Meiofaunal assemblages associated with native and non-indigenous macroalgae

Veiga, Puri; Sousa-Pinto, Isabel; Rubal, Marcos

doi:10.1016/j.csr.2016.04.007

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidences for communities from hard-bottom substrates however are limited but corroborate the importance of the complexity for diversity. Meiofauna species from phytal communities are known to be host-specific [40][41][42][43] and the increase in algae morphotypes results in a diversified meiofaunal community. Biological substrates can influence the composition and structure of the associated fauna by its architecture [8], the amount of sediment accumulated on it [12,44], the protection it offers against predators [13,45], shelter from extreme physical condition [46,47] and the provision of food resources [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Habitat Heterogeneity at Distinct Spatial Scales on Hard-Bottom-Associated Communities

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For marine benthic communities, environmental heterogeneity at small spatial scales are mostly due to biologically produced habitat heterogeneity and biotic interactions, while at larger spatial scales environmental factors may prevails over biotic features. In this study, we investigated how community structure and β-diversity of hard-bottom-associated meio- and macrofauna varied in relation to small-scale (cm–m) changes in biological substrate (an algae “turf” dominated by the macroalgae Gelidium sp., the macroalgae Caulerpa racemosa and the sponge Hymeniacidon heliophile) in a rocky shore and in relation to larger-scale (10’s m) changes in environmental conditions of the same biological substrate (the macroalgae Bostrychia sp) in different habitats (rocky shore vs. mangrove roots). Results showed that both substrate identity and the surrounding environment were important in structuring the smaller-sized meiofauna, particularly the nematode assemblages, whereas the larger and more motile macrofauna was influenced only by larger-scale changes in the surrounding ecosystem. This implies that the macrofauna explores the environment in a larger spatial scale compared to the meiofauna, suggesting that effects of spatial heterogeneity on communities are dependent on organism size and mobility. Changes in taxa composition between environments and substrates highlight the importance of habitat diversity at different scales for maintaining the diversity of the associated fauna.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Habitat Heterogeneity at Distinct Spatial Scales on Hard-Bottom-Associated Communities

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different epifauna communities on different macrophyte species have often been attributed to habitat complexity structure (Veiga et al, , ). Previous studies have demonstrated that increased abundance and diversity of species are associated with more morphologically complex habitat‐forming macrophytes (McDonald & Bingham, ; Png‐Gonzalez, Vázquez‐Luis, & Tuya, ; Sueiro, Bortolus, & Schwindt, ; Veiga et al, , ). This is essentially due to the increase in interstitial habitable space with a range of ecological niches for colonisation, and the reduction in the foraging effectiveness of predators (Cacabelos et al, ; Hooper & Davenport, ; Png‐Gonzalez et al, ; Sueiro et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different epifauna communities on different macrophyte species have often been attributed to habitat complexity structure (Veiga et al, 2014(Veiga et al, , 2016 2014; Sueiro, Bortolus, & Schwindt, 2011;Veiga et al, 2014Veiga et al, , 2016. This is essentially due to the increase in interstitial habitable space with a range of ecological niches for colonisation, and the reduction in the foraging effectiveness of predators (Cacabelos et al, 2010;Hooper & Davenport, 2006;Png-Gonzalez et al, 2014;Sueiro et al, 2011).…”

Section: And the "Deauvillementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This invasive species enhances habitat heterogeneity and substratum availability providing suitable living conditions for many associated organisms (Harries, Harrow, Wilson, Mair, & Donnan, 2007;Strong et al, 2006;Viejo, 1999). Although impacts of this invader on the native macroalgal-associated epifauna are well documented Britton-Simmons, 2006;Buschbaum, Chapman, & Saier, 2006;Cacabelos, Olabarria, Incera, & Troncoso, 2010;Engelen, Primo, Cruz, & Santos, 2013;Gestoso et al, 2010Gestoso et al, , 2012Harries et al, 2007;Strong et al, 2006;Veiga, Rubal, & Sousa-Pinto, 2014;Veiga, Sousa-Pinto, & Rubal, 2016;Viejo, 1999;Wernberg et al, 2004), studies dealing with its potential effects on epifaunal assemblages within seagrass meadow are scarce and predominantly performed in the South Western coast of England investigating in particular Zostera marina meadows (DeAmicis, 2012;DeAmicis & Foggo, 2015;Tweedley, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The introduction ofSargassum muticummodifies epifaunal patterns in a Moroccan seagrass meadow

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine macrophytes sustain valuable epiphytic biodiversity. Nonindigenous macroalgae may induce changes in composition and structure of epifaunal assemblages and therefore support different assemblages from those associated with native species. In this study, differences in faunal community structure between the introduced fucoid Sargassum muticum and the native seagrass Cymodocea nodosa were tested over a year on an intertidal shallow sandy bottom at the southern introduction front, the El Jadida coastline (NW Morocco). Epifaunal community structure consistently differed between macrophytes through seasons, with more species‐rich assemblages associated with S. muticum than C. nodosa despite comparable abundances. The significantly greater epifauna diversity on S. muticum may be related to its structural complexity. However, the species contributing most to differences in assemblages between both macrophytes, such as Steromphala umbilicalis and S. pennanti, were found on both habitats with temporally varying abundances. Some species‐specific affinities were detected (Stenosoma cf. acuminatum, Elasmopus vachoni, Chauvetia brunnea). Nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, suspended matter and temperature were identified as the best explanatory variables contributing to the observed macroepifaunal patterns. This study provides evidence that S. muticum acts as a favourable and additional habitat for epifaunal species and supports a more diverse epifaunal assemblage in this Moroccan seagrass meadow.

show abstract

Hidden Players—Meiofauna Mediate Ecosystem Effects of Anthropogenic Disturbances in the Ocean

Schratzberger

Danovaro

Ingels

et al. 2023

New Horizons in Meiobenthos Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meiofaunal assemblages associated with native and non-indigenous macroalgae

Cited by 20 publications

References 61 publications

The Effects of Habitat Heterogeneity at Distinct Spatial Scales on Hard-Bottom-Associated Communities

The Effects of Habitat Heterogeneity at Distinct Spatial Scales on Hard-Bottom-Associated Communities

The introduction ofSargassum muticummodifies epifaunal patterns in a Moroccan seagrass meadow

Hidden Players—Meiofauna Mediate Ecosystem Effects of Anthropogenic Disturbances in the Ocean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About