Abstract
We used high-resolution imagery within a Geographic Information System (GIS), free gas and porewater analyses and animal bulk stable isotope measurements to characterize the biotic and abiotic aspects of the newly discovered Vestbrona Carbonate Field (VCF) seep site on the Norwegian shelf (63°28′N, 6° 31′E, ∿270 m water depth). Free gas was mainly composed of microbial methane. Sediment porewater sulfide concentrations were in the millimolar range and thus high enough to sustain seep chemosymbiotrophic animals. Nonetheless, the VCF lacked chemosymbiotrophic animals despite an abundance of methane-derived carbonate crusts which are formed by the same anaerobic processes that sustain chemosymbiotrophic animals at seeps. Furthermore, none of the sampled taxa, across various trophic guilds exhibited a detectable contribution of chemosynthetically fixed carbon to their diets based on bulk stable isotope values, suggesting a predominantly photosynthetic source of carbon to the VCF seep food web. We link the absence of chemosymbiotrophic animals to highly localized methane flow pathways, which may act as a “shunt-bypass” of the anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) and by extension sulfide generation, thus leading to sediment sulfide concentrations that are highly heterogeneous over very short lateral distances, inhibiting the successful colonization of chemosymbiotrophic animals at the VCF seep. Instead, the seep hosted diverse biological communities, consisting of heterotrophic benthic fauna, including long lived taxa, such as soft corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea) and stony corals (i.e., Desmophyllum pertusum, formerly known as Lophelia pertusa). Compared to the surrounding non-seep seafloor, we measured heightened megafaunal density at the seep, which we attribute to increased habitat heterogeneity and the presence of a variety of hard substrates (i.e., methane-derived authigenic carbonates, dropstones and coral rubble), particularly since the most abundant taxa all belonged to the phylum Porifera. Compared to the surrounding non-seep seafloor, marine litter was denser within the VCF seep, which we link to the more variable local topography due to authigenic carbonates, which can rip off parts of bottom trawling nets thereby making the seep act as catchment area for marine litter.
1 Introduction
One of the most striking characteristics of the deep sea (below the photic zone, ∿ −200 m) is probably how vast and barren the seafloor appears, seemingly lacking both life-sustaining habitats and life itself. Local fauna is sparse, as food is derived from low quantities of photosynthesis-based material, slowly descending through the water column (; ). On the contrary, in areas known as cold seeps, where fluids enriched with reduced compounds and hydrocarbons (predominantly sulfide and methane) escape from the geosphere into the seafloor sediment, chemosynthesis-based carbon fixation can occur, thereby sustaining unique oasis-type ecosystems which act as hotspots for geo-biosphere interactions that provide a local, deep-sea energy source in the otherwise desert-like environment (; ; ; ; ). The methane emitted at cold seep fluids may be generated by the microbial transformation of organic deposits in shallow sediments (microbial) or by geological processes occurring at greater depths in the sediment (thermogenic) (Suess, 2010; 2020; ; ). Both methane and the sulfide generated through its anaerobic oxidation can function as energy sources for chemosynthesis, however, sulfide is highly toxic. Therefore cold seeps usually host low-diversity, high-biomass communities, which stand in contrast to the high-diversity, low-biomass communities of the non-seep background seafloor (; ).
High latitude (e.g., Arctic and subarctic) seeps have only recently been subject to detailed studies and these have revealed both higher biomass and diversity in comparison to the surrounding benthos, as well as a notable absence of typical seep associated chemosymbiotrophic species such as vestimentiferans and large bodied mollusks (; ; ; ; ; ; Vedenin et al., 2020). Instead, communities of northern latitude seeps are often dominated by extensive meadows of chemosymbiotic Oligobrachia frenulate siboglinids (Smirnov, 2000; 2014; ; ; ; ; Vedenin et al., 2020) and moniliferans (Sclerolinum contortum) (; ; ). These are also the only confirmed chemoautotrophic symbiont-bearing animals at all high latitude seeps and are therefore particularly important for the functioning of high latitude seep ecosystems (; ; ). Factors determining their presence or absence are however still under debate. Shallow water seeps tend to host few, if any chemosymbiotrophic animals (; ; ), however, shallow water depths are no clear indicator of whether high latitude seeps host siboglinids or not, since active seep sites in the Laptev Sea at depths as shallow as 63 m host Oligobrachia siboglinids, whereas active seeps of similar depths (88 m) on the Prins Karls Forland shelf (western Svalbard) do not (; ; Vedenin et al., 2020). It has been hypothesized that in shallow water areas, hydrographic regimes and associated photosynthetically derived food availability plays a role; productive, Atlantic water, for example, might favor animals that feed on phytodetrital material and select against chemosymbiotic animals, whereas eutrophic, food poorer regions allow for successful colonization by the latter (). Other than oceanographic factors, the presence or absence of siboglinids has been linked to bottom substrate (i.e., a preference for soft muddy sediments) and to the animals’ need for high sulfide flux rates, and not simply high sulfide concentration (; ; ; Vedenin et al., 2020). The interplay of oceanographic, geochemical and geophysical factors together likely determines the faunal inventories of high latitude seeps and whether or not chemosymbiotrophic animals are present.
Here, we address this question by analyzing a seep on the productive Mid-Norwegian continental shelf (63°28′N, 6°31′E), where the combined characteristics of relatively shallow water depth but yet beyond the photic zone (270 m) and high methane flux rates with free gas bubble emissions provide the perfect opportunity to explore these factors in relation to chemosymbiotrophic fauna and subsequent community composition of high latitude seeps. Due to the abundance of extensive methane-derived carbonate crusts at this site, close to the Vestbrona Volcanic province (), we refer to it as the Vestbrona Carbonate Field (VCF). We combined high-resolution imagery within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to characterize this newly discovered high latitude seep site. We additionally carried out free gas and porewater analyses to estimate the life stage and seepage regime of the site. Bulk stable carbon, nitrogen and sulfur isotope ratios measurements were made on opportunistically collected fauna, in order to gain insight into the role of chemosynthetically fixed carbon within the seep food web. We furthermore made semi-quantitative comparisons between the megafaunal community of the cold seep and the adjacent non-seep background area to assess the impact of the seep on local benthic community composition. The fundamental information reported here may be helpful for gaining new insights on seep ecosystems close to the photic zone in northern latitudes and generating new ecological perspectives in the context of marine conservation, sustainable management and exploration in the Norwegian Sea.
2 Methods and materials
2.1 Site location
The Vestbrona Carbonate Field (VCF) seep site is located on the mid-continental shelf of the Norwegian Sea, off the coast of Kristiansund, central Norway, at a water depth of about 270 m (63°28′N, 6°31′E; Figure 1A). In June 2020, we investigated the area with the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) Ægir 6,000 on board the R/V G.O. Sars (University of Bergen). Prior to seafloor inspection, free gas flares were mapped from the ship through acquisition of multibeam bathymetry and water column data using a Kongsberg EM302 system (Figure 1B). The site is characterized by massive carbonate precipitates in a generally hemipelagic environment with sediment largely composed of mud (Figure 2).
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
2.2 Video surveys and mosaicking of the VCF seep
A vertical, downward facing high-definition (HD) video camera mounted to the bottom of the ROV was used to map two locations (Mosaic 1: 679 m2 and Mosaic 2: 563 m2) in the VCF where active seepage was observed in the form of small gas flares (bubbling) and microbial mats (Figure 1). The ROV was maintained at an altitude of 2 m above the seafloor and moved slowly at a speed of about 0.5 knots in a lawn mower fashion, to ensure overlap between video lines. Still images were extracted from the video every 2 seconds with the free software FFmpeg (http://ffmpeg.org/) and time stamps were used to obtain the corresponding navigation data from the ROV. Resulting images and navigation files were loaded into Agisoft’s Metashape software (version 1.6.2 build 10247, 2020) to construct two georeferenced mosaics (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
2.3 GIS based community characterization
All visible features (i.e., visible to the naked eye), such as animals (hereafter referred to as ‘megafauna’), microbial mats, litter and substrates were manually marked in ArcGIS Pro 2.6.0 via the Editor tool in the two georeferenced mosaics (Figure 3). Individuals were marked as point feature classes, whereas colonial animals, encrusting sponges and substrates were outlined using the polygon feature class. Classification was based on visible morphology and made to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Both the size of megafauna and the resolution of seafloor images did not always allow for identification of taxa to species-level. Therefore, our faunal inventory consists of groups based on taxonomic ranks ranging from species to class. Biological features (e.g., sponges) that could not be assigned to any taxon due to high levels of morphological plasticity between and within species, were classified as “morphotypes”, with some morphotypes possibly including several species. Some organisms could not be assigned to any specific phylum and were thus classified as ‘Unknown’. A variety of fish were observed and marked in both mosaics. Most of them were clearly demersal and swimming rather slowly just above the seabed or appeared completely immobile which allowed for reliable quantification. However, Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) was seen swimming slightly higher in the water column and was highly motile, making it difficult to effectively enumerate. This species was thus only included in species counts, but not in the statistical analyses.
Similarly, the 5 different substrate types (carbonate crusts, soft sediment, dead Desmophyllum pertusum, coral rubble and dropstones; Figure 2) were at times difficult to differentiate either due to overlap (e.g., corals growing on hard substrates) or due to image quality. Identification was made as best as possible and for the most part, texture differences or angled corners were clearly visible enough to distinguish between the different substrates.
2.4 Data analyses
Densities for all taxa were calculated based on the spatial extents of the two mosaics. Colonies of individuals (i.e., Ascidiacea, small living D. pertusum colonies and Parazoanthus sp.) were considered as individuals to calculate densities. Average megafaunal density, taxa richness (S), Pielou’s evenness (J), and Shannon’s diversity (H) were calculated from density data for each substrate across both mosaics to obtain integral community characteristics. As the Shannon index (H) in itself does not give any information on true diversity of the community and as its entropy is highly nonlinear, the effective number of species (ENS) was additionally calculated from all Shannon indices (exp(H)) ().
Density data was square root transformed to reduce the impact of highly abundant taxa (e.g., sponges) and the similarity between “hard” (i.e., carbonate crusts, dead D. pertusum, dropstones) and ‘unconsolidated’ (i.e., coral rubble, soft sediment) substrates was estimated using the Bray-Curtis index. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) was used to reveal separate groups and results were verified through an analysis of similarity (ANOSIM). Finally, contributions of the different morphotaxa to the dissimilarity between substrates was investigated through a similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER). All data analyses and data visualizations were performed in R with the packages “vegan” version 2.5–7 (), “ggplot2” version 3.3.5 (Wickham et al., 2023), “ggpubr” version 0.4.0 () and “ggsci” version 2.9 (Xiao et al., 2023).
2.5 Gas and porewater analyses
Free gas was sampled with a gas sampler by the ROV near Mosaic 1. In addition, two push cores within Mosaic 1 (PC1-2) and two adjacent to Mosaic 2 (PC3-4) (see Figure 1 for locations), were taken and sampled immediately after recovery on deck. For methane (CH4) headspace analyses in the pore water samples, holes with a diameter of 1.5 cm were drilled into the plastic liner at intervals up to 5 cm (2 cm–26 cm), starting at the sediment-water interface. It should be noted however, that only three samples could be taken for PC4 (at 2 cm and 5 cm depth) and one for PC1 (at 24 cm). Sediment plugs of 3 ml were taken using a 5 ml syringe with the luer tip removed. Each sediment sample was transferred to a 20 ml serum vial containing 2 glass beads and 6 ml NaOH (2.5%) to prevent microbial degradation. The vial was immediately closed with a septum and an aluminum crimp seal and stored at 4°C until further analyses.
Stable carbon isotopes of methane (C1) and ethane (C2), as well as hydrogen isotopes of methane were analysed at Hydroisotop GmbH, Germany. For the analyses an aliquot of the free and headspace gas was taken with a 10 ml gastight syringe and injected into 20 ml headspace vial filled with helium (He). In the purge&trap autosampler (MessTechnik GmbH) the content of the bottle is flushed with He and trapped 20 min on the absorption material at −120°C. After fast heating up to 200°C the gas mixture was transferred to the GC–MS – IRMS system (Thermo Fischer Scientific GmbH). The GC (Trace Ultra) separates C1-C4 gases from each other which were then transferred to the combustion/pyrolysis interface for conversion of hydrocarbons to CO2 or H2 for carbon and hydrogen stable isotope measurements using an isotope ratio mass-spectrometer (IRMS, DeltaV Advantage). The isotopic composition (δ13C and δ2H) is reported in ‰ (δ-values) against the international standards Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) for carbon and Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) for hydrogen, according to the following equations:
Porewater samples for sulfide (ΣHS = H2S + HS− + S2) concentrations were taken at a ∿2-cm-depth resolution (2 cm–39 cm) along the length of PC1 and PC4, starting at the sediment-water interface. Porewater was extracted in a temperature-controlled room (4°C) with acid-washed rhizon samplers and syringes, and 0.5–2 ml of porewater was preserved with Zn(OAc)2 onboard (<30 min after rhizons were disconnected) for further analyses in the lab. Samples were kept frozen all the time until analyses were conducted. The concentrations of total dissolved sulfide (ΣHS = H2S + HS− + S2) were determined by the iodometric method (US Environmental Protection Agency, method 9030 and Pawlak and Pawlak, 1999). Before the analyses, samples were centrifuged for 5–7 min at 2000 rpm to separate the ZnS precipitates from the residual porewater. The supernatant fluid was pipetted and discarded as it may contain other reductants (such as dissolved organic carbon species) that may react with I2 and affect the results. The remaining ZnS precipitates were washed into a glass beaker with ca. 2 mL of 18Ω Milli-Q water for titration. Iodine (I2) solution of ca. 14 mM was added (0.2 mL). Aliquots of starch solution (0.05 mL; prepared every other day) were added as an end-point indicator and 4M HCl was added to ensure a completed reduction of I2 to 2I− by lowering the sample pH with HCl (Pawlak and Pawlak, 1999). The ZnS in the sample then reduces I2 when in contact (ZnS + I2→ 2ZnI + S). We then titrated the residual I2 to calculate the amounts of total sulfide in the samples (i.e., I2-unreacted – I2-residual = ZnSsample). Factory-made 0.00109N Na-thiosulfate (stabilized standard solution, Hach Lot# 2408949) was sequentially diluted 10 times and 100 times and used as titrants. Titrants were added to the sample with an automatic pipette under constant mixing in an open beaker until the purple color faded away as a result of complete I2 reduction. The amounts of titrant were then recorded for the calculation of ZnSsample. As I2 is fairly unstable when exposed to light, its concentration was closely monitored every ca. 30 min during the titration to constrain I2-unreacted. The uncertainty of the measurements was then determined from the two closest I2 measurements before and after the titration of the actual sample. In general, the concentration of I2-unreacted decreased by 0.27 mM every hour. New I2 was used during the same session of analyses if the I2-unreacted concentration was below 85% of its concentration earlier in the session. The Zn-acetate solution used to precipitate out total sulfide was also titrated following the identical protocol to ensure no measurable sulfide remained in it.
2.6 Animal bulk tissue and stable isotope ratio analyses
All attached fauna from two carbonate rocks collected from within Mosaic 1 were retrieved and all organisms, e.g., including sponge fragments, brittle stars, polychaete fragments (Nephtys sp.) and cnidarians were immediately frozen at −20°C after recovery on deck. In the lab, the recovered organisms were freeze-dried in a vacuum chamber for 24 h, then dissected to separate soft and non-metabolically active tissues (e.g., muscle, tegument) or, when body size was small, were used whole (). They were subsequently ground to a homogeneous powder using mortar and pestle. Samples containing hard inorganic carbon parts that could not be physically removed were acidified by exposing them to HCl vapors for 48 h in an airtight container (). Stable isotope ratio measurements were performed via continuous flow - elemental analysis - isotope ratio mass spectrometry (CF-EA-IRMS) at University of Liège (Belgium), using a vario MICRO cube C-N-S elemental analyzer (Elementar Analysensysteme GMBH, Hanau, Germany) coupled to an IsoPrime100 isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Isoprime, Cheadle, United Kingdom). Isotopic ratios were expressed using the widespread δ notation (), in ‰ and relative to the international references Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (for carbon), atmospheric air (for nitrogen) and Vienna Canyon Diablo Troilite (for sulfur). IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria) certified reference materials sucrose (IAEA-C-6; δ13C = −10.8 ± 0.5‰; mean ± SD), ammonium sulfate (IAEA-N-2; δ15N = 20.3 ± 0.2‰; mean ± SD) and silver sulfide (IAEA-S-1; δ34S = −0.3‰) were used as primary analytical standards. Sulfanilic acid (Sigma-Aldrich; δ13C = −25.6 ± 0.4‰; δ15N = −0.13 ± 0.4‰; δ34S = 5.9 ± 0.5‰; means ± SD) was used as secondary analytical standard. Standard deviations on multi-batch replicate measurements of secondary and internal lab standards (amphipod crustacean muscle) analyzed interspersed with samples (one replicate of each standard every 15 analyses) were 0.2‰ for both δ13C and δ15N and 0.3‰ for δ34S.
2.7 Background megabenthos community characterization
Three video transects of the non-seep background area were extracted from the ROV video surveys of the surrounding background area. These videos were taken with a forward-facing and slightly downward tilted camera and since this camera setup does not allow for precise areal measurements to be made, georeferenced mosaics could not be constructed in the same manner as within the seep area. Nonetheless, time stamps were used to obtain the corresponding navigation data from the ROV which allowed for approximate areas of the seafloor covered by the transects to be calculated. All visible features (biological and non-biological, as in the two georeferenced mosaics) were counted within each transect and converted to densities based on the approximate area calculations. Diversity indices were then calculated for comparisons with the seep mosaics.
3 Results
3.1 Overall seep community composition
In total, 20,813 individuals/colonies of individuals were enumerated in Mosaic 1 (30.65 ind./m2) and 11,287 in Mosaic 2 (20.05 ind./m2) (Table 1; Figure 3). Forty-nine taxa (i.e., species, genus, family, class, and ‘morphotypes’, including microbial mats) across 9 phyla were identified within the two mosaics: Porifera, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, Annelida, Platyhelminthes, Mollusca, Echinodermata, Arthropoda and Chordata. These, however, are likely underestimates due to the difficulty of identifying fauna from images, the possible presence of cryptic species and some morphotypes possibly including several species. Therefore, the total taxonomic richness of the mosaics is likely higher than the 49 taxa shown in Table 1. The majority of all marked individuals (M1: 95%; M2: 97%) belonged to the phylum Porifera and included most importantly cushion-like orange sponges (possibly of the genus Suberites), globular/irregular white/cream colored sponges (possibly of the genera Geodia and Mycale), encrusting orange sponges (possibly of the genus Hymedesmia), encrusting yellow/orange sponges (possibly of the genus Amphilectus) and foliaceous white/cream colored sponges (possibly of the genera Phakellia and Axinella) (Figure 4). All remaining morphotaxa (i.e., not belonging to the phylum Porifera) together, only accounted for 5% or less of all marked individuals in both mosaics. Sponges were thus by far the most dominant members of the megafaunal community at the VCF seep. Furthermore, besides being extremely abundant, many sponges also displayed considerable sizes and very diverse three-dimensional morphologies (e.g., Phakellia sp., Axinella sp., Geodia sp., glass sponge, Figure 5). Following sponges, the next most numerous taxa were unidentifiable ‘fan’ animals (possibly bryozoans), Munida squat lobsters, Echiurids and Parazoanthus polyps (Figure 6). Among the various taxa identified in the mosaicked area, several also hold commercial value, such as Atlantic cod (G. morhua), common ling (Molva molva) and tusk (Brosme brosme) (; ; ). Despite this being a seep site, microbial mats appeared rather small (in the range of several cm at the most) and no visible chemosynthesis-based animals such as siboglinid polychaete worms were seen.
TABLE 1
| Number of individuals/polygons | Density of individuals/polygons | % Cover of polygons | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum/Category | |||||||||||||||
| Morphospecies | M1 | M2 | T1 | T2 | T3 | M1 | M2 | T1 | T2 | T3 | M1 | M2 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Total area (m2) | 679.09 | 562.97 | 129.87 | 58.06 | 87.36 | ||||||||||
| Porifera | 19824 | 10897 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 29.19 | 19.36 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Foliaceous (white, cream) [Phakellia sp., Axinella sp.] | 474 | 544 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.70 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Branching foliaceous (white, cream) | 144 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Branching finger-shaped (white, cream) [Antho dichotoma] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Arborescent (white, cream) | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Glass sponge | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Spherical (white with brown hairy texture) | 19 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Globular/irregular (white, cream) [Geodia sp., Mycale sp.] | 5784 | 3023 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 8.52 | 5.37 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Large irregular (white and brown) [Geodia sp.] | 22 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Large bulby (white) | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Globular (yellow) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Fistular (white, cream) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Encrusting (yellow/orange) [Amphilectus sp.] | 756 | 1568 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.11 | 2.79 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Encrusting (white) [Stryphnus sp.] | 67 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Encrusting (yellow) [Aplysilla sp.] | 261 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Encrusting (orange) [Hymedesmia sp.] | 2064 | 1948 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.04 | 3.46 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Encrusting (blue) [Hymedesmia sp.] | 674 | 313 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.99 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Cushion-like (orange) [Suberites sp.] | 9544 | 3330 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.05 | 5.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bryozoa | 33 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Unknown species | 33 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Cnidaria | 76 | 57 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bolocera sp. | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Cerianthus sp. | 10 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Gorgonia sp. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Paragorgia arborea | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Paramuricea placomus | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Primnoa resedaeformis | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Parazoanthus sp. + | 53 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Desmophyllum pertusum | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Annelida | 159 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Serpulidae | 21 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Sabellidae | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Echiuridae | 123 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Platyhelminthes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Unknown species | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Mollusca | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Unknown species | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Echinodermata | 49 | 23 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.07 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ceramaster granularis | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Henricia sp. | 31 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Cidaris cidaris | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Echinus sp. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Spatangoida sp. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Crinoidea | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ophiuroidea | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Stichopus tremulus | 1 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.07 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Euarthropoda | 52 | 142 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Paguridae | 0 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Munida sp. | 52 | 134 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Chordata | 119 | 49 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Unknown fish species | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Gadus morhua | 45 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Brosme brosme | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Molva molva | 31 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Helicolenus dactylopterus | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Sebastes viviparus | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Trisopterus esmarkii | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Merluccius merluccius | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ascidiacea + | 26 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Unknown | 263 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Round blob (white/blue) | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Fan animal | 253 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Filter feeder | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Circular structure | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Archaea/Bacteria | 225 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bacterial mats + | 225 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 20,813 | 11,287 | 17 | 10 | 14 | 30.65 | 20.05 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.16 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Non-living | |||||||||||||||
| Wood | 40 | 81 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Bone | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Holes in sediment | 14 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Large burrows | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.02 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Circular depression | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Total | 54 | 111 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Trash | |||||||||||||||
| Plastic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Fabric | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Carton | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Paper | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Metal can | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Glass bottle | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Fishing net | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Nylon fishing line | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Anchor | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Unidentifiable | 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Total | 35 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Substrates | |||||||||||||||
| Carbonate crusts + | 247 | 392 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 27.11 | 12.15 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Dead D. pertusum + | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.63 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Coral rubble + | 10 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 2.55 | 21.61 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Soft sediment + | 22 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 69.39 | 65.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Dropstones + | 156 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 444 | 422 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 100.06 | 99.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Community, substrate, and litter observed and marked in the two georeferenced mosaics of the VCF seep (M1 and M2) and transects of the surrounding background area (T1 and T2). For each mosaic/transect, total numbers of individuals/polygons, densities of individuals/polygons and percent cover of polygons with respect to the entire mosaic/transect are listed, first, at the phylum level (in bold), and then for each individual taxon. Density of individuals and polygons are calculated as per square meter, based on the total area of the mosaic/transects (see first entry in the table). Colonial taxa are marked with +. This data are also publicly available at GBIF (Sinner et al., 2023) https://doi.org/10.15468/5vrbbj.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
3.2 Substrate types and associated communities
Five substrates were observed at the VCF: carbonate crusts, soft sediment, dead D. pertusum, coral rubble and dropstones. Of these, soft sediment made up the largest proportion of the surface area in both mosaics (M1: 69% and M2: 65%) (Table 1). Regarding hard substrata, M1 contained a large amount of carbonate crusts (27% of mosaicked area) but very little coral rubble (3% of mosaicked area), while M2 contained more coral rubble than carbonate crusts (22% and 12% of mosaicked area respectively). Dropstones and dead D. pertusum were less abundant and only accounted for less than 1% each of the total surface area in both mosaics (Table 1).
Based on the nMDS and ANOSIM, the fauna associated with the different substrates was significantly different (R: 0.67; p = 0.03). Faunal assemblages of ‘hard’ (i.e., carbonate crusts, dead D. pertusum, dropstones) were also significantly different from those on ‘unconsolidated’ (i.e., coral rubble, soft sediment) substrates (R: 0.91; p < 0.01) (Figure 7). In terms of megafaunal densities, carbonate crusts were the most highly populated substrate in both mosaics (M1: 108 ind./m2; M2: 135 ind./m2), dominated however, by extremely high numbers of sponges (e.g., the cushion-like orange sponge or the globular/irregular white/cream colored sponge) leading to low taxa evenness and thus only intermediate diversity values compared to the other substrates (Table 2). Nonetheless, carbonate crusts hosted the absolute majority of all marked individuals (M1: 95%; M2: 82%), as well as the majority (M1: 91%; M2:89%) of all morphotaxa identified in both mosaics. In contrast, soft sediment, which dominated both mosaics, hosted only 3%–4% of all marked individuals and 57%–60% of all morphotaxa identified. While the taxonomic composition on dead D. pertusum (M1: 58 ind./m2) and dropstones (M1: 55 ind./m2; M2: 80 ind./m2) was similar to that on carbonate crusts (66% and 60% similarity respectively) (Table 3), megafauna was only about half as dense and diversity values were comparatively low. Megafaunal densities were the lowest on coral rubble (M1: 2; M2: 13 ind./m2) and soft sediment (M1: 2; M2: 3 ind./m2), while diversity values were the highest among these two substrates. Community composition was very similar between soft sediment and coral rubble (57%), while similarities in taxonomic composition between soft sediment and most other substrates (i.e., carbonate crusts, dead D. pertusum and dropstones) were very low, ranging from 23% to 27%.
FIGURE 7
TABLE 2
| Nb. of individuals | Density | Richness | Evenness | Diversity | ENS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate | M1 | M2 | M1 | M2 | M1 | M2 | M1 | M2 | M1 | M2 | M1 | M2 |
| Carbonate crusts | 19,811 | 9262 | 108 | 135 | 42 | 31 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 4.9 | 5.7 |
| Dead D. pertusum | 250 | n/a | 58 | n/a | 17 | n/a | 0.5 | n/a | 1.5 | n/a | 4.4 | n/a |
| Dropstones | 143 | 32 | 55 | 80 | 14 | 5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 4.6 | 3.5 |
| Coral rubble | 38 | 1,565 | 2 | 13 | 10 | 20 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 7.1 | 6.3 |
| Soft sediment | 524 | 428 | 2 | 3 | 27 | 21 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 8.5 | 5.4 |
Total number of individuals, total megafaunal density, taxa richness (S), Shannon’s diversity (H), Pielou’s evenness (J) and effective number of species (ENS) for the different substrates within the two seep mosaics.
TABLE 3
| Substrate | Overall dissimilarity (%) | Most influential species | Cumulative contributions (%) | Contributions (%) | Respective taxa densities | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbonate crust - Dead D. pertusum | 33.89 | Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 13.83 | 13.83 | 10.84 | - | 0.23 |
| Encrusting orange sponge | 27.29 | 13.46 | 17.18 | - | 2.32 | ||
| Cushion-like orange sponge | 35.35 | 8.06 | 47.97 | - | 29.30 | ||
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 43.37 | 8.02 | 31.73 | - | 16.94 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 49.08 | 5.71 | 3.86 | - | 0.70 | ||
| Fan animal | 53.21 | 4.13 | 0.72 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Branching foliaceous white, cream sponge | 56.88 | 3.67 | 0.48 | - | 1.86 | ||
| Echiuridae | 60.45 | 3.57 | 0.45 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Parazoanthus sp. | 63.99 | 7.11 | 0.47 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Encrusting white sponge | 67.26 | 3.27 | 0.38 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Henricia sp. | 69.85 | 2.59 | 0.12 | - | 0.70 | ||
| Platyhelminthe | 72.41 | 2.56 | 0.00 | - | 0.23 | ||
| Carbonate crust - Dropstone | 40.32 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 23.75 | 23.75 | 47.97 | - | 3.47 |
| Encrusting blue sponge | 32.42 | 8.67 | 3.50 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 40.23 | 7.81 | 10.84 | - | 10.50 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 47.69 | 7.46 | 17.18 | - | 6.02 | ||
| Microbial mats | 51.99 | 4.29 | 0.76 | - | 1.72 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 55.53 | 3.55 | 1.43 | - | 0.38 | ||
| Munida sp. | 58.78 | 3.25 | 0.55 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Parazoanthus sp. | 61.89 | 3.11 | 0.45 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Fan animal | 64.98 | 3.09 | 0.47 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 67.64 | 2.66 | 0.72 | - | 0.38 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 70.22 | 2.58 | 31.73 | - | 37.36 | ||
| Carbonate crust - Coral rubble | 66.81 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 21.88 | 21.88 | 47.97 | - | 0.94 |
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 37.24 | 15.36 | 31.73 | - | 2.36 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 48.56 | 11.32 | 17.18 | - | 1.35 | ||
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 57.01 | 8.45 | 10.84 | - | 1.29 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 62.46 | 5.46 | 3.50 | - | 0.31 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 66.92 | 4.45 | 3.86 | - | 0.52 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 70.62 | 3.70 | 1.43 | - | 0.03 | ||
| Carbonate crust - Soft sediment | 76.92 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 21.37 | 21.37 | 47.97 | - | 0.28 |
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 36.79 | 15.41 | 31.73 | - | 1.02 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 49.06 | 12.27 | 17.18 | - | 0.14 | ||
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 58.34 | 9.29 | 10.84 | - | 0.12 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 64.18 | 5.84 | 3.50 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 69.15 | 4.97 | 3.86 | - | 0.17 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 72.80 | 3.64 | 1.43 | 0.02 | |||
| Dead D. pertusum - Dropstone | 48.72 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 18.11 | 18.11 | 29.30 | - | 3.47 |
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 29.85 | 11.73 | 0.23 | - | 10.50 | ||
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 39.87 | 10.03 | 16.94 | - | 37.36 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 47.90 | 8.03 | 2.55 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 55.69 | 7.79 | 0.70 | - | 5.73 | ||
| Branching foliaceous white, cream sponge | 60.41 | 4.72 | 1.86 | - | 0.38 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 65.04 | 4.63 | 2.32 | - | 6.02 | ||
| Microbial mats | 69.66 | 4.62 | 0.46 | - | 1.72 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 73.46 | 3.80 | 1.39 | - | 0.38 | ||
| Dead D. pertusum - Coral rubble | 61.55 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 25.79 | 25.79 | 29.30 | - | 0.94 |
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 41.45 | 15.65 | 16.94 | - | 2.36 | ||
| Branching foliaceous white, cream sponge | 48.75 | 7.30 | 1.86 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 55.84 | 7.10 | 2.55 | - | 0.31 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 61.58 | 5.73 | 1.39 | - | 0.03 | ||
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 65.94 | 4.37 | 0.23 | - | 1.29 | ||
| Henricia sp. | 70.01 | 4.06 | 0.70 | - | 0.04 | ||
| Dead D. pertusum - Soft sediment | 72.42 | Cushion-like orange sponge | 25.91 | 25.91 | 29.30 | - | 0.28 |
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 42.43 | 16.51 | 16.94 | - | 1.02 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 50.26 | 7.83 | 2.55 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Branching foliaceous white, cream sponge | 57.33 | 7.07 | 1.86 | - | 0.00 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 63.45 | 6.12 | 2.32 | - | 0.14 | ||
| Encrusting yellow sponge | 69.18 | 5.73 | 1.39 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Henricia sp. | 73.05 | 3.87 | 0.70 | - | 0.01 | ||
| Dropstone - Coral rubble | 63.25 | Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 28.34 | 28.34 | 37.36 | - | 2.36 |
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 42.43 | 14.09 | 10.50 | - | 1.29 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 52.65 | 10.22 | 5.73 | - | 0.52 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 61.89 | 9.24 | 6.02 | - | 1.35 | ||
| Cushion-like orange sponge | 67.45 | 5.57 | 3.47 | - | 0.94 | ||
| Microbial mats | 72.80 | 5.34 | 1.72 | - | 0.09 | ||
| Dropstone - Soft sediment | 75.77 | Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 27.75 | 27.75 | 37.36 | - | 1.02 |
| Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 41.66 | 13.91 | 10.50 | - | 0.12 | ||
| Encrusting orange sponge | 52.94 | 11.28 | 6.02 | - | 0.14 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 63.61 | 10.67 | 5.73 | - | 0.17 | ||
| Cushion-like orange sponge | 70.63 | 7.01 | 3.47 | - | 0.28 | ||
| Coral rubble - Soft sediment | 43.03 | Encrusting yellow, orange sponge | 13.45 | 13.45 | 1.29 | - | 0.12 |
| Encrusting orange sponge | 23.53 | 10.08 | 1.35 | - | 0.14 | ||
| Globular/irregular white, cream sponge | 32.79 | 9.26 | 2.36 | - | 1.02 | ||
| Encrusting blue sponge | 39.30 | 6.52 | 0.31 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Cushion-like orange sponge | 45.62 | 6.31 | 0.94 | - | 0.28 | ||
| Fan animal | 51.91 | 6.29 | 0.14 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Munida sp. | 57.45 | 5.55 | 0.29 | - | 0.04 | ||
| Foliaceous white, cream sponge | 61.96 | 4.51 | 0.52 | - | 0.17 | ||
| Microbial mats | 65.76 | 3.80 | 0.09 | - | 0.02 | ||
| Echiuridae | 68.80 | 3.04 | 0.04 | - | 0.04 | ||
| Ophiuridae | 71.47 | 5.71 | 0.03 | - | 0.01 | ||
Similarity percentage (SIMPER) results for average overall dissimilarities in the community assemblages between different substrates. The column “Contributions (%)” contains the three species contributing the most (cut-off at 70% contribution) to the average overall Bray-Curtis dissimilarity between communities.
*Morphotaxa not belonging to the phylum Porifera are marked in bold.
3.3 Geochemical characteristics of the seep site
Stable carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses were conducted on the free gas samples to assess whether the underlying source of methane was of microbial (−110‰ ≥ δ13C ≥ −50‰ and −400‰ ≥ δD ≥ −150‰) or thermogenic (−50‰ ≥ δ13C ≥ −20‰ and −275‰ ≥ δD ≥ −100‰) origin (Whiticar, 1999). Wetness was measured by the molar ratio of methane to the sum of ethane and propane (C1/(C2+C3)), with wetter gases containing higher amounts of C2+ gases and displaying a low C1/(C2+C3) ratio. Microbial methane tends to be light and dry, whereas thermogenic methane is usually rather heavy and wet (). The free gas was nearly entirely composed of methane (99.97%) with δ13C-CH4 and δD-CH4 values of −74.4‰ and −194‰ respectively, and with a ratio of methane over ethane and propane of >4,000, appears to be of microbial origin (Figure 8) (Whiticar, 1999; ). Similarly, headspace gas analysis from the push cores also revealed methane of microbial origin (δ13C-CH4: −79.1‰ – −91.7‰; δD-CH4: −189‰ – −215‰ across all push cores). Note that while the δ13C-CH4 values clearly confirm the hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis (CO2-reduction), also in the revised genetic diagram by , the isotopic composition of ethane (d13C-C2H6)of −37.2‰ is well within the thermogenic range (). We suggest two possible pathways to explain this: 1) microbial methanogenesis in shallow sediment as a result of organic matter degradation fueled by methane-seep related biomass or 2) secondary methanogenesis as a result of thermogenic hydrocarbon biodegradation (Stagars et al., 2017) or a combination of both processes. At least, some admixture of thermogenic gas in our free gas sample is evident from the high ethane δ13C value. In push cores PC2 and PC3, low concentrations of methane (3 and 10 µM respectively) were measured shallow in the sediment (2 cm), although concentrations increased downcore, but nonetheless remained below the millimolar range (Figure 9). On the other hand, in both push cores 1 and 4, millimolar concentrations (1.0 and 1.9 mM) of methane were measured at 24 and 2 cm depth respectively. Sulfide concentrations were in the low millimolar range (<0.6 mM) in the first sediment layers (0–3 cm), and rapidly increased downcore, with high millimolar concentrations (max: 1.1 and 1.2 mM respectively) measured across both PC1 and PC4 (Figure 9).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9

Sediment porewater methane and sulfide concentrations in push cores collected from the VCF study site. Push cores 1–2 (PC1 and PC2) were collected from within mosaic 1 (see Figures 1, 3 for locations) and push cores 3–4 (PC3 and PC4) were collected adjacent to mosaic 2 (Figure 1).
3.4 Animal bulk stable isotopes
All δ34S values ranged from 18.9 to 21.6‰ and were slightly lower or similar to ocean sulfate (
FIGURE 10

Scatterplot of δ34S and δ13C (A) and δ15N and δ13C (B) values of the fauna collected in the study. Porifera samples are not shown in the first plot because δ34S values were below detectable range. Stable isotope data are published and publicly available in SEANOE: https://doi.org/10.17882/95359 (
3.5 Background benthos community composition and comparison to the seep community
The three transects outside the seep area contained a total of 12 megafaunal taxa (Table 1) across 6 phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Mollusca, Echinodermata, Arthropoda and Chordata). Three phyla (Bryozoa, Annelida and Platyhelminthes), which were seen in the seep mosaics were absent from the background transects. On the other hand, two sponge morphotaxa (yellow globular and white/cream fistular sponges), as well as three fish species (Trisopterus esmarkii, Merluccius merluccius and one fish of unknown genus) were identified in the background area that were not seen in the seep areas. The holothuroid Stichopus tremulus accounted for the majority of all megafauna in the background transects, representing 44% of all marked individuals (T1 – T3 combined). Substrate features included large burrows or circular depressions in the soft sediment and small holes, the latter also being present in the seep mosaics. No hard substrata were recorded in the background transects. Mean megafaunal density as well as total taxa richness were notably lower in the background non-seep transects compared to the seep mosaics (25 ± 7.4 ind./m2 vs. 0.15 ± 0.0 ind./m2 and 48 taxa vs. 12 taxa) (Figure 11). However, while evenness was high in the background area (J: 0.86 ± 0.1) and low in the seep area (J: 0.47 ± 0.1), diversity indices were similar in both areas (H’: 1.73 ± 0.1 in the seep area vs. 1.49 ± 0.4 in the non-seep area), with the true diversity showing 6 ± 0.7 effective species in the seep area and 5 ± 1.6 effective species in the non-seep area.
FIGURE 11

Richness and diversity of seep mosaics and non-seep background transects. (A) Taxa richness (S), mean (±s.d.), (B) megafaunal density (individuals/m2), (C) Pielou’s evenness (J), (D) Shannon’s diversity (H) for seep and non-seep (background) sites. 1: Representative image of the non-seep background area, 2: Representative image of the seep site.
3.6 Marine litter
Many instances of human-mediated litter were observed in the seep mosaics (Table 1; Figure 12). In total, 35 and 9 items were marked in M1 and M2 respectively, which consisted predominantly of fishing gear, but also glass, metals, paper, etc. (Figure 12). Fishing nets were the most abundant, with seven nets being marked in M1 and five in M2. Some reached sizes in the order of some square meters and many were entangled in soft corals and other benthic megafauna (Figure 12). Most of the litter did not appear to be particularly degraded, on the contrary, some bottles and cans were still perfectly intact. Considerably lower numbers of human litter items (2 in total) were observed in the transects of the background area outside the VCF seep.
FIGURE 12

Examples of litter observed in the mosaicked areas. (A) Big fishing net entangled in a Paragorgia arborea soft coral; (B) Nylon fishing line entangled in carbonate seep crusts and its epifauna; (C) Soda can; (D) Fishing equipment. Scale bars: 20 cm.
4 Discussion
4.1 Chemosynthesis and nutrition at the VCF seep
Siboglinids dominate high latitude seeps and as chemosymbiotic fauna, they represent the base of the food chain and alter sediment geochemistry, functioning as ecosystem engineers (
However, it can also be argued that the VCF site is simply beyond the photic zone where chemosynthesis-based symbioses would be selected against. In this case, other reasons need to be considered for the lack of chemosymbiotic animals at VCF. Since siboglinids are obligately symbiotic with chemosynthetic bacteria, the availability of chemosynthetic energy sources such as methane and sulfide represents a major limiting factor. We mapped two distinct gas flares in the multibeam survey (Figure 1B) and collected bubbling gas via the ROV close to the presence of carbonate crusts. This indicates that seepage is actively occurring at the VCF site. Indeed, we measured methane concentrations reaching up to 1.9 mM as shallow as 2 cm below the sediment-water interface and sulfide concentrations reaching up to 1.2 mM in only 5 cm of depth in the sediments. Therefore, it seems unlikely that sulfide (and methane) concentrations are insufficient to support siboglinids at the VCF site. However, despite sulfide and methane concentrations reaching millimolar concentrations at shallow depths in the sediment, we did observe considerable variation across different push cores. Thus, fluid release and sediment concentrations could be highly heterogeneous over very short lateral distances. Microbial mats were very patchy and small (Figure 13), which further supports the idea of the fluid regime at VCF being characterized by point sources with little lateral diffusion. Sediment heterogeneity (e.g., grain size) can lead to small-scale flow channelization, creating preferential rapid flow channels for methane, decreasing its residence time in the sediment and thus bypassing AOM by methane-consuming microbial communities (Torres et al., 2002;
FIGURE 13

(A) and (B): Microbial mats observed at the VCF seep site. Scale bars: 20 cm.
FIGURE 14

Coarser soft sediment compared to finer soft sediment observed within the mosaics. Scale bar: 20 cm.
Cold seep sabellids have recently been found to host methane oxidizing bacteria on their crowns and a nutritional symbiotic association has been suggested (
FIGURE 15

(A) Sabellids with protruding red feathery branchiae; (B) Sabellids with retracted branchiae; (C) Sabellids with protruding white feathery branchiae. Scale bars: 20 cm.
A lack, or paucity of chemosymbiotic animals would subsequently suggest that chemosynthetically fixed carbon does not constitute a major part of the food web at the VCF seep. We opportunistically sampled megabenthic fauna from two carbonate rocks retrieved from the VCF seep and conducted stable isotope analyses on them in order to assess the role of, and to track chemosynthetically fixed carbon through the food chain. Photosynthesis and chemosynthesis favor the two stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C) differently, therefore the ratio of the two constitutes a record of the carbon source at the base of the food web (
Therefore, the combined results of our stable carbon, sulfur and nitrogen stable isotope analyses suggest that chemosynthesis does not play a major role in the benthic food web at the VCF seep, and that taxa primarily obtain their nutrition from phytodetrital material. It should be kept in mind however, that only a small fraction of the local fauna was subjected to stable isotope analyses, and that taxa with the highest potential for being chemosymbiotrophic, such as the previously mentioned sabellids were not analyzed. Additionally, we observed high numbers of echiurans (M1: 123 individuals; M2: 44 individuals), probably Bonellia viridis, a species that has previously been suggested to feed on microbial mats at the periphery of the Milos vent fields (
4.2 Impacts of seep substrates on the local benthos
Low latitude cold seeps around the world have been seen to host high biomass but low diversity communities compared to the surrounding non-seep seafloor, while seeps in higher latitudes appear to host both high abundance and high diversity communities in comparison to surrounding non-seep areas (
Despite carbonate crusts not representing the most abundant substrate within the seep area, they hosted nearly all morphotaxa identified, as well as the majority of all marked individuals. In contrast, soft sediment, which dominated both mosaics, only hosted about half of the morphotaxa identified and less than a tenth of all marked individuals. Thus, even compared to other hard substrates, such as dead D. pertusum and dropstones, the latter also being found in the non-seep background area (in some supplementary video material, but not in the video transects), carbonate crusts seem to play a particularly important role in structuring the local benthos. This may be explained by methane-derived authigenic carbonate crusts having higher three-dimensional complexity, offering more nooks and crannies for different kinds of animals to find fixation points (e.g., Parazoanthus sp.) and shelter in (e.g., Munida sp.); higher elevation from the seafloor, giving heightened access to organic material from the water column (e.g., Sabellidae); and sheer volume/size compared to the other hard substrates such as dropstones or dead D. pertusum corals, offering more space for animals to grow in large numbers (e.g., cushion-like orange sponge) and to grow in size (e.g., Paragorgia arborea) (
Though carbonates had the highest abundances and numbers of taxa overall, other substrates, and most importantly the two unconsolidated substrates (i.e., soft sediment and coral rubble) showed higher taxa evenness and diversity. In addition, community composition on these substrates highly differed from all other substrates through the absence or low abundance of hard-substrate dwelling suspension-feeding animals, such as sponges, sabellids, ‘fan animals’ or soft corals. Only one single taxon was unique to these substrates, S. tremulus, a soft-bottom dwelling sea cucumber commonly found on soft sediments along the Norwegian coast (
4.3 Implications for marine management
Norway is the seventh biggest oil producer, the third largest net oil exporter, as well as the world’s second largest exporter of fish and seafood in the world (
The VCF seep, with its multitude of hard substrates, hosts a high diversity and high abundance faunal community that is distinct from the surrounding seafloor community. Based on OSPAR (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) descriptions, the VCF seep ought to be categorized as a threatened and/or declining habitat, as they not only feature D. pertusum colonies and soft corals, such as P. arborea, Paramuricea placomus and Primnoa resedaeformis, but also deep-sea sponge aggregations, including some which have reached very large sizes. All these taxa are extremely slow-growing and are therefore particularly vulnerable to disturbances, such as oil drilling, bottom trawling and other fisheries related activities (
In the VCF seep mosaics we observed a considerable amount of marine litter (on average 0.03 items/m2), the majority of which was fishing gear (Table 1). Seven fishing nets were seen in M1 and five in M2, with one of the bigger fishing nets in M1 being completely entangled in a large P. arborea soft coral (Figure 12A). Demersal fishing such as bottom gillnetting or bottom trawling (
Recovery time after damaging impacts (e.g., physical damage through fishing nets) in coral habitats may take decades and even though recovery time appears to be shorter for deep-sea sponge aggregations, they have been found to suffer from lingering damage and experience delayed mortality over the course of many years or even decades (
5 Conclusion
Despite active seepage and high sediment methane and sulfide concentrations, the megafaunal communities of the Vestbrona Carbonate Field (VCF) on the Mid-Norwegian continental shelf lacked chemosymbiotrophic animals, which generally tend to dominate seep ecosystems. Instead, the VCF was dominated by dense sponge aggregations and was composed of heterotrophic background taxa. Our results emphasize however, that despite a lack of ecosystem engineering chemosymbiotrophic animals, seeps and their multitude of different substrates can play significant roles in benthic ecosystems by functioning as density hotspots and increasing the regional diversity. Our study shows that although the observed taxa are considered priorities for protection under the OSPAR convention and partly protected under national legislation, they are still subject to multiple human stressors, including highly destructive fishing activities. Informed and effective conservation measures will be needed to protect the VCF seeps and the unique biodiversity hotspot they represent.
Statements
Data availability statement
All data used in this study are presented in the tables. Data generated from the mosaics and transects 689 are published in GBIF (
Author contributions
AS, MS, and JK contributed to the conception and design of the study. AS and JK were responsible for sample collections. WH conducted porewater chemistry measurements, LM conducted animal stable isotope measurements and SV conducted acoustic measurements. JK was responsible for the free gas analyses. AS and MS constructed the georeferenced seep mosaics and MS extracted the background transects. MS digitized and enumerated all features in the mosaics and transects and conducted all statistical analyses. MS wrote the main text of the manuscript under the supervision of AS with contributions from all authors. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
We sincerely thank Spirit Energy Ltd. (now: Sval Energy AS) for supporting the ROV expedition onboard R/V G.O. Sars. The research was supported by the Research Council of Norway (RCN) (project numbers 223259, and 332635). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the captain and crew of the R/V G. O. Sars (University of Bergen), the ROV Ægir team, and the scientific team of the 20-0 CAGE cruise from which data for this project was gathered. We thank Henning Reiss and Morten Krogstad for helping with organization and logistics and Nord University for hosting the first author and providing office space and technical equipment. We thank the MER Consortium and Erasmus+ for funding the first author’s stay at Nord University and Brian Sevin for providing guidance and suggestions. We are grateful to Henning Reiss, Sabine Cochrane, Paul Renaud and Bodil Bluhm for help with identifying animals such as the “fan animal.”
Conflict of interest
LM was employed by the company Ifremer.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AlthausF.WilliamsA.SchlacherT. A.KloserR. J.GreenM. A.BarkerB. A.et al (2009). Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.397, 279–294. 10.3354/meps08248
2
ÅströmE. K. L.BluhmB. A.RasmussenT. L. (2022). Chemosynthetic and photosynthetic trophic support from cold seeps in Arctic benthic communities. Front. Mar. Sci.9, 910558. 10.3389/fmars.2022.910558
3
ÅströmE. K. L.CarrollM. L.AmbroseW. G.SenA.SilyakovaA.CarrollJ. (2018). Methane cold seeps as biological oases in the high-Arctic deep sea. Limnol. Oceanogr.63, S209–S231. 10.1002/lno.10732
4
ÅströmE. K. L.CarrollM. L.JrW. G. A.CarrollJ. (2016). Arctic cold seeps in marine methane hydrate environments: Impacts on shelf macrobenthic community structure offshore svalbard. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.552, 1–18. 10.3354/meps11773
5
AstromE.CarrollM.SenA.NiemannH.AmbroseW.LehmannM.et al (2019). Chemosynthesis influences food web and community structure in high-Arctic benthos. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.629, 19–42. 10.3354/meps13101
6
ÅströmE. K. L.OliverP. G.CarrollM. L. (2017). A new genus and two new species of Thyasiridae associated with methane seeps off Svalbard, Arctic Ocean. Mar. Biol. Res.13, 402–416. 10.1080/17451000.2016.1272699
7
ÅströmE. K. L.SenA.CarrollM. L.CarrollJ. (2020). Cold seeps in a warming arctic: Insights for benthic ecology. Front. Mar. Sci.7, 244. 10.3389/fmars.2020.00244
8
BayonG.HendersonG. M.BohnM. (2009). U–Th stratigraphy of a cold seep carbonate crust. Chem. Geol.260, 47–56. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.11.020
9
BeazleyL. I.KenchingtonE. L.MurilloF. J.SacauM.delM. (2013). Deep-sea sponge grounds enhance diversity and abundance of epibenthic megafauna in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci.70, 1471–1490. 10.1093/icesjms/fst124
10
BellJ. J. (2008). The functional roles of marine sponges. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.79, 341–353. 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.05.002
11
BeuckL.VertinoA.StepinaE.KarolczakM.PfannkucheO. (2007). Skeletal response of Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinia) to bioeroding sponge infestation visualised with micro-computed tomography. Facies53, 157–176. 10.1007/s10347-006-0094-9
12
BoetiusA.RavenschlagK.SchubertC. J.RickertD.WiddelF.GiesekeA.et al (2000). A marine microbial consortium apparently mediating anaerobic oxidation of methane. Nature407, 623–626. 10.1038/35036572
13
BuggeT.PrestvikT.RokoengenK. (1980). Lower tertiary volcanic rocks off Kristiansund — mid Norway. Mar. Geol.35, 277–286. 10.1016/0025-3227(80)90121-8
14
Buhl-MortensenL.MortensenP. B. (2004). Crustaceans associated with the deep-water gorgonian corals Paragorgia arborea (L., 1758) and Primnoa resedaeformis (Gunn., 1763). J. Nat. Hist.38, 1233–1247. 10.1080/0022293031000155205
15
Buhl-MortensenL.MortensenP. B. (2005). “Distribution and diversity of species associated with deep-sea gorgonian corals off Atlantic Canada,” in Cold-water corals and ecosystems erlangen Earth conference series. Editors FreiwaldA.RobertsJ. M. (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 849–879. 10.1007/3-540-27673-4_44
16
CarneyR. S. (1994). Consideration of the oasis analogy for chemosynthetic communities at Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon vents. Geo-Marine Lett.14, 149–159. 10.1007/BF01203726
17
CathalotC.Van OevelenD.CoxT. J. S.KuttiT.LavaleyeM.DuineveldG.et al (2015). Cold-water coral reefs and adjacent sponge grounds: Hotspots of benthic respiration and organic carbon cycling in the deep sea. Front. Mar. Sci.2, 37. 10.3389/fmars.2015.00037
18
CeramicolaS.DupréS.SomozaL.WoodsideJ. (2018). “Cold seep systems,” in Submarine geomorphology springer geology. Editors MicallefA.KrastelS.SaviniA. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 367–387. 10.1007/978-3-319-57852-1_19
19
ClarkM. R.AlthausF.SchlacherT. A.WilliamsA.BowdenD. A.RowdenA. A. (2016). The impacts of deep-sea fisheries on benthic communities: A review. ICES J. Mar. Sci.73, i51–i69. 10.1093/icesjms/fsv123
20
CoplenT. B. (2011). Guidelines and recommended terms for expression of stable-isotope-ratio and gas-ratio measurement results: Guidelines and recommended terms for expressing stable isotope results. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.25, 2538–2560. 10.1002/rcm.5129
21
CordesE. E.CunhaM. R.GaléronJ.MoraC.RoyK. O.-L.SibuetM.et al (2010). The influence of geological, geochemical, and biogenic habitat heterogeneity on seep biodiversity. Mar. Ecol.31, 51–65. 10.1111/j.1439-0485.2009.00334.x
22
DandoP. R. (2010). “Biological communities at marine shallow-water vent and seep sites,” in The vent and seep biota: Aspects from microbes to ecosystems topics in geobiology. Editor KielS. (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 333–378. 10.1007/978-90-481-9572-5_11
23
DandoP. R.HughesJ. A.ThiermannF. (1995). Preliminary observations on biological communities at shallow hydrothermal vents in the Aegean Sea. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ.87, 303–317. 10.1144/GSL.SP.1995.087.01.23
24
De ClippeleL. H.HuvenneV. A. I.MolodtsovaT. N.RobertsJ. M. (2019). The diversity and ecological role of non-scleractinian corals (antipatharia and alcyonacea) on scleractinian cold-water coral mounds. Front. Mar. Sci.6, 184. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00184
25
De GoeijJ. M.Van OevelenD.VermeijM. J. A.OsingaR.MiddelburgJ. J.De GoeijA. F. P. M.et al (2013). Surviving in a marine desert: The sponge loop retains resources within coral reefs. Science342, 108–110. 10.1126/science.1241981
26
De JuanS.LleonartJ. (2010). Fisheries conservation management and vulnerable ecosystems in the Mediterranean open seas, including the deep sea. Tunis: UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA.
27
DemopoulosA. W. J.GualtieriD.KovacsK. (2010). Food-web structure of seep sediment macrobenthos from the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr.57, 1972–1981. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.05.011
28
DeNiroM. J.EpsteinS. (1978). Influence of diet on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta42, 495–506. 10.1016/0016-7037(78)90199-0
29
D’OnghiaG. (2019). “30 cold-water corals as shelter, feeding and life-history critical habitats for fish species: Ecological interactions and fishing impact,” in Mediterranean cold-water corals: Past, present and future: Understanding the deep-sea realms of coral coral reefs of the world. Editors OrejasC.JiménezC. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 335–356. 10.1007/978-3-319-91608-8_30
30
FisherC.RobertsH.CordesE.BernardB. (2007). Cold seeps and associated communities of the gulf of Mexico. Oceanog20, 118–129. 10.5670/oceanog.2007.12
31
FredriksenS. (2003). Food web studies in a Norwegian kelp forest based on stable isotope (δ13C and δ15N) analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.260, 71–81. 10.3354/meps260071
32
FryB. (2006). Stable isotope ecology. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/0-387-33745-8
33
GebrukA. V.KrylovaE. M.LeinA. Y.VinogradovG. M.AndersonE.PimenovV.et al (2003). Methane seep community of the Ha˚kon mosby mud volcano (the Norwegian sea): Composition and trophic aspects. Sarsia N. Atl. Mar. Sci.88, 394–403. 10.1080/00364820310003190
34
GoffrediS. K.TilicE.MullinS. W.DawsonK. S.KellerA.LeeR. W.et al (2020). Methanotrophic bacterial symbionts fuel dense populations of deep-sea feather duster worms (Sabellida, Annelida) and extend the spatial influence of methane seepage. Sci. Adv.6, eaay8562. 10.1126/sciadv.aay8562
35
GrallJ.Le Loc’hF.GuyonnetB.RieraP. (2006). Community structure and food web based on stable isotopes (δ15N and δ13C) analysis of a North Eastern Atlantic maerl bed. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.338, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jembe.2006.06.013
36
GreyJ.DeinesP. (2005). Differential assimilation of methanotrophic and chemoautotrophic bacteria by lake chironomid larvae. Aquat. Microb. Ecol.40, 61–66. 10.3354/ame040061
37
GrupeB. M. (2014). Implications of environmental heterogeneity for community structure, colonization, and trophic dynamics at eastern pacific methane seeps. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3r68b6pz (Accessed November 8, 2022).
38
GuttJ.SchickanT. (1998). Epibiotic relationships in the Antarctic benthos. Antarct. Sci.10, 398–405. 10.1017/S0954102098000480
39
HedgesJ. I.SternJ. H. (1984). Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate-containing solids1. Limnol. Oceanogr.29, 657–663. 10.4319/lo.1984.29.3.0657
40
HelleK.PenningtonM.HareideN.-R.FossenI. (2015). Selecting a subset of the commercial catch data for estimating catch per unit effort series for ling (Molva molva L). Fish. Res.165, 115–120. 10.1016/j.fishres.2014.12.015
41
HobsonK. A.AmbroseW. G.RenaudP. R. (1996). Sources of primary production, benthicpelagic coupling, and trophic relationships within the northeast water polynya: Insights from δ 1 3 C and δ 1 5 N analysis. Oceanogr. Lit. Rev.7, 689.
42
HoggM. M.TendalO. S.ConwayK. W.PomponiS. A.van SoestR. W. M.GuttJ.et al (2010). Deep-sea sponge grounds: Reservoirs of biodiversity. UNEP-WCMC Available at: https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/deepsea-sponge-grounds-reservoirs-of-biodiversity(c0c920a3-4208-4d3c-b55d-1a1b09aced52).html (Accessed July 6, 2021).
43
HovlandM.RiskM. (2003). Do Norwegian deep-water coral reefs rely on seeping fluids?Mar. Geol.198, 83–96. 10.1016/S0025-3227(03)00096-3
44
ICES (2019). Norwegian Sea Ecoregion—Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. ICES Advice 2019, Section 12.1. 10.17895/ices.advice.5748
45
JensenA.FrederiksenR. (1992). The fauna associated with the bank-forming deepwater coral Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinaria) on the Faroe shelf. Sarsia77, 53–69. 10.1080/00364827.1992.10413492
46
JohansenU.Bull-BergH.VikL. H.StokkaA. M.RichardsenR.WintherU. (2019). The Norwegian seafood industry – importance for the national economy. Mar. Policy110, 103561. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103561
47
JonssonL. G.NilssonP. G.FlorutaF.LundälvT. (2004). Distributional patterns of macro- and megafauna associated with a reef of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa on the Swedish west coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series284, 163–171. 10.3354/meps284163
48
JostL. (2006). Entropy and diversity. Oikos113, 363–375. 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x
49
JoyeS. B.BoetiusA.OrcuttB. N.MontoyaJ. P.SchulzH. N.EricksonM. J.et al (2004). The anaerobic oxidation of methane and sulfate reduction in sediments from Gulf of Mexico cold seeps. Chem. Geol.205, 219–238. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2003.12.019
50
KassambaraA. (2023). Ggpubr: “ggplot2” based publication ready plots. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr (Accessed March 29, 2023).
51
KenchingtonE.PowerD.Koen-AlonsoM. (2013). Associations of demersal fish with sponge grounds on the continental slopes of the northwest Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.477, 217–230. 10.3354/meps10127
52
KennicuttM. C.BurkeR. A.MacDonaldI. R.BrooksJ. M.DenouxG. J.MackoS. A. (1992). Stable isotope partitioning in seep and vent organisms: Chemical and ecological significance. Chem. Geol. Isot. Geosci. Sect.101, 293–310. 10.1016/0009-2541(92)90009-T
53
KielS. (2016). A biogeographic network reveals evolutionary links between deep-sea hydrothermal vent and methane seep faunas. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.283, 20162337. 10.1098/rspb.2016.2337
54
KielS. (2010). On the potential generality of depth-related ecologic structure in cold-seep communities: Evidence from Cenozoic and Mesozoic examples. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.295, 245–257. 10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.05.042
55
KvangarsnesK.FrantzenS.JulshamnK.SætreL. J.NedreaasK.MaageA. (2012). Distribution of mercury in a gadoid fish species, tusk (brosme brosme), and its implication for food safety. J. Food Sci. Eng.2, 603–615. 10.17265/2159-5828/2012.11.001
56
Lessard-PilonS. A.PodowskiE. L.CordesE. E.FisherC. R. (2010). Megafauna community composition associated with Lophelia pertusa colonies in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea Res.57, 1882–1890. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.05.013
57
LevinL. A.BacoA. R.BowdenD. A.ColacoA.CordesE. E.CunhaM. R.et al (2016). Hydrothermal vents and methane seeps: Rethinking the sphere of influence. Front. Mar. Sci.3, 72. 10.3389/fmars.2016.00072
58
LevinL. A. (2005). “Ecology of cold seep sediments: Interactions of fauna with flow, chemistry and microbes,” in Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 1–46. 10.1201/9781420037449
59
LevinL. A.MichenerR. H. (2002). Isotopic evidence for chemosynthesis-based nutrition of macrobenthos: The lightness of being at Pacific methane seeps. Limnol. Oceanogr.47, 1336–1345. 10.4319/lo.2002.47.5.1336
60
LipkováĽ.HovorkováK. (2018). Economic situation in Norway after the outbreak of the global financial and oil crises in the context of EU integration trends. EA-XXI169, 12–14. 10.21003/ea.V169-02
61
LösekannT.RobadorA.NiemannH.KnittelK.BoetiusA.DubilierN. (2008). Endosymbioses between bacteria and deep-sea siboglinid tubeworms from an arctic cold seep (haakon mosby mud volcano, barents sea). Environ. Microbiol.10, 3237–3254. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01712.x
62
LuffR.WallmannK.AloisiG. (2004). Numerical modeling of carbonate crust formation at cold vent sites: Significance for fluid and methane budgets and chemosynthetic biological communities. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.221, 337–353. 10.1016/S0012-821X(04)00107-4
63
MacAvoyS. E.MackoS. A.CarneyR. S. (2003). Links between chemosynthetic production and mobile predators on the Louisiana continental slope: Stable carbon isotopes of specific fatty acids. Chem. Geol.201, 229–237. 10.1016/S0009-2541(03)00204-3
64
MahadevanA.OrpeA. V.KudrolliA.MahadevanL. (2012). Flow-induced channelization in a porous medium. EPL98, 58003. 10.1209/0295-5075/98/58003
65
MaldonadoM.AguilarR.BannisterR. J.BellJ. J.ConwayK. W.DaytonP. K.et al (2017). “Sponge Grounds as Key Marine Habitats: A Synthetic Review of Types, Structure, Functional Roles, and Conservation Concerns,” in Marine Animal Forests: The Ecology of Benthic Biodiversity Hotspots. Editor RossiS.BramantiL.GoriA.Orejas Saco del ValleC. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–39. 10.1007/978-3-319-17001-5_24-1
66
MalechaP.HeifetzJ. (2017). Long-term effects of bottom trawling on large sponges in the Gulf of Alaska. Cont. Shelf Res.150, 18–26. 10.1016/j.csr.2017.09.003
67
MateoM. A.SerranoO.SerranoL.MichenerR. H. (2008). Effects of sample preparation on stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen in marine invertebrates: Implications for food web studies using stable isotopes. Oecologia157, 105–115. 10.1007/s00442-008-1052-8
68
McCutchanJ. H.JrLewisW. M.JrKendallC.McGrathC. C. (2003). Variation in trophic shift for stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. Oikos102, 378–390. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12098.x
69
McLeanE. L.YoshiokaP. M. (2007). “Associations and interactions between gorgonians and sponges,” in Porifera research: Biodiversity, innovation and sustainability série livros (Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional), 139–145.
70
MeyerK. S.YoungC. M.SweetmanA. K.TaylorJ.SoltwedelT.BergmannM. (2016). Rocky islands in a sea of mud: Biotic and abiotic factors structuring deep-sea dropstone communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.556, 45–57. 10.3354/meps11822
71
MilkovA. V.EtiopeG. (2018). Revised genetic diagrams for natural gases based on a global dataset of >20,000 samples. Org. Geochem.125, 109–120. 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2018.09.002
72
MinagawaM.WadaE. (1984). Stepwise enrichment of 15N along food chains: Further evidence and the relation between δ15N and animal age. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta48, 1135–1140. 10.1016/0016-7037(84)90204-7
73
MohnK.OsmundsenP. (2008). Exploration economics in a regulated petroleum province: The case of the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Energy Econ.30, 303–320. 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.10.011
74
NakagawaF.TsunogaiU.YoshidaN.AdamsD. D. (2003). “Stable isotopic compositions of bacterial light hydrocarbons in marginal marine sediments,” in Land and marine hydrogeology. Editors TaniguchiM.WangK.GamoT. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 141–150. 10.1016/B978-044451479-0/50021-2
75
NicotJ.-P.MicklerP.LarsonT.CastroM. C.DarvariR.UhlmanK.et al (2017). Methane occurrences in aquifers overlying the barnett shale play with a focus on parker county, Texas. Groundwater55, 469–481. 10.1111/gwat.12508
76
Norvegian Ministry of Climate and Environment (2020). Norway’s integrated Ocean Management plans — barents sea–lofoten area; the Norwegian sea; and the North sea and skagerrak— report to the storting (white paper). regjeringen.no Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-20-20192020/id2699370/(Accessed June 13, 2021).
77
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (2020). Economic and biological figures from Norwegian fisheries – 2020.
78
OksanenJ.SimpsonG. L.BlanchetF. G.KindtR.LegendreP.MinchinP. R.et al (2022). vegan: Community ecology package. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (Accessed March 29, 2023).
79
OSPAR (2010). Background document for coral gardens. London: OSPAR Commission.
80
PaullC. K.DallimoreS. R.CaressD. W.GwiazdaR.MellingH.RiedelM.et al (2015). Active mud volcanoes on the continental slope of the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems16, 3160–3181. 10.1002/2015GC005928
81
PawlikJ. R.McMurrayS. E. (2020). The emerging ecological and biogeochemical importance of sponges on coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.12, 315–337. 10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010807
82
PhamC. K.MurilloF. J.LiretteC.MaldonadoM.ColaçoA.OttavianiD.et al (2019). Removal of deep-sea sponges by bottom trawling in the flemish cap area: Conservation, ecology and economic assessment. Sci. Rep.9, 15843. 10.1038/s41598-019-52250-1
83
RogersA. (2004). The biology, ecology and vulnerability of deep-water coral reefs. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 13. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2004-002.pdf.
84
RooksC.FangJ. K.-H.MørkvedP. T.ZhaoR.RappH. T.XavierJ. R.et al (2020). Deep-sea sponge grounds as nutrient sinks: Denitrification is common in boreo-arctic sponges. Biogeosciences17, 1231–1245. 10.5194/bg-17-1231-2020
85
RooperC. N.WilkinsM. E.RoseC. S.CoonC. (2011). Modeling the impacts of bottom trawling and the subsequent recovery rates of sponges and corals in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Cont. Shelf Res.31, 1827–1834. 10.1016/j.csr.2011.08.003
86
Rybakova (Goroslavskaya)E.GalkinS.BergmannM.SoltwedelT.GebrukA. (2013). Density and distribution of megafauna at the Håkon Mosby mud volcano (the Barents Sea) based on image analysis. Biogeosciences10, 3359–3374. 10.5194/bg-10-3359-2013
87
SahlingH.GalkinS. V.SalyukA.GreinertJ.FoerstelH.PiepenburgD.et al (2003). Depth-related structure and ecological significance of cold-seep communities—A case study from the sea of Okhotsk. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap.50, 1391–1409. 10.1016/j.dsr.2003.08.004
88
SanoY.KinoshitaN.KagoshimaT.TakahataN.SakataS.TokiT.et al (2017). Origin of methane-rich natural gas at the West Pacific convergent plate boundary. Sci. Rep.7, 15646. 10.1038/s41598-017-15959-5
89
SavvichevA. S.KadnikovV. V.KravchishinaM. D.GalkinS. V.NovigatskiiA. N.SigalevichP. A.et al (2018). Methane as an organic matter source and the trophic basis of a Laptev Sea cold seep microbial community. Geomicrobiol. J.35, 411–423. 10.1080/01490451.2017.1382612
90
SchagerströmE.SundellK. S. (2021). Parastichopus tremulus (Gunnerus, 1767) red sea cucumber, red signal sea cucumber (Sweden), rødpølse (Norway and Denmark), Aspidochirotida, Stichopodidae. BECHE-DE-MER Inf. Bull.3, 22–24.
91
SedanoF.Navarro-BarrancoC.Guerra-GarcíaJ. M.EspinosaF. (2020). Understanding the effects of coastal defence structures on marine biota: The role of substrate composition and roughness in structuring sessile, macro- and meiofaunal communities. Mar. Pollut. Bull.157, 111334. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111334
92
SenA.ÅströmE. K. L.HongW.-L.PortnovA.WaageM.SerovP.et al (2018a). Geophysical and geochemical controls on the megafaunal community of a high Arctic cold seep. Biogeosciences15, 4533–4559. 10.5194/bg-15-4533-2018
93
SenA.ChitkaraC.HongW.-L.LeplandA.CochraneS.PrimioR.et al (2019a). Image based quantitative comparisons indicate heightened megabenthos diversity and abundance at a site of weak hydrocarbon seepage in the southwestern Barents Sea. PeerJ7, e7398. 10.7717/peerj.7398
94
SenA.DidriksenA.HourdezS.SvenningM. M.RasmussenT. L. (2020). Frenulate siboglinids at high Arctic methane seeps and insight into high latitude frenulate distribution. Ecol. Evol.10, 1339–1351. 10.1002/ece3.5988
95
SenA.DuperronS.HourdezS.PiquetB.LégerN.GebrukA.et al (2018b). Cryptic frenulates are the dominant chemosymbiotrophic fauna at Arctic and high latitude Atlantic cold seeps. PLOS ONE13, e0209273. 10.1371/journal.pone.0209273
96
SenA.HimmlerT.HongW. L.ChitkaraC.LeeR. W.FerréB.et al (2019b). Atypical biological features of a new cold seep site on the Lofoten-Vesterålen continental margin (northern Norway). Sci. Rep.9, 1762. 10.1038/s41598-018-38070-9
97
SibuetM.OluK. (1998). Biogeography, biodiversity and fluid dependence of deep-sea cold-seep communities at active and passive margins. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr.45, 517–567. 10.1016/S0967-0645(97)00074-X
98
SibuetM.Olu-Le RoyK. (2002). “Cold seep communities on continental margins: Structure and quantitative distribution relative to geological and fluid venting patterns,” in Ocean margin systems. Editors WeferP. D. G.BillettD. D.HebbelnD. D.JørgensenP. D. B. B.SchlüterP. D. M.van WeeringD. T. C. E. (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer), 235–251. 10.1007/978-3-662-05127-6_15
99
SinnerM.HongW.MichelL.VadakkepuliyambattaS.KniesJ.SenA. (2020). Stable isotope ratios of C, N and S in fauna sampled at the Vestbrona Carbonate Field (Norway). 10.17882/95359
100
SinnerM.SenA.HongW. L.MichelL. N.VadakkepuliyambattaS.KniesJ. (2023). Megafauna of Vestbrona Carbonate Field and surrounding benthos from seafloor mosaics. 10.15468/5vrbbj
101
SmirnovR. V. (2014). A revision of the Oligobrachiidae (Annelida: Pogonophora), with notes on the morphology and distribution of Oligobrachia haakonmosbiensis Smirnov. Mar. Biol. Res.10, 972–982. 10.1080/17451000.2013.872799
102
SmirnovR. V. (2000). Two new species of Pogonophora from the arctic mud volcano off northwestern Norway. null85, 141–150. 10.1080/00364827.2000.10414563
103
SøreideJ. E.HopH.CarrollM. L.Falk-PetersenS.HegsethE. N. (2006). Seasonal food web structures and sympagic–pelagic coupling in the European Arctic revealed by stable isotopes and a two-source food web model. Prog. Oceanogr.71, 59–87. 10.1016/j.pocean.2006.06.001
104
StagarsM. H.MishraS.TreudeT.AmannR.KnittelK. (2017). Microbial community response to simulated petroleum seepage in caspian sea sediments. Front. Microbiol.8, 764. Available at:. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00764Accessed June 12, 2023)
105
SuessE. (2010). “Marine cold seeps,” in Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Editor TimmisK. N. (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 185–203. 10.1007/978-3-540-77587-4_12
106
SuessE. (2020). “Marine cold seeps: Background and recent advances,” in Hydrocarbons, oils and lipids: Diversity, origin, chemistry and fate. Editor WilkesH. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 747–767. 10.1007/978-3-319-90569-3_27
107
SundahlH.Buhl-MortensenP.Buhl-MortensenL. (2020). Distribution and suitable habitat of the cold-water corals Lophelia pertusa, Paragorgia arborea, and Primnoa resedaeformis on the Norwegian continental shelf. Front. Mar. Sci.7, 213. 10.3389/fmars.2020.00213
108
TarasovV. G.GebrukA. V.MironovA. N.MoskalevL. I. (2005). Deep-sea and shallow-water hydrothermal vent communities: Two different phenomena?Chem. Geol.224, 5–39. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.07.021
109
TorresM. E.McManusJ.HammondD. E.de AngelisM. A.HeeschenK. U.ColbertS. L.et al (2002). Fluid and chemical fluxes in and out of sediments hosting methane hydrate deposits on Hydrate Ridge, OR, I: Hydrological provinces. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.201, 525–540. 10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00733-1
110
VanreuselA.AndersenA.BoetiusA.ConnellyD.CunhaM.DeckerC.et al (2009). Biodiversity of cold seep ecosystems along the European margins. Oceanog22, 110–127. 10.5670/oceanog.2009.12
111
VedeninA. A.KokarevV. N.ChikinaM. V.BasinA. B.GalkinS. V.GebrukA. V. (2020). Fauna associated with shallow-water methane seeps in the Laptev Sea. PeerJ8, e9018. 10.7717/peerj.9018
112
WankelS. D.AdamsM. M.JohnstonD. T.HanselC. M.JoyeS. B.GirguisP. R. (2012). Anaerobic methane oxidation in metalliferous hydrothermal sediments: Influence on carbon flux and decoupling from sulfate reduction. Environ. Microbiol.14, 2726–2740. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02825.x
113
WhiticarM. J. (1999). Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematics of bacterial formation and oxidation of methane. Chem. Geol.161, 291–314. 10.1016/S0009-2541(99)00092-3
114
WickhamH.ChangW.HenryL.PedersenT. L.TakahashiK.WilkeC.et al (2023). ggplot2: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggplot2 (Accessed March 29, 2023).
115
WulffJ. (2001). Assessing and monitoring coral reef sponges: Why and how?Bull. Mar. Sci.69, 831–846. Available at: http://pascalfrancis.inist.frvibadindex.phpaction=getRecordDetail&idt=13403160 (Accessed July 12, 2023).
116
XiaoN.CookJ.JégousseC.LiM. (2023). ggsci: Scientific journal and sci-fi themed color palettes for ggplot2. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggsci (Accessed March 29, 2023).
117
YamanakaT.ShimamuraS.NagashioH.YamagamiS.OnishiY.HyodoA.et al (2015). “A compilation of the stable isotopic compositions of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur in soft body parts of animals collected from deep-sea hydrothermal vent and methane seep fields: Variations in energy source and importance of subsurface microbial processes in the sediment-hosted systems,” in Subseafloor biosphere linked to hydrothermal systems: TAIGA concept. Editors IshibashiJ.OkinoK.SunamuraM. (Tokyo: Springer Japan), 105–129. 10.1007/978-4-431-54865-2_10
118
ZieglerA. F.SmithC. R.EdwardsK. F.VernetM. (2017). Glacial dropstones: Islands enhancing seafloor species richness of benthic megafauna in west antarctic peninsula fjords. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.583, 1–14. 10.3354/meps12363
Summary
Keywords
seepage, GIS, imagery, megafauna, chemosynthesis, marine litter, benthos, sulfide
Citation
Sinner M, Hong WL, Michel LN, Vadakkepuliyambatta S, Knies J and Sen A (2023) Lack of detectable chemosynthesis at a sponge dominated subarctic methane seep. Front. Earth Sci. 11:1203998. doi: 10.3389/feart.2023.1203998
Received
11 April 2023
Accepted
07 July 2023
Published
20 July 2023
Corrected
31 July 2026
Volume
11 - 2023
Edited by
Dong Liu, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2023 Sinner, Hong, Michel, Vadakkepuliyambatta, Knies and Sen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Arunima Sen, arunimas@unis.no
† Present address: Loïc N. Michel, Animal Systematics and Diversity, Freshwater, and Oceanic Sciences Unit of Research (FOCUS), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.