Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T01:27:59.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Water Depth, Season, Habitat and Estuary Location on the Macrobenthic Fauna Of a Seasonally Closed Estuary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Margaret E. Platell  and
Ian C. Potter
Margaret E. Platell
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia
Ian C. Potter
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The macrobenthic invertebrates in the shallow (<0·5 m), medium-depth (0·75–1·0 m) and deep (2·0–2·5 m) waters of the lower and upper regions of the large basin of the seasonally closed Wilson Inlet were sampled, using corers, in each season between the winters of 1989 and 1990. The fauna was dominated by capitellid, spionid and nereid polychaetes and mytilid, venerid and tellinid molluscs. Almost 75% of the total numbers were contributed by the polychaetes Heteromastus filiformis (Claparède) (30·2%), Capitella capitata (Fabricius) (17·4%), Prionospio cirrifera (Wirén) (7·9%) and Boccardia chilensis (Blake & Woodwick) (5·4%), and the gastropod Hydrococcus brazieri (Tenison Woods) (12·4%). The numbers of species recorded in Wilson Inlet (41) were relatively very low for an estuary. This presumably reflects (i) the low salinities, which would restrict colonization by stenohaline marine species, (ii) the prevention of recruitment from the sea by the closure of the estuary mouth during the summer, at which time many macrobenthic species are producing pelagic larvae, (iii) the very limited tidal movements, and thus mechanisms for transporting larvae from the sea, when the estuary mouth is open, and (iv) the lack of a pronounced salinity gradient and the small variation in sediment composition along the estuary. Characteristics (ii–iv), together with the dispersal of pelagic larvae within the basin by wind mixing, would also account for the fact that faunal composition was influenced less by the region within the basin than by water depth. The densities of species, such as Ceratonereis aequisetis (Augener), Capitella capitata and H. brazieri, were greater in the shallow and medium depths than in deeper water, while the reverse pertained with P. cirrifera. Since densities of the first three species are correlated with the biomass of Ruppia megacarpa Mason, the greater amounts of this aquatic macrophyte in the shallow and medium-depth waters may thereby provide more food and/or protection from predators in those waters than would be the case in deep water. In contrast, P. cirrifera, which is a detritivore, would benefit from the greater proportion of particulate organic material in the deep waters. The greater habitat complexity in the shallow and medium-depths, that is provided by the greater amounts of R. megacarpa and shell debris in those waters, was associated with a greater species richness, diversity, density and biomass of benthic invertebrates. The composition of the fauna underwent cyclical changes, which were related, in part, to the patterns of recruitment of certain major taxa following spawning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belbin, L., 1988. PATN. Pattern analysis package. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.B., 1984. Sediment analysis. In Methods for the study of marine benthos (ed. N.A., Holme and A.D., Mclntyre), pp. 41–65. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Castel, J., Labourg, P.-J., Escaravage, V., Auby, I. & Garcia, M.E., 1989. Influence of seagrass beds and oyster parks on the abundance and biomass patterns of meio- and macrobenthos in tidal flats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 28, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M., 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretations. Plymouth Marine Laboratory.Google Scholar
Dauer, D.M., Tourtellotte, G.H. & Ewing, R.M., 1982. Oyster shells and artificial worm tubes: the role of refuges in structuring benthic communities of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 67, 661–677.Google Scholar
Day, R.W. & Quinn, G.P., 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecological Monographs, 59, 433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, H.P. de & Bally, R., 1985. The benthic macrofauna of the Bot River Estuary, South Africa, with a note on its meiofauna. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 45, 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauchald, K. & Jumars, P.A., 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 17, 193–284.Google Scholar
Gaston, G.R., Lee, D.L. & Nasci, J.C., 1988. Estuarine macrobenthos in Calcasieu Lake, Louisiana: community and trophic structure. Estuaries, 11, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaughan, D.J. & Potter, I.C., 1995. Composition, distribution and seasonal abundance of zooplankton in a shallow, seasonally closed estuary in temperate Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 41, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, E.P. & Clark, R., 1988a. Nornalup and Walpole Inlets: the estuaries of the Deep and Frankland Rivers. Perth, Western Australia: Environmental Protection Authority.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, E.P. & Clark, R., 1988b. Wilson, Irwin and Parry Inlet: the estuaries of the Denmark Shire. Perth, Western Australia: Environmental Protection Authority.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, E.P. & Hamilton, B.H., 1993. Fertilizers and eutrophication in southwestern Australia: setting the scene. Fertilizer Research, 36, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, E.P. & Lenanton, R.C., 1981. Estuaries and coastal lagoons of south western Australia. In Estuaries and nutrients (ed. B.J., Neilson and L.E., Cronin), pp. 307–321. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, E.P. & Lollo, V. Di, 1956. The tides of south-western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 41, 42–54.Google Scholar
Holland, A.F., Shaughnessy, A.T. & Hiegel, M.H., 1987. Long-term variation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay macrobenthos: spatial and temporal patterns. Estuaries, 10, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, P. & Potter, I.C., 1993. Relationship between the habitat and diet of three species of atherinids and three species of gobies in a temperate Australian estuary. Marine Biology, 116, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, P., 1984. An illustrated guide to the estuarine polychaete worms of New South Wales. Sydney: Australian Museum.Google Scholar
Jones, A.R., Watson-Russell, C.J. & Murray, A., 1986. Spatial patterns in the macrobenthic communities of the Hawkesbury estuary, New South Wales. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 37, 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junoy, J. & Vieitez, J.M., 1990. Macrozoobenthic community structure in the Ria de Foz, an intertidal estuary (Galicia, northwest Spain). Marine Biology, 107, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalejta, B. & Hockey, P.A.R., 1991. Distribution, abundance and productivity of benthic invertebrates at the Berg River estuary, South Africa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 33, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennish, M.J., 1990. Ecology of estuaries. Vol. II. Biological aspects. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Maurer, D. & Vargas, J.A., 1984. Diversity of soft-bottom benthos in a tropical estuary: Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica. Marine Biology, 81, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neira, F.J. & Potter, I.C., 1992. The ichthyoplankton of a seasonally closed estuary in temperate Australia. Does an extended period of opening influence species composition? Journal of Fish Biology, 41, 935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orth, R.J., Heck, K.L. & van, Montfrans J., 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries, 7, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, G.C.B., 1982. Benthic communities of the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 33, 901–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, I.C. & Hyndes, G.A., 1994. Composition of the fish fauna of a permanently open estuary on the southern coast of Australia, and comparisons with a nearby seasonally closed estuary. Marine Biology, 121, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, I.C., Hyndes, G.A. & Baronie, F.M., 1993. The fish fauna of a seasonally closed Australian estuary. Is the prevalence of estuarine-spawning species high? Marine Biology, 116, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quijón, P. & Jaramillo, E., 1993. Temporal variability in the intertidal macroinfauna in the Queule River estuary, south-central Chile. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 37, 655–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, S., 1981. Temporal patterns in the structure of macrobenthic communities of an Australian estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 13, 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, S.F., 1982. Trophic structure and production in the macrobenthos of a temperate Australian estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 15, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, S.F. & Fitzhardinge, R.C., 1981. Benthic communities in an estuary with periodic deoxygenation. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 32, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, G.B., 1984. Persistence of infaunal polychaete zonation patterns on a sheltered, intertidal sand flat. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 18, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, T.H., 1994. Comparisons of the benthic and zooplankton communities in the eutrophic Peel-Harvey and nearby Swan estuaries in south-western Australia. Vol. I & II. PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.Google Scholar
Sardá, R., Foreman, K. & Valiela, I., 1995. Macroinfauna of a southern New England salt marsh: seasonal dynamics and production. Marine Biology, 121, 431–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steimle, F.W. & Caracciolo-Ward, J., 1989. A reassessment of the status of the benthic macrofauna of the Raritan estuary. Estuaries, 12, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoner, A.W. & Acevedo, C., 1990. The macroinfaunal community of a tropical estuarine lagoon. Estuaries, 13, 174–181.Google Scholar
Underwood, A.J., 1981. Techniques of analysis of variance in experimental marine biology and ecology. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 19, 513–605.Google Scholar
Warwick, R.M., Goss-Custard, J.D., Kirby, R., George, C.L., Pope, N.D. & Rowden, A.A., 1991. Static and dynamic environmental factors determining the community structure of estuarine macrobenthos in SW Britain: why is the Severn Estuary different? Journal of Applied Ecology, 28, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, F.E. & Threlfall, T.J., 1982a. Density fluctuations, growth and dry tissue production of Hydrococcus brazieri (Tenison Woods, 1876) and Arthritica semen (Menke, 1843) in Peel Inlet, Western Australia. Journal ofMolluscan Studies, 48, 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, F.E. and Threlfall, T.J., 1982b. Reproductive strategies of Hydrococcus brazieri (Tenison Woods, 1876) and Arthritica semen (Menke, 1843) in Peel Inlet, Western Australia. Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 5, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar