Storm effects on intertidal invertebrates: increased beta diversity of few individuals and species

View article
PeerJ

Main article text

 

Introduction

  1. Higher wave energy during storms may translocate and disperse large sediment volumes (Masselink et al., 2016). We therefore predict that habitat heterogeneity (i.e., the spatial variation in seafloor properties amongst sampling sites) would be reduced after storms.

  2. Habitat heterogeneity can be a major determinant for ecological assemblages, typically promoting beta diversity (i.e., variability in species composition among sampling units for a given area) (Anderson, Ellingsen & McArdle, 2006, Schlacher et al., 2007, McClain & Barry, 2010; Meager, Schlacher & Green, 2011). Therefore, we expect that storms lower beta diversity of the fauna.

  3. Disturbance caused by storms has been reported to detrimentally affect populations of benthic species (Jaramillo, Croker & Hatfield, 1987; Mateo & Garcia-Rubies, 2012). Accordingly, we expect lower species richness, abundance, and biomass of invertebrates after storms.

  4. Given that we expect lower β-diversity (prediction 2) and reduced number of species after storms (prediction 3), we predict that changes in β-diversity may be mainly attributable to species losses rather than species replacement.

Material and Methods

Study area

Field sampling

Biological and environmental data

Data analysis

Results

H1: lower habitat heterogeneity after storms

H2: B-diversity declines after storms due to more homogenous sediment matrix

H3: storm disturbance results in lower abundance, biomass, and species richness

H4: species losses drive most of the change in β-diversity

Discussion

Conclusion

Supplemental Information

Supplementary data

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3360/supp-1

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Guilherme N. Corte conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Thomas A. Schlacher conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Helio H. Checon performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Carlos A.M. Barboza analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Eduardo Siegle and Antonia Cecília Z. Amaral performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Ross A. Coelman contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

All activities complied with the license from the appropriate federal environmental agency (Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA)—Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) No. 19887-1; acronyms for, in English: Ministry of the Environment—Chico Mendes Biodiversity Conservation Institute).

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data has been supplied as Data S1.

Funding

Financial support was provided by the São Paulo Research Foundation (Grants 2011/10130-3, 2011/50317-5 and 2016/10810-8) and by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Grant 14796/13-9). ES and ACZA are sponsored by CNPq research fellowships. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

53 Citations 4,032 Views 1,003 Downloads

Your institution may have Open Access funds available for qualifying authors. See if you qualify

Publish for free

Comment on Articles or Preprints and we'll waive your author fee
Learn more

Five new journals in Chemistry

Free to publish • Peer-reviewed • From PeerJ
Find out more