Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:52:05.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The macro-invertebrate fauna of the intertidal soft sediments of south east England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

D. G. Kay  and
R. D. Knights
D. G. Kay
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Colney Research Station, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UD
R. D. Knights
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Colney Research Station, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A study of the intertidal macro-invertebrate fauna of south east England was carried out as part of the investigations funded by the Department of the Environment of the likely ecological implications of the Maplin development proposals. The main aim of this study was to determine the potential food resource the invertebrate populations represent for the large numbers of wading birds which overwinter in this region. This article will concern itself solely with aspects of the invertebrate populations, the relationships between the waders and their invertebrate food supply will be presented separately (Kay, Blindell & Goss-Custard, in prep.).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , November 1975 , pp. 811 - 832
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1975

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

Anderson, S. S., 1972. The ecology of Morecambe Bay. II. Intertidal invertebrates and factors affecting their distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9, 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. S. K. & Coughlan, J., 1970. A survey of the bottom fauna of the Blackwater estuary. Essex Naturalist, 32, 263–76.Google Scholar
Bray, J. R. & Curtis, J. T., 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs, 27, 325–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. B. & Kain, J. M., 1971. Measurement of the physical and chemical environment. In: Methods for the study of marine benthos, eds Holme, N. A. and Mclntyre, A. D., 30–58. IBP Handbook No. 16. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Bull, F., Honeyman, H. & Knott, S., 1960. An investigation of the mud fauna of the Stour estuary. Transactions of the Suffolk Naturalists' Society, 11, 223–37.Google Scholar
Davis, D. S., 1967. The marine fauna of the Blackwater estuary and adjacent waters. Essex Naturalist, 32, 2–61.Google Scholar
Day, J. H., Field, J. G. & Montgomery, M. P., 1971. The use of numerical methods to determine the distribution of the benthic fauna across the continental shelf of North Carolina. Journal of Animal Ecology, 40, 93–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. G. & McFarlane, G., 1968. Numerical methods in marine ecology. I. A quantitative similarity analysis of rocky shore samples in False Vay, South Africa. Zoologica Africana, 3, 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. M., 1961. Ecological studies in South Benfleet creek, with special reference to the amphipod genus Corophium. Essex Naturalist, 30, 291–309.Google Scholar
Newell, G. E., 1954. The marine fauna of Whitstable. Annual Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 12, 7, 321–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prater, A. J., 1972. The ecology of Morecambe Bay. III. The food and feeding habits of the Knot (Calidris canutus L.) in Morecambe Bay. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9, 179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, H. L., 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102, 243–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H., 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science, New York, 147, 250–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildish, D. J., 1971. A preliminary account of the ecology of the Medway estuary. Transactions of the Kent Field Club, 3, 237–46.Google Scholar