Marine Biodiversity

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 349–356 | Cite as

Effect of core surface area and sediment depth on estimates of deep-sea nematode genus richness and community structure

  • Daniel Leduc
  • Scott D. Nodder
  • Katrin Berkenbusch
  • Ashley A. Rowden
Meioscool

Abstract

A variety of core sizes are used for sampling deep-sea nematodes but little is known about the potential effects of core dimensions on estimates of diversity and community structure. We investigated the effects of core surface area (subcores vs. cores; 6.6 vs. 66.4 cm2) and depth (shallow vs. deep subcores; 0–1 vs. 0–5 cm) on estimates of nematode genus diversity and community structure at six sites on the continental slope of New Zealand. We found that cores yielded significantly higher genus richness [expected number of genera in a sample of 51 individuals; EG(51)] than the smaller subcores (by up to a third), but found no significant difference between shallow and deep subcores. Conversely, nematode community structure was influenced by core depth but not surface area, reflecting a consistent shift in nematode community structure between surface and subsurface sediment layers among study sites. Average dissimilarity between shallow and deep subcores (45.2 %) was only slightly greater than average dissimilarity between subcores and cores (41.3 %); thus, the lack of a significant difference between subcores and the larger cores was likely due to the random (i.e., unpredictable) nature of horizontal variability in nematode community structure. Estimates of nematode diversity and community structure derived from subcores and the cores from which they were taken were not significantly correlated, suggesting that: (1) shifts in these attributes are not consistent between sites, and (2) patterns in nematode diversity and community structure are influenced by the choice of core size. The present study shows that a difference of a few centimetres in the physical dimensions of a core can have a substantial influence on estimates of deep-sea nematode diversity and community structure. Studies on spatial and temporal patterns of nematode diversity and/or community structure should therefore be based on cores with the same or similar dimensions. Meaningful comparisons of nematode diversity and community structure between environments should ideally take into consideration any potential differences in horizontal and vertical patchiness at small (cm) scales, and ensure that core surface area and penetration depths are sufficient to allow representative samples to be obtained across the entire range of environmental conditions sampled.

Keywords

Sampling methodology Small-scale variability Meiofauna Canyon Hikurangi margin 

References

  1. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew NL, Mapstone BD (1987) Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 25:39–90Google Scholar
  3. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg JA, Attrill MJ, Rowden AA, Schembri PJ, Jones MB (2002) A quantitative technique for sampling motile macroinvertebrates in beds of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile. Sci Mar 66:53–58Google Scholar
  5. Braeckman U, Van Colen C, Soetaert K, Vincx M, Vanaverbeke J (2011a) Contrasting macrobenthic activities differentially affect nematode density and diversity in a shallow subtidal marine sediment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 422:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braeckman U, Provoost P, Moens T, Soetaert K, Middelburg JJ, Vincx M, Vanaverbeke J (2011b) Biological vs. physical mixing effects on benthic food web dynamics. PLoS ONE 6:e18078PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2002) Spatial scale dictates the productivity – biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  9. Danovaro R, Gambi C, Dell’Anno A, Corinaldesi C, Fraschetti S, Vanreusel A, Vincx M, Gooday AJ (2008) Exponential decline of deep-sea ecosystem functioning linked to benthic biodiversity loss. Curr Biol 18:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Danovaro R, Bianchelli S, Gambi C, Mea M, Zeppilli D (2009) α-, β-, γ-, δ-, and ε-diversity of deep-sea nematodes in canyons and open slopes of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean margins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 396:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckman JE, Thistle D (1988) Small-scale spatial pattern in meiobenthos in the San-Diego Trough. Deep-Sea Res A 35:1565–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fonseca G, Decraemer W (2008) State of the art of the free-living marine Monhysteridae (nematode). J Mar Biol Assoc U K 88:1371–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallucci F, Moens T, Fonseca G (2009) Small-scale spatial patterns of meiobenthos in the Arctic deep sea. Mar Biodivers 39:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giere O (2009) Meiobenthology: the microscopic motile fauna of aquatic sediments. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Gray JS (1971) Sample size and sample frequency in relation to the quantitative sampling of sand meiofauna. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meiofauna, Hulings NC (ed). Smithson Contrib Zool 76:191–197Google Scholar
  16. Gray JS (2000) The measurement of marine species diversity, with an application to the benthic fauna of the Norwegian continental shelf. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:23–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Heip C, Vincx M, Vranken G (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 23:399–489Google Scholar
  18. Hurlbert SH (1971) The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huston MA (1999) Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingels J, Billett DSM, Kirikoulakis K, Wolff GA, Vanreusel A (2011) Structural and functional diversity of nematoda in relation with environmental variables in the setubal and cascais canyons, Western Iberian Margin. Deep-Sea Res II 58:2354–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingels J, Vanreusel A (2013) The importance of different spatial scales in determining structural and functional characteristics of deep-sea infauna communities. Biogeosciences 10:4547–4563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jorissen FJ, de Stigter HC, Widmark JGV (1995) A conceptual model explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats. Mar Micropaleontol 26:3–15Google Scholar
  23. Leduc D, Probert PK, Nodder SD (2010) Influence of mesh size and core penetration on estimates of deep-sea nematode abundance, biomass, and diversity. Deep-Sea Res I 57:1354–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leduc D, Rowden AA, Bowden DA, Probert PK, Pilditch CA, Nodder SN (2012) Unimodal relationship between biomass and species richness of deep-sea nematodes: implications for the link between productivity and diversity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 454:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leduc D, Rowden AA, Nodder SD, Berkenbusch K, Probert PK, Hadfield MG (2014) Unusually high food availability in Kaikoura Canyon linked to distinct deep-sea nematode community. Deep-Sea Res II 104:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quinn PQ, Keough MJ (2009) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soetaert K, Muthumbi A, Heip C (2002) Size and shape of ocean margin nematodes: morphological diversity and depth-related patterns. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 242:179–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soltwedel T (2000) Metazoan meiobenthos along continental margins: a review. Prog Oceanogr 46:59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes: a laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, LowestoftGoogle Scholar
  31. Somerfield P, Warwick RM, Moens T (2005) Meiofauna techniques. In: Eleftheriou A, McIntyre A (eds) Methods for the study of marine benthos. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 229–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Udalov AA, Azovsky AI, Mokievsky VO (2005) Depth-related pattern in nematode size: what does the depth itself really mean? Prog Oceanogr 67:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanreusel A, Fonseca G, Danovaro R et al (2010) The contribution of deep-sea macrohabitat heterogeneity to global nematode diversity. Mar Ecol 31:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1996) Relationships between body size, species abundance and diversity in marine benthic assemblages: facts or artefacts? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 202:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Warwick RM, Platt HM, Somerfield PJ (1998) Free living marine nematodes. Part III. Monhysterids. Synopses of the british fauna (new series), 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 296Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Leduc
    • 1
  • Scott D. Nodder
    • 1
  • Katrin Berkenbusch
    • 2
  • Ashley A. Rowden
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric ResearchWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations