Back to all available

Comparison of two benthic assemblage sampling gears for use on intertidal oyster reefs in Louisiana

biodiversity
ecology
marine-biology

Abstract

Background. Estuarine biodiversity plays a vital role in supporting ecosystem functions yet remains threatened by climate change and anthropogenic activity. Tracking and identifying estuarine biodiversity trends helps management ensure long-term provisions of human and environmental benefits but is complicated by the fact that the sampling gear and biodiversity metric used can support different conclusions, which can lead to uncertainty. Sampling benthic biodiversity in complex estuarine habitats, such as oyster reefs, is challenging because no one gear type captures entire target assemblages with differences occurring when comparing results across gear types. Comparable biodiversity assessment across space and time depends on using similar sampling gears or accounting for differences due to alternative gears.

Methods. We investigated how estimates of oyster reef-associated benthic taxa abundance, richness, Pielou’s evenness, and Shannon-Wiener diversity differed on Crassostrea virginica reefs in Louisiana between two common sampling gears, and how gear influenced comparisons across reefs. We recorded the reef assemblages collected on three oyster reefs in July 2022 using both suction samplers and substrate trays (3 reefs × 6 replicates × 2 gears).

Results. Abundance and richness were higher, and Pielou’s evenness was lower in trays compared to suction samples at all reefs. Shannon-Wiener diversity was similar in suction samples and trays at two out of three reefs. Amphipod taxa were numerically dominant in trays, skewing the distribution of abundances and driving the reef assemblage differences between gears. Abundance and Shannon-Wiener diversity were similar across reefs within each gear. However, there were significant differences in richness across reefs in tray samples only, while evenness differed across reefs only in suction samples. Our results highlight that gear choices, along with biodiversity metrics tracked, can result in different conclusions in biodiversity trends, ultimately impacting conservation decisions and management.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.