Event Abstract

Back to Event

Artificial seaweed monitoring structures (ASMS): the Next-Sea project approach towards a standardized non-destructive sampling methodology

Diego Carreira-Flores1, 2*, Pedro Santos1, Susana Pereira1, Catarina Alves1, Hugo Ferreira1, Regina Neto1, Edna Cabecinha3, Victoriano Urgorri2, Ramiro Tato2, Guillermo Díaz-Agras2 and Pedro T. Gomes1
  • 1 Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Portugal
  • 2 Marine Biology Station of A Graña, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
  • 3 Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences, School of Sciences, University of Minho, Portugal

Bottom physical heterogeneity, associated or not to the structural complexity of the habitat-forming organisms, is the main factor that contributes to the difficulty in assuring replicable benthic marine macrofauna quantitative sampling. This is particularly true in very heterogeneous nearshore areas and is one of the methodological challenges in the study of marine benthos. Although quantitative data may not be relevant to inventory (presence/absence) or taxonomic studies, quantitative sampling of benthic macrofauna is needed to understand changes in process and trends over time. The need of quantitative replicable sampling is fundamental in order to obtain statistical valid data. This kind of sampling is always destructive and not always desirable in certain sensitive habitats, as it can compromise the long-term survival of the study target. Quantitative and standard sampling of benthic macrofauna is mandatory to understand how the abundance and diversity of species are controlled (Hauser et al. 2006), especially those associated with habitat-forming organisms, such as macroalgae (Hansen et al. 2011; Veiga et al. 2014) and gorgonians. In the context of global climate change, pollution monitoring and environmental management, the development of a standardized methodology that does not imply the destruction of the natural occurring elements of the system is required. Therefore, artificial substrates (AS) appear as a simple solution that may overcome the main environmental and anthropogenic problems mentioned, since they are easy to implement and not too expensive. With a known structural complexity and volume, AS are adequate to remove the variability of the sampling devices from the equation in quantitative sampling (García-Sanz et al. 2014; Ransome et al. 2017). In temperate regions, seaweeds are naturally abundant habitat builders (depending on their structural complexity, size and antifouling properties) for many organisms of ecological and economic importance. Hence algae are good targets for monitoring studies based on colonization processes, mainly for the benthic and hyperbenthic macrofauna that is elusive most of the times (Davenport, J., Butler, A., & Cheshire 1999). Nevertheless, their collection may not be sustainable and will compromise the algae settlements in the long-term. In order to enable this kind of studies, AS may be a viable non-destructive alternative, provided that the algae structural complexity is mimicked by the artificial substrates (Cacabelos et al. 2010). Sampling through the use of AS is not instantaneous and relies on the availability of organisms to colonize them. It means that a longer period of time is going to be needed, in order to allow the process of colonization by benthic organisms. It is also well known that different kinds of substrates are going to be colonized differently (Schreider et al. 2003; M. Vazquez-Luis, P. SAnchez-Jerez 2008). The same kind of substrate may also give different results, depending on the time of the year of deployment (García-Sanz et al. 2014) . In NextSea project we aim to find an adequate procedure that can overcome the problems related with quantitative sampling of the macrofauna associated with habitat-forming algae. Therefore, the sampling of different macroalgae and the deployment of distinctive types of AS have been tested, both in intertidal and subtidal environments. Saccorhiza polyschides, Cystoseira tamariscifolia, Codium tomentosum and Chondrus crispus were sampled both in the Northern Portuguese and Galician (Spain) coast. Four types of AS were also tested, in an attempt to mimic the structure of different habitat builder seaweeds in these ecosystems (Artificial seaweed monitoring system, ”ASMS”). The ASMS were made using polyethylene plants (ASMS-1: potted arborescent plants; ASMS-4: artificial plant mat), and sisal rope (ASMS-2 and ASMS-3), made of natural vegetal fibers. The sisal rope was frayed and coated with an innocuous resin to give it rigidity (ASMS-2) or arranged in order to mimic the structure of the rhizoid and frond of a kelp (ASMS-3). ASMS-1 is the most structurally complex followed by ASMS-4, ASMS-2 and, finally ASMS-3. All ASMS were deployed, attached to concrete plates and retrieved after about 6 months of exposition. All algae were collected between June and August and all organisms sorted and counted per unit of sampling (algae or ASMS). Although quantitative sampling has been made, for this analysis only presence/absence data will be presented and discussed. A total of 305 taxonomic entities (species or families) were collected, from which 92 were only found on AS and 17 were exclusive of algae. A dissimilarity analysis using a presence/absence matrix measured by the Bray-Curtis distance shows the net distinction between the macrofauna associated with macroalgae and AS, on both geographic locations (Fig. 1). Concerning macroalgae, the more structural complex C. tamariscifolia and S. polyschides supported a greater richness than the simpler ones. The same effect can be seen with AS: the more complex (ASMS-1 and ASMS-4) were also the ones that supported the greatest richness. The influence of the latitudinal gradient is also evident and the results showed that the latitudinal difference between locations is always stronger than the difference between algae and AS in the macrofauna sampled. With the results obtained, we can conclude that ASMS-3, with the minimal structural complexity, was not adequate for sampling. From the remaining ASMS, the ones with more structural complexity (ASMS-1 and ASMS-4) were more successful in the collection of organisms than ASMS-2. When comparing ASMS-1 and ASMS-4 to the macroalgae, a greater richness and abundance was always achieved by the ASMS. Nevertheless, the macrofauna assemblages collected with ASMS-1 and ASMS-4 differ markedly from the ones colonizing the algae. Different algae are colonized by different macrofauna assemblages, suggesting a close relation with the biological nature of the substrate and implying that each assemblage is not a true representation of the potential colonizing organisms present in the water mass. Our results suggest that i) a strategy based in more than one kind of ASMS is needed to adequately sample the benthic and epibenthic marine communities and ii) structural complex substrates are more adequate than simpler ones. In spite of the more efficient sampling results achieved by AS, some species were only present in algae, reinforcing the need to search for complementary AS. The complementary use of AS mimicking structurally complex algae and bottom structures such as S. polyschides seems to be a better solution than the use of a single type of AS.

Figure 1
Image

Acknowledgements

The present study has been co-financed by NextSea: (operation NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000032); by FSE through do NORTE 2020; by European Union Funds (FEDER/COMPETE – Operational Competitiveness Program) and by national funds (FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) under the project FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-022692. Diego Carreira was suported by a PhD Felowship (BD/Do*Mar/1010/2016) do Programa de Ciência, Tecnologia e Gestão Marinha (Do*Mar), operation number NORTE-08-5369-FSE-000039.

References

Cacabelos, E. et al., 2010. Effects of habitat structure and tidal height on epifaunal assemblages associated with macroalgae. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 89(1), pp.43–52. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2010.05.012. Davenport, J., Butler, A., & Cheshire, A., 1999. Epifaunal composition and fractal dimensions of marine plants in relation to emersion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 79(2), pp.351–355. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/3B1C420F77D7AF817BE3457FCE6DD056 [Accessed April 12, 2019]. García-Sanz, S., Navarro, P.G. & Tuya, F., 2014. Colonization of Prosobranch Gastropods onto Artificial Substrates: Seasonal Patterns between Habitat Patches. American Malacological Bulletin, 32(1), pp.94–103. Hansen, J.P. et al., 2011. Distribution differences and active habitat choices of invertebrates between macrophytes of different morphological complexity. Aquatic Ecology, 45(1), pp.11–22. Hauser, A., Attrill, M.J. & Cotton, P.A., 2006. Effects of habitat complexity on the diversity and abundance of macrofauna colonising artificial kelp holdfasts. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 325(August 2014), pp.93–100. M. Vazquez-Luis, P. SAnchez-Jerez, J.T.B.-S., 2008. Changes in amphipod ( Crustacea ) assemblages associated with shallow-water algal habitats invaded by Caulerpa racemosa var . cylindracea in the western Mediterranean Sea. , 65, pp.416–426. Ransome, E. et al., 2017. The importance of standardization for biodiversity comparisons: A case study using autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and metabarcoding to measure cryptic diversity on Mo’orea coral reefs, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE, 12(4), pp.1–19. Schreider, M.J., Glasby, T.M. & Underwood, A.J., 2003. Effects of height on the shore and complexity of habitat on abundances of amphipods on rocky shores in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 293(1), pp.57–71. Veiga, P., Rubal, M. & Sousa-Pinto, I., 2014. Structural complexity of macroalgae influences epifaunal assemblages associated with native and invasive species. Marine Environmental Research, 101(1), pp.115–123. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.09.007.

Keywords: Artificial substrate, Macrofauna assemblages, Macroalga (seaweed), Artificial Seaweed Monitoring Structures, ASMs, Cystoseira tamariscifolia, Saccorhiza polyschides

Conference: XX Iberian Symposium on Marine Biology Studies (SIEBM XX) , Braga, Portugal, 9 Sep - 12 Sep, 2019.

Presentation Type: Oral Presentation

Topic: Ecology, Biodiversity and Vulnerable Ecosystems

Citation: Carreira-Flores D, Santos P, Pereira S, Alves C, Ferreira H, Neto R, Cabecinha E, Urgorri V, Tato R, Díaz-Agras G and Gomes PT (2019). Artificial seaweed monitoring structures (ASMS): the Next-Sea project approach towards a standardized non-destructive sampling methodology. Front. Mar. Sci. Conference Abstract: XX Iberian Symposium on Marine Biology Studies (SIEBM XX) . doi: 10.3389/conf.fmars.2019.08.00010

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 04 Sep 2019; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019.

* Correspondence: Mx. Diego Carreira-Flores, Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, diego.carreira.flores@gmail.com