Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Revisiting the meiofauna paradox: dispersal and colonization of nematodes and other meiofaunal organisms in low- and high-energy environments

  • Primary research paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How do small, benthic meiofaunal organisms become cosmopolitan over large geographic ranges? Abiotic forces including oceanic currents are believed to be of key importance in aiding marine meiofaunal dispersal. We investigated the effect of distance from substrate and site exposure on meiofaunal colonization and transport in the water column. First, we tested how distance from substrate and sediment grain size affected colonization of azoic sediments by meiofauna in a sheltered inlet. Nematodes, crustacean nauplii and small amphipods colonized distant sediment cages (3 m above bottom) as quickly and abundantly as cages closer to the ocean floor. Some of the 30 recorded genera of nematodes predominated in one height treatment whereas abundance of others was not related to distance from the substrate. Polychaetes and harpacticoid copepods colonized near-benthic cages more rapidly and abundantly than those farther away suggesting active dispersal. Nematodes, harpacticoids and polychaetes were more abundant in fine than in coarse sediments, while nauplii and amphipods did not differ in abundance between sediment types. In part two of this study, we surveyed occurrence of meiofauna in the water column at several sheltered and exposed sites using plankton nets towed at fixed distances from 0.5 to 6.5 m above the ocean floor. Because oceanic currents increase sediment suspension and transport, we expected to see more meiofauna in samples collected from exposed than from sheltered sites. However, with the exception of polychaetes, which were more abundant in the water column of sheltered sites, there was no difference in meiofaunal abundances between the two exposure classes. Meiofauna, including the 14 identified nematode genera, were collected in greatest numbers nearer to the ocean floor and dwindled further up in the water column. The presence of meiofauna high in the water column of even the most sheltered sites combined with the quick and abundant colonization of distant, sheltered sediment cages suggests that even very weak currents are sufficient to suspend and transport these animals or that many meiofaunal taxa are capable of active dispersal into the water column.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarnio, K. & E. Bonsdorff, 1992. Colonization rates and community structure of benthic meiofauna in shallow Baltic archipelago waters. Aqua Fennica 22: 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alldredge, A. L. & J. M. King, 1980. Effects of moonlight on the vertical migration patterns of demersal zooplankton. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 44: 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alldredge, A. L. & J. M. King, 1985. The distance demersal zooplankton migrate above the benthos: implications for predation. Marine Biology 84: 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alongi, D. M., D. F. Boesch & R. J. Diaz, 1983. Colonization of meiobenthos in oil-contaminated subtidal sands in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 72: 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armonies, W., 1988. Hydrodynamic factors affecting behaviour of intertidal meiobenthos. Ophelia 28: 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. S., G. R. F. Hicks & K. Walters, 1988. Active swimming in meiobenthic copepods of seagrass beds: geographic comparisons of abundances and reproductive characteristics. Marine Biology 98: 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen, R. D., 1998. Active and passive settling by marine benthic nematodes. Dissertations and Abstracts International B Science and Engineering 58: 3425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhadury, P., M. C. Austen, D. T. Bilton, P. J. D. Lambhead, A. D. Rogers & G. R. Smerdon, 2008. Evaluation of combined morphological and molecular techniques for marine nematode (Terschellingia spp.) identification. Marine Biology 154: 509–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaud, M., 1990. Settlement conditions of Eupolymnia nebulosa larvae. Experimental results and observations in the field: the usefulness of comparison. Interaction in benthic recruitment between hydrodynamics of water mass and behaviour of larvae. Oceanis 16: 181–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonsdorff, E., 1992. Drifting algae and zoobenthos—effects on settling and community structure. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 30: 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butman, C. A., 1987. Larval settlement of soft-sediment invertebrates: the spatial scales of pattern explained by active habitat selection and the emerging role of hydrodynamical processes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 25: 113–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Challis, D. A., 1969. An interstitial fauna transect of a Solomon Island sandy beach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 255: 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. T. & J. W. Fleeger, 1983. Meiofaunal colonization of azoic estuarine sediment in Louisiana: mechanisms of dispersal. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 69: 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coomans, A., 2000. Nematode systematics: past, present and future. Nematology 2: 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coull, B., 1970. Shallow water meiobenthos of the Bermuda Platform. Oecologia (Berlin) 4: 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePatra, K. D. & L. A. Levin, 1989. Evidence of the passive deposition of meiofauna into fiddler crab burrows. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 125: 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derycke, S., R. VanVynckt, J. Vonoverbeke, M. Vincx & T. Moens, 2007. Colonization patterns of Nematoda on decomposing algae in the estuarine environment: community assembly and energetic structure of the dominant species Pellioditis marina. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 992–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derycke, S., T. Remerie, T. Backeljau, A. Vierstraete, J. Vanfleteren, M. Vincx & T. Moens, 2008. Phylogeography of the Rhabditis (Pelliododitis) marina species complex: evidence for long-distance dispersal, and for range expansions and restricted gene flow in the northeast Atlantic. Molecular Ecology 17: 3306–3322.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fegley, S. R., 1985. Experimental studies on the erosion of meiofauna from soft-substrates by currents and waves. Dissertation Abstracts International B Sciences and Engineering 46: 174.

  • Fenchel, T. & B. Finlay, 2004. The ubiquity of small species: patterns of local and global diversity. Bioscience 54: 777–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeger, J. W., G. T. Chandler, G. R. Fitzhugh & F. E. Phillips, 1984. Effects of tidal currents on meiofauna densities in vegetated salt marsh sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series 19: 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca-Genevois, V., P. J. Somerfield, M. H. B. Neves, R. Coutinho & T. Moens, 2006. Colonization and early succession on artificial hard substrata by meiofauna. Marine Biology 148: 1039–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, S. A., 1977. Means of meiofauna dispersal. Mikrofauna Meeresboden 61: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, O., 1993. Meiobenthology, the Microscopic Fauna in Aquatic Sediments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobin, J. F. & R. M. Warwick, 2006. Geographical variation in species diversity: a comparison of marine polychaetes and nematodes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330: 234–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerman, G. H. & R. M. Rieger, 1981. Dispersal of benthic meiofauna by wave and current action in Bogue Sound, North Carolina, USA. P.S.Z.N.I.: Marine Ecology 2: 245–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heip, C., M. Vincx & G. Vranken, 1985. The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 23: 399–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurdziel, J. P. & S. S. Bell, 1992. Emergence and dispersal of phytal-dwelling meiobenthic copepods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 163: 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mott, J. B. & A. D. Harrison, 1983. Nematodes from river drift and surface drinking water supplies in southern Ontario. Hydrobiologia 102: 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ólafsson, E., 2003. Do macrofauna structure meiofauna assemblages in marine soft bottoms? Vie Milieu 53: 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ólafsson, E. & C. G. Moore, 1990. Control of meiobenthic abundance by macroepifauna in a subtidal muddy habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 65: 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ólafsson, E. & C. G. Moore, 1992. Effects of macroepifauna on developing nematode and harpacticoid assemblages in a subtidal muddy habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 84: 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A., 1988. Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implication for recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M. A. & G. Gust, 1985. Dispersal of meiofauna in a turbulent tidal creek. Journal of Marine Research 43: 179–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, H. M. & R. M. Warwick, 1980. The significance of freeliving nematodes to the littoral ecosystem. In Price, J. H., D. E. G. Irvine & W. F. Farnham (eds), The Shore Environment. 2: Ecosystems. Academic Press, London, UK: 729–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, S. P., 1998. Recruitment of soft-bottom benthos (benthic invertebrates, encrusting community, infaunal community). Dissertation Abstracts International B Sciences and Engineering 58: 5760.

  • Qian, P., 1999. Larval settlement of polychaetes. Hydrobiologia 402: 239–253.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savidge, W. B. & G. L. Taghon, 1988. Passive and active components following two types of disturbance on an intertidal sandflat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 115: 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seinhorst, J. W., 1959. A rapid method for the transfer of nematodes from fixative to anhydrous glycerin. Nematologica 4: 67–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, A. L. & K. Walters, 1997. Holoplankton, meroplankton and meiofauna associated with marine snow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 156: 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, J. & J. M. Webster, 1983. The abundance and distribution of free-living nematodes from two Canadian beaches. Estuarine and Coast Shelf Science 16: 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, K. M., J. A. Reidenauer, D. Thistle & D. Meeter, 1983. Role of natural disturbance in an assemblage of marine free-living nematodes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 11: 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibert, J. R., 1981. Intertidal hyperbenthic populations in the Nanaimo Estuary. Marine Biology 64: 259–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelgrove, P., 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats. BioScience 49: 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterrer, W., 1973. Plate tectonics as a mechanism for dispersal and speciation in interstitial sand fauna. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 7: 200–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, M., K. Vopel & D. Thistle, 2004. The timing of benthic copepod emergence. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 884–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thistle, D., 1980. The response of a harpacticoid copepod community to a small scale natural disturbance. Journal of Marine Research 38: 381–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tselepides, A. & N. Lampadariou, 2004. Deep-sea meiofaunal community structure in the Eastern Mediterranean: are trenches benthic hotspots? Deep-Sea Research 51: 833–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullberg, J. & E. Ólafsson, 2003a. Effects of biological disturbance by Monoporeia affinis (Amphipoda) on small-scale migration of marine nematodes in low-energy soft sediments. Marine Biology 143: 867–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullberg, J. & E. Ólafsson, 2003b. Free-living marine nematodes actively choose habitat when descending from the water column. Marine Ecology Progress Series 260: 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veit-Köhler, G., 2005. Influence of biotic and abiotic sediment factors on abundance and biomass of harpacticoid copepods in a shallow Antarctic bay. Information Technology Science Marine 69(Suppl. 2): 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriser, B., 1998. Meiofaunal recolonization of defaunated sediments: a field experiment; preliminary results. Periodicum Biologorum 100: 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, K. & S. S. Bell, 1986. Diel patterns of active vertical migration in seagrass meiofauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 34: 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, K. & S. S. Bell, 1994. Significance of copepod emergence of benthic, pelagic and phytal linkages in a subtidal seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 108: 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, R. M., H. M. Platt & P. J. Somerfield, 1998. Freeliving marine nematodes. Part III. Monhysterids. In Barnes, R. S. K. & J. H. Crothers (eds), Synopses of the British Fauna No. 53. Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury.

  • Widbom, B., 1983. Colonization of azoic sediment by sublittoral meiofauna in Gullmar Fjord—Swedish West Coast. Oceanologica Acta Volume Spécial: 213–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieser, W., 1954. Free-living marine nematodes III. Axonolaimidea and Monhysteridea. Reports of the Lund University Chile Expedition 1948-49. Acta Universitatis Lundensis (N.F.2) 52: 1–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigley, R. & A. D. McIntyre, 1964. Some quantitative comparisons of offshore meiobenthos and macrobenthos south of Martha’s Vineyard. Limnology and Oceanography 9: 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. R. Palmer (University of Alberta: Biological Science) for his advice on experimental design, helpful editorial comments and financial support. We are also indebted to the facilities, staff and volunteers of the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre. Thanks are especially given to the scientific diving team that volunteered their time and advice throughout this study: T. Bird, K. Pawluk, S. Jefferies and J. Provencher. This research was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grants A7245 to A. R. Palmer and 261485-03 to H. C. P. as well as Alberta Ingenuity Fund support to M. B. The experiments undertaken in this study comply with Canadian law.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Boeckner.

Additional information

Handling editor: S. I. Dodson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boeckner, M.J., Sharma, J. & Proctor, H.C. Revisiting the meiofauna paradox: dispersal and colonization of nematodes and other meiofaunal organisms in low- and high-energy environments. Hydrobiologia 624, 91–106 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9669-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9669-5

Keywords

Navigation