Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T12:53:29.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can macrobenthic communities be used in the assessment of environmental quality of fish earthen ponds?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2009

Susana Carvalho*
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal
Marisa Barata
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal
Fábio Pereira
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal
Pedro Pousão-Ferreira
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal
Luís Cancela da Fonseca
Affiliation:
FCMA, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Gambelas, Portugal Laboratório Marítimo da Guia/Centro de Oceanografia (FCUL), Avenida N. Sra. do Cabo, 939, 2750-374 Cascais, Portugal
Miguel B. Gaspar
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: S. Carvalho, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos (INRB, IP)/IPIMAR, Avenida 5 de Outubro s/n, 8700-305 Olhão, Portugal email: scarvalho@cripsul.ipimar.pt
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study was undertaken in order to analyse whether macrobenthic communities can or not be used in monitoring programmes of the environmental quality of fish ponds. Functional community analysis and biotic metrics were analysed aiming at the assessment of their effectiveness in discriminating potential impacts of fish production in these systems. The macrofaunal patterns in earthen fish ponds of the Ria Formosa lagoon showed to be influenced by the input of fish food during the production cycle and by changes in abiotic parameters caused by seasonality and fish production. Polychaetes were generally dominant considering the number of taxa and abundance. The trophic functional analysis of the benthic communities showed that the deposit-feeding functional group dominated in both areas of the ponds but within water entrance areas there was an increase of suspension-feeding, carnivory and herbivory feeding modes. The presence of less trophically mixed communities within feeding areas may be related to the relative high disturbance levels of these areas. From the biotic indicators that show a differential response to organic input in fish earthen ponds, the abundance of Capitella spp. as well as the diversity (Shannon–Wiener and Margalef species richness), evenness (Pielou) and AMBI indices seem to be the best indicators to be used in monitoring studies in similar systems. Managers should pay particular attention when Capitella spp. taxa are observed within the feeding areas. Nevertheless, manipulative experiments are needed in order to test the dominance levels of Capitella spp. and the values of those indices that are of concern.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of the Olhão Fish Culture Experimental Station in Ria Formosa lagoon (southern Portugal).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Variation of the percentage of organic matter content (LOI; +SD), water temperature (T; +SD), and amount of dry food (DF) in the ponds A and B during the sampling period. WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Variation of the chlorophyll-a (chl-a; +SD) and phaeopigment (Phaeo; +SD) contents in the ponds A and B during the sampling period. WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Variation of the mean values of number of taxa (S, taxa × m−2; +SD), abundance (N, ind. × m−2; +SD) and the relative contribution of the main taxonomic groups during the sampling period for ponds A and B. WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Variation of the mean biomass (B, AFDW × m−2; +SD) and the relative contribution of the main taxonomic groups in ponds A and B for the months analysed. WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Variation of the relative contribution of the different functional trophic groups in ponds A and B for the months analysed. C, carnivory; H, herbivory; F, filter-feeding; D, deposit-feeding; WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Box plots showing median, box edges at first and third quartiles, and outlying data points for several biotic metrics. WE, water entrance area; F, feeding area; *, significant differences at P < 0.05.