4.7 Article

Depth moderates loss of marine foundation species after an extreme marine heatwave: could deep temperate reefs act as a refuge?

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.0709

关键词

deep refuge; marine heatwave; benthic community composition; temperate; foundation species

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP150104251, LE13010020]
  2. Marine Biodiversity NERP
  3. Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) through the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR), National Collaborative Research Infrastructure scheme
  4. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) project [2008/013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine heatwaves (MHWs) have been documented around the world, causing widespread mortality of numerous benthic species on shallow reefs (less than 15 m depth). Deeper habitats are hypothesized to be a potential refuge from environmental extremes, though we have little understanding of the response of deeper benthic communities to MHWs. Here, we show how increasing depth moderates the response of seaweed- and coral-dominated benthic communities to an extreme MHW across a subtropical-temperate biogeographical transition zone. Benthic community composition and key habitat-building species were characterized across three depths (15, 25 and 40 m) before and several times after the 2011 Western Australian MHW to assess resistance during and recovery after the heatwave. We found high natural variability in benthic community composition along the biogeographic transition zone and across depths with a clear shift in the composition after the MHW in shallow (15 m) sites but a lot less in deeper communities (40 m). Most importantly, key habitat-building seaweeds such asEcklonia radiataandSyctothalia dorycarpawhich had catastrophic losses on shallow reefs, remained and were less affected in deeper communities. Evidently, deep reefs have the potential to act as a refuge during MHWs for the foundation species of shallow reefs in this region.

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

4.7
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