Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 624, Issue 1, pp 91–106 | Cite as

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

  • Matthew J. Boeckner
  • Jyotsna Sharma
  • H. C. Proctor
Primary research paper

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.

Keywords

Meiofauna Nematodes Copepods Colonization Paradox Dispersal 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alldredge, A. L. & J. M. King, 1985. The distance demersal zooplankton migrate above the benthos: implications for predation. Marine Biology 84: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armonies, W., 1988. Hydrodynamic factors affecting behaviour of intertidal meiobenthos. Ophelia 28: 183–193.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertelsen, R. D., 1998. Active and passive settling by marine benthic nematodes. Dissertations and Abstracts International B Science and Engineering 58: 3425.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bonsdorff, E., 1992. Drifting algae and zoobenthos—effects on settling and community structure. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 30: 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coomans, A., 2000. Nematode systematics: past, present and future. Nematology 2: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coull, B., 1970. Shallow water meiobenthos of the Bermuda Platform. Oecologia (Berlin) 4: 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Fenchel, T. & B. Finlay, 2004. The ubiquity of small species: patterns of local and global diversity. Bioscience 54: 777–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerlach, S. A., 1977. Means of meiofauna dispersal. Mikrofauna Meeresboden 61: 89–103.Google Scholar
  24. Giere, O., 1993. Meiobenthology, the Microscopic Fauna in Aquatic Sediments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Heip, C., M. Vincx & G. Vranken, 1985. The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 23: 399–489.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mott, J. B. & A. D. Harrison, 1983. Nematodes from river drift and surface drinking water supplies in southern Ontario. Hydrobiologia 102: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ólafsson, E., 2003. Do macrofauna structure meiofauna assemblages in marine soft bottoms? Vie Milieu 53: 249–265.Google Scholar
  31. Ólafsson, E. & C. G. Moore, 1990. Control of meiobenthic abundance by macroepifauna in a subtidal muddy habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series 65: 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmer, M. A. & G. Gust, 1985. Dispersal of meiofauna in a turbulent tidal creek. Journal of Marine Research 43: 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Powers, S. P., 1998. Recruitment of soft-bottom benthos (benthic invertebrates, encrusting community, infaunal community). Dissertation Abstracts International B Sciences and Engineering 58: 5760.Google Scholar
  37. Qian, P., 1999. Larval settlement of polychaetes. Hydrobiologia 402: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seinhorst, J. W., 1959. A rapid method for the transfer of nematodes from fixative to anhydrous glycerin. Nematologica 4: 67–69.Google Scholar
  40. Shanks, A. L. & K. Walters, 1997. Holoplankton, meroplankton and meiofauna associated with marine snow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 156: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sibert, J. R., 1981. Intertidal hyperbenthic populations in the Nanaimo Estuary. Marine Biology 64: 259–265.Google Scholar
  44. Snelgrove, P., 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats. BioScience 49: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sterrer, W., 1973. Plate tectonics as a mechanism for dispersal and speciation in interstitial sand fauna. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 7: 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teasdale, M., K. Vopel & D. Thistle, 2004. The timing of benthic copepod emergence. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 884–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Tselepides, A. & N. Lampadariou, 2004. Deep-sea meiofaunal community structure in the Eastern Mediterranean: are trenches benthic hotspots? Deep-Sea Research 51: 833–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Vriser, B., 1998. Meiofaunal recolonization of defaunated sediments: a field experiment; preliminary results. Periodicum Biologorum 100: 63–69.Google Scholar
  53. Walters, K. & S. S. Bell, 1986. Diel patterns of active vertical migration in seagrass meiofauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 34: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Widbom, B., 1983. Colonization of azoic sediment by sublittoral meiofauna in Gullmar Fjord—Swedish West Coast. Oceanologica Acta Volume Spécial: 213–217.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Boeckner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jyotsna Sharma
    • 3
  • H. C. Proctor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Bamfield Marine Sciences CentreBamfieldCanada
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations