Marine Biodiversity

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 459–462 | Cite as

Editorial: diversity of marine meiofauna on the coast of Brazil

  • Gustavo Fonseca
  • Jon Norenburg
  • Maikon Di Domenico
Original Paper

Abstract

After a first bout of primarily taxonomical effort, meiofauna studies in Brazilian waters remained virtually neglected until the 1990s. At the end of the last century, taxonomical and ecological studies on meiofauna taxa were again published regularly, especially for Nematoda and Copepoda. In this issue, 18 new species are described and ten species are redescribed from seven Phyla. The five ecological articles cover the spatial distribution of forams and amoeba in a lagunar system, the meiofauna associated with biogenic structures, the relationship between nematodes and granulometry, and the response of sandy-beach meiofauna to a natural, short-term pulse of diatoms. All these contributions show the potential of the Brazilian coast for revealing new species and testing small to large-scale hypotheses about ecological processes.

Keywords

Brazil  Ecology Marine Meiofauna New species Taxonomy 

The main objectives of this editorial are to share the motivation that led us to organize this special issue and summarize the major findings of each article. Thus, instead of organizing an extensive literature review on the topic, we give an overview of the progress of marine meiofauna studies at the Brazilian coast using key researchers and publications as examples.

The diversity of meiofauna taxa on the Brazilian coast has been investigated since the beginning of the last century (e.g. Cobb 1920). Early studies were points in space and time, and were devoted to the description of new species. In the middle of the last century (1940–60) there was a sudden increase in the number of meiofauna studies worldwide. In Brazil, this was led by the prolific meiofaunal species descriptions and systematic reviews of Ernest Marcus and Eveline du Bois-Reymond Marcus (Medeiros 1987; Corrêa 1991). Together they published more than 220 scientific papers. Considering only the marine meiofauna, they described an enormous number of species and genera belonging to Platyhelminthes (Proseriata and Rhabdocoela), Acoela (formerly included in Platyhelminthes), Mollusca (Opisthobranchia), Tardigrada, and Annelida (including polychaetes and oligochaetes) (e.g. Du Bois-Reymond 1943; 1946; 1947; 1948; 1950; 1953; 1955; 1957; 1958; Marcus 1946, 1947; Marcus and Du Bois-Reymond 1951; 1954a; 1954b; 1955; 1956; 1957). Diva Diñiz Corrêa, a former student and subsequent colleague of Ernest and Eveline Marcus, published several papers on the taxonomy of Ototyphlonemertes (Nemertea) (Corrêa 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1957) and was for many years the leading authority on the group. During the same period, there was a series of papers by foreign researchers on specific taxonomic groups of Brazilian meiofauna, such as Nematoda (Gerlach 1954, 1957; Meyl 1956), Kinorhyncha (Gerlach 1956), Isopoda (Remane and Siewing 1953), Amphipoda (Siewing 1953), Harpacticoida (Jakobi 1953; Jakobi 1954; Jakobi and Loyola e Silva 1962), Acari (Schuster 1962), Ostracoda (Hartmann 1955, 1956), and Annelida (Siewing 1954; Gerlach and Siewing 1956;Westheide 1974).

After this first bout of primarily taxonomical effort, meiofauna studies remained virtually neglected in Brazilian waters until the 1990s. In the end of the last century taxonomical and ecological studies on meiofauna taxa again were published regularly(e.g. Todaro & Rocha 2004, 2005, Hooge & Rocha 2006, Amaral & Nalin 2011,  Andrade et al. 2011, Dal Zotto et al. 2013), especially for Nematoda and Copepoda (Carvalho et al. 1992; Corbisier 1993, 1999; Esteves et al. 1997; Esteves and Genevois 1997; Genevois and Bezerra 1997; Kihara and Rocha 2009; Lotufo and Rocha 1993; Netto et al. 1999a, b; Santos et al. 1999). According to the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar, it is only in the last decade that publications on meiofauna by Brazilian authors have been published consistently every year among ISI journals as well as in “gray” literature (Fig. 1a). Today Brazilian production of meiofauna studies is still modest, up to 14 articles/year amongst ISI journals and around 40 articles/year amongst all literature (Google Scholar), but the number of citations is doubling every four years (Fig. 1b), which is aided by increasing electronic searches and access to literature in the last decades.
Fig. 1

Citation metrics retrieved from Google Scholar using the terms “meiofauna” or “meiobenthos” and further refining for country “Brazil”: a) number of publications per year; b) number of citations per year

It should be noted that much of the taxonomical work was focused on the southeastern coast of Brazil, and especially the state of São Paulo. Given the extensive and very heterogeneous coastline shaped by mangroves, salt marshes, exposed and protected sandy beaches, bays, estuaries, rocky shores, coral reefs, islands, and an extensive continental shelf, the Brazilian coast has tremendous potential for revealing new species and testing small- to large-scale hypothesis about ecological processes. Brazilian researchers still are in the beginning stages of this endeavour and continue to benefit significantly from international collaborations and expertise, especially in view of the global deficit of taxonomic expertise for meiofauna. In order to promote such an exchange between Brazilian and international researchers, the workshop “Taxonomy and diversity of marine meiofauna – Brazil” was organized in October 2012 . The workshop was very successful and nine articles in this special issue are from material collected during this event. The other six articles are contributions of individual researchers. The articles in this special issue cover two major themes: taxonomy and ecology of meiofauna.

Taxonomy

In this issue there are ten taxonomical articles covering seven distinct major taxa: Gastrotricha (Hochberg 2014; Araújo et al. 2014), Kinorhyncha (Sørensen 2014), Nematoda (Bezerra et al. 2014; Venekey et al. 2014), Oligochaeta (Prantoni et al. 2014), Polychaeta (Di Domenico et al. 2014), Platyhelminthes (Curini-Galetti 2014; Reygel et al. 2014), and Mollusca (Jörger et al. 2014). In total, 18 new species are described and 10 species are re-described (Table 1). Additionally, Prantoni et al. give an updated list of valid oligochate species for the Brazilian coast, and Venekey et al. make a detailed review at the species level on a typical marine nematode family, the Xyalidae. In this study Venekey et al. also present a list of nematode species registered along the Brazilian coast and a brief discussion on the types of habitat in which Xyalidae species occur.
Table 1

Number of new and re-described species (N sp.) in this special issue

 

Taxon

N sp.

Reference

New species

Gastrotricha

2

Araújo et al. 2014; Hochberg 2014

Kinorhyncha

3

Sørensen 2014

Nematoda

2

Bezerra et al. 2014

Platyhelminthes: Proseriata

9

Curini-Galetti 2014

Rhadbocoela

2

Reygel et al. 2014

Re-description

Mollusca: Gastropoda

1

Jörger et al. 2014

Platyhelminthes: Proseriata

7

Curini-Galetti 2014

Annelida: Polychaeta

2

Di Domenico et al. 2014

Ecology

Among the five ecological articles, one article deals with foraminifera and amoeba from lagunar systems composed of several interconnected lagoons (Leipniz et al. 2014). Although the whole system is connected, they showed that each lagoon has a particular set of species, regulated by a different set of environmental factors. Two articles deal with the underexplored field of meiofauna associated with biogeneic structures. Corrêa et al. (2014) describe the macro- and meiofauna associated with carapaces of sea turtles and conjecture on potential ecological processes structuring these associations. Ataide et al. (2014) describe the particularities of the fauna associated with sandy reefs built by the polychaete Sabellaria. Both studies show that biogenic structures are characterized by specific meiofauna taxa.

Two studies have an experimental design. Fonseca et al. (2014) test specifically whether nematode species richness increases with sediment mean grain size. They reject this hypothesis and show that along the sediment spectrum, each genus has a distinct optimum distribution at a relative narrow grain size. Netto and Meneghel (2014) tested the response of sandy beach meiofaunal organisms to a natural short-term (1 day) pulse of diatoms. They observed a simultaneous increase of meiofauna organisms inhabiting the intertidal zone, where most of the diatoms accumulated, and a subsequent decrease. The proposed mechanism is that sandy beach meiofauna is very mobile, enabling it to rapidly use this one-day window of opportunity.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the financial support given by FAPESP (2011/28293-0) and for Marcus Martinez from Carl Zeiss Brazil for providing us with high quality optical devices and technical support during the workshop. São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP—Process 2012/08581-0; 2013/04358-7) also provided postdoctoral fellowships and grants for MDD. We are also thankful for Pedro Martinez, the editor in chief of Marine Biodiversity, for encouraging this issue.

References

  1. Amaral ACZ, Nalin SAH (2011) Biodiversidade e ecossistemas bentônicos marinhos do Litoral Norte de São Paulo, Sudeste do Brasil. Campinas, SP: UNICAMP/IB. ISBN (e-book): 978-85-85783-24-2. 573pGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade SCS, Norenburg JL, Solferini VN (2011) Worms without borders: genetic diversity patterns in four Brazilian Ototyphlonemertes species (Nemertea, Hoplonemertea). Mar Biol 158(9):2109–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo TQ, Balsamo M, Garraffoni ARS (2014) A new species of Pseudostomodella (Gastrotricha, Thaumastodermatidae) from Brazil. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-013-0196-x Google Scholar
  4. Ataide MB, Venekey V, Rosa-Filho JS, Dos Santos PJP (2014) Sandy reefs of Sabellaria wilsoni (Polychaeta – Sabellariidae) as ecosystem engineers for meiofauna in the Amazon coastal region. Braz Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0248-x Google Scholar
  5. Bezerra T, Smol N, Vincx M (2014) Two new species of Rhynchonema Cobb, 1920 from a Brazilian sandy beach. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0223-6 Google Scholar
  6. Carvalho IB, Genevois VGF, Genevois B (1992) Heterogeneidade espaço-temporal da meiofauna na Baía de Tamandaré-Pernambuco, Brasil. Biol Bras 4:43–56Google Scholar
  7. Cobb NA (1920) One hundred new nemas (type species of one hundred new species). Contrib Sci Nematol 9:217–343Google Scholar
  8. Corbisier TN (1993) Meiofauna da plataforma continental interna do litoral norte de Sao Paulo - Verao/89. Publ Especial Inst Oceanogr 10:123–135Google Scholar
  9. Corbisier TN (1999) Filo Nematoda. In: Joly CA, Bicudo CEM (Eds) Biodiversidade do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil: Síntese do Conhecimento ao Final do Século XX. 1ed. São Paulo: FAPESP p 113–122Google Scholar
  10. Corrêa DD (1948) Ototyphlonemertes from Brazilian Coast. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 2(49):1–12Google Scholar
  11. Corrêa DD (1949) Ecological studies of Brazilian Ototyphlonemertes. Commun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 3:1–7Google Scholar
  12. Corrêa DD (1950) Sobre Ototyphlonemertes do Brasil. Bol Fac Filos Ciên Let Univ Sao Paulo (Zool) 15:203–234Google Scholar
  13. Corrêa DD (1953) Sobre a neurofisiologia locomotora de Hoplonemertinos e a taxonomia de Ototyphlonemertes. An Acad Bras Ciências 25:545–555Google Scholar
  14. Corrêa DD (1957) Nemertinos do litoral brasileiro (VI). An Acad Bras Ciências 29:251–271Google Scholar
  15. Corrêa DD (1991) Dr. Eveline du Bois-Reymond Marcus. Hydrobiologia 227:23–26Google Scholar
  16. Corrêa GVV, Ingels J, Valdes YV, Fonsêca-Genevois VG, Farrapeira CMR, Santos GAP (2014) Diversity and composition of macro- and meiofaunal carapace epibionts of the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata Linnaeus, 1822) in Atlantic waters. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-013-0189-9 Google Scholar
  17. Curini-Galetti M (2014) Contribution to the knowledge of the Proseriata (Platyhelminthes: Rhabditophora) from southeast Brazil. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0216-5 Google Scholar
  18. Dal Zotto M, Di Domenico M, Garaffoni A, Sørensen MV (2013) Franciscideres gen. nov.—a new, highly aberrant kinorhynch genus from Brazil, with an analysis of its phylogenetic position. Syst Biodivers. doi:10.1080/14772000.2013.819045 Google Scholar
  19. Di Domenico M, Martínez A, Amaral ACZ, Lana PC, Worsaae K (2014) Saccocirridae (Annelida) from the southern and southeastern Brazilian coasts. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0208-5 Google Scholar
  20. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1943) Sobre Tardigrados Brasileiros. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 1(13):1–20Google Scholar
  21. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1946) On a new archiannelid, Saccocirrus gabriellae. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 2(37):1–6Google Scholar
  22. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1947) Nerilla mediterranea from Brazil. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 2(45):1–6Google Scholar
  23. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1948) Further archiannelids from Brazil. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 2(48):1–17Google Scholar
  24. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1950) A marine tubificid from Brazil. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 3(59):1–6Google Scholar
  25. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1953) The opisthobranch Pseudovermis. Bol Fac Filos Ciên Univ Sao Paulo (Zool) 18:109–127Google Scholar
  26. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1955) On Turbellaria and Polygordius from the Brazilian coast. Bol Fac Filos Ciên Letr Univ Sao Paulo (Zool) 20:19–53Google Scholar
  27. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1957) On Turbellaria. An Acad Bras Cienc 29:153–191Google Scholar
  28. Du Bois-Reymond ME (1958) On South American Turbellaria. An Acad Bras Cienc 30:391–417Google Scholar
  29. Esteves AM, Genevois VF (1997) Microdistribuição da meiofauna na Coroa do Avião, Pernambuco-Brasil, com referência especial a utilização de análise de autocorrelação espacial. Braz Arch Biol Technol 40:89–95Google Scholar
  30. Esteves AM, Absaslão RS, Silva VMAP (1997) The importance of cost-effectiveness sampling in the study of intertidal sandy beach meiofauna. Trop Ecol 38:47–53Google Scholar
  31. Fonseca G, Maria TF, Kandratavicious N, Venekey V, Gheller PF, Gallucci F (2014) Testing for nematode-granulometry relationships. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0241-4 Google Scholar
  32. Genevois VF, Bezerra TNC (1997) Distribuição espaço-temporária da meiofauna nas águas intersticiais de Olinda-PE. Biol Bras 7:85–102Google Scholar
  33. Gerlach S-A (1954) Brasilianische Meeres-Nematoden. Bol Inst Oceanogr Sao Paulo 5:3–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerlach S-A (1956) Über einen aberranten Vertreter der Kinorhynchen aus dem Küstengrundwasser. Kiel Meeresforsch 12:120–124Google Scholar
  35. Gerlach S-A (1957) Die Nematodenfauna des Sandstrandes and der Küste von Mittelbrasilien. Mitt Zool Mus Berlin 33:411–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerlach S-A, Siewing R (1956) A Bathynellid from the New World. Nature 177:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hartmann G (1955) Neue marine Ostracoden der Familie Cypridae und der Sub-Familie Cytherideinae der Familie Cytheridae aus Brasilien. Zool Anz 154:109–127Google Scholar
  38. Hartmann G (1956) Weitere neue marine Ostracoden aus Brasilien. Beitr Neotropical Fauna 1:19–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hochberg R (2014) Crasiella fonseci, a new species of Gastrotricha (Macrodasyida, Planodasyidae) from São Paulo, Brazil. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-013-0165-4 Google Scholar
  40. Hooge MD, Rocha CEF (2006) Acoela (Acoelomorpha) from the northern beaches of the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and a systematic revision of the family Otocelididae. Zootaxa 1335:1–50Google Scholar
  41. Jakobi H (1953) Neue Tegastiden (Hapacticoidea – Copepoda) von der Küste Santa Catarina (Brasilien). Dusenia 4:47–60Google Scholar
  42. Jakobi H (1954) Harpacticoida (Cop. Crust.) da microfauna do substrato areno-lodoso do “Mar de Dentro” (Ilha do Mel – Maía de Paranaguá – Brasil). Dusenia 5:209–232Google Scholar
  43. Jakobi H, Loyola e Silva J (1962) Two new species of Parastenocaris (Cop. Crust.) from Santa Catarina, Brazil. Proc U S Nat Mus 113:389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jörger KM, Stoschek T, Migotto AE, Haszprunar G, Neusser TP (2014) 3D-microanatomy of the mesopsammic Pseudovermis salamandrops Marcus, 1953 from Brazil (Nudibranchia, Gastropoda). Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0224-5 Google Scholar
  45. Kihara TC, Rocha CEF (2009) Técnicas para estudo taxonômico de copépodes harpacticóides da meiofauna marinha. 1. ed. Porto Alegre: Asterisco, 2009, 300. 94pGoogle Scholar
  46. Leipniz II, Ferreira F, Leão CJ, du Châtelet EA, Frontalini F (2014) Foraminiferal and testate amoeba diversity, distribution and ecology in transitional environments of the Tramandaí Basin (Rio Grande do Sul, South Brazil). Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0243-2 Google Scholar
  47. Lotufo GR, Rocha CEF (1993) Intertidal Interstitial Halicyclops From Brazilian Coast (Copepoda: Cyclopoida). Hydrobiologia 264:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marcus E (1946) Batillipes pennaki, a new marine tardigrade from the North and South American Coast. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 2(33):1–3Google Scholar
  49. Marcus E (1947) Turbelários marinhos do Brasil. Bol Fac Filos Ciênc Univ Sao Paulo (Zool) 12:99–215Google Scholar
  50. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1951) Contributions to the Natural History of Brazilian Turbellaria. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 3(63):1–25Google Scholar
  51. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1954a) The nudibranch Rhodope from South America. Comun Zool Mus Hist Nat Montev 4(68):1–8Google Scholar
  52. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1954b) Über Philinoglossacea und Acochlidiacea. Kiel Meeresforsch 10:215–223Google Scholar
  53. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1955) Sea-hares and side gilled slugs from Brazil. Bol Inst Oceanogr 6:349Google Scholar
  54. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1956) On two sacoglossan slugs from Brazil. Am Mus Novit 1796:1–21Google Scholar
  55. Marcus E, Du Bois-Reymond ME (1957) Turbellaria. Expl Hydrobiol Lacs Kivu Edouard et Albert Res Sci 3(2):27–52Google Scholar
  56. Medeiros LRA (1987) Conhecimento sobre meiobentos no Brasil e relato de um caso da costa sudeste-sul brasileira: Síntese de conhecimentos. Publ Aciesp 54:348–379Google Scholar
  57. Meyl AH (1956) Beiträge zur freilebenden Nematodenfauna Brasiliens. I. Acht neue Nematodenarten aus Überfamilie Dorylaimoidea. Nematologica 1:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Netto SA, Meneghel A (2014) Pulse of marine subsidies: the role of surf diatom Asterionellopsis glacialis accumulations in structuring meiofauna of sandy beaches. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0253-0 Google Scholar
  59. Netto SA, Attrill MJ, Warwick RM (1999a) Sublittoral meiofauna and macrofauna of Rocas Atoll (NE Brazil): indirect evidence of a topographically controlled front. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 179:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Netto SA, Warwick RM, Attrill MJ (1999b) Meiobenthic and Macrobenthic Community Structure in Carbonate Sediments of Rocas Atoll (North-east, Brazil). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 48:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prantoni A, Di Domenico M, Lana PC (2014) A taxonomic overview of marine and estuarine oligochaetes from Brazil. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-013-0190-3 Google Scholar
  62. Remane A, Siewing R (1953) Microcerbereus delamarei n. sp., ein marine Isopodenart von der Küste Brasiliens. Kiel Meeresforsch 9:280–284Google Scholar
  63. Reygel P, Schockaert E, Janssen T, Artois T (2014) Two new species of Carcharodorhynchus Meixner, 1938 (Platyhelminthes: Rhabdocoela: Schizorhynchidae) from Brazil and Lanzarote. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0205-8 Google Scholar
  64. Santos PJP, Castel J, Souza-Santos LP (1999) Development time of harpacticoid copepods: some empirical models and implications. J Mar Biol Ass UK 79:1123–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schuster R (1962) Das marine Litoral als Lebensraum terrestricher Kleinarthropoden. Int Rev Ges Hydrobiol 47:359–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siewing R (1953) Bodidiellae brasiliensis, ein neuer Amphipode aus dem Küstengrundwasser Brasiliens. Kiel Meeresforsch 9:243–247Google Scholar
  67. Siewing R (1954) Zur Verbeitung von Pisionidens indica Aiyar and Alikunnhi. Kiel Meeresforsch 10:81–83Google Scholar
  68. Sørensen MV (2014) First account of echinoderid kinorhynchs from Brazil, with the description of three new species. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-013-0181-4 Google Scholar
  69. Todaro MA, Rocha CEF (2004) Diversity and distribution of marine Gastrotricha along the northern beaches of the state of São Paulo (Brazil), with description of a new species of Macrodasys (Macrodasyida, Macrodasyidae). J Nat Hist 38:1605–1634Google Scholar
  70. Todaro MA, Rocha CEF (2005) Further data on marine gastrotrichs from the State of São Paulo and the first records from the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Meiofauna Mar 14:27–31Google Scholar
  71. Venekey V, Gheller PF, Maria TF, Brustolin MC, Kandratavicious N, Vieira DC, Brito S, Souza GS, Fonseca G (2014) The state of the art of Xyalidae (Nematoda, Monhysterida) with reference to the Brazilian records. Mar Biodivers. doi:10.1007/s12526-014-0226-3 Google Scholar
  72. Westheide W (1974) Interstitielle Polychaeten aus brasilianischen Sandstränden. Mikrof Meeresbodens 31:1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Fonseca
    • 1
  • Jon Norenburg
    • 2
  • Maikon Di Domenico
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciências do MarUniversidade Federal de São PauloSantosBrasil
  2. 2.Department of Invertebrate ZoologySmithsonian National Museum of Natural HistoryWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Zoological Museum “Prof. Dr. Adão José Cardoso”, Biological InstituteUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrasil

Personalised recommendations