Habitat slope,

cause of differences in epibiota at artificial structures?

Eva Cacabelos1*, Gustavo M. Martins1,2, Richard Thompson3, Afonso C. L. Prestes1, João Faria1, José M.N. Azevedo1, Ana I. Neto1,2
1cE3c - Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes / Azorean Biodiversity Group, and Universidade dos Açores, Departamento de Biologia, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, São Miguel, Azores, Portugal
2CIIMAR-Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental, Rua dos Bragas 289, Porto, Portugal
3Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, Plymouth University, Plymouth PL4 8AA, Devon, UK

*eva.c.reyes@uac.pt, http://www.bus-project.info/

INTRODUCTION

Urbanisation is a global trend [1, 2]. Natural habitat destruction and its replacement by artificial structures is increasing globally and will continue in the future to face
increased storminess and sea-level rise [3].
Urban structures can play an important role in modifying the structure and functioning of intertidal communities resulting in considerable changes to coastal ecology. They
are made of local rock or concrete and usually steeper, more homogeneous, and less diverse than natural coasts in types and number of microhabitats. Therefore they
support epibiotic assemblages that differ from those on natural reefs [4, 5, 6]. Some organisms are generally more abundant on horizontal substrates, whereas other
dominate vertical cliffs. In addition, it has been hypothesized that competition among organisms is greater on vertical substrata due to reduced space availability.
Here we investigate the role of orientation and material type on the patterns of distribution and abundance of intertidal communities on oceanic islands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(1) Species distribution and abundance on different orientations (1) An initial comparison of the organisms inhabiting artificial substrates revealed
Field sampling was carried out between 24th June - 4th August 2013 on low-, mid- and significant differences in patterns of distribution on different orientations,
upper-shore levels of artificial coastal defence structures located along the although responses greatly varied according to site (Figs. 1 and 2).
coastline of São Miguel, Azores Archipelago. In each location the diversity and
abundance of organisms was sampled using 5 random 25x25 cm quadrats, as
follows: Number of macroalgal FG
- Cover of sessile organisms (macroalgae, barnacles) and bare rock (following
[7]) LOW shore MID shore HIGH shore
- Counts of motile invertebrates and expressing them as number of individuals ANOVA, Orientation x Si*** Orientation x Si*** Orientation x Si ***
per quadrat
6
5
N FG plot-1

Data analysis: 4
Macroalgae were grouped into distinct morpho–functional groups (FGs), based on 3
species’s morphology and the way they compete for resources [8]. 2
1
Counts, percent covers and mean number of FG, as well as structure of assemblages, 0
were analysed using two–way ANOVAs and PERMANOVAs, with the following factors: S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
- Orientation (fixed, 2 levels, Horizontal vs Vertical)
- Site (random, 3 levels (S1, S2, S3)). Fig. 1. Number of macroalgal functional groups (FGs, mean + SE, Horizontal
n=5) in different orientations, intertidal levels and sites (Si) Vertical
(*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001).

(2)Transplants were used to examine the role of habitat slope and material type Faunal abundance MID shore
in structuring assemblages
20 6
Experimental basalt and concrete 7x7 cm plates were deployed at mid-shore level in T. striatus M. neritoides
5
horizontal natural shores for 1 year (October 2013-October 2014)
Ind. plot-1

Ind. plot-1

15
4
2 Sites 10 3
Concrete plate Basalt plate
Manipulation TL 2
5
Treatments (Fig. 1): TP 1
C
C-Control 0 0
TL S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
TP-Transplanted (H->V)
TL-Traslocated (H->H) TP
C
(n = 3)
Scheme of experimental set-up 8 P. candei 40 C. stellatus

6 30
Ind. plot-1

% Cover

Collection after 3 months and sampling under binocular lens:

4 20
- Percentage covers of FG, sessile organisms and bare rock were estimated by ***
placing a grid of 50 randomly deployed points over the plate surface 2 10 *
- Motile invertebrates were counted. 0 0
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

Data analysis: Fig. 2. Density of gastropods and percentage cover of barnacle C. stellatus
Counts, percent covers and mean number of FG, as well as structure of assemblages, (mean + SE, n=5) in both orientations at mid-shore level.

were analysed thought three–way ANOVAs and PERMANOVAs, with the factors:
- Treatment (Tr, fixed, 3 levels; control (C), transplanted (TP) and traslocated (TL))
- Type of plate material (Pl, 2 levels, basalt and concrete) (2) Type of material affects the epibenthic assemblage (faunal and macroalgal
- Site (Si, random, 2 levels (S1, S2)) abundance, PERMANOVA Si x Pl: Pseudo–F(1,28) (pooling Si x Tr and Si x Pl x
Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to produce ordinations and Tr) = 4.76, P<0.01; Pl pair-wise comparisons P<0.001 for both Sites) (Fig. 3).
compare assemblage structure among materials, sites and treatments. Stress: 0.06 C - Control
TP - Transplanted (H->V)
TL - Traslocated (H->H)
Each symbol, 1 centroid
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE References
Material type, but not orientation, significantly affected the epibenthic [1] Goodsell (2009) Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 23-31
[2] Firth et al. (2013) Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 15:
assemblages at mid-shore level, suggesting that choice of materials 1665-1670
[3] Thompson et al. (2002) Environmental Conservation 29: 168-191
is of greater importance in determining the structure of intertidal [4] Moschella et al. (2005) Coastal Engineering 52: 1053-1071
[5] Bulleri, Chapman (2010) Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 26-35
systems. [6] Firth et al. (2013) Diversity and Distributions 19: 1275-1283
[7] Dethier et al. (1993) Marine Ecology Progress Series 96: 93-100
[8] Steneck, Dethier (1994) Oikos 69: 476-498

Fig. 3. MDS ordination of the structure of assemblages

colonizing experimental basalt and concrete plates.
Grey, concrete; Black, basalt.

cE3c - Centre for Ecology, Evolution

and Environmental Changes
Azorean Biodiversity Group,
Acknowledges: This research was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the COMPETE - Operational Competitiveness Departamento de Biologia | 9501-
Programme and national funds through FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project “PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013” and BUS-PTDC/MAR- 801 Ponta Delgada | Portugal

EST/2160/2012. Authors are grateful to Maria, Isadora, Cristina, Ruben, Eunice, Carlos, Caroline, Carles, Andreia and Esteban, who helped in the fieldwork, and to
Virginie and Nuno for helping in both fieldwork and data treatment.