Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T01:38:03.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assemblage of benthic macrofauna in the aggregates of the tubiculous worm Phyllochaetopterus socialis in the Mar del Plata harbour, Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Mariano J. Albano*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correos 1245, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
Sandra M. Obenat
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correos 1245, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: M.J. Albano, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correos 1245, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina email: malbano@mdp.edu.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assemblage and the temporal changes of benthic macrofauna inhabiting the Phyllochaetopterus socialis (Polychaeta: Chaetopteridae) aggregates were analysed during 2004 and May 2005 in the Mar del Plata harbour, Buenos Aires (Argentina). Species composition, abundance, richness and diversity were estimated from monthly or bimonthly samples obtained by SCUBA diving. Multivariate (MDS) and SIMPER analyses were applied to analyse the structure of benthic communities. In the mats, a total of 57 species (invertebrates and chordates) belonging to 11 phyla were associated to P. socialis: crustaceans and molluscs were the most abundant species and crustaceans and polychaetes were the most diverse groups (14 and 11 species richness, respectively). The mean abundance ranged from 79.67±57.47 ind/250 ml to 718.75 ind/250 ml (mean±SD). The amphipod Monocorophium insidiosum, the gastropod Anachis isabellei and the tanaidacean Leptognathia sp. were the most representative species in the mats. Richness and diversity in P. socialis aggregates were higher than in surrounding sediments. Results show significant differences among months in composition, abundance and feeding guilds of the macrofauna associated with the mats. The assemblage of benthic macrofauna with permanent and temporary organisms in P. socialis aggregates suggests the existence of microhabitats in the mats that provide substrate, refuges for predation and availability of food increasing richness and diversity. These results allow considering P. socialis as an autogenic ecosystem engineer in the Mar del Plata harbour.

Information

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

Fig. 1. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Mar del Plata harbour (Argentina) and the sampling site (■).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Mean total abundance ± SD of the macrobenthic species along the sampling period (only ± SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates). Different letters indicate the average values of macrofauna that were significantly different between months (P < 0.05).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Monthly variation of the most abundant taxa. Mean abundance±SD (only±SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates). Different letters indicate the average values of taxa that were significantly different between months (P < 0.05).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Monthly variation of the most abundant crustaceans. Mean abundance±SD (only±SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates). Amphipods: Monocorophium insidiosum, an indeterminate species of the suborder Gammaridea and Caprella dilatata; tanaidacea Leptognathia sp. and Brachyura: Pilumnus reticulatus, Pyromaia tuberculata, Pilumnoides hassleri, Pelia rotunda, Acontholobulus schmitti, Halicarcinus planatus and Pachycheles laevidactylus.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Monthly variation of the most abundant molluscs. Mean abundance±SD (only±SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates).

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Monthly variation of the most abundant polychaetes. Mean abundance±SD (only±SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates).

Figure 6

Table 1. Qualitative dominance (%) (Bouderesque, 1971) of sessile and colonial biota along the sampling period. Categories: occasional (0–20%); scarce (21–40%); common (41–60%); abundant (61–80%); very abundant (81–100%).

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Mean±SD of vagile taxa richness (S), Shannon (H′), evennes (J′) and Simpson index (D) along the months. Different letters indicate the average values of indices that were significantly different between months (P < 0.05) (only±SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. Mean abundance + SD of feeding guilds along sampling period (only + SD was not included in March due to the lack of replicates). Different letters indicate the average values of feeding guilds that were significantly different between months (P < 0.05). OM, omnivores; C/S, carnivores and/or scavengers; F/S, filter or suspension feeders; HE, herbivorous; DF, deposit feeders.

Figure 9

Table 2. One-way ANOSIM considering: presence–absence of all the species (N = 57), abundance of vagile species (N = 42) and abundance of feeding guilds (N = 29). R-statistics values only for significant pair-wise comparisons of species composition.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Phyllochaetopterus socialis. MDS ordination of months using (A) presence–absence; (B) abundance of species (excluding sessile and colonial); and (C) feeding guilds. Months: ▴, February; ▿, March; ■, April; ⧫, June; •, August; +, October; ×, December; and Δ, May.

Figure 11

Table 3. SIMPER analysis of species contributions (%) for each taxon at each month according to presence–absence and abundance during the study period (March not included due to the lack of replicates).

Figure 12

Table 4. SIMPER analysis of species contributions (%) according to feeding guilds during the study period. Deposit feeders (DF), herbivorous (HE), carnivores and/or scavengers (C/S), filter or suspension feeders (F/S) and omnivores (OM) (March not included due to the lack of replicates).