Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:29:20.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Estuarine Biodiversity Hot-Spot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Martin J. Attrill ,
Paul M. Ramsay ,
R. Myles Thomas  and
Marcus W. Trett
Martin J. Attrill
Affiliation:
Marine Biology and Ecotoxicology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA.
Paul M. Ramsay
Affiliation:
Marine Biology and Ecotoxicology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA.
R. Myles Thomas
Affiliation:
National Rivers Authority (Thames Region), Aspen House, Crossbrook Street, Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, EN8 8HE.
Marcus W. Trett
Affiliation:
Physalia Environmental Consultants, Sedgefen House, 37 Meadow Walk, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 5TF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From 1989–1992, at quarterly intervals, the National Rivers Authority (NRA) (Thames Region) Thames Estuary Benthic Programme sampled 28 sites within the estuary for benthic macroinvertebrates; meiofauna samples were also taken for the first year. At one subtidal site, situated off Canvey Island, over 200 invertebrate species over the survey period from a sample area of 4·4 m2 were recorded. This species richness was far higher than surrounding sites, including those further out into the North Sea. The most important groups at this site were Nematoda (77 spp.), Crustacea (46 spp.) and Polychaeta (40 spp.) and a species capture curve for macroinvertebrates continued to rise after 44 day grabs. The mean biomass of the site (248 g wet weight /m2) was 20 times that of any other site in the outer estuary. The substratum at the site was highly heterogeneous, yet comparatively stable due to its situation at the base (>20 m depth) of a man-made shipping channel, the provision of a large number of niches perhaps explaining the high biodiversity. The anthropogenic influence on a naturally low biodiversity area emphasises the importance of these ecosystems when considering the conservation of global biodiversity. Methods to determine the relative importance of ecosystems are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 161 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alongi, D.M., 1987. Intertidal zonation and seasonality of meiobenthos in tropical mangrove estuaries. Marine Biology, 95, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, M.J., 1984. Thames estuary: pollution and recovery. In Effects of pollutants at the ecosystem level (ed. P.J., Sheehan et al.), pp. 195–227. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Andrews, M.J., Aston, K.F.A., Rickard, D.G. & Steel, J.E.C., 1982. The macrofauna of the Thames Estuary. The London Naturalist, 61, 30–61.Google Scholar
Andrews, M.J. & Rickard, D.G., 1980. Rehabilitation of the inner Thames estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 11, 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansari, Z.A. & Parulekar, A.H., 1993. Distribution, abundance and ecology of the meiofauna in a tropical estuary along the west coast of India. Hydrobiologia, 262, 115–126.Google Scholar
Armitage, P.D., Gunn, R.J.M., Furse, M.T., Wright, J.F. & Moss, D., 1987. The use of prediction to assess macroinvertebrate response to river regulation. Hydrobiologia, 144, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, R., Watson, P.G., Ashcroft, C.R., Barnett, B.E. & Hilton, C., 1990. Humber Estuary – a case study. Hydrobiologia, 195, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, G., 1990. Pattern of nematode species diversity in temperate and tropical subtidal sediments. Marine Ecology. Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli I, 11, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, J.R. & Curtis, J.T., 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communitites of Southern Winsconsin. Ecological Monographs, 27, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, M.R., 1967. Ecology of estuarine benthic invertebrates, a perspective. In Estuaries (ed. G.H., Lauff), pp. 442–487. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H., 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science, New York, 199, 1302–1310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, J.H. & Orias, E., 1964. The ecological regulation of species diversity. American Naturalist, 98, 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dye, A.H., 1983. Composition and seasonal fluctuations of meiofauna in a South African mangrove estuary. Marine Biology, 73, 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, M. & Kingston, P.F., 1987. The sublittoral benthic fauna of the estuary and Firth of Forth, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 93, 449–465.Google Scholar
Elliott, M. & O'reilly, M.G., 1991. The variability and prediction of marine benthic community parameters. In Estuaries and coasts: spatial and temporal inter-comparisons (ed. M., Elliott and J.-P., Ducrotoy), pp. 231–238. Fredensborg, Denmark: Olsen & Olsen.Google Scholar
Ellison, R.L., 1984. Foraminifera and meiofauna on an intertidal mudflat, Cornwall, England: populations; respiration and secondary production; and energy budget. Hydrobiologia, 109, 131–148.Google Scholar
Flegg, J.J.M. & Hooper, D.J., 1970. Extraction of free-living stages from soil. In Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes (ed. J.F., Southey), pp. 5. London: HMSO. [MAFF Technical Bulletin no. 2.]Google Scholar
Grassle, J.F. & Maciolek, N.J., 1992. Deep-sea species richness: regional and local diversity estimates from quantitative bottom samples. American Naturalist, 139, 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J.S., 1994. Is deep-sea species diversity really so high? Species diversity of the Norwegian continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 112, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. & Grant, P., 1976. The Thames transformed: London's river and its waterfowl. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Huddart, R. & Arthur, D.R., 1971. Shrimps in relation to oxygen depletion and its ecological significance in a polluted estuary. Environmental Pollution, 2, 13–35.Google Scholar
Huston, M., 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. American Naturalist, 113, 81–101.Google Scholar
Huston, M.A., 1994. Biological diversity. The coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khayralla, N. & Jones, A.M., 1975. A survey of the benthos of the Tay estuary. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 75, 113–135.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J.B. & Wish, M., 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Beverley Hills, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McArthur, R.H., 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Reviews, 40, 510–533.Google Scholar
McLusky, D.S., 1971. Ecology of estuaries. London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
Minchin, P.R., 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques of ordination. Vegetatio, 69, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, T.H. & Rosenberg, R., 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 16, 229–311.Google Scholar
Poiner, I.R. & Kennedy, R., 1984. Complex patterns of change in the macrobenthos of a large sandbank following dredging. 1. Community analysis. Marine Biology, 78, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, H.L., 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102, 243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seinhorst, J.W., 1959. A rapid method for the transfer of nematodes from fixative to anhydrous glycerine. Nematologica, 4, 67–69.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., 1972. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. American Naturalist, 106, 414–418.Google Scholar
Smol, N., Willems, K.A., Govaere, J.C.R. & Sandee, A.J.J., 1994. Composition, distribution and biomass of meiobenthos in the Oosterschelde estuary (SW Netherlands). Hydrobiologia, 283, 197–217.Google Scholar
Warwick, R.M., 1986. A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities. Marine Biology, 92, 557–562.Google Scholar
Warwick, R.M., 1993. Environmental impact studies on marine communities: pragmatical considerations. Australian Journal of Ecology, 18, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M., Carr, M.R., Clarke, K.R., Gee, J.M. & Green, R.H., 1988. A mesocosm experiment on the effects of hydrocarbon and copper pollution on a sublittoral soft-sediment meiobenthic community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 46, 181–191.Google Scholar
Warwick, R.M. & Clarke, K.R., 1993. Increased variability as a symptom of stress in marine communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 172, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M. & Gee, J.M., 1984. Community structure of estuarine meiobenthos. (R. Tamar). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 18, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R.M. & Uncles, R.J., 1980. Distribution of benthic macrofauna associations in the Bristol Channel in relation to tidal stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 3, 97–103.Google Scholar
Wheeler, A., 1979. The tidal Thames: the history of a river and its fishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wildish, D.J., 1977. Factors controlling marine and estuarine sublittoral macrofauna. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 30, 445–454.Google Scholar
Wildish, D.J. & Kristmanson, D.D., 1979. Tidal energy and sublittoral macrobenthic animals in estuaries. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36, 1197–1206.Google Scholar
Wolff, W.J., 1973. The estuary as a habitat. An analysis of data on the soft-bottom macrofauna of the estuarine area of the Rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 126, 1–242.Google Scholar
Wood, L.B., 1980. The rehabilitation of the tidal River Thames. Public Health Engineer, London. Institution of Public Health Engineers, 8, 112–120.Google Scholar
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1992. Global biodiversity; status of the earth's living resources. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Wright, J.F., Moss, D., Armitage, P.D. & Furse, M.T., 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology, 14, 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H., 1984. Biostatistical analysis. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar