Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Responses of mobile epifauna to small-scale seagrass patchiness: is fragmentation important?

  • Primary Research Paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Habitat fragmentation is a process involving splitting of continuous habitats into smaller, and more isolated habitat patches. To assess the effects of small-scale habitat patchiness and isolation without the confounding effect of habitat loss on benthic macrofauna, two field experiments were conducted in the Archipelago Sea, SW Finland. Using artificial seagrass units (ASUs) we contrasted continuous patches (“C”) with fragmented patches (“F”) of the same combined area as the continuous patches. The fragmentation treatment involved two isolation distances (0.5 and 3.0 m) between the ASUs (“F 0.5”) and (“F 3.0”). This design was repeated in two consecutive experiments where the patch area was 0.25 and 0.0625 m2, respectively. Mobile epifauna were allowed to colonize patches for 12 days in both experiments. In both experiments, the total epifaunal density was significantly higher in the “F 0.5” treatment than in the “C” treatment, and the three dominant taxa showed positive or neutral responses to the habitat configuration. No fragmentation effect on the number of species was detected in either of the experiments, but fragmentation had a negative effect on the epifaunal diversity (Shannon’s H′) in the experiment with the largest patch area. Epifaunal diversity was significantly lower in “F 3.0” treatment than in “C” or “F 0.5” treatments in the first experiment, indicating stronger effect of isolation instead of fragmentation per se. Edge effects were indirectly tested by comparing epifaunal densities with patch edge:area ratios. The results suggest that edge effects may have a more important role than patch size for the total densities of epifaunal taxa, and that small, isolated patches have equal or higher habitat value compared to larger fragments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrén, H., 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attrill, M. J., J. A. Strong & A. A. Rowden, 2000. Are macroinvertebrate communities influenced by seagrass structural complexity? Ecography 23: 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. D., M. Westoby & A. S. Steffe, 1987. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: do they discriminate between beds of different leaf density? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 111: 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. S., R. A. Brooks, B. D. Robbins, M. S. Fonseca & M. O. Hall, 2001. Faunal response to fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass conservation. Biological Conservation 100: 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender, D. J., T. A. Contreras & L. Fahrig, 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79: 517–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna, P. A. X. & K. L. Heck, 2000. Impacts of seagrass habitat architecture on bivalve settlement. Estuaries and Coasts 23: 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna, P. A. X. & K. L. Heck, 2002. Impact of habitat edges on density and secondary production of seagrass-associated fauna. Estuaries 25: 1033–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, C. & J. Mattila, 1999. The relative importance of food and shelter for seagrass associated invertebrates—a latitudinal comparison of habitat choice by isopod grazers. Oecologia 120: 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, C., S. P. Baden & D. Krause-Jensen, 2003. The seagrasses of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. In Green, E. P., et al. (eds), World Atlas of Seagrasses: Present Status and Future Conservation. California Press, Berkley: 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boström, C., E. L. Jackson & C. A. Simenstad, 2006. Seagrass landscapes and their effects on associated fauna: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68: 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, C., A. Törnroos & E. Bonsdorff, 2010. Invertebrate dispersal and habitat heterogeneity: expression of biological traits in a seagrass landscape. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 390: 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, D. A., A. A. Rowden & M. J. Attrill, 2001. Effect of patch size and in-patch location on the infaunal macroinvertebrate assemblages of Zostera marina seagrass beds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 259: 133–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. A. & S. S. Bell, 2001. Mobile corridors in marine landscapes: enhancement of faunal exchange at seagrass/sand ecotones. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 264: 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, R. D. & J. S. Hindell, 2006. Review of nekton patterns and ecological processes in seagrass landscapes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68: 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, C. M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29: 192–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J., 1961. Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of American Statistical Association 56: 52–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggleston, D. B., L. L. Etherington & W. E. Elis, 1998. Organism response to habitat patchiness: species and habitat-dependent recruitment of decapod crustaceans. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 223: 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggleston, D. B., E. E. Ward, L. L. Etherington, C. P. Dahlgren & M. H. Posey, 1999. Organism responses to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 236: 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 487–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. J., Jr., L. Ries, J. Battin & A. D. Chalfoun, 2007. The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes; definitely distinct or inevitably intertwined? Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 1017–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freemark, K. E., J. B. Dunning, S. J. Hejl & J. R. Probst, 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation and management. In Martin, T. E. & D. M. Finch (eds), Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, New York: 381–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, M. T., A. A. Rowden & M. J. Attrill, 1999. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the macroinvertebrate infaunal communities associated with the seagrass Zostera marina L. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9: 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gascon, C. & T. E. Lovejoy, 1998. Ecological impacts of forest fragmentation in Central Amazonia. Zoology 101: 273–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, P. J. & S. D. Connell, 2002. Can habitat loss be treated independently of habitat configuration? Implications for rare and common taxa in fragmented landscapes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239: 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, P. J., M. G. Chapman & A. J. Underwood, 2007. Differences between biota in anthropogenically fragmented habitats and in naturally patchy habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 351: 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski, I. & M. E. Gilpin, 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S. & E. Bruna, 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22: 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, K., P. Hesp & G. A. Kendrick, 1995. Seagrass loss associated with boat moorings at Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 26: 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, D. & K. A. Hovel, 2004. Seagrass bed patchiness: effects on epifaunal communities in San Diego Bay, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 313: 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K. L., G. Hays & R. J. Orth, 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, J. A. & M. J. Attrill, 2008. Small is beautiful: an inverted view of habitat fragmentation in seagrass beds. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 78: 811–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist, J. G., 1994. Benthic macroalgae as a dispersal mechanism for fauna: influence of a marine tumbleweed. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 180: 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovel, K. A., 2003. Habitat fragmentation in marine landscapes: relative effects of habitat cover and configuration on juvenile crab survival in California and North Carolina seagrass beds. Biological Conservation 110: 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovel, K. A. & R. N. Lipcius, 2001. Habitat fragmentaton in a seagrass landscape: patch size and complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82: 1814–1829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovel, K. A. & R. N. Lipcius, 2002. Effects of seagrass habitat fragmentation on juvenile blue crab survival and abundance. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 271: 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irlandi, E. A., 1994. Large- and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation: how percent coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve. Oecologia 98: 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irlandi, E. A., 1997. Seagrass patch size and survivorship of an infaunal bivalve. Oikos 78: 511–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irlandi, E. A., W. G. Ambrose & B. A. Orlando, 1995. Landscape ecology and the marine environment: how spatial configuration of seagrass habitat influences growth and survival of the bay scallop. Oikos 72: 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. L., A. S. Rowden, M. J. Attrill, S. Bossey & S. M. Jones, 2001. The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology 39: 269–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. R., J. A. Wiens, B. T. Milne & T. O. Crist, 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogenous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 7: 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolasa, J., 1989. Ecological systems in hierarchical perspective: breaks in community structure and other consequences. Ecology 70: 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, W. F., 2008. Review. Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biological Conservation 141: 1731–1744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loneragan, N. R., R. A. Kenyon, D. J. Staples, I. R. Poiner & C. A. Conacher, 1998. The influence of seagrass type on the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, E. D. & S. S. Bell, 1991. Habitat structure: The evolution and diversification of a complex topic. Population and Community Biology Series: 3–27.

  • Macreadie, P. I., J. S. Hindell, G. P. Jenkins, R. M. Connolly & M. J. Keough, 2009. Fish responses to experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Conservation Biology 23: 644–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, S. E. & P. G. Fairweather, 1993. Single large or several small marine reserves? An experiment approach with seagrass fauna. Journal of Biogeography 20: 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montefalcone, M., V. Parravicini, M. Vacchi, G. Albertelli, M. Ferrari, C. Morri & C. N. Bianchi, 2010. Human influence on seagrass habitat fragmentation in NW Mediterranean Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86: 292–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norkko, J., E. Bonsdorff & A. Norkko, 2000. Drifting algal mats as an alternative habitat for benthic invertebrates: species specific responses to a transient resource. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 248: 79–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R. J., T. J. B. Carruthers, W. C. Dennison, C. M. Duarte, J. F. Fourqurean, K. L. Heck, A. R. Hughes, G. A. Kendrick, W. J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F. T. Short, M. Waycott & S. L. Williams, 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56: 987–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, R. & S. Levin, 1981. Intertidal landscapes; disturbances and dynamics of pattern. Ecological Monographs 51: 145–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. F. & S. P. Harrison, 1988. Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: evidence from biogeographic patterns. Oecologia 75: 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, B. J. & K. A. Hovel, 2006. Seagrass habitat disturbance: how loss and fragmentation of eelgrass Zostera marina influences epifaunal abundance and diversity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries, L., R. J. Fletcher Jr., J. Battin & T. D. Sisk, 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 491–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, B. D. & S. S. Bell, 1994. Seagrass landscapes: a terrestrial approach to the marine subtidal environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 301–304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. D., B. M. Gillanders & S. D. Connell, 2005. Proximity and size of neighbouring habitat affects invertebrate diversity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 296: 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salovius, S., M. Nyqvist & E. Bonsdorff, 2005. Life in the fast line: macrobenthos use temporary drifting algal habitats. Journal of Sea Research 53: 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D., R. Hobbs & C. Margules, 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley, R. L. & J. A. Wiens, 2003. Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102: 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sogard, S. M., 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans: importance of proximity to natural eelgrass. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 133: 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, J. E., 2005. Edge effects on fauna in fragmented seagrass meadows. Austral Ecology 30: 210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, G. Merriam & K. Henein, 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhrin, A. V. & J. G. Holmquist, 2003. Effects of propeller scarring on macrofaunal use of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Marine Ecology Progress Series 250: 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, A. J., 1997. Experiments in Ecology. Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacchi, M., M. Montefalcone, C. N. Bianchi, C. Morri & M. Ferrari, 2010. The influence of coastal dynamics on the upper limit of the Posidonia oceanica meadow. Marine Ecology 31: 546–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virnstein, R. & M. Curran, 1986. Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29: 279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warry, F. Y., J. S. Hindell, P. I. Macreadie, G. P. Jenkins & R. M. Connolly, 2009. Integrating edge effects into studies of habitat fragmentation: a test using meiofauna in seagrass. Oecologia 159: 883–892.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waycott, M., C. M. Duarte, T. J. B. Carruthers, R. J. Orth, W. C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J. W. Fourqurean, K. L. Heck Jr., R. A. Hughes, G. A. Kendrick, W. J. Kenworthy, F. T. Short & S. L. Williams, 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106: 12377–12381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, J. A. & B. T. Milne, 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the elementary-school pupils, research assistants, and inexhaustible friends who helped with the construction of the ASUs. Anna Törnroos is acknowledged for field assistance. Patrik Kraufvelin is acknowledged for statistical advice. Two anonymous reviewers are acknowledged for improving an earlier draft of the manuscript. This experiment was funded by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation (Project 2006124).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Heidi Arponen

    Present address: Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services Southern Finland, Archipelago Centre Korpoström, Korpoströmsvägen 832, 21720, Korpoström, Finland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biosciences, Environmental and Marine Biology, Åbo Akademi University, Artillerigatan 6, 20520, Åbo, Finland

    Heidi Arponen & Christoffer Boström

Authors
  1. Heidi Arponen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoffer Boström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Arponen.

Additional information

Handling editor: Luis Mauricio Bini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arponen, H., Boström, C. Responses of mobile epifauna to small-scale seagrass patchiness: is fragmentation important?. Hydrobiologia 680, 1–10 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0895-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0895-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation