Advertisement

Estuaries

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 606–613 | Cite as

Recolonization of estuarine sediments by macroinvertebrates: Does microcosm size matter?

  • Barbara F. Ruth
  • David A. Flemer
  • Charles M. Bundrick
Article

Abstract

Microcosms containing defaunated, fine estuarine sediments were field deployed to assess the effects of microcosm size on the rate of benthic macroinvertebrate recolonization and resulting community structure. Four sizes of microcosms (square acrylic plastic boxes: 7 cm side−1, 12 cm side−1, 20 cm side−1, and 32 cm side−1, all 6-cm deep) were deployed in upper Perdido Bay, Florida, and colonized for 6 wk. Absolute mean total number of organisms (TNO) differed (α=0.05) among all sizes, while normalized mean TNO (adjusted to 12 cm side−1 area) did not. Mean total number of taxa (TNT) was different among sizes: 7 cm side−1, 12 cm side−1, and 20 cm side−1, but not between sizes 20 cm side−1 and 32 cm side−1. Seven dominant taxa occurred in all size microcosms. Scaling of physical design features (size of microcosm) affected numbers of taxa in recolonization of fine-grained sediments in our study area, but effects on abundance and dominance were minimal.

Keywords

United States Environmental Protection Agency Rose Bengal Dominant Taxon Environmental Research Laboratory Ronmental Protection Agency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Dardeau, M. R. 1987. Studies in Perdido Bay: Structure of soft-bottom benthic assemblages in middle Perdido Bay. Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory Report No. 87-001. Dauphin Island, Alabama.Google Scholar
  2. Diaz, R. J., M. Luckenbach, S. Thornton, R. J. Livingston, C. C. Koenig, G. L. Gray, andL. E. Wolfe. 1987. Field validation of laboratory-derived multi-species aquatic test systems. EPA\600\3-87\016, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Florida.Google Scholar
  3. Eckblad, J. W.. 1991. How many samples should be taken?BioScience 41:346–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eckman, J. E.. 1979. Small scale patterns and processes in a soft-substratum intertidal community.Journal of Marine Research 37: 437–457.Google Scholar
  5. Flemer, D. A., J. R. Clark, R. S. Stanley, C. M. Bundrick, andG. R. Plaia. 1993. The importance of physical scaling factors to benthic marine invertebrate recolonization of laboratory microcosms.International Journal of Environmental Studies 44: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flint, R. W., T. W. Duke, andR. K. Kalke. 1982. Benthos investigations: Sediment boxes or natural bottom?Bulletin of environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flint, R. W. andJ. A. Younk. 1983. Estuarine benthos: Long-term community structure variations, Corpus Christi, Texas.Estuaries 6:126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gascon, C. andJ. Travis. 1992. Does spatial scale of experimentation matter? A test with tadpoles and dragonflies.Ecology 73:2237–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaston, G. R., D. L. Lee, andJ. C. Nasci. 1988. Estuarine macrobenthos in Calcasieu Lake, Louisiana: Community and trophic structure.Estuaries 11:192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaston, G. R., P. A. Rutledge, andM. L. Walther. 1985. The effects of hypoxia and brine on recolonization by macrobenthos off Cameron, Louisiana (USA).Contributions in Marine Science 28:79–93.Google Scholar
  11. Giesy, J. P., Jr. (ed.). 1981. Microcosms in Ecological Research. United States Department of Energy. Technical Information Center, CONF 781101. Washington, D.C. D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Gray, J. S. andT. H. Pearson. 1982. Objective selection of sensitive species indicative of pollution-induced changed in benthic communities. I. comparative methodology.Marine Ecology Progress Series 9:111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen, D. J. andM. E. Tagatz. 1980. A laboratory test for assessing impacts of substances on developing communities of benthic estuarine organisms, p. 40–57,In J. G. Eaton, P. R. Parrish, and A. C. Hendricks (eds.). Aquatic Toxicology. ASTM STP 707. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  14. Hoekstra, T. W., T. F. H. Allen, andC. H. Flather. 1991. Implicit scaling in ecological research: On when to make studies of mice and men.BioScience 41:148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ishphording, W. C. and R. J. Livingston. 1989. Synoptic analysis of water and sediment quality in the Perdido drainage system. Report to Champion International, Cantonment, Florida.Google Scholar
  16. Kathman, R. D., S. F. Cross, and M. Waldichuk. 1984. Effects of wood waste on the recruitment potential of marine benthic communities. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1284.Google Scholar
  17. Knieb, R. T. 1991. Indirect effects in experimental studies of marine soft-sediment communities.American Zoologist 31:874–885.Google Scholar
  18. Kolasa, J. 1989. Ecological systems in hierarchical perspectives: Breaks in community structure and other consequences.Ecology 70:36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lasserre, P. 1990. Marine microcosms: Small-scale controlled ecosystems, p. 20–60.In C. M. Lalli (ed.), Endclosed Experimental Marine Ecosystems: A Review and Recommendations. Coastal and Estuarine Studies 37. Springer-Verlag. New York.Google Scholar
  20. Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology.Ecology 73:1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCall, P. L. 1977. Community patterns and adaptative strategies of the infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound.Journal of Marine Research 35:221–266.Google Scholar
  22. Nowell, A. R. M. andP. A. Jumars. 1987. Flumes: Theoretical and experimental considerations for simulation of benthic environments.Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 25:91–112.Google Scholar
  23. Pilson, M. E. Q. and S. W. Nixon. 1981. Marine microcosms in ecological research, p. 724–741.In J. P. Giesy, Jr. (ed.), Microcosms in Ecological Research. United States Department of Energy. Technical Information Center, CONF 781101. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Pilson, M. E. Q., C. A. Oviatt, G. A. Vargo, andS. L. Vargo. 1979. Replicability of MERL microcosms: Initial observations, p. 359–381.In F. S. Jacoff (ed.), Advances in Marine Environmental Research. Proceedings of a Symposium. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett Rhode Island. EPA-600/9-79-035.Google Scholar
  25. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT users guide, Volume 2. Version 6, Fourth edition. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, C. R. andS. J. Brumsickle. 1989. The effects of patch size and substrate isolation on colonization modes and rates in an intertidal sediment.Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1263–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tagatz, M. E. 1986. Some methods for measuring effects of toxicants on laboratory- and field-colonized estuarine benthic communities. p. 18–29.In J. Cairns (ed.), Community Toxicity Testing, ASTM STP 920. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  28. Tagatz, M. E. andC. H. Deans. 1983. Comparison of field- and laboratory-developed estuarine benthic communities for toxicant-exposure studies.Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 20:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zajak, R. N. and R. B. Whitlatch. 1985. A hierarchical approach to modelling soft-bottom successional dynamics, p. 265–276.In Proceedings of the 19th European Marine Biology Symposium. Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara F. Ruth
    • 1
  • David A. Flemer
    • 2
  • Charles M. Bundrick
    • 3
  1. 1.Avanti Corporation Environmental Research LaboratoryUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyGulf Breeze
  2. 2.Environmental Research LaboratoryUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyGulf Breeze
  3. 3.Institute for Statistics and Mathematical ModellingUniversity of West FloridaPensacola

Personalised recommendations