Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-h2mp8 Total loading time: 0.34 Render date: 2021-07-27T00:30:33.776Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Differential responses of a benthic meiofaunal community to an artificial oil spill in the intertidal zone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

Teawook Kang
Affiliation:
Ocean Science Research Department, KIOST, Ansan PO Box 29, Seoul 425-600, Korea Department of Oceanography, College of Natural Science Inha University, Incheon 402-751, Korea
Won-Gi Min
Affiliation:
Dokdo Research Center, KIOST Hujeong, Jukbyeon, Uljin-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea
Hyun Soo Rho
Affiliation:
Dokdo Research Center, KIOST Hujeong, Jukbyeon, Uljin-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea
Heung-Sik Park
Affiliation:
Pacific Ocean Research Center, KIOST, Ansan PO Box 29, Seoul 425-600, Korea
Dongsung Kim
Affiliation:
East Sea Research, KIOST Hujeong, Jukbyeon, Uljin-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the potential impact of an oil spill on intertidal meiofauna at a clean, sandy beach in Korea. This objective was accomplished by examining changes in the structure of meiofaunal assemblages after a controlled oil spill of different concentrations on the beach. The concentration of total petroleum hydrocabon (TPH) in the experimental plots after oil application was expectedly higher for the first 4 d compared to before oil application. The TPH concentrations decreased at a faster rate in the first 4 d, and then progressively. The sharp decline in meiofaunal density in the experimental plots during the first 4 d after the spill might be attributed to the short-term toxic effects of the oil. This suggestion is supported by a significant negative interaction of the TPH on meiofaunal density during the study period. The period of low density of meiofauna also coincided with the maximum concentration of TPH in the sediment. The multivariate indices proved to be highly efficient, showing that samples contaminated with oil had high TPH concentrations, and were partially separated in terms of meiofaunal communities from samples before oil application or samples with low TPH concentrations. The structure of the meiofaunal communities in the experimental plots was similar before and 1 month after oil application. However, the density of meiofauna sharply decreased immediately after oil application in the experiment plots. Furthermore, the meiofaunal density recovered slowly as time passed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2013 

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

Alongi, D.M., Boesch, D.F. and Diaz, R.J. (1983) Colonization of meiobenthos in oil-contaminated subtidal sands in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 72, 325335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, Z.A. and Ingole, B. (2002) Effect of an oil spill from MV Sea Transporter on intertidal meiofauna at Goa, India. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 396402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen, M.C. and McEvoy, A.J. (1997) The use of offshore meiobenthic communities in laboratory microcosm experiments: response to heavy metal contamination. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 211, 247261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, P. (1988) Results of ecological monitoring of three beaches polluted by the Amoco Cadiz oil spill: development of meiofauna from 1978 to 1984. Marine Ecology Progress Series 42, 105123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsdorf, E. (1981) The Antonio Gramsci oil spill impact on the littoral and benthic ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12, 301305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, G. (1980) Impact of Amoco Cadiz oil spill on intertidal and sublittoral meiofauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 11, 95101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumer, M. (1976) Polycyclic aromatic compounds in nature. Scientific American 234, 3445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, R. (2001) An improved protocol for separating meiofauna from sediments using colloidal silica sols. Marine Ecology Progress Series 214, 161165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, J. (1983) Are single species toxicity tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard? Hydrobiologia 100, 4757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carman, K.R., Bianchi, T.S. and Kloep, F. (2000a) Influence of grazing and nitrogen on benthic algal blooms in diesel fuel-contaminated saltmarsh sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 34, 107111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carman, K.R., Fleeger, J.W. and Pomarico, S.M. (2000b) Does historical exposure to hydrocarbon contamination alter the response of benthic communities to diesel contamination? Marine Environmental Research 49, 255278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, H. and Berge, J.A. (1995) In situ experiments on recolonisation of intertidal mudflat fauna to sediment contaminated with different concentrations of oil. Sarsia 80, 175185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2001) PRIMER v.5. User manual. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
Clements, W.H. and Kiffney, P.M. (1994) Assessing contaminant effects at higher levels of biological organization. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13, 357359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commito, J.A. and Tita, G. (2002) Differential dispersal rates in an intertidal meiofauna assemblage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 268, 237256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danovaro, R. (2000) Benthic microbial loop and meiofaunal response to oil-induced disturbance in coastal sediments: a review. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 13, 380391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danovaro, R., Fabiano, M. and Vincx, M. (1995) Meiofauna response to the Agip Abruzzo oil spill in subtidal sediments of the Ligurian Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, 133145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauvin, J.C. (1982) Impact of Amoco Cadiz oil spill on the muddy fine sand Abra alba and Melinna palmata community from the Bay of Morlaix. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 14, 517531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, C.J. and Fleeger, J.W. (1984) The effect of crude oil on the colonization of meiofauna into salt marsh sediments. Hydrobiologia 118, 4958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, G.J. and Barrett, N.S. (2000) Impact of the Iron Baron oil spill on subtidal reef assemblages in Tasmania. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 3649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleeger, J.W. and Chandler, G.T. (1983) Meiofauna response to an experimental oil spill in a Louisiana salt marsh. Marine Ecology Progress Series 11, 257264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleeger, J.W., Carman, K.R. and Nisbet, R.M. (2003) Indirect effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 317, 207233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friethsen, J.B., Elmgren, R. and Rudnick, D.T. (1985) Responses of benthic meiofauna to long-term, low-level additions of No. 2 fuel oil. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, O. (1979) The impact of oil pollution on intertidal meiofauna–field studies after the La Coruna-Spill, May 1976. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 20, 231251.Google Scholar
Hargrave, B.T. and Thiel, H. (1983) Assessment of pollution induced changes in benthic community structure. Marine Pollution Bulletin 14, 4146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R.G. (1997) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. New York: Wiley-VCH, pp. 90169.Google Scholar
Hayes, M.O., Michel, J., Montello, T.M., Al-Mansi, A.M., Jensen, J.R., Narumalani, S., Aurand, D.V., Al-Momen, A.H. and Thayer, G.W. (1993) Distribution of oil from the Gulf War spill within intertidal habitats—one year later. Proceedings of International Oil Spill Conference, Florida March 29, 1993. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute, p. 373–379.Google Scholar
Heip, C., Vincx, M. and Vranken, G. (1985) The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 23, 399489.Google Scholar
Higgins, R.P. and Thiel, H. (1988) Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Jewett, S.C., Dean, T.A., Smith, R.O. and Blanchard, A. (1999) ‘Exxon Valdez' oil spill: impacts and recovery in the soft-bottom benthic community in and adjacent to eelgrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 185, 5983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennish, M.J. (1992) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. In Ecology of estuaries: anthropogenic effects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 133181.Google Scholar
Li, C.H., Zhou, H.W., Wong, Y.S. and Tam, N.F. (2009) Vertical distribution and anaerobic biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mangrove sediments in Hong Kong, South China. Science of the Total Environment 21, 57725779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D.I. (1987) Oiled sediments in the Humber estuary following the Sivand incident. In Proceedings of 1987 Oil Spill Conference, 6 April 1987. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute, pp. 419–426.Google Scholar
Long, E.R., Macdonald, D., Smith, S.L. and Calder, F.D. (1995) Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Journal of Environmental Management 19, 8197.Google Scholar
Mendelssohn, I.A., Andersen, G.L., Baltz, D., Caffey, R., Carman, K.R., Fleeger, J.W., Joye, S.B., Lin, Q., Maltby, E., Overton, E. and Rozas, L. (2012) Oil impacts on coastal wetlands: implications for the Mississippi River Delta ecosystem after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Bioscience 62, 562574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C.G. and Stevenson, J.M. (1997) A possible new meiofaunal tool for rapid assessment of the environmental impact of marine oil pollution. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 38, 277282.Google Scholar
Naidu, A.A., Feder, H.M. and Norrell, S.A. (1978) The effect of Prudhoe Bay crude oil on a tidal-flat ecosystem in Port Valdez, Alaska. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 8 May 1978, Houston, Texas, pp. 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M.A. (1988) Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implications for recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 48, 8191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, H.M. and Warwick, R.M. (1983) A synopsis of the free living marine nematodes. Part I. British enoplids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandulli, R. and Nicola-Gludiei, M. (1990) Pollution effects on the structure of meiofaunal communities in the bay of Naples. Marine Pollution Bulletin 21, 144153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schratzberger, M., Danie, F., Wall, C.M., Kilbride, R., Macnaughton, S.J., Boyd, S.E., Rees, H.L. and Swannell, R.P.J. (2003) Response of estuarine meio and macrofauna to in situ bioremediation of oil contaminated sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 430443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwinghamer, P. (1988) Influence of pollution along a natural gradient and in a mesocosm experiment on biomass-size spectra of benthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46, 199206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieser, W. (1953) Die beziehung zwischen Mundhohlengestalt, Ernahrungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Eine okologisch-morphologische Studie. Arkiv for zoologi 4, 439484.Google Scholar
Wormald, A.P. (1976) Effects of a spill of marine diesel oil on meiofauna of a sandy beach at Picnic Bay, Hong-Kong. Environmental Pollution 11, 117130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrenn, B.A., Venosa, A.D. and Suidan, M.T. (1999) Contaminant redistribution can confound interpretation of oil-spill bioremediation studies. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, 221226.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Differential responses of a benthic meiofaunal community to an artificial oil spill in the intertidal zone
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Differential responses of a benthic meiofaunal community to an artificial oil spill in the intertidal zone
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Differential responses of a benthic meiofaunal community to an artificial oil spill in the intertidal zone
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *