, Volume 658, Issue 1, pp 329–341 | Cite as

Bryozoan assemblages on hard substrata: species abundance distribution and competition for space

Primary research paper


Bryozoans are colonial invertebrates that often dominate epibenthic assemblages on the lower surfaces of hard substrata. Competition among neighbouring organisms is usually a critical process regulating biodiversity, and hard substrata have proved to be a suitable model habitat to analyse spatial interactions. We explored the relationships among abundance, species richness, diversity, competitive ability, coverage, available surface, depth and substratum size in an assemblage of bryozoans encrusting pebbles and cobbles in a bank off the eastern mouth of the Strait of Magellan. We also tested whether overgrowth competition can be regarded as hierarchical, and whether the species abundance distribution shows a mode of rare species and a decreasing frequency of increasingly abundant species. Abundance, species richness, diversity and overgrowth competition were highest on the largest substrata. Smaller pebbles tended to be encrusted by the commonest bryozoans, while the rarest species were mainly found on relatively larger clasts. A high proportion of the lower surfaces of most substrata was available for growth. Diversity values of relatively shallow stations were lower than expected under Caswell’s neutral model. Interspecific competition was hierarchical, but the abundance of colonies was not related to the competitive ability of each species. The species abundance distribution was bimodal, with a main mode of rare species and a second one partly composed of relatively abundant bryozoans with poor competitive abilities. This study shows that even in an encrusting assemblage where competition is hierarchical, the weakest competitors persist and the dominant species are far from being capable of monopolizing space.


Overgrowth competition Encrusting bryozoans Species abundance distributions Commonness and rarity of species Hard substrata Strait of Magellan 



Néstor Landoni helped us in various stages of this study. We are grateful to the crew of the PSV Golondrina de Mar for assistance during the field survey and to CONICET for financial support (PIP 2010-2012 No. 11220090100291).


  1. Barnes, D. K. A., 2002. Clade perseverance from Mesozoic to Present: a multidisciplinary approach to interpretation of pattern and process. The Biological Bulletin 203: 161–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, D. K. A., 2006. Temporal-spatial stability of competition in marine boulder fields. Marine Ecology Progress Series 314: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, D. K. A. & R. Arnold, 2001. Competition, sub-lethal mortality and diversity on Southern Ocean coastal rock communities. Polar Biology 24: 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, D. K. A. & A. Clarke, 1998. The ecology of an assemblage dominant: the encrusting bryozoan Fenestrulina rugula. Invertebrate Biology 117: 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, D. K. A. & P. Kuklinski, 2003. High polar spatial competition: extreme hierarchies at extreme latitude. Marine Ecology Progress Series 259: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, D. K. A. & C. Lehane, 2001. Competition, mortality and diversity in South Atlantic coastal boulder communities. Polar Biology 24: 200–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, D. K. A. & P. Rothery, 1996. Competition in encrusting Antarctic bryozoan assemblages: outcomes, influences and implications. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 196: 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes, D. K. A., P. Rothery & A. Clarke, 1996. Colonisation and development in encrusting communities from the Antarctic intertidal and sublittoral. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 196: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, L. W., 1979. Habitat selection, directional growth and spatial refuges: why colonial animals have more hiding places. In Larwood, G. & B. R. Rosen (eds), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Academic Press, London and New York: 459–497.Google Scholar
  10. Buss, L. W., 1980. Competitive intransitivity and size-frequency distributions of interacting populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 77: 5355–5359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Caswell, H., 1976. Community structure: a neutral model analysis. Ecological Monographs 46: 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chave, J., 2004. Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesson, P., 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, J. H., 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dornelas, M. & S. R. Connolly, 2008. Multiple modes in a coral species abundance distribution. Ecology Letters 11: 1008–1016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Glasby, T. M. & S. D. Connell, 2001. Orientation and position of substrata have large effects on epibiotic assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 214: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray, J. S., A. Bjørgesæter & K. I. Ugland, 2005. The impact of rare species on natural assemblages. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 1131–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray, J. S., A. Bjørgesæter & K. I. Ugland, 2006. On plotting species abundance distributions. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 752–756.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Irving, A. D. & S. D. Connell, 2002. Sedimentation and light penetration interact to maintain heterogeneity of subtidal habitats: algal versus invertebrate dominated assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 245: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, J. B. C., 1979a. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. In Larwood, G. & B. R. Rosen (eds), Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Academic Press, London and New York: 499–555.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, J. B. C., 1979b. Overgrowth competition between encrusting cheilostome ectoprocts in a Jamaican cryptic reef environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 48: 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuklinski, P., B. Gulliksen, O. J. Lønne & J. M. Weslawski, 2006. Substratum as a structuring influence on assemblages of Arctic bryozoans. Polar Biology 29: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambshead, P. J. D. & H. M. Platt, 1988. Analysing disturbance with the Ewens/Caswell neutral model: theoretical review and practical assessment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 43: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin, S. A. & R. T. Paine, 1974. Disturbance, patch formation, and community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 71: 2744–2747.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. López Gappa, J., 1989. Overgrowth competition in an assemblage of encrusting bryozoans settled on artificial substrata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 51: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. López Gappa, J. & N. A. Landoni, 2009. Space utilisation patterns of bryozoans on the Patagonian scallop Psychrochlamys patagonica. Scientia Marina 73: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magurran, A. E. & P. A. Henderson, 2003. Explaining the excess of rare species in natural species abundance distributions. Nature 422: 714–716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Maughan, B. C., 2001. The effect of sedimentation and light on recruitment and development of a temperate, subtidal, epifaunal community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 256: 59–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Maughan, B. C. & D. K. A. Barnes, 2000. Epilithic boulder communities of Lough Hyne, Ireland: the influences of water movement and sediment. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80: 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGill, B. J., 2003. Does Mother Nature really prefer rare species or are log-left-skewed SADs a sampling artefact? Ecology Letters 6: 766–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGill, B. J., R. S. Etienne, J. S. Gray, D. Alonso, M. J. Anderson, H. K. Benecha, M. Dornelas, B. J. Enquist, J. L. Green, F. He, A. H. Hurlbert, A. E. Magurran, P. A. Marquet, B. A. Maurer, A. Ostling, C. U. Soykan, K. I. Ugland & E. P. White, 2007. Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecology Letters 10: 995–1015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McGuinness, K. A., 1987a. Disturbance and organisms on boulders I. Patterns in the environment and the community. Oecologia 71: 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuinness, K. A., 1987b. Disturbance and organisms on boulders II. Causes of patterns in diversity and abundance. Oecologia 71: 420–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKinney, F. K., 1993. A faster-paced world?: contrasts in biovolume and life-process rates in cyclostome (Class Stenolaemata) and cheilostome (Class Gymnolaemata) bryozoans. Paleobiology 19: 335–351.Google Scholar
  36. Medeiros, C. & B. Kjerfve, 1988. Tidal characteristics of the Strait of Magellan. Continental Shelf Research 8: 947–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michelato, A., E. Accerboni & P. Berger, 1991. Current meter observations in the eastern and central sectors of the Strait of Magellan. Bollettino di Oceanologia Teorica ed Applicata 9: 261–271.Google Scholar
  38. Okamura, B., J. G. Harmelin & J. B. C. Jackson, 2001. Refuges revisited. Enemies versus flow and feeding as determinants of sessile animal distribution and form. In Jackson, J. B. C., S. Lidgard & F. K. McKinney (eds), Evolutionary Patterns. Growth, Form and Tempo in the Fossil Record. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 61–93.Google Scholar
  39. Paine, R. T., 1984. Ecological determinism in the competition for space. Ecology 65: 1339–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Platt, H. M. & P. J. D. Lambshead, 1985. Neutral model analysis of patterns of marine benthic species diversity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 24: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Preston, F. W., 1948. The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology 29: 254–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokal, R. R. & F. J. Rohlf, 1981. Biometry, 2nd edn. WH Freeman & Co, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Sousa, W. P., 1979a. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the nonequilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology 60: 1225–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sousa, W. P., 1979b. Experimental investigations of disturbance and ecological succession in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecological Monographs 49: 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sousa, W. P., 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 353–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stark, J. S., 2008. Patterns of higher taxon colonisation and development in sessile marine benthic assemblages at Casey Station, Antarctica, and their use in environmental monitoring. Marine Ecology Progress Series 365: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stebbing, A. R. D., 1973a. Competition for space between the epiphytes of Fucus serratus L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 53: 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stebbing, A. R. D., 1973b. Observations on colony overgrowth and spatial competition. In Larwood, G. P. (ed.), Living and Fossil Bryozoa. Recent Advances in Research. Academic Press, London and New York: 173–183.Google Scholar
  49. Tanaka, M. & K. Nandakumar, 1994. Measurement of the degree of intransitivity in a community of sessile organisms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 182: 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor, P. D. & M. A. Wilson, 2003. Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Science Reviews 62: 1–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilman, D., 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75: 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turner, S. J. & C. D. Todd, 1994. Competition for space in encrusting bryozoan assemblages: the influence of encounter angle, site and year. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 74: 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wahl, M. & O. Mark, 1999. The predominantly facultative nature of epibiosis: experimental and observational evidence. Marine Ecology Progress Series 187: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museo Argentino de Ciencias NaturalesBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations