Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:25:45.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bioeroding (boring) polychaete species (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Aegean Sea (eastern Mediterranean)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2021

Melih Ertan Çinar*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Hydrobiology, Ege University, 35100, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
Ertan Dagli
Affiliation:
Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Hydrobiology, Ege University, 35100, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Melih Ertan Çinar, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study reports polychaetes that bore into limestone rocks along the east coast of the Aegean Sea (eastern Mediterranean). Rock materials were collected at two depth intervals (0–5 and 5–10 m) at 15 stations in four localities of Ildırı Bay. A total of 276 specimens belonging to 12 species and four families (Eunicidae, Spionidae, Cirratulidae and Sabellidae) were recorded. Specimens belonging to Dodecaceria and Pseudopotamilla were identified at the genus level, because they differ from described species, were few in number or were in poor condition. Dipolydora giardia is a new species to the marine fauna of Turkey. The most dominant and frequent family in the area was Eunicidae, followed by Spionidae. Lysidice ninetta and L. margaritacea comprised 59% of the total number of individuals. The number of species and individuals, and the diversity index did not change with regard to depth or locality. Two species assemblages were found in the area, mainly formed by Dipolydora and Lysidice species. The Lessepsian species, Palola valida, which is a new record for the Aegean Sea, occurred abundantly at the study sites, posing a risk of damage to limestone rocks in the Mediterranean Sea. The morphological features of the species identified at the generic level and the burrow structure of these species are presented. The burrow shapes of Palola siciliensis and P. valida were described for the first time in the present study; they constructed complicated galleries, including more than four entrances.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Polychaetes are one of the primary bioeroders of calcareous structures such as rocks, corals and bivalves (Scott et al., Reference Scott, Moser and Risk1988; Peyrot-Clausade et al., Reference Peyrot-Clausade, Hutchings and Richard1992; Hutchings & Peyrot-Clausade, Reference Hutchings and Peyrot-Clausade2002). Bioerosion by polychaetes, where hard substratum is degraded into minute fragments, is a dynamic, destructive process that results in shaping of rocky bottoms and changes to the structural integrity of coral reefs (Hutchings, Reference Hutchings1986; Tribollet & Golubic, Reference Tribollet, Golubic, Dubinsky and Stambler2011). Although there are three types of destruction (i.e. grazing, etching and boring; see Hutchings, Reference Hutchings1986), polychaetes especially play important roles in the boring phenomenon, which is mediated by chemical and mechanical processes (Sato-Okoshi & Okoshi, Reference Sato-Okoshi and Okoshi1993; Blake, Reference Blake, Blake, Hilbig and Scott1996). They can secrete acid mucopolysaccharides from the ventral epithelium and segmental mucus glands to dissolve substrata, or they can utilize their jaws (i.e. Eunicidae) and specialized chaetae (i.e. Spionidae and Cirratulidae) to bore into substrata (Evans, Reference Evans1969; Hutchings, Reference Hutchings, Wisshak and Tapanila2008). Several polychaete families play roles in bioerosion, but many boring species have been reported in the families Eunicidae, Lumbrineridae, Dorvilleidae, Spionidae, Cirratulidae and Sabellidae (Hutchings, Reference Hutchings1986; Fonseca et al., Reference Fonseca, Dean and Cortés2006). The majority of species construct circular, shallow burrows into the substrata, but eunicid worms form a sinuous, branched network (Glynn, Reference Glynn and Birkeland1997). However, young and adult worms can create different burrow shapes (Evans, Reference Evans1969; Liu & Hsieh, Reference Liu and Hsieh2000). Erosional losses of the Great Barrier Reef caused by polychaetes were estimated as 1.8 kg m−2 year−1 (Davies & Hutchings, Reference Davies and Hutchings1983). The mass infestation of boring spionid and sabellid species on bivalve beds can cause severe damage to mollusc shells, affecting the growth of their hosts and in turn resulting in financial loss to owners of aquaculture sites (Evans, Reference Evans1969; Fitzhugh & Rouse, Reference Fitzhugh and Rouse1999; Simon et al., Reference Simon, Worsfold, Lange and Sterley2010).

Bioerosion created by polychaetes and their impacts on calcareous substrata have been studied at several localities world-wide, i.e. Atlantic Ocean (Bromley, Reference Bromley1978; Chughtai & Knight-Jones, Reference Chughtai and Knight-Jones1988), Indian Ocean (Carreiro-Silva & McClanahan, Reference Carreiro-Silva and McClanahan2012) and Pacific Ocean (Hutchings & Peyrot-Clausade, Reference Hutchings and Peyrot-Clausade2002; Fonseca et al., Reference Fonseca, Dean and Cortés2006). However, marine bioerosion has rarely been studied in the Mediterranean Sea. Sartoretto (Reference Sartoretto1998) studied bioeroding species on coralligenous panels experimentally and determined that boring spionid species (Polydora spp.) occurred at the pioneering stage of colonization and their densities reached up to an average value of 1200 ind. m−2 after one year of submergence. Some studies emphasized the settlement of boring polychaetes on hard substrata (Laubier, Reference Laubier1958, Reference Laubier1959) and bivalves (i.e. Carazzi, Reference Carazzi1893; Boscolo & Giovanardi, Reference Boscolo and Giovanardi2002) in the region. The distribution of boring eunicid species on scales of the endemic phanerogame Posidonia oceanica (Linnaeus) Delile, 1813 has been relatively well-studied in the region (Gambi, Reference Gambi2002; Gambi et al., Reference Gambi, Trani and Buia2005). However, there is only one study that specifically focused on the distribution of boring species on limestone rocks in the Mediterranean Sea (Casoli et al., Reference Casoli, Ricci, Antonelli, Perasso, Ardizzone and Gravina2019).

A few papers were specifically focused on boring polychaete species along the coast of Turkey. Çaglar (Reference Çaglar1954) reported the dense settlement of a polydorid species (identified as Polydora ciliata, whose presence is now questionable in the Mediterranean) on the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis in the İstanbul Strait and studied its reproductive biology and larval development in the area. She also described galleries within shells constructed by the worm. Pinar (Reference Pınar1974) and Sen et al. (Reference Sen, Sivrikaya, Yalçın, Bakır and Öztürk2010) studied wood-boring bivalves and crustaceans at some ports in Turkey. Bioeroding sponges were specifically studied in Ildırı Bay, based on the material collected during the present study (Evcen & Çinar, Reference Evcen and Çinar2015). However, boring sponges (see Evcen & Çinar, Reference Evcen and Çinar2012), polychaetes (Demir, Reference Demir1952–1954; Ergen, Reference Ergen1976; Kurt-Sahin & Çinar, Reference Kurt-Sahin and Çinar2009; Dagli et al., Reference Dagli, Çinar and Ergen2011; Çinar et al., Reference Çinar, Dağli and Kurt Şahin2014), phoronids (Phoronis hippocrepia, Çinar et al., Reference Çinar, Katağan, Koçak, Öztürk, Ergen, Kocatas, Önen, Kirkim, Bakir, Kurt, Dağli, Açik, Dogan and Özcan2008), crustaceans (see Bakır et al., Reference Bakır, Katağan, Aker, Ozcan, Sezgin, Ateş, Koçak and Kırkım2014) and molluscs (see Öztürk et al., Reference Öztürk, Doğan, Bakır and Salman2014) were reported in general faunistic and ecological studies in the area.

This paper is aimed at assessing the distribution and diversity of bioeroding (boring) polychaete species in the Aegean Sea, and determining their morphological and ecological aspects.

Materials and methods

Sampling and material

The hard-bottom benthic samples were collected at 15 stations in four localities (southern part (SP), Eşek Islands (EI), eastern part (EP) and Gencelli Bay (GB)) at 0–10 m depths in Ildırı Bay (east Aegean Sea, Turkey) in August 2011 (Figure 1). Among the localities, Eşek Islands has no human settlements, but dense human settlements (especially in summer) exist in the southern part (near Çeşme). In Gerence Bay and the eastern part, mariculture (mainly sea-bass and sea-bream) activities take place. In the area, limestone rocks are generally present at 0–10 m depth; from 10 m depth downwards soft substrata with dense meadows of Posidonia oceanica together with Caulerpa cylindracea and C. prolifera, and Halophila stipulacea are present. Except for stations 5 and 6 where bottoms are covered with P. oceanica meadows at 0–5 m depth, hard bottom samples were taken at the depth intervals 0–5 and 5–10 m at all stations.

Fig. 1. Map of the investigated area indicating sampling stations within the localities.

Samples were collected randomly at each depth interval of stations by snorkelling and scuba diving. Only one sample in a quadrat covering almost 0.5 m2 area was taken in each depth interval of the stations. Rock samples were broken underwater using a hammer and chisel, and immediately covered with mesh and put in cloth bags. On board the pleasure vessel ‘Çağan 2005’, benthic samples collected in each depth interval were put in a large plastic washbasin and specimens among rock pieces were collected. Large rock pieces were carefully broken into small pieces to observe the placement and burrow structures of boring species. The material was put in separate jars and fixed with 4% formaldehyde. In the laboratory, benthic material was washed with tap water, sorted according to major taxonomic groups under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ-51) and preserved in 70% ethanol. Specimens were then identified and counted. In the identification of the specimens, papers including the original and subsequent descriptions of the species were used.

Specimens were deposited at the Museum of Faculty of Fisheries, Ege University (ESFM).

Photographs of specimens were taken with a digital camera (Olympus, Camedia, C-7070) attached to stereo (Olympus SZ-16) and compound (Olympus BX-51) microscopes. Total body length and width at chaetiger 10 (excluding parapodia and chaetae) were measured with an ocular micrometer.

Statistical analyses

Community descriptors such as the number of species and individuals, and the diversity (log2 base) and evenness index values were estimated for each sample and depth interval. The spatial patterns of species assemblages were assessed using the hierarchical cluster analysis in PRIMER (Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Gorley and Warwick2014). The pattern of species assemblages was explored and visualized using nMDS, applied on the Bray–Curtis resemblance matrix. Prior to analysis, the raw data were transformed by using the fourth-root transformation. The similarity profile test (SIMPROF) routine was run if groupings assessed are statistically significant at 0.05 (Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Gorley and Warwick2014). Similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) was applied to the species-station matrices in order to identify the species which contributed most to the similarity of groups of stations. A two-way distance-based permutation multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) (Anderson, Reference Anderson2001) was used to test (1) if the community descriptors differ significantly in the depth intervals and localities, (2) if species assemblages differ significantly in the depth intervals and localities. The Euclidean distance matrix was used in the former analysis, and the Bray–Curtis similarity matrix was used in the latter. All analyses were performed by using the software PRIMER v7.

Results

Faunistic analysis

The shallow-water rocky bottom of Ildır Bay yielded 12 boring polychaete species belonging to four families (Eunicidae, Spionidae, Cirratulidae and Sabellidae) (Table 1). Spionidae were represented by the highest number of species (5 species), followed by Eunicidae (4 species) and Sabellidae (2 species). Among the species, the polydorid Dipolydora giardia is new to the marine fauna of Turkey, the Lessepsian species Palola valida new to the Aegean Sea, and one Docecaceria and two Pseudopotamilla species probably new to science – these are described below.

Table 1. Abundance of boring polychaete species at stations (SP: Southern Part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: Eastern Part, GB: Gencelli Bay)

The dominant species in the area were Lysidice ninetta (39% of all specimens), L. margaritacea (20%) and Dipolydora coeca (13%). The species with the frequency value (occurrence) higher than 50% in all samples was L. ninetta (56%), but the scores changed according to the depth intervals. Dipolydora coeca (62%), L. ninetta (54%) and L. margaritacea (54%) had the highest frequency scores (>50%) in the 0–5 m depth interval, whereas only L. ninetta had the highest score (57%) in the 5–10 depth interval.

Almost similar numbers of species and individuals were found at the depth intervals, 0–5 and 5–10 m. Ten species and 141 individuals were encountered at 0–5 m depth, whereas 11 species and 135 individuals were found at 5–10 m depth. The mean scores of the community descriptors varied among localities and depths. The highest mean number of species (4 species) and individuals (23 individuals), and diversity score (H' = 1.28) were found at 0–5 m depth in Gencelli Bay (GB), whereas the highest evenness score (J' = 0.92) was estimated at 0–5 m depth in the eastern part of Ildırı Bay (EP) (Figure 2). The number of species, the number of individuals and the diversity index did not change significantly between the depth intervals and localities (P > 0.05), and the evenness index only differed significantly among localities (Pseudo-F = 3.87, P < 0.05) (Table 2).

Fig. 2. The mean number of polychaete species and individuals, and the diversity and evenness index values at localities (SP: southern part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: eastern part, GB: Gencelli Bay). SE: standard error.

Table 2. Overall PERMANOVA tests applied on the community descriptors (number of species, number of individuals, diversity index and evenness index) with regard to depth intervals (two levels: 0–5 and 5–10 m depths) and localities (four areas: southern part, Eşek Islands, eastern part and Gencelli Bay)

Bold value is statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Two main species assemblages (A and B) were determined in the area (SIMPROF test, P < 0.05) (Figure 3). Samples from the southern part (SP) and Eşek Islands were clustered in the MDS graphs (group B) and represented high similarity values. Locality and depth were not a significant factor affecting the assemblages (Table 3). The distribution and abundance of spionids and eunicids affected the species assemblages. The first assemblage (indicated as A in Figure 4), which is mainly dominated by the boring Dipolydora species, was formed at a few stations (2, 4, 10, 12, 14 and 15). The second assemblage (indicated as B in Figure 3), which is mainly dominated by the eunicids such as Lysidice species and Palola valida, was formed at the majority of stations. In this assemblage, there are two specific assemblages structured by different boring species (indicated as I and II in Figure 3). The species that showed strong or moderate correlations with the first and second nMDS axes were Lysidice margaritacea (r = 0.76, with MDS1), Polydora hoplura (r = −0.45, with MDS1), L. ninetta (r = 0.57, with MDS2) and Palola valida (r = 0.51, with MDS2).

Fig. 3. nMDS analysis showing the similarity among stations, based on abundance data of all polychaete species. Vectors represent the species that relatively highly correlated with nMDS1 and nMDS2 (Pearson correlation, r > 0.45) (SP: southern part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: eastern part, GB: Gencelli Bay).

Fig. 4. Burrow structures of boring polychaete species. (A) Palola siciliensis, arrow indicates a specimen of P. siciliensis within the gallery; (B) Dipolydora coeca; (C) Dipolydora armata; (D) Polydora hoplura; (E) Dipolydora flava.

Table 3. Main tests of PERMANOVA based on fourth-root transformed species-abundance data

Localities and the depth intervals were used as different fixed factors.

According to the SIMPER analysis, the species most responsible for the similarity of the assemblage A was D. armata (contribution = 73%); and those most responsible for the assemblage B are L. ninetta (36%) and L. margaritacea (35%). The specific assemblages (BI and BII) within assemblage B are mainly structured with presence of the eunicids (P. valida and L. ninetta) and the polydorid (Dipolydora coeca) in the assemblage BII, and the difference in the abundance of L. margaritacea, which was three times higher in the assemblage BI.

The material included an alien species, Palola valida, which is a new record for the Aegean Sea. This Lessepsian species was found in 37% of all samples (F) and had an overall dominance score (D) of 5.8%. These scores did not change significantly in the depth intervals; 38% (F) and 6.38% (D) in the 0–5 m depth interval, vs 36% (F) and 5.18% (D) in the 5–10 m depth interval.

Burrow structures of species

The boring eunicids formed different burrow shapes. Palola siciliensis and P. valida constructed complicated galleries within limestone, including more than four entrances (Figure 4A). However, the whole shape of the burrow of P. valida could not be determined, due to damaged rocks. The Lysidice species, L. ninetta and L. margaritacea constructed a vertical, short burrow within limestone.

The bioeroding spionid polychaetes found in the study area generally constructed almost the same burrows within limestone. Dipolydora armata, D. flava and D. giardia and Polydora hoplura formed thin, long and straight grooves (Figure 4C–E), whereas D. coeca formed a characteristic L-shaped burrow within rocks (Figure 4B), sometimes in association with a Lithophaga lithophaga burrow. The burrow of this species was deeper than those of Dipolydora giardi and D. armata.

Pseudopotamilla species constructed irregular, short vertical burrows in limestone in the study area. Dodecaceria species bore into rocks, but its burrow type was not fully determined, due to damaged rocks.

Descriptions of the species identified at genus level

Phylum: Annelida Lamarck, 1802
Class: Polychaeta Grube, 1850
Order: Terebellida Rouse & Fauchald, 1997
Family: Cirratulidae Ryckholt, 1851

Dodecaceria sp.

Description

Largest specimen incomplete, with anterior fragment, 5 mm long, 0.8 mm wide, with 18 chaetigers. Body somewhat cylindrical, becoming enlarged in middle region, dark brownish in colour, with black speckles on palps, branchiae and body (Figure 5A). Prostomium rounded, expanded, with two slit-like nuchal organs placed on posterior margin. Peristomium multi-annulated, with 2–3 dorsal rings. Palps thick, laterally inserted, extending to 9–10 chaetiger. First segment achaetous, competely fused to peristomium. Branchiae dimorphic, from ‘peristomium’ to chaetiger 7, one pair per segment; those on chaetigers 1–3 with branchiae almost 2–3 times longer than posterior ones. Branchiae inserting more dorsally on anterior segments. Chaetigers annulated dorsally, 3–4 rings per chaetiger. Anterior chaetigers with serrated capillaries in notopodia and neuropodia; notopodial capillaries longer than neuropodial ones. Spoon-shaped hooks commencing on chaetiger 12; numbering three in both rami.

Fig. 5. (A) Anterior end of Dodecaceria sp., dorsal view (ESFM–POL/2011–335); (B1) Anterior end of Pseudopotamilla sp.1, dorsal view (ESFM–POL/2011–338); (B2) Thoracic chaetigers of Pseudopotamilla sp.1; (B3) Uncini and companion chaetae of Pseudopotamilla sp.1; (C) Anterior end of Pseudopotamilla sp.2 (ESFM–POL/2011–338), dorsal view. Scale bars: A = 0.5 mm; B1, 0.6 mm; B2, 75 μm; B3, 25 μm; C, 0.7 mm.

Remarks

As all specimens were incomplete, with anterior end, and most specimens were damaged, we did not determine if this species is distinct or not. More well-preserved specimens are required to name them. The specimens most probably belong to an undescribed species, as they showed morphological features different from described species, especially in terms of the branchial distributions and the shape of spoon chaetae when compared with species of Dodecaceria in the Mediterranean, namely Dodecaceria sextentaculata and D. saxicola.

Phylum: Annelida Lamarck, 1802
Class: Polychaeta Grube, 1850
Order: Sabellida Levinsen, 1883
Family: Sabellidae Latreille, 1825

Pseudopotamilla sp. 1

Description

Specimen incomplete, 10.6 mm long (including branchial crown), 0.6 mm wide, with 38 chaetigers. Body pale yellowish. Branchial crown 2 mm long, with seven pairs of radioles, with one compound eye near base, except for dorsal and ventral radioles (L, R = x111xxx) (Figure 5B1). Dorsal lips large, with pointed tip, associated with dorsal radiolar appendages. Ventral lips present; ventral sacs absent. Dorsal margin with narrow flanges, ventral margin with oblique flanges. Paired dorsal collar lappets low, truncated, not extending far beyond junction of crown and thorax; lateral collar margin deeply notched; ventral collar margin distinctly higher than dorsal margin, with a pair of broadly triangular lobes. Thorax with 10 chaetigers, abdomen with 28 chaetigers. Anterior margin of first ventral shield indented medially. Collar chaetae limbate. Thoracic notopodia with limbate and paleate chaetae; the latter with a small distal mucro (Figure 5B2). Abdominal neuropodia with limbate chaetae. Thoracic uncini with numerous teeth above main fang. Companion chaetae with flat tear-drop distal blades (Figure 5B3). Abdominal uncini relatively small, with short handle.

Remarks

This species differs from the previously reported species of Pseudopotamilla from the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, namely P. reniformis and P. saxicava, in having deep, distinct notches on the lateral sides of collar; short paired dorsal collar lappets; and fewer eyes on the radioles. More undamaged specimens are needed to clarify its taxonomic entity.

Pseudopotamilla sp. 2

Description

Largest specimen incomplete, 6.6 mm long (including branchial crown), 0.8 mm wide, with 30 chaetigers. Body pale yellowish, with brownish speckles near tip of radioles (Figure 5C). Branchial crown 1.6 mm long, with seven pairs of radioles, with 1–3 compound eyes on two or three dorsal radioles (L = x221xxx, R = x32xxxx) (Figure 5C). Dorsal lips large, with pointed tip, associated with dorsal radiolar appendages. Ventral lips and ventral sacs present; ventral lips short, somewhat rectangular in shape; sacs located between crown and ventral crown flanges. Dorsal margin with narrow flanges, ventral margin with oblique flanges. Paired dorsal collar lappets low, somewhat triangular, a little surpassing beyond the junction of crown and thorax; lateral collar margin deeply notched; ventral collar margin distinctly higher than dorsal margin, with a pair of broadly triangular lobes. Thorax with 8 chaetigers, abdomen with 22 chaetigers. Anterior margin of first ventral shield indented medially. Collar chaetae limbate. Thoracic notopodia with limbate and paleate chaetae; the latter with a small distal mucro. Abdominal neuropodia with limbate chaetae. Thoracic uncini with numerous teeth above main fang. Companion chaetae with flat tear-drop distal blades. Abdominal uncini relatively small, with short handle.

Remarks

This species differs from the previously reported species of Pseudopotamilla (P. reniformis and P. saxicava) from Mediterranean coasts and Pseudopotamilla sp. 1 in having deep, distinct notches on the lateral sides of collar; short paired dorsal collar lappets; and the distribution of eyes on radioles; ventral sacs. More undamaged specimens are needed to clarify its taxonomic entity.

Discussion

In the eastern Aegean Sea, limestone rocky substrata hosted 12 boring polychaete species belonging to four families. The most widespread and abundant species were eunicids (Lysidice species) and spionids (Dipolydora species). The present study is focused only on the species that bore into rocks, so other polychaete species effectively involved in bioeroding processes such as etching and grazing have not been considered.

In a previous experimental study performed on the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy by Casoli et al. (Reference Casoli, Ricci, Antonelli, Perasso, Ardizzone and Gravina2019), two polychaete species, namely Polydora ciliata and Dodecaceria concharum, were reported as borers on limestone panels. However, the occurrence of these two species in the Mediterranean is highly questionable (see Çinar et al., Reference Çinar, Dağli and Kurt Şahin2014) and previous records of P. ciliata in the Mediterranean and Black Sea were assigned to different species such as P. cornuta (Çinar et al., Reference Çinar, Ergen, Dağli and Petersen2005). It seems that they are Atlantic species and do not occur in the Mediterranean Sea. In our study, four Diopolydora species and one Polydora species were determined, among which P. ciliata was absent. Not only within limestone, but in other substrata, P. ciliata was never found in the Aegean Sea (Dagli et al., Reference Dagli, Çinar and Ergen2011). Dodecaceria concharum was frequently reported in previous studies in the Mediterranean, but it seems not to occur in the region, but D. sextentaculata and D. saxicola do occur, which have different morphological features (e.g. shapes of branchiae, spoon chaetae, prostomium) when compared with D. concharum (MEÇ, pers. obs. on material in the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen). In this study, the Dodecaceria species found did not resemble previously described species and they require further examination with additional intact material.

Lysidice ninetta and L. margaritacea were embedded tightly into rocks, and observed to construct vertical, short burrows, suggesting that they are active borers of rocks rather than being nestlers (i.e. species living inside burrows shaped by other boring species sensu Hutchings, Reference Hutchings, Wisshak and Tapanila2008). They are known to be active borers of Posidonia oceanica, using their chitinous, strong jaws to bore into the scales of P. oceanica and create distinct traces (Gambi et al., Reference Gambi, Giangrande, Martinelli and Chessa1995; Çinar, Reference Çinar, Aktan and Aysel2013a). Lysidice ninetta has previously been reported as a borer of rocks (Bromley, Reference Bromley1978; Castriota et al., Reference Castriota, Gambi, Zupo and Sunseri2003), but L. margaritacea was found as a borer within limestone for the first time in the present study.

Different shapes of burrows constructed by boring polychaetes were determined in the present study. The most complicated, branched burrow with several entrances was formed by two Palola species, P. valida and P. siciliensis. Such a burrow type has not previously been described for these species. The other boring species have almost short, straight/vertical or L-shaped (Dipolydora coeca) burrows. However, polydorids are known to construct various types of burrows, such as surface fouling burrows, U shaped burrows, complex burrows, and mudblisters (Blake & Evans, Reference Blake and Evans1973). The boring mechanisms of the species have not been observed in the present study. However, it is known that the boring strategy changes according to families; eunicid species use their strong jaws or secrete acids (Hutchings, Reference Hutchings, Wisshak and Tapanila2008); Dodecaceria species utilize their spoon-shaped chaetae and secrete acid-like substances (Evans, Reference Evans1969); Pseudopotamilla species usually perform boring by secreting acid, but the peristatic movements by specimens within burrows are believed to accelerate the process (Chughtai & Knight-Jones, Reference Chughtai and Knight-Jones1988); Polydora/Dipolydora species utilize three mechanisms (Blake & Evans, Reference Blake and Evans1973): a chemical mechanism (secreting acid); a mechanical mechanism (using enlarged modified chaetae on chaetiger 5); and a combined mechanism (both chemical and mechanical). Further investigation is required to determine the exact mechanism of burrow formation in these Palola species.

Multivariate analysis indicated that two distinct species assemblages occurred in Ildırı Bay; spionid and eunicid assemblages. The reason(s) why spionid and eunicid species were clustered at some certain stations is unknown at this stage, but spatial and temporal distributions of boring polychaetes are known to be shaped by some biotic and abiotic factors. Hutchings & Peyrot-Clausade (Reference Hutchings and Peyrot-Clausade2002) reported that water quality had a great impact on the abundance of borers indirectly; it stimulated the development of epilithic and endolithic algae that changed the periphery of substrata where initial borers lived. Sedimentation also affects the composition of bioeroders (Hutchings et al., Reference Hutchings, Peyrot-Clausade and Osnorno2005; Osnorno et al., Reference Osnorno, Peyrot-Clausade and Hutchings2005). Under heavy sedimentation, endolithic algae do not develop due to light availability, decreasing the levels of grazing, whereas in clean waters, high rates of bioerosion occur due to grazing and boring activities by bivalves and polychaetes. Anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment of waters was proved to enhance the settlement of boring spionid polychaetes on corals in the Red Sea, causing coral skeleton aberrations (Wielgus et al., Reference Wielgus, Glassom and Chadwick-Furman2006). Casoli et al. (Reference Casoli, Ricci, Antonelli, Perasso, Ardizzone and Gravina2019) proved that boring activities of polychaetes increased with the increase in the abundance of ascidians, barnacles and bryozoans on limestone panels in the Mediterranean Sea. In Ildırı Bay, where intense fish farming and tourism activities take place at some locations, anthropogenic disturbance affected the composition of the benthic fauna (Ergen et al., Reference Ergen, Çinar and Dağli2004). It is unknown at this stage as to how these factors might affect the distribution and abundance of polychaete borers. In the western Mediterranean, some boring sponges (Cliona spp.) adapt well and grow larger in areas with high sedimentation rates (Carballo et al., Reference Carballo, Sanchez-Moyano and Garcia-Gomez1994).

Depth was not a factor significantly affecting the distribution of borers in Ildırı Bay. However, we only investigated shallow depth intervals (0–5 and 5–10 m), because the presence of rocks generally ended at 10 m depth in the area and from that depth downwards a soft bottom with phanerogames commenced. In the Mediterranean Sea, scale borers of Posidonia oceanica (Lysidice spp.) showed a clear depth preference; L. collaris was abundant in shallow waters (10 m) and L. ninetta in deep waters (28 m) (Gambi et al., Reference Gambi, Giangrande, Martinelli and Chessa1995; Gambi, Reference Gambi2002). No clear depth zonation was assessed for the boring species examined in the study area, except for the sabellids (Pseudopotamilla spp.) that occurred only in 5–10 m depths.

Among the borers, Palola valida is an alien species of Red Sea origin, previously reported only on the Levantine coast of Turkey (Kurt-Şahin & Çinar, Reference Kurt-Sahin and Çinar2009, Reference Kurt-Sahin and Çinar2017; Çinar et al., Reference Çinar, Bakir, Doğan, Açik, Kurt-Sahin, Katağan, Öztürk, Dagli, Özcan and Kirkim2019). It was reported on a variety of habitats such as rocks, algae and sponges, but its abundance and frequency were estimated to be far higher on rocks (Kurt-Şahin & Çinar, Reference Kurt-Sahin and Çinar2017). This species was also found in coralligenous constructions in Fethiye Bay (MEÇ, unpublished data). Boring alien species belonging to families Spionidae, Cirratulidae and Sabellidae were previously reported worldwide and commonly infested shells of cultured mollusc species (Çinar, Reference Çinar2013b). In the Mediterranean Sea, no boring alien polychaete species has been reported to date, but a sipunculan, Aspidosiphon elegans, was reported to bore into rocks in the Levantine Sea, causing bioerosion (Açik, Reference Açik2018). In addition, boring alien bivalve species (Petricola hemprichi, Gastrochaena symbium and Sphenia rueppelli) infested large bivalve species such as Spondylus spp. in the Levantine Sea (Zenetos et al., Reference Zenetos, Ovalis and Çeviker2010). Increasing densities and distributional ranges of these species within the Mediterranean Sea could create a nuisance, causing physical damage of rocks as well as biogenic habitats like coralligenous habitats. The interactions between native and alien boring species in such habitats would be an interesting subject to study further.

Conclusions

The present study sheds more light on the diversity and distribution of boring polychaete species in the Mediterranean where no detailed study has been carried out so far. Two different species assemblages were identified in the region which might have been structured due to specific environmental conditions, a matter which merits further investigation. Examination of species shows the likelihood of previously undescribed species present in the area, which also merits further investigation. New burrow constructions of P. valida and P. siciliensis have been found. The importance of alien invasive species in shallow-water benthic environments of the eastern Mediterranean is increasing and habitat-forming or -destructive alien species, such as the eunicid Palola valida, might irreversibly modify benthic habitats of the Mediterranean, causing detrimental effects to native biodiversity.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Dr Alper Doğan and Alper Evcen (Ege University) for help in collecting and sorting the material.

Financial support

This work was financially supported by TÜBİTAK (Project number: 111Y141).

References

Açik, S (2018) Alien sipuncula species in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 98, 3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Australian Ecology 26, 3246.Google Scholar
Bakır, AK, Katağan, T, Aker, HV, Ozcan, T, Sezgin, M, Ateş, AS, Koçak, C and Kırkım, F (2014) The marine arthropods of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38, 765831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, JA (1996) Family Spionidae Grube, 1850. Including a review of genera and species from California and revision of Polydora Bosc, 1802. In Blake, JA, Hilbig, B and Scott, PH (eds), Taxonomic Atlas of the Benthic Fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel, vol. 6. The Annelida part 3 – Polychaeta: Orbinidae to Cossuridae. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, pp. 81223.Google Scholar
Blake, JA and Evans, JD (1973) Polydora and related genera (Polychaeta: Spionidae) as borers in mollusk shells and other calcareous substrates. The Veliger 15, 235249.Google Scholar
Boscolo, R and Giovanardi, O (2002) Polydora ciliata shell infestation in Tapes philippinarum Manila clam held out of the substrate in the Adriatic Sea, Italy. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 79, 197198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bromley, RG (1978) Bioerosion of Bermuda reefs. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeocology 23, 169197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çaglar, M (1954) Mytilus galloprovincialis kabuklarında yasayan oyucu bir Polydora türü. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hydrobiyoloji Enstitüsü Dergisi Seri A 2, pp. 6773.Google Scholar
Carazzi, D (1893) Revisione del genere Polydora Bosc e cenni su due specie che vivono sulle striche. Mittheilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel 11, 445.Google Scholar
Carballo, JL, Sanchez-Moyano, JE and Garcia-Gomez, JC (1994) Taxonomic and ecological remarks on boring sponges (Clionidae) from Straits of Gibraltar (southern Spain): tentative bioindicators? Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 112, 407424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiro-Silva, M and McClanahan, TR (2012) Macrobioerosion of dead branching Porites 4 and 6 years after coral mass mortality. Marine Ecological Progress Series 458, 103122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casoli, W, Ricci, S, Antonelli, F, Perasso, CS, Ardizzone, G and Gravina, MF (2019) Colonization dynamic on experimental limestone substrata: the role of encrusting epilithics favoring boring polychaetes. Hydrobiologia 842, 101112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castriota, S, Gambi, MC, Zupo, V and Sunseri, G (2003) Structure and trophic ecology of a population of Lysidice ninetta (Polychaeta) associated to rhodoliths off the island of Ustica (Southern Tyrrhenian Sea). Biologia Marina Mediterranea 10, 517520.Google Scholar
Chughtai, I and Knight-Jones, EW (1988) Burrowing into limestone by sabellid polychaetes. Zoologica Scripta 17, 231238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çinar, ME (2013a) Polychaetes (Annelida: Polychaeta) associated with Posidonia oceanica along the coasts of Turkey and northern Cyprus. In Aktan, Y and Aysel, V (eds), First National Congress on Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile on the coasts of Turkey. İstanbul: TUDAV, pp. 7795.Google Scholar
Çinar, ME (2013b) Alien polychaete species worldwide: current status and their impacts. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93, 12571278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çinar, ME, Ergen, Z, Dağli, E and Petersen, ME (2005) Alien species of spionid polychaetes (Streblospio gynobranchiata and Polydora cornuta) in Izmir Bay, eastern Mediterranean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85, 821827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çinar, ME, Katağan, T, Koçak, F, Öztürk, B, Ergen, Z, Kocatas, A, Önen, M, Kirkim, F, Bakir, K, Kurt, G, Dağli, E, Açik, S, Dogan, A and Özcan, T (2008) Faunal assemblages of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis in and around Alsancak Harbour (Izmir Bay, eastern Mediterranean). Journal of Marine Systems 71, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çinar, ME, Dağli, E and Kurt Şahin, G (2014) Checklist of Annelida from the coasts of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38, 734764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çinar, ME, Bakir, AK, Doğan, A, Açik, S, Kurt-Sahin, G, Katağan, T, Öztürk, B, Dagli, E, Özcan, T and Kirkim, F (2019) Macro-benthic invertebrates associated with the black sponge Sarcotragus foetidus (Porifera) in the Levantine and Aegean Seas, with special emphasis on alien species. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 227, 106306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, KR, Gorley, RN and Warwick, RM (2014) Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 3rd Edn. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd.Google Scholar
Dagli, E, Çinar, ME and Ergen, Z (2011) Spionidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from the Aegean Sea. Italian Journal of Zoology 78, 4964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, PJ and Hutchings, PA (1983) Initial colonization, erosion and accretion on coral substrate. Experimental results, Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 21, 2735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demir, M (1952–1954) Boğaz ve Adalar Sahillerinin Omurgasız Dip Hayvanları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Hidrobiologi Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınlarından 3, 1615.Google Scholar
Ergen, Z (1976) Ecological and taxonomic features of Polychaeta in Izmir Bay and its vicinity. Ege University Science Faculty Scientific Report Series 209, 173. [In Turkish].Google Scholar
Ergen, Z, Çinar, ME and Dağli, E (2004) Effects of fish farming on the distribution of polychaetes in the Aegean Sea. Rapport Commission International Mer Méditerranée 37, 350.Google Scholar
Evans, JW (1969) Borers in the shell of the sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus. American Zoologist 9, 775778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evcen, A and Çinar, ME (2012) Sponges (Porifera) from the Mediterranean coast of Turkey (Levantine Sea, eastern Mediterranean), with a checklist of sponges from the coasts of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 36, 460464.Google Scholar
Evcen, A and Çinar, ME (2015) Bioeroding sponge species (Porifera) in the Aegean Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Journal of Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 21, 285306.Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, K and Rouse, GW (1999) A remarkable new genus and species of fan worm (Polychaeta: Sabellidae: Sabellinae) associated with marine gastropods. Invertebrate Biology 118, 357390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, AC, Dean, HK and Cortés, J (2006) Non-colonial coral macro-bores as indicator of coral reef status in south Pacific of Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 54, 101115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambi, MC (2002) Spatio-temporal distribution and ecological role of polychaete borers of Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile scales. Bulletin of Marine Science 71, 13231331.Google Scholar
Gambi, MC, Giangrande, A, Martinelli, M and Chessa, LA (1995) Polychaetes of a Posidonia oceanica bed off Sardinia (Italy): spatio-temporal distribution and feeding guild analysis. Scientia Marina 59, 129141.Google Scholar
Gambi, MC, Trani, B and Buia, MC (2005) Taxonomic diversity and distribution of polychaete and isopod borers on the sheaths of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica: analysis at regional scale along the coast off Sardinia (Italy). Italian Journal of Zoology 72, 141151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, P (1997) Bioerosion and coral–reef growth: a dynamic approach. In Birkeland, C (ed.), Life and Death of Coral Reefs. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, pp. 6895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, PA (1986) Biological destruction of coral reefs: a review. Coral Reefs 4, 239252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, PA (2008) Role of polychaetes in bioerosion of coral substrates. In Wisshak, W and Tapanila, L (eds), Current Developments in Bioerosion. Erlanger Earth Conference Series. Berlin: Springer–Verlag, pp. 249264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, PA and Peyrot-Clausade, M (2002) The distribution and abundance of boring species of polychaetes and sipunculans in coral substrate in French Polynesia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 269, 101121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, PA, Peyrot-Clausade, M and Osnorno, A. (2005) Influence of land runoff on rates and agents of bioerosion of coral substrates. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51, 438447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurt-Sahin, G and Çinar, ME (2009) Eunicidae (Polychaeta) species in and around İskenderun Bay (Levantine Sea, eastern Mediterranean) with a new alien species for the Mediterranean Sea and a re-description of Lysidice collaris. Turkish Journal of Zoology 33, 331347.Google Scholar
Kurt-Sahin, G and Çinar, ME (2017) Distribution of Eunicidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) along the Levantine coast of Turkey, with special emphasis on alien species. Marine Biodiversity 47, 421431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubier, L (1958) Contribution a la faunistique de coraligène. I. Quelques particularités biologiques de Polydora armata Langerhans. Vie et Milieu 9, 412415.Google Scholar
Laubier, L (1959) Contribution a la faunistique de coraligène. III. Deux spionidiens inquilins sur des bryozoaires chilostomides. Vie et Milieu 10, 347349.Google Scholar
Liu, PJ and Hsieh, HL (2000) Burrow architecture of the spionid polychaeta Polydora villosa in coral Montipora and Porites. Zoological Studies 39, 4754.Google Scholar
Osnorno, A, Peyrot-Clausade, M and Hutchings, PA (2005) Patterns and rates of erosion in dead Porites across reef (Australia) after 2 years and 4 years of exposure. Coral Reefs 24, 292303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öztürk, B, Doğan, A, Bakır, BB and Salman, A (2014) Marine molluscs of the Turkish coasts: an updated checklist. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38, 832879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrot-Clausade, M, Hutchings, P and Richard, G (1992) Temporal variations of macroborers in massive Porites lobata on Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 11, 161166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pınar, E (1974) Fouling-boring organisms in some ports of Turkey and anti-fouling, anti-boring paints on these impact. Ege University Science Faculty Scientific Report Series 170, 167. [In Turkish].Google Scholar
Sartoretto, S (1998) Bioérosion des concrétions coralligènes de Méditerranée par les organisms perforants: essai de quantification des processus. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences– Series IIA– Earth and Planetary Science 327, 839844.Google Scholar
Sato-Okoshi, W and Okoshi, K (1993) Microstructure of scallop and oyster shells infested with boring Polydora. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 59, 12431247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, PJB, Moser, KA and Risk, MJ (1988) Bioerosion of concrete and limestone by marine organisms: a 13 year experiment from Jamaica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 5, 219222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, S, Sivrikaya, H, Yalçın, M, Bakır, AK and Öztürk, B (2010) Fouling and boring organisms that deteriorate various European and tropical woods at Turkish seas. African Journal of Biotechnology 9, 25662573.Google Scholar
Simon, CA, Worsfold, TM, Lange, L and Sterley, J (2010) The genus Boccardia (Polychaeta: Spionidae) associated with mollusc shells on the south coast of South Africa. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 90, 585598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribollet, A and Golubic, S (2011) Reef bioerosion: agents and processes. In Dubinsky, Z and Stambler, N (eds), Coral Reefs: An Ecosystem in Transition. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 435449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielgus, J, Glassom, D and Chadwick-Furman, NE (2006) Patterns of polychaete worm infestation of stony corals in the northern Red Sea and relationship to water chemistry. Bulletin of Marine Science 78, 377388.Google Scholar
Zenetos, A, Ovalis, P and Çeviker, D (2010) On some Indo-Pacific boring endolithic Bivalvia species introduced into the Mediterranean Sea with their host-spread of Sphenia rueppelli A. Adams, 1850. Mediterranean Marine Science 11, 201207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the investigated area indicating sampling stations within the localities.

Figure 1

Table 1. Abundance of boring polychaete species at stations (SP: Southern Part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: Eastern Part, GB: Gencelli Bay)

Figure 2

Fig. 2. The mean number of polychaete species and individuals, and the diversity and evenness index values at localities (SP: southern part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: eastern part, GB: Gencelli Bay). SE: standard error.

Figure 3

Table 2. Overall PERMANOVA tests applied on the community descriptors (number of species, number of individuals, diversity index and evenness index) with regard to depth intervals (two levels: 0–5 and 5–10 m depths) and localities (four areas: southern part, Eşek Islands, eastern part and Gencelli Bay)

Figure 4

Fig. 3. nMDS analysis showing the similarity among stations, based on abundance data of all polychaete species. Vectors represent the species that relatively highly correlated with nMDS1 and nMDS2 (Pearson correlation, r > 0.45) (SP: southern part, EI: Eşek Islands, EP: eastern part, GB: Gencelli Bay).

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Burrow structures of boring polychaete species. (A) Palola siciliensis, arrow indicates a specimen of P. siciliensis within the gallery; (B) Dipolydora coeca; (C) Dipolydora armata; (D) Polydora hoplura; (E) Dipolydora flava.

Figure 6

Table 3. Main tests of PERMANOVA based on fourth-root transformed species-abundance data

Figure 7

Fig. 5. (A) Anterior end of Dodecaceria sp., dorsal view (ESFM–POL/2011–335); (B1) Anterior end of Pseudopotamilla sp.1, dorsal view (ESFM–POL/2011–338); (B2) Thoracic chaetigers of Pseudopotamilla sp.1; (B3) Uncini and companion chaetae of Pseudopotamilla sp.1; (C) Anterior end of Pseudopotamilla sp.2 (ESFM–POL/2011–338), dorsal view. Scale bars: A = 0.5 mm; B1, 0.6 mm; B2, 75 μm; B3, 25 μm; C, 0.7 mm.