| Literature DB >> 21437262 |
João Canning-Clode1, Paul Fofonoff, Gerhardt F Riedel, Mark Torchin, Gregory M Ruiz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The invasion of habitats by non-indigenous species (NIS) occurs at a global scale and can generate significant ecological, evolutionary, economic and social consequences. Estuarine and coastal ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to pollution from numerous sources due to years of human-induced degradation and shipping. Pollution is considered as a class of disturbance with anthropogenic roots and recent studies have concluded that high frequencies of disturbance may facilitate invasions by increasing the availability of resources. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21437262 PMCID: PMC3060921 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Diagram illustrating the experimental design employed.
(A) We applied 4 different loads of a copper based antifouling paint: no disturbance (D0), 28 cm2 of AF paint (D1), 56 cm2 of AF paint (D2) and 96 cm2 of AF paint (D3). (B) Representation of one block with 2 replicates per treatment.
List of macroinvertebrates and their respective functional groups (see [38] for details) set by phylum found across the four disturbance treatments (D0–D3) in Panama (Pa) and Virginia (Vi) after 9 weeks of colonization.
| Taxon | Functional | Site | Disturbance levels | Status | Source | |||
| group | D0 | D1 | D2 | D3 | ||||
| Porifera | ||||||||
|
| LESS | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | C |
|
|
| XMSS | Vi | •• | •• | •• | ○ | C |
|
|
| XMSS | Pa | •• | • | ○ | •• | N |
|
|
| XMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | N |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | ○ | • | ○ | ○ | N | |
|
| LESS | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | • | N |
|
|
| LESS | Pa | •• | • | •• | • | N |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | • | Unresolved | |
|
| XESS | Pa | • | • | • | • | N |
|
| Cnidaria | ||||||||
|
| LMSS | Vi | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | N |
|
|
| LFSC | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | C | |
|
| LFSC | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | C |
|
|
| LFSC | Pa | • | • | • | • | Unresolved | |
|
| LBSC | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | C |
|
|
| LBSC | Vi | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | C |
|
|
| MBSC | Vi | ○ | ○ | ○ | •• | C |
|
|
| MBSC | Pa | • | ○ | • | ○ | C |
|
|
| LFSC | Vi | •• | •• | •• | •• | C |
|
| Unknown Anemone | LMSS | Vi | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | |
| Unknown Anemone | LMSS | Pa | ○ | • | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | |
| Bryozoa | ||||||||
|
| LBSC | Vi | ••• | •• | ••• | •• | NIS |
|
|
| LBSC | Pa | • | •• | • | • | C |
|
|
| LBSC | Vi | •• | •• | •• | ○ | N |
|
|
| LBSC | Pa | ○ | ○ | • | • | C |
|
|
| LBSC | Vi | •• | • | • | • | C |
|
|
| LBSC | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | |
|
| LESC | Pa | •• | •• | • | ○ | NIS |
|
|
| LBSC | Pa | •• | • | • | • | C |
|
|
| XESC | Pa | • | • | ○ | ○ | N |
|
|
| LBSC | Pa | • | ○ | • | • | N |
|
|
| XESC | Vi | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | |
| Unidentified Bryozoan | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | ||
|
| XMSC | Pa | ○ | ○ | ○ | • | C |
|
| Chordata | ||||||||
|
| LMSS | Pa | ○ | ○ | ○ | • | Unresolved | |
|
| XESC | Pa | ○ | •• | •• | • | C |
|
|
| LMSC | Vi | ○ | • | ○ | ○ | NIS |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | C |
|
|
| LMSS | Vi | • | •• | •• | •• | N |
|
|
| Pa | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | N |
| |
|
| LMSS | Pa | ○ | • | ○ | ○ | NIS |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | •• | • | • | • | NIS |
|
|
| XESC | Pa | ••• | ••• | ••• | • | C |
|
| Crustacea | ||||||||
|
| MMSS | Vi | ••• | ••• | ••• | ••• | N |
|
|
| MMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | N |
|
|
| MMSS | Vi | •• | •• | •• | •• | Unresolved | |
| Polychaea | ||||||||
|
| LFSS | Vi | ○ | ○ | • | • | N |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | N |
|
|
| LMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | NIS |
|
|
| MMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | C |
|
|
| MMSS | Pa | •• | • | • | • | C |
|
|
| XMSC | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | N |
|
|
| MMSS | Vi | • | ○ | ○ | ○ | Unresolved | |
|
| MMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | NIS |
|
| Mollusca | ||||||||
|
| LMSS | Pa | •• | •• | •• | •• | NIS | Canning-Clode, unpublished |
| Ostreidae | LMSS | Pa | • | • | • | • | Unresolved | |
Appearance of organisms is shown by ○, not present; •, ≤1% mean cover; ••, <10% mean cover; •••, >10% mean cover; Taxa were also classified as native (N), non-indigenous (NIS) and cryptogenic (C) based on literature, or to unresolved (based on an inability to identify to species level).
Figure 2Test for treatment's efficiency.
(A) Copper content from water samples after a 2 hr exposure to disturbance panels taken after 3 and 6 weeks in Virginia from independent buckets containing individual disturbance treatments (n = 2); (B) Quantity of copper measured after 9 weeks from the tissue of Amphibalanus improvisus, the most common organism across all disturbance treatments in Virginia (n = 4). Means and standard deviations are indicated. Disturbance treatments abbreviations are as in Figure 1. * There is no standard deviation at D3 after 6 weeks as there was only one replicate.
Results from the 2-factorial ANOVA on different diversity measures for Virginia and Panama.
| Virginia | Panama | ||||||||
| Diversity measure | Source of | df | MS | F | P - value | df | MS | F | P - value |
| variation | |||||||||
| Total species richness | D | 3 | 3.23 | 5.74 | 0.092 |
|
|
|
|
| B | 1 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.761 | 2 | 3.88 | 0.75 | 0.511 | |
| D | 3 | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.831 | 6 | 5.15 | 1.16 | 0.390 | |
| Error | 8 | 1.94 | 12 | 4.46 | |||||
| Total functional richness | D | 3 | 0.23 | 3.67 | 0.157 |
|
|
|
|
| B | 1 | 0.56 | 9.00 | 0.058 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.946 | |
| D | 3 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.963 | 6 | 0.00 | 1.66 | 0.215 | |
| Error | 8 | 0.69 | 12 | 0.00 | |||||
| Native taxonomic richness | D | 3 | 2.75 | 6.60 | 0.078 |
|
|
|
|
| B | 1 | 2.25 | 5.40 | 0.103 | 2 | 0.01 | 1.35 | 0.329 | |
| D | 3 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.659 | 6 | 0.01 | 0.54 | 0.766 | |
| Error | 8 | 0.75 | 12 | 0.01 | |||||
| Native functional richness | D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B | 1 | 1.00 | 6.00 | 0.092 | 2 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.604 | |
| D | 3 | 0.17 | 0.44 | 0.728 | 6 | 0.99 | 1.03 | 0.453 | |
| Error | 8 | 0.38 | 12 | 0.96 | |||||
| Invasive taxonomic richness | D | 3 | - | - | - |
|
|
|
|
| B | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.880 | |
| D | 3 | - | - | - | 6 | 0.32 | 0.70 | 0.657 | |
| Error | 8 | - | 12 | 0.46 | |||||
| Invasive functional richness | D | 3 | - | - | - | 3 | 0.15 | 1.00 | 0.455 |
| B | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.770 | |
| D | 3 | - | - | - | 6 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.633 | |
| Error | 8 | - | 12 | 0.21 | |||||
| Cryptogenic richness | D | 3 | 4.06 | 4.53 | 0.123 | 3 | 5.50 | 2.40 | 0.166 |
| B | 1 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.809 | 2 | 0.79 | 0.35 | 0.721 | |
| D | 3 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.550 | 6 | 2.29 | 1.53 | 0.250 | |
| Error | 8 | 1.19 | 12 | 1.50 | |||||
*Data was log10 transformed for total functional richness and native taxonomic richness in PA. Analysis was not performed for non-indigenous richness in Virginia due to a weak signal (only two species: Bugula neritina present in all disturbance treatments and Ecteinascidia turbinata in only one treatment). Significant results (P<0.05) highlighted in bold (n = 4 in Virginia; n = 6 in Panama). Disturbance = D and Block = B represent the source of variation.
Figure 3Relationship between disturbance and different measures of diversity in Virginia and Panama.
Diversity measures are: total taxonomic richness (A); total functional richness (B); native taxonomic richness (C); native functional richness (D); non-indigenous taxonomic richness (E); and non-indigenous functional richness (F). Means and standard errors are indicated (n = 4 in Virginia; n = 6 in Panama). Disturbance treatments abbreviations are as in Figure 1.
Effects of disturbance (independent variable) on diversity (dependent variable) of fouling communities.
| Diversity measure | Virginia | Panama | ||
| R2 |
| R2 |
| |
| Total species richness | 0.25 | 0.051 |
|
|
| Total functional richness | 0.05 | 0.430 |
|
|
| Native taxonomic richness |
|
|
|
|
| Native functional richness |
|
|
|
|
| Invasive taxonomic richness | 0.01 | 0.670 |
|
|
| Invasive functional richness | 0.01 | 0.670 | 0.05 | 0.281 |
| Cryptogenic richness |
|
| 0.15 | 0.061 |
Results of the linear regression analysis are shown for Virginia and Panama.
*Data was log10 transformed for total functional richness and native taxonomic richness in PA. Significant results (P<0.05) highlighted in bold (n = 4 in Virginia; n = 6 in Panama).
Summary of the two-factor PERMANOVA of the multivariate data.
| Site | Source of | Taxonomic richness | Functional richness | ||||||
| variation | df | MS | Pseudo- |
| df | MS | Pseudo- |
| |
| Virginia | B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| D | 3 | 1741.10 | 2.54 | 0.150 |
|
|
|
| |
| BxD | 3 | 685.64 | 0.86 | 0.601 | 3 | 322.74 | 0.53 | 0.824 | |
| Residual | 8 | 795.98 | 8 | 607.24 | |||||
| Total | 15 | 15 | |||||||
| Panama | B | 2 | 2225.80 | 1.22 | 0.2869 | 2 | 1234.10 | 0.94 | 0.510 |
| D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BxD | 6 | 1521.40 | 0.83 | 0.7576 | 6 | 1282.30 | 0.97 | 0.514 | |
| Residual | 12 | 1822.20 | 12 | 1317.90 | |||||
| Total | 23 | 23 | |||||||
Significant results (P<0.05) highlighted in bold (n = 4 in Virginia; n = 6 in Panama). Disturbance = D and Block = B represent the source of variation.
Results from the SIMPER routine performed with multivariate data from both Panama and Virginia to identify which species or FG contributed more (≥10%) to observed changes in community composition between untreated controls (D0) and highest disturbance (D3).
| Taxonomic diversity | Functional diversity | ||||
| Site | Source | Status | Contribution (%) | Source | Contribution (%) |
| Virginia | |||||
|
| N | 39(+) | MMSS | 44(+) | |
|
| NIS | 25(−) | LBSC | 32(−) | |
|
| C | 12(+) | LFSC | 12(+) | |
| Panama | |||||
|
| C | 25(−) | XESC | 34(−) | |
|
| N | 10(+) | LMSS | 15(−) | |
|
| N | 10(+) | XMSS | 14(−) | |
|
| NIS | 10(−) | XMSC | 12(+) | |
Taxa classified as native (N), non-indigenous (NIS) and cryptogenic (C) based on literature. Contribution (%) and direction of change (+ positive; - negative) are indicated (n = 4 in Virginia; n = 6 in Panama).