Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T17:41:39.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recolonisation of Artificial Sediments in the Deep Bay of Biscay By Tanaidaceans (Crustacea: Peracarida), With a Description of a New Species of Pseudotanais

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G.J. Bird  and
D.M. Holdich
G.J. Bird
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD
D.M. Holdich
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the more recent aims of deep-sea biological investigations has been to assess the rates and processes involved in the recolonisation of deep-sea sediments by the in situ fauna (Grassle, 1977; Desbruyères etal., 1980, 1985; Levin & Smith, 1984). The spur to such initiatives has been the prospect of deep-sea mineral exploitation and the dumping of radioactive and other chemical wastes (Desbruyères etal., 1 985), in addition to the testing of hypotheses about deep-sea community regulation (Levin & Smith, 1984; Smith, 1986). These experiments have shown that perturbated or defaunated sediments incubated for periods of several months are readily recolonised by deep-sea animals, although the process is much slower than in comparable shallow-water situations (e.g. Levin, 1984; Zajac & Whitlach, 1982a, b). Furthermore, the resulting community of colonists may be quantitatively and qualitatively different from the ‘background’ fauna (Grassle, 1977; Levin & Smith, 1984). Similar experiments have examined the effect of large ‘food-parcels’ on the in situ sediments and fauna (Smith, 1986), and a review of the responses of benthic faunas to disturbed sediments has been published by Thistle (1981).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , May 1989 , pp. 307 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1989

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

REFERENCES

Bacescu, M. 1985. Apseudoidea (Crustacés, Tanaidacea). In Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagnes BIOGAS (ed. L., Laubier and C., Monniot), pp. 435–440. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Bird, G.J. & Holdich, D.M., 1985. A remarkable tubicolous tanaid (Crustacea: Tanaidacea) from the Rockall Trough. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 65, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, G.J. & Holdich, D.M., in press. Deep-sea Tanaidacea (Crustacea) of the North-east Atlantic: the subfamily Pseudotanainae (Pseudotanaidae) and the family Nototanaidae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.Google Scholar
Borowsky, B., 1983. Reproductive behaviour of three tube-building peracarid crustaceans: the amphipod jassa falcata and Ampithoe valida and the tanaid Tanais cavolinii. Marine Biology, 77, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desbruyères, D., Bervas, J.Y. & Khripounoff, A., 1980. Un cas de colonization rapide d'un sédiment profond. Oceanologica Ada, 3, 285–291.Google Scholar
Desbruyéres, D., Deming, J.W., Dinet, A. & Khripounoff, A., 1985. Réactions de 1'écosystème benthique profond aux perturbations: nouveaux résultats éxperimentaux. In Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagnes BIOGAS (ed. L., Laubier and C., Monniot), pp. 193–208. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Grassle, J.F., 1977. Slow recolonization of deep-sea sediment. Nature, London, 265, 618–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grassle, J.F. & Sanders, H., 1973. Life histories and the role of disturbance. Deep-Sea Research, 20, 643–655.Google Scholar
Guennegan, Y. & Martin, V., 1985. Annexe 3. Techniques de prélèvement. In Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagnes BIOGAS (ed. L., Laubier and C., Monniot), pp. 571–602. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Hassack, E. & Holdich, D.M., 1987. The tubicolous habit amongst the Tanaidacea (Crustacea, Peracarida) with particular reference to deep-sea species. Zoologica Scripta, 16, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, E.S. & Chess, J.R., 1976. Trophic interactions among fishes and zooplankters near shore at Santa Catalina Island, California. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, 74, 567–598.Google Scholar
Hobson, E.S. & Chess, J.R., 1978. Trophic relationship among fishes and plankton in the lagoon at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, 76, 133–153.Google Scholar
Holdich, D.M. & Bird, G.J., 1985. A preliminary report on ‘dikonophoran’ tanaids. In Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagnes BIOGAS (ed. L., Laubier and C., Monniot), pp. 441–447. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.J., 1970. Variations in diversity within benthic marine communities. American Naturalist, 104, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S.B. & Attramadal, Y.G., 1982. Reproductive behaviour and larval development of Tanais cavolinii (Crustacea: Tanaidacea). Marine Biology, 71, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudinova-Pasternak, R.K., 1970. Tanaidacea of the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 86, 341–380.Google Scholar
Larwood, H.J., 1954. Crustacea Tanaidacea and Isopoda from the Suez Canal. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 7, 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubier, L. & Monniot, C. (ed.), 1985. Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagne BIOGAS. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Laubier, L. & Sibuet, M., 1979. Ecology of the benthic communities of the deep N.E. Atlantic. Ambio Special Report, 6, 37–42.Google Scholar
Levin, L.A., 1984. Life history and dispersal patterns in a dense infaunal polychaete assemblage: community structure and response to disturbance. Ecology, 65, 1185–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, L.A. & Smith, C.R., 1984. Response of background fauna to disturbance and enrichment in the deep-sea: a sediment tray experiment. Deep-Sea Research, 31A, 1277–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauviel, A. & Sibuet, M., 1985. Répartition des traces animales et importance de la bioturbation. In Peuplements Profonds du Golfe de Gascogne: Campagnes BIOGAS (ed. L., Laubier and C., Monniot), pp. 157–173. Brest: IFREMER.Google Scholar
Mendoza, J. A., 1982. Some aspects of the autecology of Leptochelia dubia (Krøyer, 1842) (Tanaidacea). Crustaceana, 43, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidenauer, J.A. & Thistle, D., 1985. The tanaid fauna from a region of the deep North Atlantic where near-bottom current velocities are high. Oceanologica Ada, 8, 355–360.Google Scholar
Sanders, H.L., 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102, 243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieg, J., 1986 a. Distribution of the Tanaidacea: synopsis of the known data and suggestions on possible distribution patterns. In Crustacean Biogeography (ed. R.H., Gore and K.L., Heck), pp. 165–194. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. [Crustacean Issues 4.]Google Scholar
Sieg, J., 1986 b. Tanaidacea (Crustacea) von der Antarktis und Subantarktis. II. Tanaidacea gesammelt von Dr J.W. Wägele während der Deutschen Antarktis Expedition 1983. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum der Universität Kiel, 2(4), 1–80.Google Scholar
Smith, C.R., 1985. Colonization studies in the deep-sea: are results biased by experimental designs? In Proceedings of the 19th European Marine Biological Symposium, Plymouth, 1984 (ed. P.E., Gibbs), pp 183–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C.R., 1986. Nekton falls, low-intensity disturbance and community structure of infaunal benthos in the deep sea. Journal of Marine Research, 44, 567–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephensen, K., 1913. Groenlands krebsdyr og pycnogonider (Conspectus crustaceosum et pycnogbridorum Groenlandiae). Meddelelser om Grønland, 22, 479 pp.Google Scholar
Stephensen, K., 1915. Isopoda, Tanaidacea, Cumacea, Amphipoda (excl. Hyperidea). Report on the Danish Oceanographic Expeditions, 1908–10, to the Mediterranean and Adjacent Seas (Biology), 1915, 26–29.Google Scholar
Stoner, A.W., 1986. Cohabitation of algal habitat islands by two hermaphroditic Tanaidacea (Crustacea: Peracarida). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 6, 719–728.CrossRefGoogle 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
Thistle, D., 1981. Natural physical disturbances and communities of marine soft bottoms. Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 6, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thistle, D., Yingst, J.Y. & Fauchald, K., 1985. A deep-sea benthic community exposed to strong near-bottom currents on the Scotian rise (western Atlantic). Marine Geology, 66, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, R.N. & Whitlach, R.B., 1982 a. Responses of estuarine infauna to disturbance. I. Spatial and temporal variation of initial recolonization. Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 10, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, R.N. & Whitlach, R.B., 1982 b. Responses of estuarine infauna to disturbance. II. Spatial and temporal variation of succession. Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 10, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar