Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 5, pp 1683–1694 | Cite as

Direct versus indirect effects of wave exposure as a structuring force on temperate cryptobenthic fish assemblages

  • Selvaggia Santin
  • Trevor J. Willis
Research Article

Abstract

The structure of cryptic reef fish assemblages was assessed on sheltered and exposed aspects of coastal breakwaters at two locations in the northwestern Adriatic Sea. There were distinct differences between the two levels of exposure, which were consistent between locations. Habitat characteristics, measured on scales of tens of centimetres, explained 50% of the variability in assemblage structure between exposures, whereas ‘exposure’ alone (implying direct effects of wave energy on the fish) explained <5% of the variation. The most important explanatory variables were the presence of macroalgae, sandy habitat and oyster shell, the last of which increased the degree of small-scale complexity and provided nesting sites for blennies. We found little evidence to suggest that wave action had large direct effects on the fish assemblages, although this may be in part due to the relatively small degree of difference between ‘exposed’ and ‘sheltered’ samples under the calm conditions of a sea with a relatively short fetch. These results suggest that wave action acts mainly indirectly as a structuring force on cryptic reef fish communities, by altering the composition and/or the relative density of epibiota that influence the distribution of fish. Thus, relative wave energy may provide a useful means of predicting fish assemblage structure only at large spatial scales. Microhabitat, composed of a combination of physical complexity and biological elements, always explained the greater part of variability at small (<1 m) spatial scales.

Keywords

Breakwater Fish Assemblage Reef Fish Oyster Shell Wave Exposure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to C. Borsini and R. Ribeiro for field assistance, and to A. Sundelöf and L. Airoldi for allowing us to use their clod card data. We are grateful to M.J. Anderson, as ever, for statistical advice and a thorough reading of the manuscript, and M. Abbiati, F. Colosio, L. Airoldi, S.P. Griffiths, N. Tolimieri, Y. Triossi and the two anonymous referees for discussion and further comments on the manuscript. Further inspiration was provided by F. Cannavaro, M. Materazzi and M.P. Smile. T.J.W. was supported by grants from ENI/AGIP Italia to M. Abbiati. S.S. was supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Environment and Territory (Artificial Marine Structures: Multifunctional Tools for Research and Environmental Management in the Mediterranean and Red Sea), and T.J.W. by grants from ENI/AGIP Italia to M. Abbiati.

References

  1. Abel EF (1960) Liason facultative d’un poisson (Gobius bucchichi Steindachner) et d’une anémone (Anemonia sulcata Penn) en Méditerranée. Vie Milieu 11:517–531Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman JL, Bellwood DR (2000) Reef fish assemblages: a re-evaluation using enclosed rotenone stations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Airoldi L (2003) The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 41:161–263Google Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  5. Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2003) Generalized discriminant analysis based on distances. Aust NZ J Stat 45:301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bacchiocchi F, Airoldi L (2003) Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structures for coastal protection. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 56:1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Behrents KC (1987) The influence of shelter availability on recruitment and early juvenile survivorship of Lythrypnus dalli Gilbert (Pisces: Gobiidae). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 107:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno JF, Bertness MD (2001) Habitat modification and facilitation in benthic marine communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  12. Buchheim JR, Hixon MA (1992) Competition for shelter holes in the coral-reef fish Acanthemblemeria spinosa Metzelaar. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 164:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bulleri F, Airoldi L (2005) Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea. J Appl Ecol 42:1063–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caley JM, St John J (1996) Refuge availability structures assemblages of tropical reef fishes. J Anim Ecol 65:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analysis of change in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell SD, Jones GP (1991) The influence of habitat complexity on postrecruitment processes in a temperate reef fish population. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 151:271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dayton PK (1971) Competition, disturbance and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 41:351–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denny MW (1987) Life in the maelstrom: the biomechanics of wave-swept rocky shores. Trends Ecol Evol 2:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denny M (1995) Predicting physical disturbance: mechanistic approaches to the study of survivorship on wave-swept shores. Ecol Monogr 65:371–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denny CM (2005) Distribution and abundance of labrids in northeastern New Zealand: the relationship between depth, exposure, and pectoral fin aspect ratio. Environ Biol Fish 72:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Depczynski M, Bellwood DR (2003) The role of cryptobenthic reef fishes in coral reef trophodynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 256:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Depczynski M, Bellwood DR (2004) Microhabitat utilisation patterns in cryptobenthic coral reef fish communities. Mar Biol 145:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Depczynski M, Bellwood DR (2005) Wave energy and spatial variability in community structure of small cryptic coral reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS, Morton AJ (2004) Biases associated with the use of underwater visual census techniques to quantify the density and size-structure of fish populations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 308:269–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedlander AM, Brown EK, Jokiel PL, Smith WR, Rogers KS (2003) Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. Coral Reefs 22:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fulton CJ, Bellwood DR (2002) Ontogenetic habitat use in labrid fishes: an ecomorphological perspective. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 236:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulton CJ, Bellwood DR (2004) Wave exposure, swimming performance, and the structure of tropical and temperate reef fish assemblages. Mar Biol 144:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fulton CJ, Bellwood DR, Wainwright PC (2005) Wave energy and swimming performance shape coral reef fish assemblages. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:827–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibson RN (1982) Recent studies on the biology of intertidal fishes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 20:363–414Google Scholar
  30. Graham NAJ, Evans RD, Russ GR (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environ Conserv 30:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffiths SP, Davis AR, West RJ (2006) Role of habitat complexity in structuring temperate rockpool ichthyofaunas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 313:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guidetti P (2004) Fish assemblages associated with coastal defence structures in south-western Italy (Mediterranean Sea). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 84:669–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hammond W, Griffiths CL (2004) Influence of wave exposure on South African mussel beds and their associated infaunal communities. Mar Biol 144:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hixon MA, Beets JP (1993) Predation, prey refuges, and the structure of coral-reef fish assemblages. Ecol Monogr 63:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Illich IP, Kotrschal K (1990) Depth distribution and abundance of northern Adriatic littoral rocky reef blennioid fishes (Blenniidae and Tripterygion). PSZN Mar Ecol 11:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jennings S, Polunin NVC (1997) Impacts of predator depletion by fishing on the biomass and diversity of non-target reef fish communities. Coral Reefs 16:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jokiel PL, Morrissey JI (1993) Water motion on coral reefs: evaluation of the ‘clod card’ technique. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 93:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kruskal JB, Wish M (1978) Multidimensional scaling. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lachenbruch PA, Mickey MR (1968) Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Technometrics 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. La Mesa G, Micalizzi M, Giaccone G, Vacchi M (2004) Cryptobenthic fishes of the Ciclopi Islands marine reserve (central Mediterranean Sea): assemblage composition, structure and relations with habitat features. Mar Biol 145:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. La Mesa G, Di Muccio S, Vacchi M. (2006) Structure of a Mediterranean cryptobenthic fish community and its relationships with habitat characteristics. Mar Biol 149:149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levin PS, Hay ME (1996) Responses of temperate reef fishes to alterations in algal structure and species composition. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 134:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipej L, Richter M (1999) Blennioids (Blennioidea) of the Slovenian coastal waters. Ann Ser Hist Nat 9:15–24Google Scholar
  44. Lipej L, Bonaca MO, Šiško M (2003) Coastal fish diversity in three marine protected areas and one unprotected area in the Gulf of Trieste (northern Adriatic). PSZN Mar Ecol 24:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Littler MM, Littler DS (1984) Relationships between macroalgal functional form groups and substrata stability in a subtropical rocky-intertidal system. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 74:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Losada IJ, Lara JL, Christensen ED, Garcia N (2005) Modelling of velocity and turbulence fields around and within low-crested rubble-mound breakwaters. Coast Eng 52:887–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Macpherson E (1994) Substrate utilisation in a Mediterranean littoral fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 114:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Madsen JD, Chambers PA, James WF, Koch EW, Westlake DF (2001) The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 444:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McQuaid CD, Lindsay TL (2000) Effect of wave exposure on growth and mortality rates of the mussel Perna perna: bottom-up regulation of intertidal populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Montanari G, Rinaldi A, Pinardi N, Simoncelli S, Giacomelli L (2006) The currents of Emilia-Romagna coastal strip during the period 1995–2002. ARPA Agenzia Regionale Prevenzione e Ambiente dell’Emilia-Romagna, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  52. Munday PL, Jones GP (1998) The ecological implications of small body size among coral-reef fishes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 36:373–411Google Scholar
  53. Muus BJ (1968) A field method for measuring “exposure” by means of plaster balls. A preliminary account. Sarsia 34:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pérez-Ruzafa A, García-Charton JA, Barcala E, Marcos C (2006) Changes in benthic fish assesmblages as a consequence of coastal works in a lagoon: the Mar Menor (Spain, Western Mediterranean). Mar Pollut Bull 53:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rilov G, Figueira WF, Lyman SJ, Crowder LB (2007) Complex habitats may not always benefit prey: linking visual field with reef fish behaviour and distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steele MA (1999) Effects of shelter and predators on reef fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 233:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tuya F, Haroun RJ (2006) Spatial patterns and response to wave exposure of shallow water algal assemblages across the Canarian Archipelago: a multi-scaled approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Willis TJ (2001) Visual census underestimates density and diversity of cryptic reef fishes. J Fish Biol 59:1408–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willis TJ, Anderson MJ (2003) Structure of cryptic reef fish assemblages: relationships with habitat characteristics and predator density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 257:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willis TJ, Roberts CD (1996) Recolonisation and recruitment of fishes to intertidal rockpools at Wellington, New Zealand. Environ Biol Fish 47:329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Willis TJ, Badalamenti F, Milazzo M (2006) Diel variability in counts of reef fishes and its implications for monitoring. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 331:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson SK, Bellwood DR, Choat JH, Furnas MJ (2003) Detritus in the epilithic algal matrix and its use by coral reef fishes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 41:279–309Google Scholar
  63. Zavatarelli M, Raicich F, Bregant D, Russo A, Artegiani A (1998) Climatological biogeochemical characteristics of the Adriatic Sea. J Mar Syst 18:227–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca per le Scienze Ambientali in RavennaUniversità di BolognaRavennaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Biologia Evoluzionistica e SperimentaleUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric ResearchNelsonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations