential predators and competitors of juvenile echinoderms in the rocky subtidal zone. Mar Biol 157:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kent A, Hawkins SJ, Doncaster P (2003) Population consequences of mutual attraction between settling and adult barnacles. J Anim Ecol 72:941–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacalli T (1981) Annual spawning cycles and planktonic larvae of benthic invertebrates from Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick. Can J Zool 59:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin JM, LeGresley MM, Thorpe B, McCurdy P (2011) Non-indigenous tunicates in the Bay of Fundy, eastern Canada (2006–2009). Aquat Invasions 6:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menge BA, Daley BA, Lubchenco J, Sanford E, Dahlhoff E, Halpin PM, Hudson G, Burnaford JL (1999) Top-down and bottom-up regulation of New Zealand rocky intertidal communities. Ecol Monogr 69:297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minchinton TE, Scheibling RE (1993) Free space availability and larval substratum selection as determinants of barnacle population structure in a developing rocky intertidal community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 95:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Navarrete SA, Castilla JC (1990) Barnacle walls as mediators of intertidal mussel recruitment: effects of patch size on the utilization of space. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 68:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Navarrete SA, Wieters EA, Broitman BR, Castilla JC (2005) Scales of benthic–pelagic coupling and the intensity of species interactions: from recruitment limitation to top-down control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18046–18051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1984) Flow environment of aquatic benthos. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pardo LM, Cardyn CS, Mora P, Wahle RA (2010) A new passive collector to assess settlement rates, substrate selection and predation pressure in decapod crustacean larvae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 393:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pawlik JR (1992) Chemical ecology of the settlement of benthic marine invertebrates. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 30:273–335Google Scholar
  32. Pechenik JA (1990) Delayed metamorphosis by larvae of benthic marine invertebrates: does it occur? Is there a price to pay? Ophelia 32:63–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pineda J (1994) Spatial and temporal patterns in barnacle settlement rate along a southern California rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 107:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pineda J, Caswell H (1997) Dependence of settlement rate on suitable substrate area. Mar Biol 129:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pineda J, Porri F, Starczak V, Blythe J (2010) Causes of decoupling between larval supply and settlement and consequences for understanding recruitment and population connectivity. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 392:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porri F, McQuaid CD, Radloff S (2006) Spatiotemporal variability of larval abundance and settlement of Perna perna: differential delivery of mussels. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 315:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porri F, Jordaan T, McQuaid C (2008) Does cannibalism of larvae by adults affect settlement and connectivity of mussel populations? Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 79:687–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von der Meden CEO, Porri F, Radloff S, McQuaid CD (2012) Settlement intensification and coastline topography: understanding the role of habitat availability in the pelagic–benthic transition. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 459:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wahle RA, Steneck RS (1991) Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds of the American lobster Homarus americanus: A demographic bottleneck? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 69:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wahle RA, Wilson C, Parkhurst M, Bergeron CE (2009) A vessel-deployed passive postlarval collector to assess settlement of the American lobster Homarus americanus. N Z Mar Freshw 43:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wahle RA, Bergeron C, Tremblay J, Wilson C, Burdett-Coutts V, Comeau M, Rochette R, Lawton P, Glenn R, Gibson M (2013) The geography and bathymetry of American lobster benthic recruitment as measured by diver-based suction sampling and passive collectors. Mar Biol Res 9:42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson BM (2013) Biodiversity of shallow rocky–subtidal habitat in the Quoddy region of the Bay of Fundy, as assessed using cobble–filled collectors. MSc thesis, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB, CanadaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of New BrunswickSaint JohnCanada

Personalised recommendations