Marine Biology

, Volume 153, Issue 4, pp 621–642 | Cite as

Spatial variability of infaunal nematode and polychaete assemblages in two muddy subtidal habitats

  • M. SchratzbergerEmail author
  • T. A. D. Maxwell
  • K. Warr
  • J. R. Ellis
  • S. I. Rogers
Research Article


Spatial variation of populations and their assemblages is an important component of many aspects of ecology, including the maintenance of species diversity. In nature, organisms are generally aggregated in patches or form gradients or other spatially related patterns. This investigation quantified the degree of spatial structure in benthic invertebrate assemblages. It examined the distribution of infaunal assemblages of different size, mobility and contrasting life-history strategies (i.e. meiofaunal nematodes and macrofaunal polychaetes) in two offshore muddy habitats in the Celtic Deep and the NW Irish Sea off the west coast of the United Kingdom. The more heterogeneous habitat in the NW Irish Sea was characterised by higher tidal stress and bottom temperature while greater water depth, mean particle diameter and organic carbon content was typical for the comparatively homogeneous environment in the Celtic Deep. In both habitats, the environmental conditions became increasingly dissimilar with separation. A total of 125 nematode and 88 polychaete species were recorded with 69% of the nematode and 49% of polychaete species present at both study sites. Occurrence frequency of species, species diversity and average similarity of assemblage composition was higher in the Celtic Deep than in the NW Irish Sea. Results from correlation analyses revealed statistically robust relationships of community similarity and sample distance. Given their small size and low mobility, nematodes were more susceptible to within-habitat physical variability than larger-sized, more mobile polychaetes. This, coupled with limits to long-distance dispersal and likely restrictions in gene flow, resulted in a significant decrease in community similarity with distance at the spatial scales sampled (i.e. within 0.1–23 km). Polychaetes, in contrast, combined a higher dispersal potential (>23 km) with a relatively high tolerance to within-habitat environmental variability and these were the most likely causes for non-significant relationships between the similarity of their assemblages and sample distance. The potential mechanisms causing the observed variation and implications of results for environmental management strategies are discussed.


Polychaete Appendix Table Meiofauna Invertebrate Assemblage Polychaete Species 
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.



We thank the scientists, officers and crew of RV “Cefas Endeavour” for practical assistance in the collection of samples. Claire Mason conducted the particle size analyses and Nicola Lauder carried out the trace metal analyses. Robert Brown gave valuable advice on the statistical analysis of the data. This manuscript has greatly benefited from discussions with Richard Warwick and Paul Somerfield and comments from Angus Atkinson and three anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (research project AE1148).

Supplementary material

227_2007_836_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (150 kb)
Supplementary material (PPT 153 kb)
227_2007_836_MOESM2_ESM.ppt (146 kb)
Supplementary material (PPT 149 kb)


  1. Andrássy I (1956) Die Rauminhalts- und Gewichtsbestimmung der Fadenwürmer (Nematoden). Acta Zool 2:1–14Google Scholar
  2. Armonies W (1988) Active emergence of meiofauna from intertidal sediment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armonies W (1994) Drifting meio- and macrobenthic invertebrates on tidal flats in Königshafen: a review. Helgol wiss Meeresunters 48:299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attrill MJ, Depledge MH (1997) Community and population indicators of ecosystem health: targeting links between levels of biological organisation. Aquat Toxicol 38:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaud M, Duchêne J-C (1996) Change from planktonic to benthic development: is life cycle evolution an adaptive answer to the constraints of dispersal? Oceanol Acta 19:335–346Google Scholar
  6. Bilton DT, Paula J, Bishop JDD (2002) Dispersal, genetic differentiation and speciation in estuarine organisms. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 55: 937–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake JA (1991) Revision of some genera and species of Cirratulidae (Polychaeta) from the Western North Atlantic. Ophelia 5(Suppl):17–30Google Scholar
  8. Bone D, Viéitez JM (2002) Spionidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Parque Nacional Morrocoy, Falcón, Venezuela. Rev Biol Trop 50(1):69–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooksa RA, Purdy CN, Bell SS, Sulak KJ (2006) The benthic community of the eastern US continental shelf: a literature synopsis of benthic faunal resources. Cont Shelf Res 26:804–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrows MT, Robb L, Nickell LA, Hughes DJ (2003) Topography as a determinant of search paths of fishes and mobile macrocrustacea on the sediment surface. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 285/286:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway R (2006) Tube worms promote community change. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson HS, Hentschel BT (2006) Estimating the dispersal potential of polychaete species in the Southern California Bight: implications for designing marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 316:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6. User manual. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330:55–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coull BC, Palmer MA (1984) Field experimentation in meiofaunal ecology. Hydrobiologia 118:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Derycke S, Remerie T, Vierstraete A, Backeljau T, Vanfleteren J, Vincx M, Moens T (2005) Mitochondrial DNA variation and cryptic speciation within the free-living marine nematode Pellioditis marina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 309:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyer KR (1986) Coastal and estuarine sediment dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS (1999) Effects of the declaration of marine reserves on Tasmanian reef fishes, invertebrates and plants. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 242:107–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS (2002) Benthic macrofauna in Tasmanian estuaries: scales of distribution and relationships with environmental variables. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 270:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fauchald F, Jumars PA (1979) The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 17:193–284Google Scholar
  22. Findlay SEG (1981) Small-scale spatial distribution of meiofauna on a mud- and sandflat. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 12:471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flather RA, Proctor R, Wolf J (1991) Oceanographic forecast models. In: Farmer DG, Rycroft MJ (eds) Computer modelling in the environmental sciences. IMA conference series 28. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  24. Fleeger JW, Decho A (1987) Spatial variability of interstitial meiofauna: a review. Stygologia 3:35–54Google Scholar
  25. Flint RW, Rabalais NN (1980) Polychaete ecology and niche patterns: Texas continental shelf. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 3:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraschetti S, Terlizzi A, Benedetti-Cecci L (2005a) Patterns of distribution of marine assemblages from rocky shores: evidence of relevant scales of variation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 296:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fraschetti S, Terlizzi A, Bussotti S, Guarnieri G, D’Ambrosio P, Boero F (2005b) Conservation of Mediterranean seascapes: analyses of existing protection schemes. Mar Env Res 59:309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gambi MC, Giangrande A (1986) Distribution of soft bottom polychaetes in two coastal areas of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy): structural analysis. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 23:847–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. García-Charton JA, Pérez-Ruzafa A (1999) Ecological heterogeneity and the evaluation of the effects of marine reserves. Fish Res 42: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giere O (1993) Meiobenthology—the microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall SJ (1994) Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 32:179–239Google Scholar
  32. Hartmann-Schröder (1996) Annelida, Borstenwürmer, Polychaeta, 2nd revised edn. The fauna of Germany and adjacent seas with their characteristics and ecology, vol 58. Gustav Fischer Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayward PJ, Ryland JS (1990) The marine fauna of the British Isles and North–West Europe. Introduction and Protozoans to Arthropods, vol I. Oxford Science Publications, Claredon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Heip C, Vincx M, Vranken G (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 23:399–489Google Scholar
  35. Hensley RT (1996) A preliminary survey of benthos from the Nephrops norvegicus mud grounds in the north-western Irish Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 42:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodda M (1990) Variation in estuarine littoral nematode populations over three spatial scales. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 30:325–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hunter E, Aldridge JN, Metcalfe JD, Arnold GP (2003) Geolocation of free-ranging fish on the European continental shelf as determined from environmental variables. Mar Biol 142:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huston MA (1996) Biological diversity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson MS, Black R (1998) Effects of isolation by distance and geographical discontinuity on genetic subdivision of Littoraria cingulata. Mar Biol 132:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones B, Laslett RE (1994) Methods for analysis of trace metals in marine and other samples. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, LowestoftGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones DS, Suter GW, Hull RN (1997) Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1997 revision. US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaiser MJ, Rogers SI, McCandless DT (1994) Improving quantitative surveys of epibenthic communities using a modified 2 m beam trawl. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 106:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kendall MA, Widdicombe S (1999) Small scale patterns in the structure of macrofaunal assemblages of shallow soft sediments. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 237:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kern JC (1990) Active and passive aspects of meiobenthic copepod dispersal at two sites near Mustang Island, Texas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60: 211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lombard AT, Reyers B, Schonegevel LY, Cooper J, Smith-Adao LB, Nel DC, Froneman PW, Ansorge IJ, Bester MN, Tosh CA, Strauss T, Akkers T, Gon O, Leslie RW, Chown SL (2007) Conserving patterns and processes in the Southern Ocean: designing a marine protected area for the Prince Edward Islands. Antarct Sci 19:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mackie ASY, Parmiter C, Tong LKY (1997) Distribution and diversity of Polychaeta in the Southern Irish Sea. Bull Mar Sci 60:467–481Google Scholar
  47. Morrisey DJ, Howitt L, Underwood AJ, Stark JS (1992) Spatial variation in soft-sediment benthos. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 81:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olabarria C, Chapman MG (2001) Comparison of patterns of spatial variation of microgastropods between two contrasting intertidal habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 220:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palmer MA (1988) Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implications for recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palmer MA, Gust G (1985) Dispersal of meiofauna in a turbulent tidal creek. J Mar Res 43:179–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parapar J, O’ Connor B, Besteiro C, Urgorri V (1994) Abyssoninoe hibernica (McIntosh) (Polychaeta, Lumbrineridae): a valid species from Northeast Atlantic. Sarsia 79:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips FE, Fleeger JW (1985) Meiofauna meso-scale variability in two estuarine habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 21:745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Platt HM, Warwick RM (1983) Free-living marine nematodes. Part I. British enoploids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Platt HM, Warwick RM (1988) Free-living marine nematodes. Part II. British chromadorids. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reiss H (2005) Catch efficiency of a standardized 2 m beam trawl (Epicatch). Report of the ICES Bethos Ecology Working Group 2005, Annex 6, ICES CM 2005/E:07Google Scholar
  57. Rouse GW, Pleijel F (2001) Polychaetes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Schratzberger M, Gee JM, Rees HL, Boyd SE, Wall CM (2000) The structure and taxonomic composition of sublittoral meiofauna assemblages as an indicator of the status of the marine environment. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 80:969–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Service M, Mitchell SH, Oliver WT (1996) Heavy metals in the superficial sediments of the N–W Irish Sea. Mar Poll Bull 32:828–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shanks AL, Grantham BA, Carr MH (2003) Propagule dispersal distance and the size and spacing of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13(Suppl): 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Somerfield PJ, Gage JD (2000) Community structure of the benthos in Scottish Sea-lochs. IV. Multivariate spatial pattern. Mar Biol 136: 1133–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, LowestoftGoogle Scholar
  63. Somerfield PJ, Rees HL, Warwick RM (1995) Interrelationships in community structure between shallow-water marine meiofauna and macrofauna in relation to dredging disposal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127: 103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stobutzki IC (2001) Marine reserves and the complexity of larval dispersal. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:515–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Terlizzi A, Anderson MJ, Fraschetti S, Benedetti-Cecchi B (2007) Scales of spatial variation in Mediterranean subtidal sessile assemblages at different depths. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 332:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Todaro MA, Fleeger JW, Hu YP, Hrincevich AW, Foltz DW (1996) Are meiofaunal species cosmopolitan? Morphological and molecular analysis of Xenotrichula intermedia (Gastrotricha: Chaetonotida). Mar Biol 125:735–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Underwood AJ, Chapman MG (1996) Scales of spatial patterns of distribution of intertidal invertebrates. Oecologia 107:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van der Molen J, Rogers SI, Ellis JR, Fox CJ, McCloghrie P (2007) Dispersal patterns of the eggs and larvae of spring-spawning fish in the Irish Sea, UK. J Sea Res. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2007.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Hoey G, Degraer S, Vincx M (2004) Macrobenthic community structure of soft-bottom sediments at the Belgian continental shelf. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 59:599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Warwick RM, Platt HM, Somerfield PJ (1998) Free-living marine nematodes. Part III. British monhysterids. Field Studies Council, ShrewsburyGoogle Scholar
  71. Wieser W (1953) Die Beziehung zwischen Mundhöhlengestalt, Ernährungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Arkiv Zool 4(26):439–484Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Schratzberger
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. A. D. Maxwell
    • 1
  • K. Warr
    • 1
  • J. R. Ellis
    • 1
  • S. I. Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoft LaboratoryLowestoft, SuffolkUK

Personalised recommendations