Foram-AMBI: A sensitivity index based on benthic foraminiferal faunas from North-East Atlantic and Arctic fjords, continental shelves and slopes

Alve, Elisabeth; Korsun, Sergei; Schönfeld, Joachim; Dijkstra, Noortje; Golikova, Elena; Hess, Silvia; Husum, Katrine; Panieri, Giuliana

doi:10.1016/j.marmicro.2015.11.001

Cited by 137 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such ecological groups have also been defined for Foraminifera (e.g. Alve et al 2016), but only for hard-shelled, fossilized taxa (e.g. rotaliids) and not for soft-shelled monothalamids that represent the majority of the sequenced foraminiferal diversity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foraminifera are also good indicators of the impact of offshore drilling activities (Mojtahid et al 2008, Jorissen et al 2009, Denoyelle et al 2010, Schwing et al 2015 and heavy metal pollution (Bergin et al 2006, Frontalini et al 2009). However, all of these studies were restricted to the hard-shelled species microscopically identified in dried sediment samples (Schön -feld et al 2012, Alve et al 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benthic monitoring of salmon farms in Norway using foraminiferal metabarcoding

Pawłowski¹,

Esling²,

Lejzerowicz³

et al. 2016

Aquacult. Environ. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid growth of the salmon industry necessitates the development of fast and accurate tools to assess its environmental impact. Macrobenthic monitoring is commonly used to measure the impact of organic enrichment associated with salmon farm activities. However, classical benthic monitoring can hardly answer the rapidly growing demand because the morphological identification of macro-invertebrates is time-consuming, expensive and requires taxonomic expertise. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of meiofauna-sized organisms, such as Foraminifera, was proposed to overcome the drawbacks of macrofauna-based benthic monitoring. Here, we tested the application of foraminiferal metabarcoding to benthic monitoring of salmon farms in Norway. We analysed 140 samples of eDNA and environmental RNA (eRNA) extracted from surface sediment samples collected at 4 salmon farming sites in Norway. We sequenced the variable region 37f of the 18S rRNA gene specific to Foraminifera. We compared our data to the results of macrofaunal surveys of the same sites and tested the congruence between various diversity indices inferred from metabarcoding and morphological data. The results of our study confirm the usefulness of Foraminifera as bioindicators of organic enrichment associated with salmon farming. The foraminiferal diversity increased with the distance to fish cages, and metabarcoding provides an assessment of the ecological quality comparable to the morphological analyses. The foraminiferal metabarcoding approach appears to be a promising alternative to classical benthic monitoring, providing a solution to the morpho-taxonomic bottleneck of macrofaunal surveys.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benthic monitoring of salmon farms in Norway using foraminiferal metabarcoding

Pawłowski¹,

Esling²,

Lejzerowicz³

et al. 2016

Aquacult. Environ. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason, four working groups were created, studying NE Atlantic and Arctic ecosystems, transitional environments, tropical environments and Mediterranean ecosystems, respectively. The working group concerned with NE Atlantic and Arctic ecosystems presented the Foram-AMBI index (Alve et al, 2016), and tested it by comparing the Foram-AMBI scores with organic carbon content (TOC) and Shannon diversity in four independent data sets. This paper presents the first results of the working group on Mediterranean ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Foram-AMBI for biomonitoring in the Mediterranean: Species assignments to ecological categories

Jorissen

Nardelli

Almogi‐Labin

et al. 2018

Marine Micropaleontology

122

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most environmental bio-monitoring methods using the species composition of marine faunas define the Ecological Quality Status of soft bottom ecosystems based on the relative proportions of species assigned to a limited number of ecological categories. In this study we analyse the distribution patterns of benthic foraminifera in the Mediterranean as a function of organic carbon gradients on the basis of 15 publications and assign the individual species to five ecological categories. Our categories (of sensitive, indifferent and 3rd, 2nd and 1st order opportunists) are very similar to the ecological categories commonly used for macrofauna, but show some minor differences. In the 15 analysed publications, we considered the numerical data of 493 taxa, of which 199 could be assigned. In all 79 taxa were classified as sensitive, 60 as indifferent, 46 as 3rd order, 12 as 2nd order and 2 as 1st order opportunists. The remaining 294 taxa are all accessory, and will only marginally contribute to biotic indices based on relative species proportions. In this paper we wanted also to explain the methodology we used for these species assignments, paying particular attention to all complications and problems encountered. We think that the species list proposed here will constitute a highly useful tool for foraminiferal bio-monitoring of soft bottoms in the Mediterranean Sea, which can be used in different ecological indices (Foram-AMBI and similar methods). With additional information becoming available in the next few years, it will be possible to expand the list, and, if necessary, to apply some minor corrections. As a next step, we intend to test this species list using several biotic indices, in a number of independent data sets, as soon as these will become available.

show abstract

“…They have been widely used in palaeoenvironmental reconstructions either by applying indicator species or groups (Lutze et al, 1986;Smart et al, 1994;Asteman and Nordberg, 2013;Alve et al, 2016), assemblage composition in general (Schmiedl et al, 2003;Jennings et al, 2004;de Nooijer, 2007;Mendes et al, 2012;Moffitt et al, 2014) or the elemental and isotopic chemistry of their shell calcite (e.g., Mackensen et al, 1993;Elderfield et al, 1996;Lear et al, 2000;Waelbroeck et al, 2002). This attribution of certain species and chemical response of their shell to environmental parameters has been the subject of a long and controversial debate (e.g., Van der Zwaan et al, 1999;Gooday, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%