Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:06:16.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do the abundance, diversity, and community structure of sediment meiofauna differ among seagrass species?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2015

Jian-Xiang Liao ,
Hsin-Ming Yeh  and
Hin-Kiu Mok
Jian-Xiang Liao*
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan
Hsin-Ming Yeh
Affiliation:
Coastal and Offshore Resources Research Center, Fisheries Research Institute, Kaohsiung 80672, Taiwan
Hin-Kiu Mok
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan
*
Correspondence should be addressed to:J.-X. Liao, Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei 11529, Taiwan email: jianxiangliao@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The structural complexity of macrophytes that provide various microhabitats is related to local infaunal abundance and diversity. Seagrass is considered an ecosystem engineer that alters the benthic environment and enables certain distinct meiofauna to thrive in sediments. The effects of seagrass species in a mixed-species seagrass bed at Haikou, Taiwan were examined. Analysing quantitative samples obtained from patches of Thalassia hemprichii, Halodule uninervis, Halophila ovalis and adjacent unvegetated sediments inspected the community structures of meiofauna and marine nematodes. The abundance and diversity of crustaceans and nematodes were substantially higher in habitats in which seagrass grew than in those comprising unvegetated sediments. Both the compositions of higher meiofaunal taxa and nematode species were distinct between seagrass habitats and unvegetated areas. Several nematode species existed exclusively in patches of individual seagrass species, whereas no nematode specifically occurred in unvegetated areas. Regarding the trophic types of nematodes, non-selective deposit feeders were prevalent in the present study, whereas selective deposit feeders and epistrate feeders were relatively dominant in seagrass habitats. Sediments underneath various patches of seagrass species harbour dissimilar nematode communities, even with similar sediment parameters and at a small-scale distance.

Keywords

meiobenthosnematodeseagrasscommunity structurehabitat complexity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 725 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

2

Current address: Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei 11529, Taiwan

References

REFERENCES

Ansari, Z.A. and Parulekar, A.H. (1994) Meiobenthos in the sediment of seagrass meadows of Lakshadweep atolls, Arabian Sea. Vie et Milieu 44, 185–190.Google Scholar
Atilla, N., Fleeger, J.W. and Finelli, C.M. (2005) Effects of habitat complexity and hydrodynamics on the abundance and diversity of small invertebrates colonizing artificial substrates. Journal of Marine Research 63, 1151–1172.Google Scholar
Bell, S.S. and Hicks, G.R.F. (1991) Marine landscapes and faunal recruitment: a field test with seagrasses and copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 73, 61–68.Google Scholar
Bell, S.S., Walters, K. and Kern, J.C. (1984) Meiofauna from seagrass habitats: a review and prospectus for future research. Estuaries 7, 331–338.Google Scholar
Bongers, T. and Ferris, H. (1999) Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 224–228.Google Scholar
Boström, C. and Bonsdorff, E. (2000) Zoobenthic community establishment and habitat complexity – the importance of seagrass shoot-density, morphology and physical disturbance for faunal recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 205, 123–138.Google Scholar
Castel, J., Labourg, P.-J., Escaravage, V., Auby, I. and Garcia, M.E. (1989) Influence of seagrass beds and oyster parks on the abundance and biomass patterns of meio- and macrobenthos in tidal flats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 28, 71–85.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd.Google Scholar
Danovaro, R. and Gambi, C. (2002) Biodiversity and trophic structure of nematode assemblages in seagrass systems: evidence for a coupling with changes in food availability. Marine Biology 141, 667–677.Google Scholar
Da Rocha, C.M.C., Venekey, V., Bezerra, T.N.C. and Souza, J.R.B. (2006) Phytal marine nematode assemblages and their relation with the macrophytes structural complexity in a Brazilian tropical rocky beach. Hydrobiologia 553, 219–230.Google Scholar
De Troch, M., Fiers, F. and Vincx, M. (2001a) Alpha and beta diversity of harpacticoid copepods in a tropical seagrass bed: the relation between diversity and species’ range size distribution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215, 225–236.Google Scholar
De Troch, M., Gurdebeke, S., Fiers, F. and Vincx, M. (2001b) Zonation and structuring factors of meiofauna communities in a tropical seagrass bed (Gazi Bay, Kenya). Journal of Sea Research 45, 45–61.Google Scholar
De Troch, M., Vandepitte, L., Raes, M., Suàrez-Morales, E. and Vincx, M. (2005) A field colonization experiment with meiofauna and seagrass mimics: effect of time, distance and leaf surface area. Marine Biology 148, 73–86.Google Scholar
Duarte, C.M. (1991) Allometric scaling of seagrass form and productivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 77, 289–300.Google Scholar
Duarte, C.M. and Chiscano, C.L. (1999) Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquatic Botany 65, 159–174.Google Scholar
Duarte, C.M., Merino, M., Agawin, N.S.R., Uri, J., Fortes, M.D., Gallegos, M.E., Marbá, N. and Hemminga, M.A. (1998) Root production and belowground seagrass biomass. Marine Ecology Progress Series 171, 97–108.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. (2003) Spatial and temporal variations in nematode assemblages in tropical seagrass sediments. Hydrobiologia 493, 43–63.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. and Sheaves, M.J. (2003) Community structure and spatial variability of marine nematodes in tropical Australian pioneer seagrass meadows. Hydrobiologia 495, 143–158.Google Scholar
Fonseca, G., Hutchings, P. and Gallucci, F. (2011) Meiobenthic communities of seagrass beds (Zostera capricorni) and unvegetated sediments along the coast of New South Wales, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 91, 69–77.Google Scholar
Gallucci, F., Hutchings, P., Gribben, P. and Fonseca, G. (2012) Habitat alteration and community-level effects of an invasive ecosystem engineer: a case study along the coast of NSW, Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 449, 95–108.Google Scholar
Gambi, C., Bianchelli, S., Pérez, M., Invers, O., Ruiz, J.M. and Danovaro, R. (2009) Biodiversity response to experimental induced hypoxic-anoxic conditions in seagrass sediments. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 33–54.Google Scholar
Giere, O. (2009) Meiobenthology: the microscopic motile fauna of aquatic sediments. 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heck, K.L. Jr. and Wetstone, G.S. (1977) Habitat complexity and invertebrate species richness and abundance in tropical seagrass meadows. Journal of Biogeography 4, 135–142.Google Scholar
Heip, C., Vincx, M. and Vranken, G. (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 23, 399–489.Google Scholar
Hopper, B.E. and Meyers, S.P. (1967) Population studies on benthic nematodes within a subtropical seagrass community. Marine Biology 1, 85–96.Google Scholar
Hourston, M., Warwick, R.M., Valesini, F.J. and Potter, I.C. (2005) To what extent are the characteristics of nematode assemblages in nearshore sediments on the west Australian coast related to habitat type, season and zone? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64, 601–612.Google Scholar
Huston, M. (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. American Naturalist 113, 81–101.Google Scholar
Jenkins, G.P., Walker-Smith, G.K. and Hamer, P.A. (2002) Elements of habitat complexity that influence harpacticoid copepods associated with seagrass beds in a temperate bay. Oecologia 131, 598–605.Google Scholar
Josefson, A.B. and Widbom, B. (1988) Differential response of benthic macrofauna and meiofauna to hypoxia in the Gullmar Fjord basin. Marine Biology 100, 31–40.Google Scholar
Lebreton, B., Richard, P., Galois, R., Radenac, G., Brahmia, A., Colli, G., Grouazel, M., André, C., Guillou, G. and Blanchard, G.F. (2012) Food sources used by sediment meiofauna in an intertidal Zostera noltii seagrass bed: a seasonal stable isotope study. Marine Biology 159, 1537–1550.Google Scholar
Leduc, D. and Probert, P.K. (2011) Small-scale effect of intertidal seagrass (Zostera muelleri) on meiofaunal abundance, biomass, and nematode community structure. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 91, 579–591.Google Scholar
Leduc, D., Probert, P.K. and Duncan, A. (2009) A multi-method approach for identifying meiofaunal trophic connections. Marine Ecological Progress Series 383, 95–111.Google Scholar
Liao, J.-X., Yeh, H.-M. and Mok, H.-K. (2015) Meiofaunal communities in a tropical seagrass bed and adjacent unvegetated sediments with note on sufficient sample size for determining local diversity indices. Zoological Studies 54, 14.Google Scholar
Meñez, E.G., Phillips, R.C. and Calumpong, H.P. (1983) Seagrasses from the Philippines. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences 21, 1–40.Google Scholar
Moens, T., Bouillon, S. and Gallucci, F. (2005) Dual stable isotope abundances unravel trophic position of estuarine nematodes. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85, 1401–1407.Google Scholar
Moens, T., Luyten, C., Middelburg, J.J., Herman, P.M.J. and Vincx, M. (2002) Tracing organic matter sources of estuarine tidal flat nematodes with stable carbon isotopes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 234, 127–137.Google Scholar
Moens, T. and Vincx, M. (1997) Observations on the feeding ecology of estuarine nematodes. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 77, 211–227.Google Scholar
Monthum, Y. and Aryuthaka, C. (2006) Spatial distribution of meiobenthic community in Tha Len seagrass bed, Krabi Province, Thailand. Coastal Marine Science 30, 146–153.Google Scholar
Nakaoka, M., Matsumasa, M., Toyohara, T. and Williams, S.L. (2008) Animals on marine flowers: does the presence of flowering shoots affect mobile epifaunal assemblage in an eelgrass meadow? Marine Biology 153, 589–598.Google Scholar
Ndaro, S.G.M. and Ólafsson, E. (1999) Soft-bottom fauna with emphasis on nematode assemblage structure in a tropical intertidal lagoon in Zanzibar, eastern Africa: I. spatial variability. Hydrobiologia 405, 133–148.Google Scholar
Orth, R.J., Heck, K.L. Jr. and van Montfrans, J. (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries 7, 339–350.Google Scholar
Osenga, G.A. and Coull, B.C. (1983) Spartina alterniflora Loisel root structure and meiofaunal abundance. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 67, 221–225.Google Scholar
Pinto, T.K., Austen, M.C.V., Warwick, R.M., Somerfield, P.J., Esteves, A.M., Castro, F.J.V., Fonseca-Genevois, V.G. and Santos, P.J.P. (2013) Nematode diversity in different microhabitats in a mangrove region. Marine Ecology 34, 257–268.Google Scholar
Platt, H.M. and Warwick, R.M. (1988) Free-living marine nematodes. Part II. British chromadorids. Leiden: Brill/Backhuys.Google Scholar
Rzeznik-Orignac, J., Boucher, G., Fichet, D. and Richard, P. (2008) Stable isotope analysis of food source and trophic position of intertidal nematodes and copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 359, 145–150.Google Scholar
Schratzberger, M., Forster, R.M., Goodsir, F. and Jennings, S. (2008) Nematode community dynamics over an annual production cycle in the central North Sea. Marine Environmental Research 66, 508–519.Google Scholar
Somerfield, P.J., Yodnarasri, S. and Aryuthaka, C. (2002) Relationships between seagrass biodiversity and infaunal communities: implications for studies of biodiversity effects. Marine Ecology Progress Series 237, 97–109.Google Scholar
Steyaert, M., Vanaverbeke, J., Vanreusel, A., Barranguet, C., Lucas, C. and Vincx, M. (2003) The importance of fine-scale, vertical profiles in characterising nematode community structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 353–366.Google Scholar
Tchesunov, A.V. (2013) Marine free-living nematodes of the subfamily Stilbonematinae (Nematoda, Desmodoridae): taxonomic review with descriptions of a few species from the Nha Trang Bay, Central Vietnam. Meiofauna Marina 20, 71–94.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C.J.F. (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67, 1167–1179.Google Scholar
Vafeiadou, A.-M., Materatski, P., Adão, H., De Troch, M. and Moens, T. (2014) Resource utilization and trophic position of nematodes and harpacticoid copepods in and adjacent to Zostera noltii beds. Biogeosciences 11, 4001–4014.Google Scholar
Van Houte-Howes, K.S.S., Turner, S.J. and Pilditch, C.A. (2004) Spatial differences in macroinvertebrate communities in intertidal seagrass habitats and unvegetated sediment in three New Zealand estuaries. Estuaries 27, 945–957.Google Scholar
Warwick, R.M., Platt, H.M. and Somerfield, P.J. (1998) Free-living marine nematodes. Part III. Monhysterids. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council.Google Scholar
Wieser, W. (1953) Die Beziehung zwischen Mundhöhlengestalt, Ernährungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Arkiv för Zoologi 4, 439–484.Google Scholar