Marine Biology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 203–223 | Cite as

Distribution and structure of benthic assemblages in Puget Sound, Washington, USA



Benthic infauna was collected with a 0.2 m2 van Veen grab at 48 stations in Puget Sound, Washington, USA during February–March 1969. All the crustaceans, lamellibranchs, and echinoderms were identified and counted. Particle size distributions and nitrogen contents of the sediments, depths, and temperature and salinity of the bottom water were determined at all stations. The first three factors of a factor analysis applied to between-stations measures of affinity, explained 41.26% of the total variance. The first factor had representative stations on shallow-water mud bottoms, the second factor on bottoms dominated by coarse sediments, and the third factor had representative stations on deep-water mud bottoms. The multiple correlation coefficients for each of the three factors with depth and mean particle size of the sediments were 0.752, 0.897, and 0.706, respectively. The factor analysis did not result in clusters of stations that could be interpreted as discrete benthic communities. The number of species per 0.6 m2 ranged from 8 to 55 species, with a mean of 26.4 species. The frequency distribution of specimens among the species was in good agreement with a log-normal distribution. The number of specimens per 0.6 m2 ranged from 57 to 1733 specimens, with a mean of 584.0 specimens. The species diversity ranged from 0.34 bits/individual to 4.35 bits/individual, and there was a weak trend of increasing diversity towards coarser sediments. The first three factors applied to the matrix of between-species correlation coefficients explained 43.72% of the total variance. With each factor there was one group of species with high positive loadings and one group with high negative loadings. Each group of species could be identified with particular environments. The standing crop, measured as ash-free dry weight, ranged from 0.490 to 54.093 g/m2, with a mean of 13.752 g/m2. Only about 24% of the variability in standing crop could be attributed to variability in sediment types, nitrogen content in the sediments, salinity of the bottom water, and depth.


Nitrogen Content Bottom Water Benthic Community Standing Crop Positive Loading 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anonymous: Project proposals submitted for Sea Grant institutional support. University of Washington, pp 1–222 (1968). (Internal publication)Google Scholar
  2. Banse, K., F.H. Nichols and D.R. May: Oxygen consumption by the seabed. III. — On the role of the macrofauna at three stations. Vie Milieu (Suppl.) 22, 31–52 (1971)Google Scholar
  3. Cassie, R.M. and A.D. Michael: Fauna and sediments of an intertidal mud flat: a multivariate analysis. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 2, 1–23 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creager, J.S., D.A. McManus and E.E. Collias: Electronic data processing in sedimentary size analyses. J. sedim. Petrol. 32, 833–839 (1962)Google Scholar
  5. Davis, F.M.: Quantitative studies on the fauna of the sea bottom. No. 2. Results of the investigations into the Southern North Sea 1921–24. Fishery Invest., Lond. (Ser. II) 8, 1–50 (1925)Google Scholar
  6. Dickman, M.: Some indices of diversity. Ecology 49, 1191–1193 (1968)Google Scholar
  7. Hald, A.: Maximum likelihood estimation of the parameters of a normal distribution which is truncated at a known point. Skand. Aktuarietidskr. 32, 119–134 (1949)Google Scholar
  8. Hughes, R.N., D.L. Peer and K.H. Mann: Use of multivariate analysis to identify functional components of the benthos in St. Margaret's Bay, Nova Scotia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 111–121 (1972)Google Scholar
  9. Jones, N.S.: Bottom fauna communities. Biol. Rev. 25, 283–313 (1950)Google Scholar
  10. Kaiser, H.F.: The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 187–200 (1958)Google Scholar
  11. Krumbein, W.C. and F.J. Pettijohn: Manual of sedimentary petrography, 549 pp. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1938Google Scholar
  12. Lie, U.: A quantitative study of benthic infauna in Puget Sound, Washington, USA, in 1963–1964. FiskDir. Skr. (Ser. Havunders.) 14, 229–556 (1968)Google Scholar
  13. —: The logarithmic series and the lognormal distribution applied to benthic infauna from Puget Sound, Washington, USA. FiskDir. Skr. (Ser. Havunders.) 15, 234–245 (1969a)Google Scholar
  14. —: Cumacea from Puget Sound and off the northwestern coast of Washington, with description of two new species. Crustaceana 17, 19–30 (1969b)Google Scholar
  15. —: Standing crop of benthic infauna in Puget Sound and off the coast of Washington. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 26, 55–62 (1969c)Google Scholar
  16. — and R.A. Evans: Long-term variability in the structure of subtidal benthic communities in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Mar. Biol. 21, 122–126 (1973)Google Scholar
  17. — and J.C. Kelley: Benthic infauna communities off the coast of Washington and in Puget Sound: identification and distribution of the communities. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 27, 621–651 (1970)Google Scholar
  18. — and D.S. Kisker: Species composition and structure of benthic infauna communities off the coast of Washington. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 27, 2273–2285 (1970)Google Scholar
  19. MacArthur, R.H.: Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev. 40, 510–533 (1965)Google Scholar
  20. Margalef, R.: Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity in phytoplankton, In: Perspecitives in marine biology, pp 323–349. Ed. by A.A. Buzzati-Traverso. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California Press 1958Google Scholar
  21. Newell, R.: The role of detritus in the nutrition of two marine deposit feeders, the prosobranch Hydrobia ulvae and the bivalve Macoma balthica. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 144, 25–45 (1965)Google Scholar
  22. Nichols, F.H.: Benthic polychaete assemblages and their relationship to the sediment in Port Madison, Washington. Mar. Biol. 6, 48–57 (1970)Google Scholar
  23. Pamatmat, M.M.: Oxygen consumption by the seabed. IV. Shipboard and laboratory experiments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16, 536–550 (1971a).Google Scholar
  24. —: Oxygen consumption by the seabed. VI. Seasonal cycle of chemical oxidation and respiration in Puget Sound. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 56, 769–793 (1971b)Google Scholar
  25. — and K. Banse: Oxygen consumption by the seabed. II. In situ measurements to a depth of 180 m. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14, 250–259 (1969)Google Scholar
  26. — and D. Fenton: An instrument for measuring subtidal benthic metabolism in situ. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13, 537–540 (1968).Google Scholar
  27. Patten, B.C.: Species diversity in net phytoplankton of Raritan Bay. J. mar. Res. 20, 57–75 (1962)Google Scholar
  28. Petersen, C.G.J.: Valuation of the sea. II. The animal communities of the sea bottom and their importance for marine zoogeography. Rep. Dan. biol. Stn 25, 1–62 (1913)Google Scholar
  29. Pielou, E.C.: Species-diversity and pattern-diversity in the study of ecological succession. J. theor. Biol. 10, 370–383 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Preston, F.W.: The commonness, and rarity of species. Ecology 29, 254–283 (1948)Google Scholar
  31. Rosenthal, M.P.: 1130 step-wise multiple regression program, 27 pp. San Francisco, Calif.: IBM Corporation 1966Google Scholar
  32. Sanders, H.L.: Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. I. Animal-sediment relationships. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3, 245–258 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turpaeva, E.P.: Food interrelationships of dominant species in marine benthic biocoenoses. Trud y Inst. Okeanol. 20, 171–185 (1957)Google Scholar
  34. Wennekens, M.P.: Marine environment and macrobenthos of the waters of Puget Sound, San Juan Archipelago, southern Georgia Strait, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 298 pp. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1959Google Scholar
  35. Williams, C.B.: The relative abundance of different species in a wild animal population. J. Anim. Ecol. 22, 14–31 (1953)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Lie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Biological Station EspegrendBlomsterdalenNorway
  2. 2.Division of OceanographyUNESCOParis 7France

Personalised recommendations