3.9 Article

Spatial variability of epifaunal communities in the North Sea in relation to sampling effort

期刊

HELGOLAND MARINE RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 215-225

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10152-008-0109-8

关键词

epifauna; community structure; species accumulation curves; multidimensional scaling (MDS); North Sea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benthic epifauna was sampled in six areas from the German Bight towards the Norwegian Sea using a 2-m standard beam trawl. Nine replicates were taken in each area and year from 1999 to 2006. This data set (60-67 replicates per area) was used to describe the spatial variability in local species composition and to assess the effect of increasing sampling effort on species richness and community structure. Our results confirmed the importance of the 50-m depth contour for the separation of benthic fauna in the North Sea. Low species richness, sparse sessile fauna and high abundances of scavenging species such as Asterias rubens, Liocarcinus holsatus, Astropecten irregularis and Ophiura albida were characteristic of the low-water area south of the 50-m contour. Differences in community structure were less conspicuous in deeper waters north of the 50-m contour, but distribution patterns and abundances of single species such as Echinus elegans, Hyalinoecia tubicola, Ophiothrix fragilis, Scaphander lignarius as well as several hermit crabs resulted in well-defined epifaunal communities. One replicate caught 17-28% of the species found in 60-67 samples and was sufficient to separate the community in the German Bight from those in the central and northern North Sea by using multidimensional scaling. Nine replicates sampled a proportion of 53-60% and provided additional information on the spatial variability of community structure in the central and northern North Sea. Our study indicates that appropriate replication enhances the quality of the data and can partly overcome the constraints of sampling with a 2-m beam trawl. This might be helpful for future monitoring programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据