Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 129–147 | Cite as

An examination of the spatial and temporal generality of the influence of ecosystem engineers on the composition of associated assemblages

  • Katrin Berkenbusch
  • Ashley A. Rowden
Original Paper


The present study evaluated the generality of ecosystem engineering processes by examining the influence of sympatric burrowing shrimps (Callianassidae) and intertidal seagrasses (Zosteraceae) on benthic assemblage composition in two temperate regions, south-eastern New Zealand and north-western U.S.A. In each region, intertidal macrofauna assemblage composition was determined at sites of different burrowing shrimp/seagrass density and where both species co-occured, in three different size estuaries/tidal inlets, on two occasions. Results from both regions showed that the presence of shrimps and seagrasses consistently influenced the composition of the associated infaunal assemblages at all sites, in both summer and winter. Macrofauna assemblages at shrimp sites were significantly different to those at seagrass-only and mixed sites, whereas the composition of the latter sites was similar. The differences observed between sites were best explained by sediment variables. In New Zealand, % fines and seagrass debris showed the highest correlation to differences in assemblage composition, and in the U.S.A. % fines, % carbon and sediment turnover (by shrimp) appeared to be the most important environmental parameters measured. Four to six taxa exhibited the greatest discriminating significance (including corophiid amphipods, spionid polychaetes and oligochaetes) for dissimilarities in assemblage composition observed at the different sites, with generally lower abundances at shrimp than at seagrass sites. The present study highlights the functional importance of seagrasses and bioturbating shrimps as ecosystem engineers in soft-sediment environments, and reveals the generality of their influence on associated macro-invertebrate assemblages. The findings also allow for further development of a heuristic model for ecosystem engineering by shrimp and seagrass which indicate that numerical models that aim to explore the relationship between ecosystem engineer populations and habitat modification should be expanded to capture the interaction of co-occurring engineers and be both spatially and temporally explicit.


Callianassidae Macro-invertebrate assemblages Ecosystem engineer Environmental variables Intertidal sandflat Temperate regions Zosteraceae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We are indebted to a number of people for their tremendous support: Bev Dickson, Peter Eldridge, Jim Kaldy, Tom Myers, Keith Probert, Jody Stecher, and Kathrin Wuttig. Many thanks to staff at the Portobello Marine Laboratory (University of Otago, New Zealand), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Dynamac Corp. (Newport, Oregon) for logistical and technical support. Staff at the Cape Lookout State Park enabled access to Netarts Bay. Funding for this research was provided by the Foundation for Research, Science & Technology through a Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to K.B., NIWX0004, and NIWA’s educational programme for A.R. (WEEDUC).


  1. Berkenbusch K, Rowden AA (2003) Ecosystem engineering—moving away from ‘just-so’ stories. N Z J Ecol 27:67–73Google Scholar
  2. Berkenbusch K, Rowden AA, Probert PK (2000) Temporal and spatial variation in macrofauna community composition imposed by ghost shrimp Callianassa filholi bioturbation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness M (1985) Fiddler crab regulation of Spartina alterniflora production on a New England salt marsh. Ecology 66:1042–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird EW (1982) Population dynamics of the thalassinidean shrimps and their community effects through sediment modification. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Boström C, Bonsdorff E (1997) Community structure and spatial variation of benthic invertebrates associated with Zostera marina (L.) beds in the northern Baltic Sea. J Sea Res 37:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boström C, Bonsdorff E (2000) Zoobenthic community establishment and habitat complexity—the importance of seagrass shoot-density, morphology and physical disturbance for faunal recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 205:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brenchley GA (1982) Mechanisms of spatial competition in marine soft-bottom communities. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 60:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadée G (2001) Sediment dynamics by bioturbating organisms. In: Reise K (ed) Ecological comparisons of sedimentary shores. Springer, pp 127–148Google Scholar
  11. Castel J, Labourg PJ, Excaravage V, Auby I, Garcia ME (1989) Influence of seagrass beds and oyster parks on the abundance and biomass patterns of meio- and macrobenthos in tidal flats. Estuar Cstl Shelf Sci 28:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2001) Primer v5: user manual/tutorial. Primer-E, Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke KR, Ainsworth M (1993) A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental variables. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 92:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clifford HT, Stephenson W (1975) An introduction to numerical classification. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Dayton P (1972) Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments of the benthos at McMurdo Sound Antarctica. Colloquium on Conservation problems in AntarcticaGoogle Scholar
  18. Devine CE (1966) Ecology of Callianassa filholi Milne-Edwards 1878 (Crustacea Thalassinidea). Trans R Soc N Z 8:93–110Google Scholar
  19. Duarte CT, Terrados J, Agawin NSR, Fortes MD, Bach S, Kenworthy WJ (1997) Response of a mixed Philippine seagrass meadow to experimental burial. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 147:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dumbauld BR, Brooks KM, Posey MH (2001) Response of an estuarine benthic community to application of the pesticide carbaryl and cultivation of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Willapa Bay, Washington. Mar Pollut Bull 42:826–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dumbauld BR, Wyllie-Echeverria SL (2003) The influence of burrowing thalassinid shrimps on the distribution of intertidal seagrasses in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. Aquat Bot 77:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferraro SP, Cole FA (2004) Optimal benthic macrofaunal sampling protocol for detecting differences among four habitats in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. Estuaries 27:1014–1025Google Scholar
  23. Field JG, Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1982) A practical strategy for analysing multispecies distribution patterns. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 8:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flecker A (1996) Ecosystem engineering by a dominant detritivore in a diverse tropical stream. Ecology 77:1845–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fonseca MS, Fisher JS (1986) A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fonseca MS, Bell SS (1998) Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort, North Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 171:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giere O, Pfannkuche O (1982) Biology and ecology of marine oligochaeta, a review. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 20:173–308Google Scholar
  28. Grady JR (1981) Properties of sea grass and sandflat sediments from the intertidal zone of St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Estuaries 4:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gurney W, Lawton JH (1996) The population dynamics of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 76:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison PG (1987) Natural expansion and experimental manipulation of seagrass (Zostera marina) abundance and the response of infaunal invertebrates. Estuar Cstl Shelf Sci 24:799–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison PG, Bigley RE (1982) The recent introduction of the seagrass Zostera japonica Aschers & Graebn to the Pacific Coast of North America. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 39:1642–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedges J, Stern JH (1984) Carbon and nitrogen determination of carbonate-containing solids. Limnol Oceanogr 29:657–663Google Scholar
  33. Henriques PR (1980) Faunal community structure of eight soft shore, intertidal habitats in the Manukau Harbour. N Z J Ecol 3:97–103Google Scholar
  34. Huston MA (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am Nat 113:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inglis GJ (2003) Seagrasses of New Zealand. In: Green EP, Short FT (eds) World Atlas of Seagrasses: present status and future conservation. University of California Press, USA, pp 148–157Google Scholar
  36. Jernakoff P, Nielsen J (1997) The relative importance of amphipod and gastropod grazers in Posidonia sinuosa meadows. Aquat Bot 56:183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kharlamenko VI, Kiyashko SI, Imbs AB, Vyshkvartzev DI (2001) Identification of food sources of invertebrates from the seagrass Zostera marina community using carbon and sulfur stable isotope ratio and fatty acid analyses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 220:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee S, Fong CW, Wu RSS (2001) The effects of seagrass (Zostera japonica) canopy structure on associated fauna: a study using artificial seagrass units and sampling of natural beds. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 259:23–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Les DH, Moody ML, Jacobs SWL, Bayer RJ (2002) Systematics of seagrasses (Zosteraceae) in Australia and New Zealand. Syst Bot 27:468–484Google Scholar
