Marine Biology

, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 69–78 | Cite as

Colonisation of various types of sediment by estuarine nematodes via lateral infaunal migration: a laboratory study

  • M. Schratzberger
  • P. Whomersley
  • K. Warr
  • S. G. Bolam
  • H. L. Rees
Research Article


A small-scale laboratory study was conducted to assess the capability of nematode species collected at an intertidal mudflat to migrate laterally into defaunated sediment by using an experimental design that excluded hydrodynamic influences. The colonisation of native mud, non-native sand and two types of non-native mud-sand mixture was monitored over a period of 2 months. Results revealed that the composition of source and colonist communities differed significantly between treatments and over time. Within the first 2 weeks of the experiment, dominance patterns in the control sediments were most similar to the sand treatment, indicating that the majority of species were able to migrate easily into non-native sandy sediment. Over the course of the experiment, colonist communities in the muddy sediments became more similar to the control microcosms, whereas the structure of the sand assemblage became increasingly dissimilar to that of the source community. The temporal patterns observed might be related to factors associated with sediment granulometry, such as the availability of appropriate food sources. The outcome of this study demonstrated that the colonisation of defaunated sediment via lateral interstitial migration is a directed, species-specific process that can lead to the establishment of colonist communities that are significantly different from source communities.


  1. Andrassy I (1954) Die Rauminhalts- und Gewichtsbestimmung der Fadenwürmer (Nematoden). Acta Zool 2:1–14Google Scholar
  2. Armonies W (1988) Active emergence of meiofauna from intertidal sediment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:151–159Google Scholar
  3. Armonies W (1994) Drifting meio- and macrobenthic invertebrates on tidal flats in Königshafen: a review. Helgol Wiss Meeresunters 48:299–320Google Scholar
  4. Bell S (1988) Experimental techniques. In: Higgins RP, Thiel H (eds) Introduction to the study of meiofauna, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp 169–180Google Scholar
  5. Chandler TG, Fleeger JW (1983) Meiofaunal colonization of azoic estuarine sediment in Louisiana: mechanisms of dispersal. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 69:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christie H, Berge JA (1995) In situ experiments on recolonisation of intertidal mudflat fauna to sediment contaminated with different concentrations of oil. Sarsia 80:175–185Google Scholar
  7. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2001) PRIMER v.5. User manual. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Natural Environment Research Council, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  9. Colangelo M, Ceccerelli VU (1994) Meiofaunal recolonisation of azoic sediment in a Po Delta Lagoon (Sacca di Goro). Boll Zool 61:335–342Google Scholar
  10. Commito JA, Tita G (2002) Differential dispersal rates in an intertidal meiofauna assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 268:237–256Google Scholar
  11. Coull BC, Palmer MA (1984) Field experimentation in meiofaunal ecology. Hydrobiologia 118:1–19Google Scholar
  12. Fegley SR (1987) Experimental variation of near-bottom current speeds and its effect on depth distribution of sand-living meiofauna. Mar Biol 95:183–191Google Scholar
  13. Giere O (1993) Meiobenthology—the microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Günther C-P (1992) Dispersal of intertidal invertebrates: a strategy to react to disturbances of different scales? Neth J Sea Res 30:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagerman, GM, Rieger RM (1981) Dispersal of benthic meiofauna by wave and current action in Bogue Sound, North Carolina, USA. Mar Ecol 2:245–270Google Scholar
  16. Hockin, DC (1982) The effects of sediment particle diameter upon the meiobenthic copepod community of an intertidal beach: a field and a laboratory experiment. J Anim Ecol 5:555–572Google Scholar
  17. Jones SE, Jago CF (1993) In situ assessment of modification of sediment properties by burrowing invertebrates. Mar Biol 115:133–142Google Scholar
  18. Kern JC (1990) Active and passive aspects of meiobenthic copepod dispersal at two sites near Mustang Island, Texas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60:211–223Google Scholar
  19. Levin LA, Talley D, Thayer G (1996) Succession of macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 141:67–82Google Scholar
  20. Palmer MA (1988) Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implications for recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48:81–91Google Scholar
  21. Palmer MA, Gust G (1985) Dispersal of meiofauna in a turbulent tidal creek. J Mar Res 43:179–210Google Scholar
  22. Pearson TH, Stanley SO (1979) Comparative measurement of the redox potential of marine sediments as a rapid means of assessing the effect of organic pollution. Mar Biol 53:371–379Google Scholar
  23. Romeyn K, Leiseboer J (1989) Effecten van verhoogde sediment depositie op nematoden uit het Eems-Dollard estuarium. Vakgroep Mariene Zoologie, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenberg R, Nilsson HC, Diaz RJ (2001) Response of benthic fauna and changing sediment redox profiles over a hypoxic gradient. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 53:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sacco JN, Seneca ED, Wentworth TR (1994) Infaunal community development of artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17:489–500Google Scholar
  26. Sandnes J, Forbes T, Hansen R, Sandnes B, Rygg B (2000) Bioturbation and irrigation in natural sediments, described by animal-community parameters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 197:169–179Google Scholar
  27. Schratzberger M, Warwick RM (1999). Effects of various types of disturbances on nematode communities: an experimental approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 181:227–236Google Scholar
  28. Schratzberger M, Rees HL, Boyd SE (2000a) Effects of simulated deposition of dredged material on structure of nematode assemblages—the role of burial. Mar Biol 136:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schratzberger M, Rees HL, Boyd SE (2000b) Effects of simulated deposition of dredged material on structure of nematode assemblages—the role of contamination. Mar Biol 137:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schratzberger M, Wall CM, Reynolds WJ, Reed J, Waldock MJ (2002). Effects of paint-derived tributyltin (TBT) on structure of estuarine nematode assemblages in experimental microcosms. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 272:217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Snelgrove PVR, Butman CA (1994) Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect. Ocean Mar Biol Annu Rev 32:111–177Google Scholar
  32. Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Thistle D (1981) Natural physical disturbacnces and communities of marine soft bottoms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 6:223–228Google Scholar
  34. Vanaverbeke J, Steyaert M, Vanreusel A, Vincx M (2003) Nematode biomass spectra as descriptors of functional changes to human and natural impact. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 249:157–170Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Schratzberger
    • 1
  • P. Whomersley
    • 2
  • K. Warr
    • 1
  • S. G. Bolam
    • 2
  • H. L. Rees
    • 2
  1. 1.The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoft LaboratoryLowestoftUK
  2. 2.The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceBurnham LaboratoryBurnham-on-CrouchUK

Personalised recommendations