, Volume 159, Issue 4, pp 883–892 | Cite as

Integrating edge effects into studies of habitat fragmentation: a test using meiofauna in seagrass

  • F. Y. Warry
  • J. S. HindellEmail author
  • P. I. Macreadie
  • G. P. Jenkins
  • R. M. Connolly
Conservation Ecology - Original Paper


Habitat fragmentation is thought to be an important process structuring landscapes in marine and estuarine environments, but effects on fauna are poorly understood, in part because of a focus on patchiness rather than fragmentation. Furthermore, despite concomitant increases in perimeter:area ratios with fragmentation, we have little understanding of how fauna change from patch edges to interiors during fragmentation. Densities of meiofauna were measured at different distances across the edges of four artificial seagrass treatments [continuous, fragmented, procedural control (to control for disturbance by fragmenting then restoring experimental plots), and patchy] 1 day, 1 week and 1 month after fragmentation. Experimental plots were established 1 week prior to fragmentation/disturbance. Samples were numerically dominated by harpacticoid copepods, densities of which were greater at the edge than 0.5 m into patches for continuous, procedural control and patchy treatments; densities were similar between the edge and 0.5 m in fragmented patches. For taxa that demonstrated edge effects, densities exhibited log-linear declines to 0.5 m into a patch with no differences observed between 0.5 m and 1 m into continuous treatments. In patchy treatments densities were similar at the internal and external edges for many taxa. The strong positive edge effect (higher densities at edge than interior) for taxa such as harpacticoid copepods implies some benefit of patchy landscapes. But the lack of edge effects during patch fragmentation itself demonstrates the importance of the mechanisms by which habitats become patchy.


Landscape ecology Harpacticoid copepod Seagrass Edge effects Fragmentation Artificial seagrass units 



We thank G. Walker-Smith for help with harpacticoid identification; T. Smith, R. Watson and D. Hatton for field assistance; and M. Keough for statistical assistance. We are grateful to the Australian Research Council for a grant to R.M.C., J.S.H. and G.P.J., and the Victorian Marine Science Consortium for use of facilities. The experiments presented here comply with Australia law.