  42. Levinton JS (1995) Bioturbators as ecosystem engineers: control of the sediment fabric, inter-individuals interactions, and material fluxes. In: Lawton LJ, Jones CG (eds) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA, pp. 29–44Google Scholar
  43. Little C (2000) The biology of soft shores and estuaries. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Luczkovich JJ, Ward GP, Johnson JC, Christian RR, Baird D, Neckles H, Rizzo WM (2002) Determining the trophic guilds of fishes and macroinvertebrates in a seagrass food web. Estuaries 25:1143–1163Google Scholar
  45. MacGinitie GE (1934) The natural history of Callianassa californiensis Dana. Am Midl Nat 15:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy RC (1985) Factors affecting the distribution of the introduced bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria in a California lagoon. The importance of bioturbation. J Mar Res 43:673–692Google Scholar
  47. Myers AC (1977) Sediment processing in a marine subtidal sandy bottom community: II. Biological consequences. J Mar Res 35:633–647Google Scholar
  48. Orth RJ, Heck KL, van Montfrans J (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator–prey relationships. Estuaries 7:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penhale P, Smith WO Jr (1977) Excretion of dissolved organic carbon by eelgrass (Zostera marina) and its epiphytes. Limnol Oceanogr 22:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peterson CH (1977) Competitive organization of the soft-bottom macrobenthic communities of Southern California Lagoon. Mar Biol 43:343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Posey MH (1988) Community changes associated with the spread of an introduced seagrass Zostera japonica. Ecology 69:974–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Posey MH (1986) Changes in a benthic community associated with dense beds of a burrowing deposit feeder␣Callianassa californiensis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 31:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Preen AR, Lee Long WJ, Coles RG (1995) Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquat Bot 52:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts HH, Wiseman HWJ, Suchanek TH (1981) Lagoon sediment transport: The significant effect of Callianassa bioturbation. Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  56. Rouse G, Pleijel F (2001) Polychaetes. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  57. Sartory D (1982) Spectrophotometric analysis of chlorophyll a in freshwater phytoplankton. Hydrological Research Institute, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  58. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stamhuis EJ, Videler JJ, de Wilde PAWJ (1998) Optimal foraging in the thalassinidean shrimp Callianassa subterranean. Improving food quality by grain size selection. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 228:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stapleton KL, Long M, Bird FL (2001) Comparative feeding ecology of two spatially coexisting species of ghost shrimp, Biffarius arenosus and Trypaea australiensis (Decapoda: Callianassidae). Ophelia 55:141–150Google Scholar
  61. Stoner AW (1980) The role of seagrass biomass in the organization of benthic macrofaunal assemblages. Bull Mar Sci 30:537–551Google Scholar
  62. Suchanek TH (1983) Control of seagrass communities and sediment distribution by Callianassa (Crustacea Thalassinidea) bioturbation. J Mar Res 41:281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Swift DJ (1993) The macrobenthic infauna off Sellafield (North-Eastern Irish Sea) with special reference to bioturbation. J Mar Biol Ass UK 73:143–162Google Scholar
  64. Taghon GL (1982) Optimal foraging by deposit-feeding invertebrates: roles of particle size and organic coating. Oecologia 52:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tamaki A, Kikuchi T (1983) Spatial arrangement of macrobenthic assemblages on an intertidal sand flat, Tomioka Bay, west Kyushu. Publ Amakusa Marine Biol Lab 7:41–60Google Scholar
  66. Turner SJ, Hewitt JE, Wilkinson MR, Morrisey DJ, Thrush SF, Cummings VJ, Funnell G (1999) Seagrass patches and landscapes: The influence of wind-wave dynamics and hierarchical arrangements of spatial structure on macrofaunal seagrass communities. Estuaries 22:1016–1032Google Scholar
  67. van Breemen N (1995) How sphagnum bogs down other plants. Trends Ecol Evol 10:270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Virnstein RW, Curran MC (1986) Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1991) A comparison of some methods for analysing changes in benthic community structure. J Mar Biol Ass U K 71:225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Warwick RM, Clarke KR, Gee JM (1990) The effect of disturbance by soldier crabs Mictyris platycheles H. Milne-Edwards on meiobenthic community structure. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 135:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Webster PJ, Rowden AA, Attrill MJ (1998) Effect of shoot density on the infaunal macro-invertebrate community within a Zostera marina seagrass bed. Estuar Cstl Shelf Sci 47:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Widdicombe S, Austen MC (2001) The interaction between physical disturbance and organic enrichment: an important element in structuring benthic communities. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1720–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilde de PAWJ (1991) Interactions in burrowing communities and their effects on the structure of marine benthic ecosystems. Symp Zool Soc Lond 63:107–117Google Scholar
  74. Zar J (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric ResearchWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Portobello Marine Laboratory, Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of OtagoPortobelloNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations