Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:53:39.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of two species of lugworm (Arenicola) (Annelida: Polychaeta) in South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2009

P.S. Cadman
P.S. Cadman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, Ridley Building, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NEI 7RU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study demonstrates that the two species of lugworm, previously classified as Arenicola marina occupy distinct zones within sandy beaches around South Wales. Arenicola marina (sensu stricto) or blow lug, is found higher up the shore, tending to be concentrated at mid-tide level, whilst A. defodiens Cadman & Nelson-smith, 1993 or black lug is most numerous at or below mean low water of spring tides and, unlike A. marina in this area, also apparently extends subtidally. Arenicola marina is found in estuaries, unlike A. defodiens, and seems to inhabit slightly less exposed beaches. Degree of sorting, mean and median particle size do not appear to be a significant factor in determining lugworm distributions. Some possible explanations for these observed differences, including differences in burrow depth and salinity tolerance, are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , May 1997 , pp. 389 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1997

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

REFERENCES

Amoureux, L., 1966. Etude bionomique et écologique de quelques annélides polychètes des sables intertidaux des côtes de la France. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 107, 1–218.Google Scholar
Anderson, S.S., 1972. The ecology of Morecambe Bay. II. Intertidal invertebrates and factors affecting their distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, J.H., 1904. Arenicola (the lug-worm). Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, 11, 1–118.Google Scholar
Ashworth, J.H., 1912. Catalogue of the Chaetopoda in the British Museum. A. Polychaeta. 1. Arenicolidae. London: William & Norgate.Google Scholar
Bassindale, R. & Clark, R.B., 1960. The Gann Flat, Dale: studies on the ecology of a muddy beach. Field Studies, 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
Beukema, J.J. & DeVlas, J., 1979. Population parameters of the lugworm, Arenicola marina, living in tidal flats in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 13, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, F., 1943. The distribution of the fauna of some intertidal sands and muds on the Northumberland coast. Journal of Animal Ecology, 12, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.C. & McLachlan, A., 1990. Ecology of sandy shores. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bruce, J.R., Colman, J.S., & Jones N.S., 1963. Marine fauna of the Isle of Man and its surrounding seas. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Cadman, P.S., 1992. Studies on the lugworm (Arenicola). MPhil thesis, University of Wales, Swansea.Google Scholar
Cadman, P.S. & Nelson-Smith, A., 1990. Genetic evidence for two species of lugworm (Arenicola) in South Wales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 64, 107–112.Google Scholar
Cadman, P.S. & Nelson-Smith, A., 1993. A new species of lugworm: Arenicola defodiens sp. nov. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 73, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callame, B., 1955. Contribution à l'tude du milieu meuble intercotidal (Côtes Charentaises). Travaux du Centre de Recherches et d'Études Océanographies. Paris, 4, 1–116.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. & Newell, G.E., 1949. The distribution of lugworms (Arenicola marina L.) over the flats at Whitstable. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 28, 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R.B., 1960. The fauna of the Clyde Sea area, Polychaeta. Millport: Scottish Marine Biological Association.Google Scholar
Farke, H. & Berghuis, E.M., 1979. Spawning, larval development and migration of Arenicola marina under field conditions in the western Wadden Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 13, 529–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farke, H., De Wilde, P.A.W.J. & Berghuis, E.M., 1979. Distribution of juvenile and adult Arenicola marina on a tidal mud-flat and the importance of nearshore for recruitment. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 13, 354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauvel, P., 1927. Polychètes sédentaires. Addenda aux errantes, Archiannélides, myzostomaires. Paris: Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles. [Faune de France], vol. 16, pp. 494.Google Scholar
Flach, E.C. & Beukema, J.J., 1994. Density-governing mechanisms in populations of the lugworm Arenicola marina on tidal flats. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 115, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folk, R.L. & Ward, W.L., 1957. Brazos River Bar: study of the significance of grain size parameters. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 27, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, F.W. & Ashworth, J.H., 1898. The habits and structure of Arenicola marina (L.). Quartely Journal of Microscopical Science, 43, 419–569.Google Scholar
HMSO, 1988–1992. Admiralty tide tables. Vol. 1. European waters including the Mediterranean. Taunton: The Hydrographer of The Navy.Google Scholar
Longbottom, M.R., 1970. The distribution of Arenicola marina (L.) with particular reference to the effects of particle size and organic mattter of the sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 5, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, A., 1980. A definition of sandy beaches in relation to exposure: a simple rating system. South African Journal of Science, Cape Town, 60, 543–561.Google Scholar
Newell, G.E., 1948. A contribution to our knowledge of the life history of Arenicola marina L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 27, 554–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymont, J.E.G., 1955. The fauna of an intertidal mud-flat. Deep Sea Research, 3, supplement, 178–203.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry. The principles and practices of statistics in biological research, 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stopford, S.C., 1951. An ecological survey of the Cheshire foreshore of the Dee Estuary. Journal of Animal Ecology, 20, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thamdrup, M.H., 1935. Beiträge zur Ökologie der Wattenfauna auf experimenteller Grundlage. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri-og Havundersøgelser. Serie: Fiskeri, 10, 1–125.Google Scholar
Watkin, D.E., 1942. The macrofauna of the intertidal sand of Kames bay, Millport, Buteshire. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 60, 543–561.Google Scholar