期刊文献+

Macrobenthic communities on the continental shelf of the Prydz Bay, East Antarctica

Macrobenthic communities on the continental shelf of the Prydz Bay, East Antarctica
下载PDF
导出
摘要 To explore the spatial pattern of macrobenthic communities and their response to environmental factors in the Prydz Bay,samples were collected using a 0.25-m2 box corer at 10 stations from November 2012 to April 2013.A total of 50 species of macrobenthos belonging to 8 phyla and 33 families were identified,of which polychaetes(e.g.,Maldane sarsi)and sponges(e.g.,Halichondria sp.and Leucosolenia sp.)were the most prominent groups.The macrobenthos in study area were categorized into five functional groups based on the feeding type,and the detritivorous group represented by polychaetes showed the highest average abundance,while the planktophagous group represented by sponges showed the highest average biomass.Macrobenthos abundance(0–592 ind./m2)and biomass(0–1155.5 g/m2)in the Prydz Bay were relatively lower than those of other Antarctic shelf soft-bottom waters,although the compositions of the dominant species and functional feeding groups were similar.The results of the Spearman rank correlation analysis indicated that the average biomass of the macrobenthos and the biomass of the planktophagous group in the study area were negatively correlated with the water depth,sediment grain size and silt percentage.However,these variables were clearly not strong determinants of macrobenthos assemblage structure.Many factors not measured in the study,e.g.,sediment organic matter and iceberg interference,have probably influenced the spatial distribution of macrobenthic community structure in the Prydz Bay. To explore the spatial pattern of macrobenthic communities and their response to environmental factors in the Prydz Bay, samples were collected using a 0.25-m2 box corer at 10 stations from November 2012 to April 2013. A total of 50 species of macrobenthos belonging to 8 phyla and 33 families were identified, of which polychaetes(e.g., Maldane sarsi) and sponges(e.g., Halichondria sp. and Leucosolenia sp.) were the most prominent groups.The macrobenthos in study area were categorized into five functional groups based on the feeding type, and the detritivorous group represented by polychaetes showed the highest average abundance, while the planktophagous group represented by sponges showed the highest average biomass. Macrobenthos abundance(0–592 ind./m^2) and biomass(0–1 155.5 g/m^2) in the Prydz Bay were relatively lower than those of other Antarctic shelf soft-bottom waters, although the compositions of the dominant species and functional feeding groups were similar. The results of the Spearman rank correlation analysis indicated that the average biomass of the macrobenthos and the biomass of the planktophagous group in the study area were negatively correlated with the water depth, sediment grain size and silt percentage. However, these variables were clearly not strong determinants of macrobenthos assemblage structure. Many factors not measured in the study, e.g., sediment organic matter and iceberg interference, have probably influenced the spatial distribution of macrobenthic community structure in the Prydz Bay.
出处 《Acta Oceanologica Sinica》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2020年第2期38-48,共11页 海洋学报(英文版)
关键词 macrobenthic COMMUNITIES functional FEEDING GROUPS environmental factors ANTARCTICA PRYDZ BAY macrobenthic communities functional feeding groups environmental factors Antarctica Prydz Bay
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献37

  • 1[1]Terborg J & Robinson S. Guilds and their utility in ecology. In: Kikkawa J and Anderson D J, eds.Community ecology: pattern and processes. Melbourne: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1986, 65~99.
  • 2[2]Steffen W L, Walker B H, Ingram J S I, et al. eds.Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystem: The Operational Plan. Stockholm: IGBP and ICSU, 1992.
  • 3[3]Begon M, Harper J L & Townsend C R. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1996.
  • 4[4]Jones J, Rowlatt S M, Ress H L & Portman J E. Marine pollution monitoring group: Fifth report of the group coordinating sea disposal monitoring. Aquat. Environ. Monit. Rep. Direct. Fish. Res. Lowestoft, 1993, 39: 1~42.
  • 5[5]Andersen A N. A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. Journal of Biogeography , 1995, 22: 15~29.
  • 6[6]Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, \%et al.\% The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 1997, 277: 1300~1302.
  • 7[7]Shaver G R,Giblin A E, Nadelhoffer K J, \%et al.\% Plant functional types and ecosystem change in arctic tundras. In: Smith T M, Shugart H H & Woodward F I, eds.Plant Functional Types. Their relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.153~173.
  • 8[8]Sala O E, Lauenroth W K and Golluscio R A. Plant functional types in temperate semi-arid regions. In: Smith T M, Shugart H H & Woodward F I, eds.Plant Functional Types. Their relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 217~233.
  • 9[9]Scholes R J, Pickett G, Ellery W N, et al. Plant functional types in African savannas and grasslands. In:Smith T M, Shugart H H & Woodward F I, eds. Plant Functional Types. Their relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 255~270.
  • 10[10]Underwood A J & Fairweather P G. Intertidal communities: do they have different ecologies or different ecologists? Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust., 1985, 14: 7~16.

共引文献76

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部