Polar Biology

, Volume 30, Issue 7, pp 871–881 | Cite as

Composition and distribution of the peracarid crustacean fauna along a latitudinal transect off Victoria Land (Ross Sea, Antarctica) with special emphasis on the Cumacea

  • Peter Rehm
  • Sven Thatje
  • Ute Mühlenhardt-Siegel
  • Angelika Brandt
Original Paper

Abstract

The following study was the first to describe composition and structure of the peracarid fauna systematically along a latitudinal transect off Victoria Land (Ross Sea, Antarctica). During the 19th Antarctic expedition of the Italian research vessel “Italica” in February 2004, macrobenthic samples were collected by means of a Rauschert dredge with a mesh size of 500 μm at depths between 85 and 515 m. The composition of peracarid crustaceans, especially Cumacea was investigated. Peracarida contributed 63% to the total abundance of the fauna. The peracarid samples were dominated by amphipods (66%), whereas cumaceans were represented with 7%. Previously, only 13 cumacean species were known, now the number of species recorded from the Ross Sea increased to 34. Thus, the cumacean fauna of the Ross Sea, which was regarded as the poorest in terms of species richness, has to be considered as equivalent to that of other high Antarctic areas. Most important cumacean families concerning abundance and species richness were Leuconidae, Nannastacidae, and Diastylidae. Cumacean diversity was lowest at the northernmost area (Cape Adare). At the area off Coulman Island, which is characterized by muddy sediment, diversity was highest. Diversity and species number were higher at the deeper stations and abundance increased with latitude. A review of the bathymetric distribution of the Cumacea from the Ross Sea reveals that most species distribute across the Antarctic continental shelf and slope. So far, only few deep-sea records justify the assumption of a shallow-water–deep-sea relationship in some species of Ross Sea Cumacea, which is discussed from an evolutionary point of view.

Keywords

Diversity Cumacea Benthos Antarctica Ross Sea 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Prof. R. Cattaneo Vietti for the invitation to participate at the 19th expedition of the Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide (S.C.r.l.). We are also very grateful to Dr. M. Chiantore, Dr. S. Gatti, and Dr. O. Heilmayer for planning and their help during the cruise, to Dr. A. N. Lörz for providing the material collected on board of RV “Tangaroa”, and to the crew of RV ‘‘Italica’’ for help and assistance at sea. Special thanks go to Dr. D. Roccatagliata for his support in determining the cumaceans collected. Thanks are due to Chris Everett for her revision of the English. The German Science Foundation (DFG) provided travelling funds to the principal author (Br 1121/23-1).

References

  1. Błażewicz M, Heard WH (1999) First record of the family Gynodiastylidae Stebbing, 1912 (Crustacea: Malacostraca: Cumacea) from Antarctic waters with the description of Gynodiastylis jazdzewskii, a new species. Proc Biol Soc Wash 112:362–367Google Scholar
  2. Brandt A (1999) On the origin and evolution of Antarctic Peracarida (Crustacea, Malacostraca). Sci Mar 63(Suppl 1):261–274Google Scholar
  3. Brandt A, Barthel D (1995) An improved supra- and epibenthic sledge for catching Peracarida (Crustacea, Malacostraca). Ophelia 43:15–23Google Scholar
  4. Brandt A, Mühlenhardt-Siegel, Siegel V (1998) An account of the Mysidacea (Crustacea, Malacostraca) of the Southern Ocean. Antarct Sci 10:3–11Google Scholar
  5. Brandt A, Mühlenhardt-Siegel U, Schmidt A (1999) Density, diversity and community patterns of selected peracarid taxa (Malacostraca) in the Beagle Channel, South America. In: Schramm FR, von Vaupel Klein JC (eds) Crustaceans and the biodiversity crisis. Proceedings of the fourth international crustacean congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1:541–558Google Scholar
  6. Brenke N (2005) An epibenthic sledge for operations on marine soft bottom and bedrock. Mar Technol Soc J 39:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calman WT (1907) Crustacea II Cumacea. National Antarctic Expedition 1901–1904. Natl Hist Rep Zool 2:1–6Google Scholar
  8. Calman WT (1917) The British Antarctic expedition 1910. Part 4 Cumacea. Natl Hist Rep Zool 3(5):145–156Google Scholar
  9. Calman WT (1918) Cumacea and Phyllocarida. Sci Rep Austral Antarct Exped 1911–1914. Ser C 5(6):5–8Google Scholar
  10. Clark M, Rowden A (2004) Marine biodiversity BioRoss 2004: expanding our knowledge of marine life in the Ross Sea. NIWA Water Atmos 12:24–25Google Scholar
  11. Corbera J (2000) Systematics and distribution of cumaceans collected during BENTART-95 cruise around South Shetland Islands (Antarctica). Sci Mar 64:9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbera J, Ramos A (2005) Cumaceans from the Bellingshausen Sea and neighbouring waters. Ber Polarforsch 507:125–128Google Scholar
  13. De Broyer C, Jazdzewski K (1996) Biodiversity of the Southern Ocean: towards a new synthesis for the Amphipoda (Crustacea). Boll Mu civ St nat Verona 20:547–568Google Scholar
  14. Gamô S (1959) On a cumacean Crustacea (Diastylis corniculatus Hale) obtained by the second Japanese Antarctic research expedition (1957–58). Biol Res Jap Ant Res Exp 7:1–8Google Scholar
  15. Gamô S (1987) Cumacean crustaceans obtained by the 26th Japanese Antarctic research expedition (1984–1985), with descriptions of four new species. Proc NIPR Symp Polar Biol 1:145–160Google Scholar
  16. Hale HM (1937) Cumacea and Nebaliacea. BANZARE Rep Ser B 4(2):37–56Google Scholar
  17. Hansen HJ (1908) Schizopoda and Cumacea. Résultats du Voyage de la “Belgica” 1897–1899. Rapp scient, Zool:l–20Google Scholar
  18. Held C (2003) Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes AHL, Gieskes WWC, Rozema J, Schorno RML, van der Vies SM, Wolff WJ (eds) Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 135–139Google Scholar
  19. Held C, Wägele JW (2005) Cryptic speciation in the giant Antarctic isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus (Isopoda: Valvifera: Chaetiliidae). Sci Mar 69(Suppl 2):175–181Google Scholar
  20. Jones NS (1971) The fauna of the Ross Sea. Part 8. Cumacea. NZ Dep Sci Industr Res Bull 206:33–44Google Scholar
  21. Jones NS, Sanders HL (1972) Distribution of Cumacea in the deep Atlantic. Deep Sea Res 19:737–745Google Scholar
  22. Jones NS (1984) The family Nannastacidae (Crustacea: Cumacea) from the deep Atlantic. Bull Br Mus nat Hist (Zool) 46(3):207–289Google Scholar
  23. Ledoyer M (1973) Sur une petite collection des Cumacés recueillis aux Iles Kerguelen. Tethys 5:709–714Google Scholar
  24. Ledoyer M (1977) Cumacés (Crustacea) des Iles Kerguelen, recueillis par le N.O. “La Japonaise” en 1972 et 1974 et par le M.S. “Marion-Dufresne” en 1974. CNFRA 42:193–213Google Scholar
  25. Ledoyer M (1993) Cumacea (Crustacea) de la campagne EPOS 3 du R.V. Polarstern en mer de Weddell, Antarctique. J Nat Hist 27:1041–1096Google Scholar
  26. Linse K, Brandt A, Hilbig B, Wegener G (2002) Composition and distribution of suprabenthic fauna in the south-eastern Weddell Sea and off King George Island. Antarct Sci 14:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lörz AN, di Renzo A, Nickel J (1999) Comparative analysis of three sampling gear types for marine macrobenthos. Ber Polarforsch 330:134–151Google Scholar
  28. Lörz AN, Brandt A (2003) Diversity of Peracarida (Crustacea, Malacostraca) caught in a suprabenthic sampler. Antarct Sci 15:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lomakina NB (1968) Kumovye raki (Cumacea) antarctičeskoj oblasti. Issl Fauny Morej 14:97–140Google Scholar
  30. Mühlenhardt-Siegel U (1994) Leucon parasiphonatus, a new species (Crustacea: Cumacea: Leuconidae) from Antarctic waters. Helgoländer Meeresunters 48:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mühlenhardt-Siegel U (1996) Some remarks on the taxonomy of Antarctic Leuconidae (Cumacea: Crustacea) with a description of a new species Leucon intermedius n. sp. Helgoländer Meeresunters 50:391–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mühlenhardt-Siegel U (1999) On the biogeography of Cumacea (Crustacea, Malacostraca). A comparison between South America, the Subantarctic Islands, and Antarctica: present state of the art. Sci Mar 63(Suppl 1):295–302Google Scholar
  33. Petrescu I (1991) Contributions to the knowledge of the family Leuconidae (Crustacea, Cumacea) with the description of three new species: Heteroleucon bacescui n. sp., Leucon adelae n. sp. and Leucon meridithi n. sp. Revue roumaine de Biologie (Biologie Animale) 36(1–2):15–20Google Scholar
  34. Petrescu I, Wittman KJ (2003) Elements for a revision and notes on bionomy of the Cumacea (Crustacea: Peracarida) of the Weddell Sea (Antarctica). Material collected by the expedition ANTARKTIS-VIII/5 of R.V. “Polarstern” 1998/90. Zool Med Leiden 77:557–630Google Scholar
  35. Pielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rehm P, Thatje S, Arntz WE, Brandt A, Heilmayer O (2006) Distribution and composition of macrozoobenthic communities along a Victoria-Land Transect (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Polar Biol 29:782–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roccatagliata D, Heard R (1992) Diastylopsis goeckei, a new species (Crustacea: Cumacea: Diastylidae) from Antarctic waters. Proc Biol Soc Wash 105:743–752Google Scholar
  38. Sars GO (1887) Reports on the Cumacea collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. Rep Sci Res Voyage HMS Challenger 19(55):1–78Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt A, Brandt A (2001) The tanaidacean fauna of the Beagle Channel (southern Chile) and its relationship to the fauna of the Antarctic continental shelf. Antarct Sci 13:420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, Urbana, pp 1–117Google Scholar
  41. Smith Jr WO, Nelson DM, DiTullio GR, Leventer AR (1996) Temporal and spatial patterns in the Ross Sea: Phytoplankton biomass, elemental composition, productivity and growth rates. J Geophys Res 101(C8):18455–18465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thatje S, Hillenbrand CD, Larter R (2005) On the origin of Antarctic marine benthic community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 20(10):534–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wägele JW (1986) Polymorphism and distribution of Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Eights, 1833) (Crustacea, Isopoda) in the Weddell Sea and synonymy with C. cornuta (Studer, 1879). Polar Biol 6:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waterhouse EJ (2001) Ross Sea region: a state of the environment report for the Ross Sea region of Antarctica New Zealand Antarctic Institute, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmer C (1902) Die Cumaceen. Ergebnisse der Hamburgischen Magelhanischen Sammelreise 2. L Friedrichsen, Hamburg, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  46. Zimmer C (1907a) Neue Cumaceen aus den Familien Diastylidae und Leuconidae von der Deutschen und Schwedischen Südpolar-Expedition. Zool Anz 31:220–229Google Scholar
  47. Zimmer C (1907b) Neue Cumaceen von der Deutschen und Schwedischen Südpolarexpedition aus den Familien der Cumiden, Vaunthompsoniiden, Nannastaciden und Lampropiden. Zool Anz 31:367–374Google Scholar
  48. Zimmer C (1908) Die Cumaceen der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Wiss Ergeb dt Tiefsee-Exp “Valdivia” 8:155–196Google Scholar
  49. Zimmer C (1909) Die Cumaceen der schwedischen Südpolarexpedition 1901–1903. Schwedische Südpolarexpedition 6(3):1–31Google Scholar
  50. Zimmer C (1913) Die Cumaceen der Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition 1901–1903. Die Deutschen Südpolar-Expeditionen, 14(Zool 6):437–491Google Scholar
  51. Zimmer C (1921) Einige neue und weniger bekannte Cumaceen des Schwedischen Reichsmuseums. Arkiv För Zoologi 13(21):1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Rehm
    • 1
  • Sven Thatje
    • 2
  • Ute Mühlenhardt-Siegel
    • 3
  • Angelika Brandt
    • 3
  1. 1.Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), Marine Animal EcologyBremerhavenGermany
  2. 2.National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, School of Ocean and Earth ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Zoologisches Institut und MuseumUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations