4.4 Article

The role of annual macroalgal morphology in driving its epifaunal assemblages

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2014.12.016

关键词

annual macroalgae; epifaunal assemblages; fractal complexity; biomass; rocky intertidal

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the COMPETE
  2. Operational Competitiveness Programme
  3. FCT, Foundation for Science and Technology [PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2011]
  4. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BPD/81582/2011, SFRH/BDP/81567/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coastal vegetated habitats harbour higher epifaunal abundance and diversity compared with non-vegetated habitats. In this study, intertidal annual macroalgae were used as model organisms to test the role of macroalgal morphology in driving the structure of their associated epifaunal assemblages. For this aim, 6 macroalgal species, apparently different in morphology, were sampled from two intertidal rocky shores to examine the effects of habitat morphology on the number of individuals, taxa richness and the structure of its associated epifaunal assemblages by means of univariate and multivariate techniques. To provide a complete overview of macroalgal morphology, biomass was used as a proxy of habitat quantity and fractal measures as proxies of habitat complexity. Results showed that almost all the studied pairs of macroalgae showed significant differences at least for one of the morphological measures used. Moreover, epifaunal assemblages showed significant differences between macroalgae mainly due to the different identities and relative abundance of epifaunal species. However, differences in the abundance and structure of assemblages were shore dependent, possibly due to the surrounding landscape heterogeneity. Finally, the quantity of habitat was a better predictor variable than fractal measures but fractal area was also important particularly for the abundance of the total assemblage and crustaceans. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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