Effect of core surface area and sediment depth on estimates of deep-sea nematode genus richness and community structure
- 215 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSampling methodology Small-scale variability Meiofauna Canyon Hikurangi margin
This research was funded by research projects under the Marine Biological Resources and Marine Physical Resources programmes of NIWA’s Coasts and Oceans Science Centre (2013/14 SCI), and the programme ‘Impact of resource use on vulnerable deep-sea communities’ (CO1X0906) and “Consequences of Earth-Ocean Change” (C01X0702). We thank Norliana Rosli (NIWA and University of Otago) for processing the subcores, the scientific team of voyage TAN1004, and the officers and crew of RV Tangaroa. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive criticisms on the manuscript.
- Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Andrew NL, Mapstone BD (1987) Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 25:39–90Google Scholar
- 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
- Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Giere O (2009) Meiobenthology: the microscopic motile fauna of aquatic sediments. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Heip C, Vincx M, Vranken G (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 23:399–489Google Scholar
- Jorissen FJ, de Stigter HC, Widmark JGV (1995) A conceptual model explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats. Mar Micropaleontol 26:3–15Google Scholar
- Quinn PQ, Keough MJ (2009) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes: a laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, LowestoftGoogle Scholar
- 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