  1. Attrill MJ, Strong JA, Rowden AA (2000) Are macroinvertebrate communities influenced by seagrass structural complexity? Ecography 23:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell SS, Brooks RA, Robbins BD, Fonseca MS, Hall MO (2001) Faunal response to fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass conservation. Biol Conserv 100:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell SS, Hicks GRF (1991) Marine landscapes and faunal recruitment: a field test with seagrasses and copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 73:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender DJ, Contresas TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierregaard RO, Lovejoy TE, Kapos V, dos Santos AA, Hutchings RW (1992) The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments: a prospective comparison of fragments and continuous forest. Bioscience 42:859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black KP, Hatton D, Rosenberg MA (1993) Locally and externally-driven dynamics of a large semi-enclosed bay in southern Australia. J Coast Res 9:509–538Google Scholar
  7. Bologna PAX, Heck KL (2000) Impacts of seagrass habitat architecture on bivalve settlement. Estuaries 23:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bologna PAX, Heck KL (2002) Impact of habitat edges on density and secondary production of seagrass-associated fauna. Estuaries 25:1033–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boström C, Jackson EL, Simenstad CA (2006) Seagrass landscapes and their effects on associated fauna: a review. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 68:383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowden DA, Rowden AA, Atrill MJ (2001) Effect of patch size and in-patch location on the infaunal macroinvertebrate assemblages of Zostera marina seagrass beds. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 259:133–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buffan-Dubau E, Carman KR (2000) Diel feeding behavior of meiofauna and their relationships with microalgal resources. Limnol Oceanogr 45:381–395Google Scholar
  12. Bulthuis DA, Axelrad DM, Mickelson MJ (1992) Growth of the seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica limited by nitrogen in Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 89:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly RM, Hindell JS (2006) Review of nekton patterns and ecological processes in seagrass landscapes. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 68:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Troch M, Chepurnov V, Gheerardyn H, Vanreusel A, Olafsson E (2006) Is diatom size selection by harpacticoid copepods related to grazer size? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 332:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donovan TM, Jones PW, Annand EM, Thompson FR (1997) Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075Google Scholar
  16. Eggleston DB, Elis WD, Etherington LL, Dahlgren P, Posey MH (1999) Organism responses to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonisation by estuarine macrofauna. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236:107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eggleston DB, Etherington LL, Elis WE (1998) Organism response to habitat patchiness: species and habitat recruitment of decapod crustaceans. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 223:111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagan WF, Cantrell RS, Cosner C (1999) How habitat edges change species interactions. Am Nat 153:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fonseca MS, Cahalan JA (1992) A preliminary evaluation of wave attenuation by 4 species of seagrass. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 35:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fonseca MS, Fisher JS (1986) A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between 4 species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gambi MC, Nowell ARM, Jumars PA (1990) Flume observations on flow dynamics in Zostera marina (eelgrass) beds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 61:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hindell JS, Jenkins GP, Keough MJ (2002) Variability in the numbers of post-settlement King George whiting (Sillaginidae: Sillaginodes punctata, Cuvier) in relation to predation, habitat complexity and artificial cage structure. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 268:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hovel KA, Fonesca MS, Myer DL, Kenworthy WJ, Whitfield PE (2002) Effects of seagrass landscape structure, structural complexity and hydrodynamic regime on macrofaunal densities in North Carolina seagrass beds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 243:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hovel KA, Lipcius RN (2002) Effects of seagrass habitat fragmentation on juvenile blue crab survival and abundance. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 271:75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irving AD, Tanner JE, McDonald BK (2007) Priority effects on faunal assemblages within artificial seagrass. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 340:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jelbart JE, Ross PM, Connolly RM (2006) Edge effects and patch size in seagrass landscapes: an experimental test using fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 319:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins GP, Wheatley MJ, Poore AGB (1996) Spatial variation in recruitment, growth, and feeding of post settlement King George whiting, Sillaginodes punctata, associated with seagrass beds of Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins GP, Keough MJ, Hamer PA (1998) The contributions of habitat structure and larval supply to broad-scale recruitment variability in a temperate zone, seagrass-associated fish. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 226:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kendrick AJ, Hyndes GA (2005) Variations in the dietary compositions of morphologically diverse syngnathid fishes. Environ Biol Fish 72:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuo J (2005) A revision of the genus Heterozostera (Zosteraceae). Aquat Bot 81:97–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  33. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy H (2007) Responses of meiofauna to edge effects, patch attributes and hydrodynamics. BSc(Hons) Thesis, University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  35. Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, Dennison WC, Duarte CM, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Olyarnik S, Short FT, Waycott M, Williams SL (2006) A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56:987–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer MA (1988) Epibenthic predators and marine meiofauna: separating predation, disturbance and hydrodynamic effects. Ecology 69:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker M, Mac Nally R (2002) Habitat loss and the habitat fragmentation threshold: an experimental evaluation of impacts on richness and total abundances using grassland invertebrates. Biol Conserv 105:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson CH, Luettich RA Jr, Micheli F, Skilleter GA (2004) Attenuation of water flow inside seagrass canopies of differing structure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Picket STA, White PS (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  40. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramage DL, Schiel DR (1999) Patch dynamics and response to disturbance of the seagrass Zostera novazelandica on intertidal platforms in southern New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 189:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reed BJ, Hovel KA (2006) Seagrass habitat disturbance: how loss and fragmentation of eelgrass Zostera marina influences epifaunal abundance and diversity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 326:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ries L, Sisk TD (2004) A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85:2917–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robbins BD, Bell SS (1994) Seagrass landscapes: a terrestrial approach to the marine subtidal environment. Trends Ecol Evol 9:301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts DA, Poore AGB (2005) Habitat configuration effects colonisation of epifauna in a marine algal bed. Biol Conserv 127:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schonewald-Cox CM, Bayless JW (1986) The boundary model: a geographical analysis of design and conservation of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 38:305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Short FT, Wyllie-Echeverria S (1996) Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environ Conserv 23:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sogard SM (1989) Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapods crustaceans: importance of proximity to natural eelgrass. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 133:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stephens SE, Koons DN, Rotella JJ, Willey DW (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on avian nesting success: a review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales. Biol Conserv 115:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Summerson HC, Peterson CH (1984) Role of predation in organising benthic communities of a temperate-zone seagrass bed. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 15:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tanner JE (2003) Patch shape and orientation influences on seagrass epifauna are mediated by dispersal abilities. Oikos 100: 517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tanner JE (2005) Edge effects in fauna in fragmented seagrass meadows. Aust Ecol 30:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tanner JE (2006) Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix matters. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 68:404–412Google Scholar
  54. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Upston J, Booth DJ (2003) Settlement and density of juvenile fish assemblages in natural, Zostera capricorni (Zosteraceae) and artificial seagrass beds. Environ Biol Fish 66:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Villard M, Trzcinski MK, Merriam G (1999) Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv Biol 13:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Virnstein RW, Curran MC (1986) Colonisation of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Y. Warry
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. S. Hindell
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • P. I. Macreadie
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. P. Jenkins
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. M. Connolly
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Victorian Marine Science ConsortiumQueenscliffAustralia
  3. 3.Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Research InstituteDepartment of Primary IndustriesQueenscliffAustralia
  4. 4.Australian Rivers Institute, Coast & Estuaries, and School of EnvironmentGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  5. 5.Arthur Rylah InstituteDepartment of Sustainability and EnvironmentHeidelbergAustralia

Personalised recommendations