Diversity and structure of epibenthic communities of the red algae zone in the White Sea

Plant Part Age and Size Affect Sessile Macrobenthic Assemblages Associated with a Foliose Red Algae Phycodrys rubens in the White Sea

“…The number of species and diversity of epibiosis associated with P. rubens were similar to other epibiotic assemblages in high latitudes, both on brown [30,45,46] and red algae [13,47]. Species composition was consistent with scarce data on red algae epibiosis in the White Sea, with bryozoans being the most abundant and species-rich group [13,48]. Particularly, bryozoans Electra pilosa, Celleporella hyalina, Cribrilina annulata, and serpulid sedentary polychaetes are common in boreal and arctic epiphytic assemblages associated with kelps and red algae [13,45,47].…”

Chemical Composition and Potential Practical Application of 15 Red Algal Species from the White Sea Coast (the Arctic Ocean)

“…Fifteen species of intertidal and subtidal red algae, representing five orders of the class Florideophyceae ( Table 4 ), were collected in the Keret Archipelago (Kandalaksha Bay, White Sea) in June–August 2017–2020. The list of objects includes a majority of red algae inhabiting the region and having considerable biomass [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Thalli were collected from the typical habitats of each species ( Table 4 ).…”

“…The dominating representatives of Rhodophyta in the White Sea coastal waters are Palmaria palmata , Odonthalia dentata , Phycodrys rubens , Coccotylus brodiei , C. truncatus , Ahnfeltia plicata , Vertebrata fucoides , Polysiphonia stricta , Lithothamnion glaciale , Ptilota gunneri , P. serrata , etc. [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Several of these or systematically close species were reported to have multiple biological activities.…”

Macroalgal features and their influence on associated biodiversity: implications for conservation and restoration

“…They create a porous habitat that enhances individual and bed physical complexity (Gabara et al, 2018, Cerqueira Veras et al, 2020, Goodsell et al (2004) 23 , Gunill (1982) 24 , Hacker and Steneck (1990) 25 , Harvey and Bird (2008) 26 , Hauser et al (2006) 27 , Hooper and Davenport (2006) 28 , Hughes (2010) 29 , Hull (1997) 30 , Karr (2011) 31 , Kelaher and Castilla (2005) 32 , Leite and Turra (2003) 33 , Lenzo et al (2023) 34 , Lilley and Schiel (2006) supporting significantly higher diversities than non-living beds or adjacent bare sediments (Robinson, 2015;Stelzer et al, 2021;Neves and Costa, 2022), or even some kelp beds (Schoenrock et al, 2018). Along with complexity, the depth (shallow or deep, in tropical or polar latitudes, respectively; Mikhaylova et al, 2019;Cerqueira Veras et al, 2020) and density of these beds also contribute to biodiversity. Counter examples include studies where different rhodolith forms are only weakly associated with species assemblages (Harvey and Bird, 2008), or host morphology was the most important in determining crytofaunal assemblages associated with crustose coralline algae (Glanz, 2021).…”

“…However, studies conducted in high (including polar) latitudes, follow the general trend observed in warmer coasts: bed size and structural complexity favors higher invertebrate diversity (Lippert et al, 2001;Schoenrock et al, 2018). Harsh physical conditions (including ice and wave stress) frequently limit overall diversity in shallow compared to deep habitats, increasing the likelihood of unstable, more fluctuating communities and favoring the development of barren habitats (Lippert et al, 2001;Mikhaylova et al, 2019). Despite that, most evidence suggests that the food, habitat, and refuge associated with complex seaweed beds also favors stability and ultimately local biodiversity (e.g., Lippert et al, 2001;Nuñez-Pons et al, 2012;Mikhaylova et al, 2019).…”