Macroecological Patterns of Estuarine Nematodes
In the present study, we test whether large-scale patterns of estuarine nematodes are predicted by the “everything is everywhere” (EiE) hypothesis or by the moderate endemicity hypothesis (MEH). Specifically, we tested whether nematode genus richness and composition differ among geographical regions, latitudes, and between habitats (estuaries with and without mangroves). The meta-analysis included published data from 43 estuaries around the world. Only the most abundant genera (>1 % of relative abundance) were considered in the analysis. Each estuary was treated as an analytical unit. Results indicated that genus richness did not differ among geographical regions and between habitats, whereas latitude explained 36 % of the variability in genus richness. Genus richness assumed a bimodal pattern with higher values around the equator and in temperate regions. Canonical analysis revealed distinct nematode genus compositions in three main geographical regions and in both habitat types. These results suggest that nematodes are dispersion-limited and influenced by environmental conditions. The main conclusion is that large-scale patterns of estuarine nematodes are better predicted by the MEH, in line with studies of macroorganisms. Moreover, nematode genus turnover decreased with increasing latitude, a pattern already reported for harpacticoid copepods, land birds, vascular plants, mammals, and butterflies.
KeywordsLatitudinal species richness pattern Nematoda Marine Estuarine Meta-analysis
We thank the critical reading of Fabiane Gallucci and Jon Norenburg, as well as three anonymous reviewers. We thank Ruth Gingold (sweepandmore.com) for the critical reading and editing of the manuscript. GF is supported by FAPESP (2009/14019-0) and SN by CNPq (306740/2012-5).
- Anderson, M.J., R.N. Gorley, and K.R. Clarke. 2008. PERMANOVA for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
- Baas-Becking, L.G.M. 1934. Geobiologie of inleiding tot de milieukunde. The Hague, The Netherlands: W.P. van Stockum and Zoon.Google Scholar
- Clarke, K.R., and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
- Cooper, J.A.G. 2001. Geomorphology of tide-dominated and river-dominated, barred microtidal estuaries: a contrast. Journal of Coastal Research 34: 428–436.Google Scholar
- Derycke, S., G. Fonseca, A. Vierstraete, J. Vanfleteren, M. Vincx, and T. Moens. 2008. Disentangling taxonomy within the Rhabditis (Pellioditis) marina (Nematoda, Rhabditidae) species complex using molecular and morphological tools. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 152: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Foissner, W. 2006. Biogeography and dispersal of microorganisms: a review emphasizing protists. Acta Protozoologica 45: 111–136.Google Scholar
- Fonseca, G., P. Hutchings, and F. Gallucci. 2011. Meiobenthic communities of seagrass beds (Zostera capricorni) and unvegetated sediments along the coast of New South Wales, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 91: 69−77.Google Scholar
- Fontaneto, D. 2006. Biogeography of microscopic organisms, is everything small everywhere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Heip, C., M. Vincx, and G. Vranken. 1985. The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 23: 399–489.Google Scholar
- Hodda, M. 2007. Phylum Nematoda. Zootaxa 1668: 265–293.Google Scholar
- Nanajkar, M., and B. Ingole. 2010. Comparison of tropical nematode communities from the three harbors, west coast of India. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 51: 9–18.Google Scholar
- Peterson, C., K. Scheidegger, P. Komar, and W. Niem. 1984. Sediment composition and hydrography in six high-gradient estuaries of the northwestern United States. Journal of Sedimentary Research 54: 86–97.Google Scholar