Differences of density and diversity of diurnal caridean shrimps between seagrass meadows of the invasive species Halophila stipulacea and the native species Thalassia testudinum


Abstract

Background. The invasive tropical seagrass Halophila stipulacea was reported for the first time in north Puerto Rico in 2017 and it has spread throughout the island since. It differs significantly from the native seagrass species Thalassia testudinum in terms of nutrient composition and morphology, representing a different habitat for small invertebrates.
Methods. To evaluate the effect of the arrival of the seagrass species Halophila stipulacea on seagrass-associated invertebrates, caridean shrimps were sampled in meadows dominated by the native seagrass Thalassia testudinum and the invasive Halophila stipulacea at three zones in southwestern Puerto Rico. Samples were collected in triplicate 10-meter transects during two sampling periods over a span of three months during summer 2024 using a 1.2-mm mesh push net.
Results. Total caridean abundance was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in Halophila stipulacea meadows than in Thalassia testudinum meadows. Eight genera of caridean shrimps were collected. However, 82.19% of the total abundance (N = 3,203) was accounted for by four genera. Hippolyte sp. (28.11%), Palaemonella sp. (26.47%), and Thor sp. (11.13%) were more abundant in H. stipulacea beds while Latreutes fucorum (15.98%) was more abundant in T. testudinum beds. The genus with the consistently highest overall abundance was Hippolyte spp. in both seagrass species, followed by Palaemonella sp. or Latreutes fucorum in H. stipulacea and T. testudinum, respectively. On the other hand, Leander tenuicornis was the least abundant species overall, followed by Tozeuma carolinense, which was found only in T. testudinum in one zone.
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].