Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:49:11.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the fauna retained on 0·5 mm and 1·0 mm meshes from benthic samples taken in the Beatrice Oilfield, Moray Firth, Scotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

J. D. D. Bishop  and
J. P. Hartley
J. D. D. Bishop
Affiliation:
Oil Pollution Research Unit, Field Studies Council, Orielton Field Centre, Pembroke, Dyfed, Wales
J. P. Hartley
Affiliation:
Oil Pollution Research Unit, Field Studies Council, Orielton Field Centre, Pembroke, Dyfed, Wales
Get access

Synopsis

The identity and abundance of animals passing through a 1·0 mm mesh but retained on a 0·5 mm mesh is detailed for a number of seabed samples of medium, fine and very fine sand taken in the Beatrice Oilfield in 1981. Comparisons are made with the corresponding 1·0mm-sieved fractions, and the effects on community parameters of combining the two data sets are considered.

In general fewer animals were found on the 0·5 mm mesh than on the 1·0 mm mesh above it. The 0·5 mm mesh samples added comparatively few taxa to the faunal list of the survey. The quantitatively-scored taxa from the 0·5 mm mesh were therefore essentially a sub-set of those already recorded on the 1·0 mm mesh. Several taxa of Foraminiferida were found only on the 0·5 mm mesh, and one of these appeared to be relatively abundant. However. Foraminiferida were not scored quantitatively in this study.

In all samples, when 0·5 mm and 1·0 mm data were combined an increase was noted in the number of taxa recorded compared with 1·0 mm data alone. This recruitment of taxa was largely a reflection of the greater number of individuals in the combined data, rather than the inclusion of taxa unique to the 0·5 mm material. Similarly, the improved precision of abundance estimates of dominant taxa in replicate samples in the combined data probably resulted from the greater number of individuals included in the analysis.

It is argued that the choice of a particular mesh size imposes an essentially arbitrary cut-off along the size spectrum of benthic organisms. A 1·0 mm mesh has been found to yield adequate data in a number of offshore surveys undertaken by the Oil Pollution Research Unit (OPRU). Although a greater number of animals per sample is collected by sieving on a 0·5 mm mesh, the time taken to extract and identify this material must be considered. The alternative of spending an equivalent time analysing extra 1·0 mm samples may in fact yield a greater increase in confidence in the results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 91: The Marine Environment of the Moray Firth , 1986 , pp. 247 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1986

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

Addy, J. M., Hartley, J. P. & Tibbetts, P. J. C. 1984. Ecological effects of low toxicity oil-based mud drilling in the Beatrice Oilfield. Marine Pollution Bulletin 15, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankar, S. 1979. Annual dynamics of a northern Baltic soft bottom. In Cyclic phenomena in marine plants and animals, eds. Naylor, E. & Hartnoll, R. G., pp. 29–36. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankar, S., Andersin, A-B., Lassig, J., Norling, L. & Sandler, H. 1979. Methods for studying benthic macrofauna. An intercalibration between two laboratories in the Baltic Sea. Finnish Marine Research 246, 147–160.Google Scholar
Bachelet, G. 1985. Influence de la maille de tamisage sur les estimations d'abondance des stades juvéniles du macrobenthos marin. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Seances de l'Académie des Sciences. Paris, Serie 3 301, 795–798.Google Scholar
Barnett, B. E. 1979. Sorting benthic samples. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10, 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bougis, P. 1950. Méthode pour l'étude quantitative de la microfauna des fonds marins. Vie Milieu 1, 23–38.Google Scholar
Dybern, B. I., Ackefors, H. & Elmgren, R. (eds.) 1976. Recommendations on methods for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Marine Biologists 1, 1–98.Google Scholar
Eagle, R. A., Norton, M. G. Nunny, R. S. & Rolfe, M. S. 1978. The field assessment of effects of dumping wastes at sea. 2. Methods. Lowestoft: MAFF Fisheries Research Technical Report No. 47.Google Scholar
Eleftheriou, A. & Holme, N. A. 1984. Macrofauna techniques. In Methods for the study of marine benthos, eds. Holme, N. A. & McIntyre, A. D.. pp. 140–216. IBP Handbook No. 16, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. M. 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 25.Google Scholar
Elmgren, R. 1973. Methods of sampling sublittoral soft bottom meiofauna. Oikos Supplement 15, 112–120.Google Scholar
Eltringham, S. K. 1971. Life in mud and sand, pp. i–vi and 1–218. London: The English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. P. 1982. Methods for monitoring offshore macrobenthos. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 150–154.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. P. 1984. The benthic ecology of the Forties Oilfield (North Sea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 80, 161–195.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. P. & Bishop, J. D. D. 1986. The macrobenthos of the Beatrice Oilfield area, Moray Firth, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 91B, 221–245.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. R. 1973. Cardigan Bay Recent Foraminifera. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Zoology Supplement 4.Google Scholar
Mare, M. F. 1942. A study of a marine benthic community with special reference to the micro-organisms. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 25, 517–554.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. D. 1961. Quantitative differences in the fauna of boreal mud associations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 41, 599–616.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. D., Elliott, J. M. & Ellis, D. V. 1984. Introduction: design of sampling programmes. In Methods for the study of marine benthos, eds. Holme, N. A. & McIntyre, A. D.. pp. 1–26. IBP Handbook No. 16, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Mirza, F. B. & Gray, J. S. 1981. The fauna of benthic sediments from the organically enriched Oslofjord, Norway. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 54, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. W. 1973. Distribution and ecology of living benthic foraminiferids, pp. i–xii and 1–274. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Murray, J. W. 1979. British nearshore foraminiferids, pp. 1–68. Synopses of the British fauna (new series). No. 16. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, T. H. 1975. The benthic ecology of Loch Linnhe and Loch Eil, a sealoch system on the west coast of Scotland. IV. Changes in the benthic fauna attributable to organic enrichment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 20, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, H. L. 1984. A note on mesh selection and sampling efficiency in benthic studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 15, 225–229.Google Scholar
Reish, D. J. 1959. A discussion of the importance of screen size in washing quantitative marine bottom samples. Ecology 40, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, R. 1973. Succession in benthic macrofauna in a Swedish fjord subsequent to the closure of a sulphite pulp mill. Oikos 24, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwinghamer, P. 1981. Characteristic size distributions of integral benthic communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38, 1255–1263.Google Scholar
Thiel, H. 1975. The size structure of deep-sea benthos. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie 60, 575–606.Google Scholar
Vanosmael, C., Willems, K. A., Claeys, D., Vincx, M. & Heip, C. 1982. Macrobenthos of a sublittoral sandbank in the Southern Bight of the North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 62, 521–534.Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M. 1983. Sampling and analysis of benthic communities. In Practical procedures for estuarine studies, ed. Morrism, A. W., pp. 185–212. Swindon: Natural Environment Research Council.Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M. 1984. Species size distributions in marine benthic communities. Oecologia 61, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, R. M., Joint, I. R. & Radford, P. J. 1979. Secondary production of the benthos in an estuarine environment. In Ecological processes in coastal environments, eds. Jefferies, R. L. & Davy, A. J., pp. 429–450. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Willems, K. A., Vanosmael, C., Claeys, D., Vincx, M. & Heip, C. 1982. Benthos of a sublittoral sandbank in the Southern Bight of the North Sea: general considerations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 62, 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar