Back to all available

A different world: temporal changes in heterobranchia community structure over a half-century

biodiversity
ecology
marine-biology

Abstract

Understanding long-term changes in marine biodiversity is essential for evaluating effects of climate change on coastal ecosystems. In this study, we compared heterobranchia assemblages in northwestern Kyushu, Japan, during three time periods (1960–1980, 2001–2003, and 2023–2024), based on underwater surveys and historical records. In all, 47 heterobranchia species were recorded during 27 diving surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024. Species diversity indices (Shannon–Wiener H and Simpson D) showed higher values during this survey than in 2001–2003. Comparative analysis of species composition revealed significant shifts, with 15 species exhibiting statistically significant differences in relative abundance from the past to the present. Notably, several species common in the past, such as Aplysia kurodai, were rarely observed in the recent survey, while many tropical-subtropical species appeared for the first time. The proportion of tropical-subtropical species increased markedly, whereas subarctic species were no longer detected. Similarity indices (Jaccard’s coefficient and Sorensen–Dice index) indicated that the current community differs markedly from those in earlier periods. These findings suggest a major community reorganization, potentially driven by rising sea water temperatures and other environmental changes. This study highlights the importance of long-term monitoring using multiple indicators to detect and interpret climate-driven biodiversity shifts in coastal marine ecosystems.
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 [email protected].