Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T10:30:45.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Spatiotemporal dynamics of subarctic intertidal macrobenthos: going their own ways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2024

Andrey I. Azovsky*
Affiliation:
Department of General Ecology & Hydrobiology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow 117997, Russia
Margarita V. Chikina
Affiliation:
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow 117997, Russia
Mikhail Yu. Kolobov
Affiliation:
Department of General Ecology & Hydrobiology, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia
Andrey D. Naumov
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute RAS, St.-Petersburg 199034, Russia
Alexei A. Udalov
Affiliation:
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow 117997, Russia
*
Corresponding author: Andrey I. Azovsky; Email: aiazovsky@mail.ru
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intertidal macrobenthos at the small Chernaya Bight (the White Sea) was surveyed six times during 1993–2018 in order to study spatiotemporal variability. Distributions of sediments and macrophytes were highly variable in both space and time, as were most macrofaunal community attributes. Biomass slightly increased with time, while no long-term trends were found in total abundance, diversity, or functional structure. All community attributes were patchily distributed across the beach, and their patterns were not spatially autocorrelated and poorly associated with sediment properties, but changed considerably from year to year. Temporal changes in the community composition were considerable but less substantial compared with the spatial variations. The overall dynamics of species structure did not show any regular trend-like pattern but formed quasicyclic trajectories in ordination space, with nondirectional, spatially noncorrelated fluctuations around some relatively stable state. Comparison with two other neighbouring intertidal sites, studied annually in 1987–2017, showed that macrofauna at every site had similar average biomasses and common dominant species; however, the communities maintained their specificity in structure and exhibited distinct types of dynamics. In particular, the communities demonstrated different long-term trends in total biomass and diversity and followed their own paths in dynamics, appearing as differently oriented interannual trajectories. Nine most abundant species revealed no significant among-site correlations in abundance, and only two bivalve species showed good intersite agreement in dynamics of biomass. We suggest that local benthic communities are largely influenced by site-specific environmental conditions, resulting in independent and even opposite patterns of dynamics in neighbouring localities.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom
Figure 0

Figure 1. Maps of study sites (A, B; rectangle – CB; circle – MB and SB) and locations of sampling stations in CB (C; only the outer boundaries of sampling grids are shown).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Distribution maps of mean particle size (mm, left column), total macrofaunal biomass (g m−2, middle column), and diversity (Shannon's H index) (rightmost column). Area and form of maps correspond to sampling grids. The axes are coordinates in metres; vertical and horizontal zero-reference points correspond to the uppermost intertidal boundary (spring tide level) and northwesternmost sampling station, respectively. Colour calibration bars are shown at the bottom of the figure.

Figure 2

Table 1. Annual averaged community attributes in the CB

Figure 3

Figure 3. Trait composition of community by beach horizons and years (as % of total respiration): (A) feeding modalities and (B) environmental position. Horizons labelling: high (H), middle (M), and low (L).

Figure 4

Table 2. Results of DistLM analysis

Figure 5

Figure 4. Contribution of dominant species (% of total respiration).

Figure 6

Figure 5. Average similarity between the samples as a function of spatial distance and time lag between the surveys. Similarity values are denoted by colour (calibration bar is shown on the right).

Figure 7

Figure 6. Ordination mMDS plots based on species composition. Each point represents the community state of an intertidal horizon in a given year.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Joint mMDS ordination of community dynamics in CB, MB, and SB. Each point represents the average community state in a given year.

Figure 9

Table 3. Among-site ICCs for annual abundance and biomass values of common species

Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 1

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 65 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 2

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 445 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 3

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 314.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 4

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 4(File)
File 13.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 5

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 5(File)
File 14.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azovsky et al. supplementary material 6

Azovsky et al. supplementary material
Download Azovsky et al. supplementary material 6(File)
File 18.7 KB