Recolonisation patterns of meiobenthic communities in brackish vegetated and unvegetated habitats after induced hypoxia/anoxia
Guerrini, A.; Colangelo, M.A.; Ceccherelli, V.U. (1998). Recolonisation patterns of meiobenthic communities in brackish vegetated and unvegetated habitats after induced hypoxia/anoxia. Hydrobiologia 375: 73-87. https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017096603808 In: Hydrobiologia. Springer: The Hague. ISSN 0018-8158; e-ISSN 1573-5117, more Related to:Guerrini, A.; Colangelo, M.A.; Ceccherelli, V.U. (1998). Recolonisation patterns of meiobenthic communities in brackish vegetated and unvegetated habitats after induced hypoxia/anoxia, in: Baden, S. et al. Recruitment, colonization, and physical-chemical forcing in marine biological systems: Proceedings of the 32nd European Marine Biology Symposium, held in Lysekil, Sweden, 16-22 August 1997. Developments in Hydrobiology, 132: pp. 73-87. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2864-5_7, more |  |
| Keywords | Aquatic communities > Benthos > Meiobenthos
Colonization
Ecosystem disturbance
Habitat selection
Substrate preferences
Vegetation cover
Copepoda [WoRMS]; Nematoda [WoRMS]
MED, Italy [Marine Regions]
Marine/Coastal |
| Authors | | Top | - Guerrini, A.
- Colangelo, M.A.
- Ceccherelli, V.U.
| | |
| Abstract | In a lagoon (Valle Smarlacca) of the ‘Valli di Comacchio’ complex (Northern Adriatic Sea, Italy) a phytal habitat ( Ruppia sp.) was chosen to investigate the modifications and the following recovery of meiobenthic communities caused by induced hypoxic/anoxic disturbance. A field experiment was carried out by incubating, for three days, portions of seagrass meadow and adjacent unvegetated muddy sediment patches by means of dark benthic chambers. After these were removed, species of both nematodes and copepods showed a different degree of resistance to the induced disturbance. On the whole, on the small scale of the present experiment, meiobenthic communities appear highly resilient. As for nematodes, recolonization patterns of community recovery were differently influenced by the habitat. On bare sediment, community structure followed the natural evolution of the control habitat while, in the Ruppia meadow, community recovery showed more complex patterns according to the different behaviour of phytal and infaunal species, respectively. As for copepods, recolonization patterns were mainly driven by the dominant species of each habitat control. On the other hand, the heavier impact of disturbance on Ruppia and the slow restoration of its canopy seem to delay recolonization rates of copepod populations and differently affect the community recovery pattern. |
|
