Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:34:10.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Study of Global Biodiversity Patterns in the Marine Motile Fauna of Hard Substrata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J.M. Gee
Affiliation:
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth, PL1 3DH
R.M. Warwick
Affiliation:
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth, PL1 3DH

Extract

A global study of latitudinal gradients in biodiversity of marine shallow-water, motile epifauna of hard substrata has been initiated by Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the International Association of Meiobenthologists. It is based on the use of artificial substratum units (ASUs) consisting of four pan-scourers and emphasizes the standardization of habitat type and complexity, sample area, sampling strategies, sample processing and analysis. Non-comparability of these factors has invalidated some of the few previous studies on global patterns in biodiversity of marine benthic communities which are reported in the literature. A list of sampling locations and participating research organizations is given along with some preliminary results from one location (south-west England).

Type
Research Article
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

Abele, L.G. & Walters, K., 1979a. The stability-time hypothesis: re-evaluation of the data. American Naturalist, 114, 559568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abele, L.G. & Walters, K., 1979b. Marine benthic diversity: a critique and alternative explanations. Journal of Biogeography, 6, 115126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S.S. & Hicks, G.R.F., 1991. Marine landscapes and faunal recruitment: a field test with seagrasses and copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 73, 6168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brey, et al., 1994. Antarctic benthic diversity. Nature, London, 368, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, J., 1982. Preface. In Artificial substrates (ed. J., Cairns), pp ix–x. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Castri, F. di, Robertson–verhanes, J. & Younes, T., 1992. Inventorying and monitoring biodiversity. A proposal for an international network. Biology International, special issue no. 27, 128.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M., 1994. Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory.Google Scholar
Cummings, E. & Ruber, E., 1987. Copepod colonization of natural and artificial substrates in a salt marsh pool. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 25, 637645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, G.J., 1991. Artificial algae as habitats for mobile epifauna: factors affecting colonization in a Japanese Sargassum bed. Hydrobiologia, 226, 111118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gage, J.D. & May R.M., 1993. A dip into the deep seas. Nature, London, 365, 609610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J.M. & Warwick, R.M., 1994. Metazoan community structure in relation to the fractal dimensions of marine macroalgae. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 103, 141150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, K.L., 1979. Some determinants of the composition and abundance of motile macroinvertebrate species in tropical and temperate turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) meadows. Journal of Biogeography, 6, 183200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heip, C., Herman, P.M.J. & Soetaert, K., 1988. Data processing, evaluation and analysis. In Introduction to a study of meiofauna (ed. R.H., Higgins and H., Theil), pp. 197231. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, M.A. & Aschan, M., 1993. Latitudinal gradients in the structure of macrobenthic communities: a comparison of Arctic, temperate and tropical sites. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 172, 157169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keough, M.J., 1984. Effects of patch size on the abundance of sessile marine invertebrates. Ecology, 65, 423–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, A.A. & Southgate, T., 1980. Artificial substrates as a means of monitoring rocky shore cryptofauna. journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 60, 963975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rex, M.A., Stuart, C.T., Hessler, R.R., Allen, J.A., Sanders, H.L. & Wilson, G.D.F., 1993. Global-scale latitudinal patterns of species diversity in the deep-sea benthos. Nature, London, 365, 636639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, H.L., 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102, 243282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, A., 1974. Experimental zoogeography: colonization of marine mini-islands. American Naturalist, 108, 715738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, A., 1982. Artificial substrates in marine environments. In Artificial substrates (ed. J., Cairns), pp. 122. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Soetaert, K. & Heip, C., 1990. Sample-size dependence of diversity indices and the determination of sufficient sample size in the high-diversity deep-sea environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 59, 305307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solbrig, O.T., 1991. From genes to ecosystems: a research agenda for biodiversity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: IUBS.Google Scholar
Solbrig, O.T., 1992. The IUBS-SCOPE-Unesco program of research in biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 2, 131138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorson, G., 1952. Zur jetzigen Lage der marinen Bodentier-Okolgie. Zoologischer Anzeiger, supplement no. 16, 276327.Google Scholar
Thorson, G., 1957. Bottom communities (sublittoral or shallow shelf). In Treatise on marine ecology and palseoecology (ed. J.W., Hedgepeth), pp. 461534. Geological Society of America.Google Scholar