4.4 Article

Predictors of species richness in the deep-benthic fauna of the northern Gulf of Mexico

Journal

DEEP-SEA RESEARCH PART II-TOPICAL STUDIES IN OCEANOGRAPHY
Volume 55, Issue 24-26, Pages 2650-2656

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.09.003

Keywords

Species richness; Null model; Macrofauna; Megafauna; Environmental correlations; Northern Gulf of Mexico

Categories

Funding

  1. Minerals Management Service [1435-01-99-CT-30991]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Species richness in macrofauna and megafauna collected with box cores and trawls from 35 standard stations over a depth range of 175-3720 m in the northern Gulf of Mexico was examined in terms of two primary questions: (1) are observed patterns random? and (2) if not, what environmental factors might account for the patterns? A null model tested whether richness vs. depth distributions were random. Groups with species that had broad vertical depth ranges fit the null model better than groups with small ranges, but for almost all phyla a non-random pattern was indicated. With randomness as a proximal explanation ruled out, further examination of the relationship between richness and environmental factors was justified. A generalized linear model (GLM) showed that a suite of 18 factors categorized as food-related, habitat-related, pollution-related and location-related were significantly related to richness patterns, but that different mixes of factors applied to different phyla. No one factor accounted for any observed patterns. Thus, each taxonomic group needs to be examined individually, and no generally applicable explanation for the causes of richness patterns may exist. Nonetheless, mapping richness itself indicates valuable areas in the Mississippi Trough that must receive special consideration and possible protection. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available