4.3 Article

Community composition of epibenthic megafauna on the West Greenland Shelf

期刊

POLAR BIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 2085-2096

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00300-015-1768-y

关键词

West Greenland; Epibenthic communities; Continental shelf; Hard substrate; Soft substrate; Benthic invertebrates

资金

  1. Sustainable Fisheries Greenland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epibenthic organisms are a critical component of the marine environment, functioning as ecosystem engineers, habitat and food for other organisms. Our knowledge of the diversity, complexity and sensitivities of these habitats is limited, particularly at higher latitudes and greater depths. The West Coast of Greenland is the site of a commercially important shrimp trawl fishery, but there are few published records describing the benthic community structure of the region. Here we report results from benthic camera surveys conducted at 119 sites, over 3 years, spanning 1400 km of the West Greenland continental shelf (61-725 m depth). A total of 29 classes of epibenthic taxa were identified from the images. There are significant differences of composition and diversity in sites with hard and soft substrate. Hard-substrate communities are relatively diverse with higher abundances and are characterised by sessile, attached groups such as Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, Bryozoa and Porifera. Soft-sediment sites are less diverse and dominated by Polychaeta and have specialist Malacostraca such as the commercially exploited shrimp, Pandalus borealis. Distribution patterns and variation in epibenthic megafauna are related to substrate and the environmental parameters depth, temperature and current speed. This study represents the first quantitative characterisation of epibenthic megafaunal assemblages on the West Greenland continental shelf. These data constitute an important baseline, albeit in a region heavily impacted by trawl fisheries, and demonstrate the utility of benthic photography for examining and monitoring seabed diversity and change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据