Marine Biology

, 165:35 | Cite as

Hidden in plain sight: species richness and habitat characterisation of sublittoral pebble beds

  • Julian Evans
  • Martin J. Attrill
  • Joseph A. Borg
  • Peter A. Cotton
  • Patrick J. Schembri
Original paper

Abstract

Sublittoral pebble beds are generally considered to be impoverished, but the physical and biological characteristics of these habitats are poorly known. We characterised nineteen pebble bed sites in the Maltese Islands, providing detailed habitat data for Mediterranean sublittoral pebble beds for the first time. Nearly 40,000 individuals belonging to 332 taxa were recorded in all, with total richness estimated to reach 440 taxa; molluscs, crustaceans and polychaetes were the most diverse faunal groups. This high diversity is likely due to the structural complexity of the pebble beds, which had a vertically stratified arrangement of sediment particles that is likely maintained through periodic physical disturbance. Variation in the biotic assemblage from site to site was correlated with changes in the quantity of sand and silt, with the area of the pebble bed, with water depth, and with the thickness of the pebble layer. This indicates that pebble-bed macrofaunal assemblages are sensitive to changes in hydrodynamic conditions and sediment loading, to alterations to the stratification of the pebble beds, and to fragmentation of the habitat patches. These results contradict assertions that sublittoral pebble beds are impoverished, instead showing that they can be highly diverse habitats supporting biotic assemblages that respond to a complex set of environmental variables. The present findings enable better understanding of the ecological importance of pebble beds and of the potential impacts of anthropogenic disturbance, enabling more informed decisions for habitat conservation and management.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to K. Liversage and an anonymous referee for their comments on a previous version of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

The present work was partly funded by the European Union-European Social Fund through a Strategic Educational Pathways Scholarship (Malta) Grant awarded to JE.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Anderson MJ (2008) Animal-sediment relationships re-visited: characterising species’ distributions along an environmental gradient using canonical analysis and quantile regression splines. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  3. Axiak V (2004) National action plan for Malta for the reduction and elimination of land based pollution. National diagnostic analysis for Malta. Unpublished Report, Malta; document submitted to the United Nations Environment Programme, Coordinating Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan, through the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  4. Balazy P, Kuklinski P (2013) Mobile hard substrata—an additional biodiversity source in a high latitude shallow subtidal system. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 119:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balazy P, Kuklinski P (2017) Arctic field experiment shows differences in epifaunal assemblages between natural and artificial substrates of different heterogeneity and origin. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 486:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bale AJ, Kenny AJ (2005) Sediment analysis and seabed characterisation. In: Eleftheriou A, McIntyre A (eds) Methods for the study of marine benthos, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellan-Santini D, Lacaze JC, Poizat C (1994) Les biocenoses marines et littorales de la Méditerranée, synthèse, menaces et perspectives. Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellan-Santini D, Bellan G, Bitar G, Harmelin JG, Pergent G (2002) Handbook for interpreting types of marine habitat for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPAGoogle Scholar
  9. Blott SJ, Pye K (2001) GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surf Process Landf 26:1237–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blott SJ, Pye K (2008) Particle shape: a review and new methods of characterisation and classification. Sedimentology 55:31–63Google Scholar
  11. Boero F (2010) The study of species in the era of biodiversity: a tale of stupidity. Diversity 2:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borg JA, Attrill MJ, Rowden AA, Schembri PJ, Jones MB (2002) A quantitative technique for sampling motile macroinvertebrates in beds of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile. Sci Mar 66:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borg JA, Rowden AA, Attrill MJ, Schembri PJ, Jones MB (2010) Spatial variation in the composition of motile macroinvertebrate assemblages associated with two bed types of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Mar Eco Prog Ser 406:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castelli A, Lardicci C, Tagliapietra D (2003) Il macrobenthos di fondo molle. In: Gambi MC, Dappiano M (eds) Manuale di metodologie di campionamento e studio del benthos marino Mediterraneo. Biologia Marina Mediterranea, vol 10 (suppl), pp 109–144Google Scholar
  15. Chao A (1984) Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat 11:265–270Google Scholar
  16. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1998) Quantifying structural redundancy in ecological communities. Oecologia 113:278–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 216:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connor DW, Allen JH, Golding N, Howell KL, Lieberknecht LM, Northen KO, Reker JB (2004) The marine habitat classification for Britain and Ireland, version 04.05. JNCC, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  21. Costello MJ, Coll M, Danovaro R, Halpin P, Ojaveer H, Miloslavich P (2010) A census of marine biodiversity knowledge, resources, and future challenges. PLoS One 5(8):e12110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis AN, Wilce RT (1987a) Algal diversity in relation to physical disturbance: a mosaic of successional stages in a subtidal cobble habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 37:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis AN, Wilce RT (1987b) Floristics, phenology, and ecology of the sublittoral marine algae in an unstable cobble habitat (Plum Cove, Cape Ann, Massachusetts, USA). Phycologia 26:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dethier MN, Graham ES, Cohen S, Tear LM (1993) Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: ‘objective’ is not always better. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 96:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. E.C. (2009) CIS Guidance document No. 19: Guidance on surface water chemical monitoring under the water framework directive. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans J, Schembri PJ (2014) The resurrection of Gibbula nivosa (Gastropoda: Trochidae). Rapp Comm Int Mer Medit 40:653Google Scholar
  27. Evans J, Borg JA, Schembri PJ (2010) Rediscovery of live Gibbula nivosa (Gastropoda: Trochidae). Rapp Comm Int Mer Medit 39:507Google Scholar
  28. Evans J, Borg JA, Schembri PJ (2011) Distribution, habitat preferences and behaviour of the critically endangered Maltese top-shell Gibbula nivosa (Gastropoda: Trochidae). Mar Biol 158:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foggo A, Attrill MJ, Frost MT, Rowden AA (2003) Estimating marine species richness: an evaluation of six extrapolative techniques. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 248:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foveau A, Dauvin J-C (2017) Surprisingly diversified macrofauna in mobile gravels and pebbles from high-energy hydrodynamic environment of the ‘Raz Blanchard’ (English Channel). Reg Stud Mar Sci 16:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. George JD, Chimonides PJ, Evans NJ, Muir AI (1995) Fluctuations in the macrobenthos of a shallow water cobble habitat off North Norfolk, England. In: Eleftheriou E, Ansell AD, Smith CJ (eds) Proceedings of the 28th European marine biology symposium. Biology and ecology of shallow coastal waters. Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg (Denmark)Google Scholar
  32. Graham AA, McCaughan DJ, McKee FS (1988) Measurement of surface area of stones. Hydrobiologia 157:85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost L (2010) The relation between evenness and diversity. Diversity 2:207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Lieberman M, John DM, Lieberman D (1979) Ecology of subtidal algae on seasonally devastated cobble substrates off Ghana. Ecology 60:1151–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lieberman M, John DM, Lieberman D (1984) Factors influencing algal species assemblages on reef and cobble substrata of Ghana. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 75:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Linnane A, Ball B, Mercer JP, Browne R, van der Meeren G, Ringvold H, Bannister C, Mazzoni D, Munday B (2001) Searching for the early benthic phase (EBP) of the European lobster: a trans-European study of cobble fauna. Hydrobiologia 465:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linnane A, Ball B, Munday B, Browne R, Mercer JP (2003) Faunal description of an Irish cobble site using airlift suction sampling. Biol Environ 103B:41–48Google Scholar
  39. Little C (2000) The biology of soft shores and estuaries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Liversage K, Cole V, Coleman R, McQuaid C (2017) Availability of microhabitats explains a widespread pattern and informs theory on ecological engineering of boulder reefs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 489:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  42. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osman RW (1977) The establishment and development of a marine epifaunal community. Ecol Monogr 47(1):37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker G, Klingeman PC (1982) On why gravel bed streams are paved. Water Resour Res 18:1409–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Relini G, Giaccone G (2009) Priority habitats according to the SPA/BIO protocol (Barcelona Convention) present in Italy. Identification sheets. Biol Mar Mediterr 16(S1):1–367Google Scholar
  46. Ricklefs RE, Lovette IJ (1999) The roles of island area per se and habitat diversity in the species-area relationships of four Lesser Antillean faunal groups. J Anim Ecol 68:1142–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riley NA (1941) Projection sphericity. J Sediment Petrol 11:94–97Google Scholar
  48. Ringvold H, Grytnes J-A, Van der Meeren GI (2015) Diver-operated suction sampling in Norwegian cobble grounds: technique and associated fauna. Crustaceana 88(2):184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson M, Tully O (2000a) Spatial variability in decapod community structure and recruitment in sub-tidal habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robinson M, Tully O (2000b) Seasonal variation in community structure and recruitment of benthic decapods in a sub-tidal cobble habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scheibling RE, Raymond BG (1990) Community dynamics on a subtidal cobble bed following mass mortalities of sea urchins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 63:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scheibling RE, Kelly NE, Raymond BG (2009a) Physical disturbance and community organization on a subtidal cobble bed. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 368:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scheibling RE, Kelly NE, Raymond BG (2009b) Herbivory and community organization on a subtidal cobble bed. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 382:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sciberras M, Rizzo M, Mifsud JR, Camilleri K, Borg JA, Lanfranco E, Schembri PJ (2006) Habitat structure and biological characteristics of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (central Mediterranean). Mar Biodivers 39:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Somerfield PJ, Clarke KR, Warwick RM, Dulvy NK (2008) Average functional distinctness as a measure of the composition of assemblages. ICES J Mar Sci 65:1462–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Underwood AJ, Chapman MG, Connell SD (2000) Observations in ecology: you can’t make progress on processes without understanding the patterns. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2006a) Reference list of marine habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPAGoogle Scholar
  59. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2006b) Classification of benthic marine habitat types for the Mediterranean region. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPAGoogle Scholar
  60. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1995) New ‘biodiversity’ measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.Marine Biology and Ecology Research CentrePlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations