4.1 Article

Algal cover and sea urchin spatial distribution at Madeira Island (NE Atlantic)

期刊

SCIENTIA MARINA
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 383-392

出版社

INST CIENCIAS MAR BARCELONA
DOI: 10.3989/scimar.2001.65n4383

关键词

sea urchins; Madeira Island; algae; Diadema antillarum; distribution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes sea urchin spatial distribution in relation to environmental factors, and the relationship between Diadema antillarum density and algal abundance. Twenty-three transects around Madeira Island were surveyed by scuba divers, and sea urchin density and algal cover were determined in situ. Sampling sites along these transects were characterised in terms of distance from the tide line, water depth, substratum type, bottom declivity and water turbulence. Diadema antillarum was the dominant sea urchin species. Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula occurred at shallower depths (2-6 m), contrasting with the distribution of Sphaerechinus granularis, which occurs among D. antillarum (4-20 m). Surveys found two alternative types of communities on rocky shores: 1) a community with high algal cover and low numbers of sea urchins, along the north and south-west coasts and; 2) a community with little algal cover and high densities of sea urchins, along the south-east coast. Macroalgal cover and D. antillarum densities were inversely correlated (adjusted R-2 = 75.6%; n = 429; p < 0.05). The results showed that water turbulence was the most important factor limiting the distribution of D. antillarum an rocky substrates. We propose a multiple non-linear regression model (using backward stepwise analysis) to explain D. antillarum abundance on the rocky shores: D. antillarum/m(2) (rootroot) = 0.121 - 0.209 distance from shore (in m) (rootroot) + 2.052 water depth (in m) (rootroot) - 1.778 water turbulence level (rootroot) - 0.007 water turbulence level(4) (rootroot); where rootroot indicates data are square-root transformed (adjusted R-2 = 60.99%; n = 454; p < 0.05).

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

4.1
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