Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spatial structure of communities on dead pen shells (Atrina rigida) in sea grass beds

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Marine Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Delimiting communities in marine habitats is difficult because co-occurring species often have different life histories and the life stages experience the environment at different spatial scales. The habitat of a particular community is embedded within a larger habitat or ecosystem with many species shared between the focal community and the larger system. Pen shells (Atrina rigida) are large bivalves that, once the mollusk dies, provide shelter for motile species and hard substrate for settling larval invertebrates and egg-laying fishes. In St. Joseph’s Bay, Florida (29°45′N, 85°15′W), pen shells are the most abundant source of hard substrate, especially inside sea grass (Thalassia testudinum) beds, where they reach densities of 0.1–4.0 m−2. This study, which was conducted from May to August 2005, measured the overlap in species densities between dead pen shells and the surrounding sea grass communities at eight sites to determine the discreteness of the pen shell communities. Of the 70-epibenthic taxa recorded, 66% were found on the pen shells but not in the surrounding sea grass habitat. Community structure, which varied among shells within sites and among the eight sites, could be related to sea grass characteristics such as blade density and length either directly (e.g., inhabitants of pen shells directly benefit from the surrounding sea grass) or indirectly (e.g., pen shells and sea grass both benefit from similar factors such as current and nutrients). Pen shells were randomly distributed at several spatial scales within the 15 × 15 m sites as were many motile species. Two exceptions were the shrimp, Palaemon floridanus and the amphipod, Dulichella appendiculata, whose distributions were clumped. Most of the sessile species had clumped distributions, tending to be very abundant when they were present. These pen shell communities provide an opportunity for experimental studies of factors affecting species diversity on small, discrete, naturally occurring habitats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bousfield EL (1973) Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase JM, Amarasekare P, Cottenie K, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Holyoak M, Hoopes MF, Leibold MA, Loreau M, Mouquet N, Shurin JB, Tilman D (2005) Competing theories for competitive metacommunities. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities. Spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 335–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell HV, Lawton JH (1992) Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. J Anim Ecol 61:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings VJ, Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Turner SJ (1998) The influence of the pinnid bivalve Atrina zelandica (Gray) on benthic macroinvertebrate communities on soft-sediment habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 228:227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt JE, Thrush SF, Legendre P, Cummings VJ, Norkko A (2002) Integrating heterogeneity across spatial scales: interactions between Atrina zelandica and benthic macrofauna. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 239:115–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (2005) Metacommunities. Spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston MA (1999) Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins SR (2005) Larval habitat selection, not larval supply, determines settlement patterns and adult distribution in two chthamalid barnacles. J Anim Ecol 74:893–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keough MJ (1984) Dynamics of the epifauna of the bivalve Pinna bicolor: interactions among recruitment, predation, and competition. Ecology 65:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch EW, Gust G (1999) Water flow in the tide- and wave-dominated beds of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 184:63–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. Addison-Welsey Educational Publishers, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann ML (1996) Indirect effects among species in a Northern Gulf of Mexico seagrass community. PhD Dissertation, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee

  • Mora C, Sale PF (2002) Are populations of coral reef fish open or closed? Trends Ecol Evol 17:422–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munguia P (2004) Successional patterns on pen shell communities at local and regional scales. J Anim Ecol 73:64–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munguia P (2006) Diversity patterns of pen shell (Atrina rigida) communities. PhD Dissertation. Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee

  • Norkko A, Hewitt JE, Thrush SF, Funnell GA (2006) Conditional outcomes of facilitation by a habitat-modifying subtidal bivalve. Ecology 87:226–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson RR (1985) The consequences of short-distance larval dispersal in a sessile marine invertebrate. Ecology 66:30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Allan JD, Butman CA (1996) Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 11:322–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2003) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (1993) Species diversity in ecological communities. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J, Iwasa Y, Baxter C (1985) Demographic theory for an open marine population with space-limited recruitment. Ecology 66:54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shmida A, Wilson MV (1985) Biological determinants of species diversity. J Biogeogr 12:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotka EE, Hay ME (2002) Geographic variation among herbivore populations in tolerance for a chemically rich seaweed. Ecology 83:2721–2735

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava DS, Kolasa J, Bengtsson J, Gonzalez A, Lawler SP, Miller T, Munguia P, Schneider D, Trzcinski MK (2004) Miniature worlds: are natural microcosms the new model systems for ecology? Trends Ecol Evol 19:379–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick RM, McEvoy AJ, Thrush SF (1997) The influence of Atrina zelandica Gray on meiobenthic nematode diversity and community structure. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 214:231–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe SH, Reidenauer JA, Means DB (1988) An ecological characterization of the Florida panhandle. US Fish Wildl Service Biol Report 88:277

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the indefatigable pen shell crew of ‘05, C. Stokes, B. Ehrmann, and A. Schweikart. C. terHorst provided assistance in the field and in the drawing room. D. Levitan and T. Miller provided insightful comments and support in the development of this study. B. Inouye and J. Wulff helped figure out statistical and ecological problems that kept surfacing from time to time. R. Karlson gave useful feedback to the final draft. I borrowed the invertebrate sweeping technique from E. Duffy, to whom I am grateful. The manuscript benefited from the comments and suggestions of three reviewers. I would like to give special thanks to J. Huffman, R. Ogles, M. Steele, and all the staff of the St. Joe Bay Buffer Preserve and Cape San Blas State Park. The research was partially supported by a Gramling Research Award, FSU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Munguia.

Additional information

Communicated by J.P. Grassle.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

227_2007_670_MOESM1_ESM.doc

APPENDIX 1. Species list of pen shell inhabitants ranked by abundance and ordered by (A)motile and (B) sessile species. Average pen shell abundance (% cover for sessile species) with standard deviations in parentheses. (DOC 53 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Munguia, P. Spatial structure of communities on dead pen shells (Atrina rigida) in sea grass beds . Mar Biol 152, 149–156 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0670-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0670-8

Keywords

Navigation