| Literature DB >> 24391249 |
Ruth Gingold1, Manuel Mundo-Ocampo2, Oleksandr Holovachov2, Axayácatl Rocha-Olivares1.
Abstract
The role of habitat complexity has been widely neglected in the study of meiofaunal community patterns. We studied the intertidal nematode community of a structurally complex macrotidal beach exhibiting contrasting microhabitats (sandbars and runnels) to understand the influence of environmental gradients and habitat heterogeneity in the community structure. We tested whether topographical complexity affected (1) the zonation pattern in terms of abundance and diversity, and (2) local diversity by promoting compartmentalization into distinct faunal groups. Our analyses revealed three major faunal assemblages along the exposure gradient associated to differences in mean grain size and chlorophyll a. Diversity patterns involved a mid-intertidal peak, consistent with the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, and another peak at the limit with the subtidal region, consistent with the transition zone. These results highlight the predominance of environmental gradients in establishing intertidal zonation. However, microhabitats differed in environmental conditions and possessed significantly distinct nematofaunal communities. Runnels featured higher levels of taxonomic and functional diversity, many unique genera, and the community differed from the assemblage at the limit to the subtidal, stressing their role as distinct microhabitats. The nematofauna of the structurally complex beach was more diverse than the one from a homogeneous beach nearby, supporting the hypothesis that structural heterogeneity promotes diversity by compartmentalization and highlighting the importance of microhabitats in the assessment of biodiversity. Contrary to previous predictions, our results indicate potentially high regional marine nematode diversity in the Upper Gulf of California.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 24391249 PMCID: PMC3873037 DOI: 10.1007/s00227-010-1447-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Biol ISSN: 0025-3162 Impact factor: 2.573
Fig. 1Location of the study site (El Tornillal beach) on the east coast of the Upper Gulf of California, state of Sonora, Mexico
Fig. 2Environmental and biological variables across the intertidal in September 2007 (black circles) and March 2008 (open circles). a Schematic illustration of stations along a transect; means and standard deviations of b mean grain size (in Φ); c organic matter content (% dry weight); d chlorophyll a density (mgm−2); e nematode abundances (individuals 10 cm−2); f genus richness (S); g taxonomic diversity (Shannon Wiener H′) and h trophic diversity (ITD−1). Asterisks denote missing data
Fig. 3Multivariate analyses of community structure. a Cluster analyses based on Bray-Curtis similarities resulting in three main groups at 18.26% similarity in September 2007 and 18.25% in March 2008, indicated by the dotted lines. Symbols represent intertidal regions: open circles lower beach (September 2007 stations 1–3; March 2008 stations 1–3, 5, 7), asterisks middle beach (September 2007 stations 4–9; March 08 stations 4, 6, 8, 9), black squares upper beach (station 10). b Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) of genus abundance for both sampling seasons. Replicate samples are identified by their station number. Lines reflect the same three main groups that resulted from the cluster analyses: continuous line station 10, dashed line stations 4–9 in September 2007 and stations 4, 6, 8, 9 in March 2008, dotted line stations 1–3 in September 2007 and stations 1–3, 5, 7 in March 2008. c Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) of environmental variables (mean grain size, chlorophyll a and organic matter). Replicate samples are identified by their station number
Percentage contribution of the top 50% discriminating genera for each assemblage and their feeding strategy (FS)
| Genus | FS | Cumulative percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RUNNEL | |||
| September 2007 | Epsilonematidae gen. | 1A | 25.68 |
|
| 1B | 33.17 | |
|
| 2A | 38.94 | |
|
| 1B | 44.41 | |
|
| 1B | 49.08 | |
|
| 2B | 53.13 | |
| March 2008 | Xyalidae gen. | 1B | 15.73 |
|
| 2A | 25.30 | |
|
| 2A | 34.31 | |
| Epsilonematidae gen. | 1A | 41.17 | |
|
| 2A | 46.37 | |
|
| 2B | 51.15 | |
| SANDBAR | |||
| September 2007 | Epsilonematidae gen. | 1A | 36.34 |
|
| 2A | 44.98 | |
|
| 2A | 50.94 | |
| March 2008 | Epsilonematidae gen. | 1A | 38.75 |
|
| 2A | 55.53 | |
Presence of the top 90% discriminating genera across the intertidal
| Station 1 | Runnel 3 | Runnel 5 | Runnel 7 | Runnel 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 2007 | |||||
| Dissimilarity | – | 66.67 | 77.11 | 82 | 95.33 |
| Station 1 |
| ||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| |||||
|
| X | ||||
| Xyalidae Gen. | |||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | X | X | ||
|
| X | ||||
| New |
| X | |||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| X | ||||
|
| X | X | |||
| Epsilonematidae gen. | X | X | |||
|
| X | ||||
| Oncholaimidae Gen. | X | ||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| March 2008 | |||||
| Dissimilarity | – | 63.66 | 75.85 | 85.37 | 86.26 |
| Station 1 |
| X | X | ||
| Xyalidae Gen. | X | X | X | ||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| |||||
| New |
| X | X | ||
|
| |||||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| X | ||||
|
| X | X | |||
| Epsilonematidae gen. | X | X | |||
|
| X | ||||
|
| X | X | |||
|
| X | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Chromadoridae gen. | |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
Dissimilarity result from SIMPER analyses between station 1 and the respective runnel, X contributing genus that has been listed before, New appearance of a new discriminating genus
Fig. 4Local diversity and error estimations. a Species accumulation curve using the Ugland index for the combined datasets of September 2007 and March 2008 (black diamonds). The line indicates the adjusted MMF Model y = (ab + cx )/(b + x ), where the model parameters are: a = −7.97, b = 4.36, c = 125.03 and d = 0.67. b Relative estimation error (mean and standard deviation) of the second-order jacknife richness estimator (Jack 2) for different samplesizes (black circles). Adjusted models: logarithmic model y = a + b ln(x) with the model parameters: a = 74.91, b = −18.99 (dotted line) and “vapor pressure model” y = e with the model parameters: a = 4.78, b = −0.05 and c = −0.68 (dashed line). r 2 coefficient of determination