Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T04:09:32.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of epifaunal assemblages between Cymodocea nodosa and Caulerpa prolifera meadows in Gran Canaria (eastern Atlantic)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2013

Lydia Png-Gonzalez*
Affiliation:
Centro en Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental, Marine Sciences Faculty, Campus Tafira, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Tafira, Las Palmas, Spain
Maite Vázquez-Luis
Affiliation:
Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Baleares, Muelle de Poniente s/n, 07015 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Fernando Tuya
Affiliation:
Centro en Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental, Marine Sciences Faculty, Campus Tafira, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Tafira, Las Palmas, Spain
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Lydia Png-Gonzalez, Centro en Biodiversidad y Gestión Ambiental, Marine Sciences Faculty, Campus Tafira, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017 Tafira, Las Palmas, Spain email: lydiapng@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epifaunal invertebrates are sensitive to changes in the identity of the dominant host plant, so assessing differences in the structure of epifaunal assemblages is particularly pertinent in areas where seagrasses have been replaced by alternative vegetation (e.g. green seaweeds). In this study, we aimed to compare the diversity, abundance and structure of epifaunal assemblages, particularly amphipods, between meadows dominated by the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa and the green rhizophytic algae Caulerpa prolifera on shallow soft bottoms of Gran Canaria Island, determining whether patterns were temporally consistent between two times. The epifaunal assemblage structure (abundance and composition) consistently differed between both plants, those assemblages associated with C. prolifera-dominated beds being more diverse and abundant relative to C. nodosa meadows. Amphipods constituted ~70% of total crustaceans for the overall study, including 37 species belonging to 16 families. The amphipod abundance was ~3 times larger in C. prolifera-dominated beds than in C. nodosa meadows. We detected species-specific affinities; for example, Microdeutopus stationis, Dexamine spinosa, Aora spinicornis, Ischyrocerus inexpectatus and Apherusa bispinosa were more abundant in C. prolifera-dominated beds; while the caprellid Mantacaprella macaronensis dominated in C. nodosa meadows. However, some species, such as Pseudoprotella phasma and Ampithoe ramondi, were found in both habitats with varying abundances between times.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2013 

INTRODUCTION

On subtidal soft bottoms, seagrasses form one of the most productive ecosystems worldwide, providing high-value ecosystem services such as delivery of food and habitat for a wide range of organisms (Costanza et al., Reference Costanza, d'Arge, de Groot, Farber, Grasso, Hannon, Limburg, Naeem, O'Neill, Paruelo, Raskin, Sutton and van den Belt1997; Duffy, Reference Duffy2006; Thomsen et al., Reference Thomsen, Wernberg, Engelen, Tuya, Vanderklift, Holmer, McGlathery, Arenas, Kotta and Silliman2012), support of commercial fisheries, nutrient cycling, sediment stabilization and sequestration of carbon (Duarte et al., Reference Duarte2000; Waycott et al., Reference Waycott, Duarte, Carruthers, Orth, Dennison, Olyarnik, Calladine, Fourqurean, Heck, Hughes, Kendrick, Kenworthy, Short and Williams2009). Seagrasses, and the services they provide, are, however, threatened by impacts derived from coastal development and growing human population, as well as by impacts caused by climate change (Duarte, Reference Duarte2002; Orth et al., Reference Orth, Carruthers, Dennison, Duarte, Fourqurean, Heck, Hughes, Kendrick, Kenworthy, Olyarnik, Short, Waycott and Williams2006; Waycott et al., Reference Waycott, Duarte, Carruthers, Orth, Dennison, Olyarnik, Calladine, Fourqurean, Heck, Hughes, Kendrick, Kenworthy, Short and Williams2009; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Hernandez-Zerpa, Espino and Haroun2013a). Conservation of these valuable habitats is, therefore, important, particularly since seagrass meadows are declining worldwide, mainly in areas of intense human activities (Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Williams, Duarte, Heck and Waycott2009). At a global scale, the progressive disappearance of seagrasses has been concurrently accompanied by increases in the presence of opportunistic vegetation, such as green rhizophytic seaweeds (Thomsen et al., Reference Thomsen, Wernberg, Engelen, Tuya, Vanderklift, Holmer, McGlathery, Arenas, Kotta and Silliman2012).

Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson is a seagrass distributed across the Mediterranean Sea and adjacent areas of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Macaronesian archipelagos of Madeira and the Canary Islands (Reyes et al., Reference Reyes, Sansón and Afonso-Carrillo1995; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Hernandez-Zerpa, Espino and Haroun2013a). Meadows constituted by C. nodosa are the dominant vegetated communities on shallow soft substrates across the Canary Islands (Pavón-Salas et al., Reference Pavón-Salas, Herrera, Hernández-Guerra and Haroun2000; Barberá et al., Reference Barberá, Tuya, Boyra, Sanchez-Jerez, Blanch and Haroun2005; Monterroso et al., Reference Monterroso, Riera and Núñez2012), where they provide food and shelter for diverse invertebrate and fish assemblages, including a ‘nursery’ habitat for larval and juvenile fish stages (Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Martín and Luque2006; Espino et al., Reference Espino, Tuya, Brito and Haroun2011a, Reference Espino, Tuya, Brito and Harounb). However, C. nodosa meadows are severely decreasing at local scales, mostly as a result of a range of human-mediated impacts (Martínez-Samper, Reference Martínez-Samper2011; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Hernandez-Zerpa, Espino and Haroun2013a). In these coastal areas, the decline of C. nodosa meadows often results in their replacement by opportunistic green algae of the genus Caulerpa, in particular Caulerpa prolifera (Forsskål) J.V. Lamouroux (Martínez-Samper, Reference Martínez-Samper2011; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Hernandez-Zerpa, Espino and Haroun2013a).

Caulerpa prolifera is a native seaweed in the Canary Islands (Haroun et al., Reference Haroun, Gil-Rodríguez and Wildpret de la Torre2003), forming extensive beds on soft bottoms in waters from ~5 to 50 m depth. Several Caulerpa species contain caulerpenyne, a major secondary metabolite, which varies depending on the species, locations and seasons (Jung et al., Reference Jung, Thibaut, Meinesz and Pohnert2002; Box et al., Reference Box, Sureda, Tauler, Terrados, Marbà, Pons and Deudero2010), and appears to possess toxic and feeding deterrent properties against faunal herbivores (Smyrniotopoulos et al., Reference Smyrniotopoulos, Abatis, Tziveleka, Tsitsimpikou, Roussis, Loukis and Vagias2003). Caulerpenyne may also act as an antimitotic substance, preventing settlement of most epiphytes (Sánchez-Moyano et al., Reference Sánchez-Moyano, Estacio, García-Adiego and García-Gómez2001a). In addition, the high sediment-retention capacity of Caulerpa beds induces organic enrichment (Hendriks et al., Reference Hendriks, Bouma, Morris and Duarte2010), potentially altering the distribution and abundance of associated animal populations (Sánchez-Moyano et al., Reference Sánchez-Moyano, Estacio, García-Adiego and García-Gómez2001a).

When seagrasses are replaced by seaweeds, the quantity and quality of habitat for associated faunal assemblages may be altered, as well as flows of energy and matter through the ecosystem (Thomsen et al., Reference Thomsen, Wernberg, Engelen, Tuya, Vanderklift, Holmer, McGlathery, Arenas, Kotta and Silliman2012; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Png-Gonzalez, Riera, Haroun and Espino2013b). In particular, epifaunal invertebrates are sensitive to changes in plant abundance and structure (e.g. through plant attributes such as plant size, biomass, shoot density and so on), so differences in the diversity, abundance and structure of invertebrate assemblages are expected between different types of vegetation within the same geographical and environmental context (Sirota & Hovel, Reference Sirota and Hovel2006). In this sense, amphipods respond to habitat alterations and can, therefore, be used as an indicator of environmental impacts on vegetated habitats (Virnstein & Howard, Reference Virnstein and Howard1987; Conradi et al., Reference Conradi, López-González and García-Gómez1997; Sánchez-Jerez et al., Reference Sánchez-Jerez, Barberá-Cebrián and Ramos-Esplá2000; Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2008, Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009).

The aim of this study was to compare the diversity, abundance and structure of epifaunal assemblages between meadows dominated by the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa and the seaweed Caulerpa prolifera on shallow soft bottoms off Gran Canaria Island, determining whether patterns were temporally consistent. Particular emphasis was concentrated on amphipods, since amphipods are one of the most quantitatively abundant and important groups of invertebrates associated with coastal vegetated habitats, while they also play an important role as trophic resources for fish populations (Sánchez-Jerez et al., Reference Sánchez-Jerez, Barberá Cebrián and Ramos-Esplá1999; Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area and sampling design

The study was carried out in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, eastern Atlantic), at several localities (Figure 1) dominated by either subtidal mono-specific Cymodocea nodosa meadows or beds constituted by Caulerpa prolifera. Each habitat (Cymodocea nodosa vs Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds) was randomly sampled at each of two localities, where ten replicates were collected by SCUBA divers, using a 20 × 20 cm quadrat. Macrophytes collections were performed cutting the seagrass/seaweed immediately above the sediment surface, keeping the vegetation with the associated epifauna inside unbleached woven cotton bags (Brearley et al., Reference Brearley, Kendrick and Walker2008; Gartner et al., Reference Gartner, Tuya, Lavery and McMahon2013). Sampling was repeated twice (November 2011 and October 2012) to assess whether patterns in the diversity, abundance and structure of epifaunal assemblages between beds dominated by Cymodocea nodosa and Caulerpa prolifera were temporally consistent.

Fig. 1. Map of the study area showing the sampled localities at Gran Canaria. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa meadows; circles, Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds; filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Labelled samples were preserved in a freezer (−20°C) until processing. In the laboratory, samples collected were initially defrosted and subsequently sieved through a 500 μm mesh to retain macrofaunal organisms. Specimens were sorted and counted into different taxonomic groups under a binocular microscope and preserved in 70% ethanol. Four main dominant groups: Crustacea, Mollusca, worms (including Annelida and Sipuncula) and other fauna (Chelicerata, Chordata and Echinodermata) were considered. Organisms were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level and amphipods were identified to species, in most cases. The amount of vegetated biomass (expressed as grammes wet weight per 0.04 m2) was obtained for each replicate to account for differences in the amount of habitat (vegetation) among samples. Amphipod structure was characterized using two attributes: abundance (expressed as ind m−2) and species density (expressed as number of species per 0.04 m2).

Statistical analysis

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS

Differences in the abundance and species density of the dominant groups (here, Crustacea, Mollusca, Amphipoda, worms and other fauna) between habitats, localities within habitats and times, were tested using a three-way, permutation-based, ANCOVA, which incorporated the factors: ‘Habitat’ (fixed factor with two levels: Cymodocea nodosa vs Caulerpa prolifera), ‘Locality’ (random factor and nested within ‘Habitat’, 2 levels: L1 and L2), and ‘Time’ (fixed factor with 2 levels: November 2011 vs October 2012). ‘Vegetation biomass’ was included as a covariate to account for differences in the amount of available habitat for epifauna among samples. Data were square-root transformed prior to analysis, and analyses were based on Euclidean distances (Anderson, Reference Anderson2001a). The significance of P values was determined through 4999 permutations of the raw data. For each ANCOVA, we estimated the relative contribution of each factor to explain differences in the response variable through calculation of their corresponding variance components.

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

Differences in the multivariate structure (which includes the composition and abundance) of assemblages between habitats (Cymodocea nodosa vs Caulerpa prolifera) were visualized through a non-metric multidimensional scaling (nm-MDS) ordination plot. The significance of these multivariate differences were tested by a three-way PERMANOVA (Anderson, Reference Anderson2001b), using ‘Time’, ‘Habitat’ and ‘Locality’ as factors, following the same design outlined above. The vegetation biomass of each replicate was, again, included as a covariate. Data were square-root transformed prior to analysis to downweight the relevance of the most abundant taxa and analyses were based on Bray–Curtis similarities. The individual contribution of each amphipod species to the dissimilarity between habitats was calculated by the SIMPER routine. All uni- and multivariate procedures were carried out by means of the PRIMER 6.0 & PERMANOVA statistical package.

RESULTS

Epifaunal assemblages

A total of 4655 epifaunal individuals, belonging to 105 taxa (Appendix), were counted, including crustaceans (3594 individuals), molluscs (777), worms (138) and other fauna (146). The abundance of crustaceans, which proved to be the dominant group (accounting for 77.2% of the total epifaunal abundance), was significantly larger in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (1792.5 ± 181.18 ind m−2, mean ± SE) than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (562.5 ± 81.92 ind m−2) at both sampling times (Figure 2; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 1). The species density of crustaceans was also larger in C. prolifera-dominated beds than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (12.03 ± 0.52 vs 5.8 ± 0.47 spp. 0.04 m−2, respectively) (Figure 3; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 1). The abundance of molluscs was, again, significantly larger in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (415.63 ± 71.4 ind m−2) than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (70 ± 15.14 ind m−2) (Figure 2; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 1), as well as the species density of molluscs (3.45 ± 0.23 vs 1.6 ± 0.2 spp. 0.04 m−2, respectively) (Figure 3; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 1). Minor epifaunal fractions, such as worms, showed a different pattern between sampling times, but their abundance and species density were, on average, larger in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (80 ± 16.32 ind m−2 and 1.33 ± 0.09 spp. 0.04 m−2, respectively) than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (26.25 ± 6.39 ind m−2 and 0.65 ± 0.07 spp. 0.04 m−2) (Figures 2 and 3; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 1). Finally, other fauna was more abundant in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (70 ± 20.16 ind m−2) than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (19.38 ± 5.02 ind m−2), but without significant differences (Figure 2; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.6590, Table 1). The species density of other fauna (0.7 ± 0.12 vs 0.45 ± 0.35 spp. 0.04 m−2, respectively) (Figure 3) was not significant either (three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 1.0000, Table 1).

Fig. 2. Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) of the four dominant epifaunal groups at each habitat in (A) November 2011 and (B) October 2012.

Fig. 3. Mean species density (number of species ±SE) of the four dominant epifaunal groups at each habitat in (A) November 2011 and (B) October 2012.

Table 1. Results of three-way ANCOVAs testing for differences between habitats, times and localities within habitats, for the abundance and species density of each dominant epifaunal group.

*, significant difference at P < 0.05. The amount of variance (% VC) explained by each factor is included.

The two-dimensional MDS plot showed a separation of epifaunal assemblages by habitats and times: epifauna associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows are in the left-hand side of the ordination space, while epifauna inhabiting Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds are in the right-hand side of the plot. In addition, samples corresponding to November 2011 are in the top half of the plot, whereas those corresponding to October 2012 are in the bottom half (Figure 4). This multivariate response, however, was only statistically significant between habitats (three-way PERMANOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002; Table 2).

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional nm-MDS plot showing similarities in the epifaunal assemblage structure between habitats and times. Each symbol corresponds to a sampling locality within each habitat. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa; circles, Caulerpa prolifera. Filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Table 2. Results of three-way PERMANOVA testing for differences in the epifaunal assemblage structure between habitats, times and localities within habitats.

*, significant differences for P < 0.05. The amount of variance (% VC) explained by each factor is included.

Amphipod assemblages

A total of 41 amphipod species, belonging to 16 families, were collected (Appendix). The abundance of amphipods constituted ~70% of total crustaceans for the overall study; amphipod abundance was significantly larger in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (1248.13 ± 136.83 ind m−2, mean ± SE) than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (396.88 ± 77.36 ind m−2) at both sampling times (Figure 5A; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 3). A similar pattern was found for amphipod species density (7.05 ± 0.47 vs 4.25 ± 0.38 spp. 0.04 m−2, respectively; Figure 5B), but differences were not statistically significant (three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.3406, Table 3).

Fig. 5. (A) Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) and (B) mean species density (number of species ±SE) of amphipods at each habitat and time.

Table 3. Results of 3-way ANCOVAs testing for differences in the total abundance and species density of amphipods between habitats, times and localities within habitats.

*, significant difference at P < 0.05. The amount of variance (% VC) explained by each factor is included.

The two-dimensional MDS plot showed a clear segregation of amphipod assemblages by habitat: amphipods associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows are in the left-hand side of the plot, while amphipods associated with Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds are in the right-hand side. Samples collected in November 2011 were more dissimilar to each other than those obtained in October 2012 (Figure 6). However, the structure of amphipod assemblages was only significantly different between habitats (three-way PERMANOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 4).

Fig. 6. Two-dimensional nm-MDS plot showing similarities in the amphipod assemblage structure between habitats and times. Each symbol corresponds to a sampling locality within habitats. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa; circles, Caulerpa prolifera. Filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Table 4. Results of three-way PERMANOVA testing for differences in the amphipod assemblage structure between habitats, times and locations within habitats.

*, significant differences for P < 0.05. The amount of variance (% VC) explained by each factor is included.

The amphipod species which most contributed to dissimilarities between habitats were: Microdeutopus stationis, Dexamine spinosa, Aora spinicornis, Mantacaprella macaronensis, Pseudoprotella phasma, Ampithoe ramondi, Ischyrocerus inexpectatus and Apherusa bispinosa. These species made up ~60% of the total abundance of amphipods. We detected species-specific affinities for the two habitats; for example, the abundance of Microdeutopus stationis, D. spinosa and A. spinicornis was significantly larger in C. prolifera-dominated beds (Figure 7A, B, C; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P < 0.05, Table 5), while the caprellid Mantacaprella macaronensis significantly dominated in Cymodocea nodosa meadows (Figure 7D; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, P = 0.0002, Table 5). The other caprellid species, P. phasma, also showed larger abundances in C. nodosa meadows, although the difference with respect to Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds was not statistically significant (Figure 7E; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, = 0.6612, Table 5). The gammarid Ampithoe ramondi was found in both habitats, with larger abundances in C. prolifera-dominated beds, that were otherwise not statistically different (Figure 7F; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, = 0.6800, Table 5). Finally, I. inexpectatus and Apherusa bispinosa were more abundant in C. prolifera-dominated beds, but no significant differences were detected between habitats, probably masked by the high variability between localities (Figure 7G, H; three-way ANCOVA: ‘Habitat’, >0.05, Table 5).

Fig. 7. Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) of the most important amphipod species at each habitat. *, significant differences.

Table 5. Results of three-way ANCOVAs testing for differences in the abundance of the most important amphipod species between habitats, times and localities within habitats.

*, significant differences for P < 0.05. The amount of variance (% VC) explained by each factor is included.

DISCUSSION

Epifaunal assemblages

Our results have demonstrated clear differences in the multivariate structure, in terms of abundance and diversity (here quantified through the species density) of epifaunal assemblages between habitats dominated by the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa and the green seaweed Caulerpa prolifera. Larger abundances and species densities were found in C. prolifera-dominated beds; this was unexpected, since caulerpenyne seems to reduce macrophyte palatability and act as a deterrent against some herbivore species (Erickson et al., Reference Erickson, Paul, Van Alstyne and Kwiatkowski2006). In accordance with our results, previous studies have demonstrated that seabeds dominated by Caulerpa prolifera may particularly benefit crustacean assemblages (Sánchez-Moyano et al., Reference Sánchez-Moyano, García-Asencio and García-Gómez2007), revealing the importance of this vegetated habitat for the maintenance of the biodiversity in coastal areas under considerable human impacts (Sánchez-Moyano et al., Reference Sánchez-Moyano, García-Adiego, Estacio and García-Gómez2001b). A previous study conducted in the Canaries also recorded higher macrofaunal diversity in mixed bottoms of C. prolifera and Cymodocea nodosa than in mono-specific C. nodosa meadows (Monterroso et al., Reference Monterroso, Riera and Núñez2012).

Differences in the structure, abundance and diversity of epifaunal assemblages may result from changes in the structural complexity of the habitat, including host plant attributes (e.g. plant morphology, associated floral and faunal epiphytes, etc.) (Virnstein & Howard, Reference Virnstein and Howard1987; Taylor & Cole, Reference Taylor and Cole1994; Bologna & Heck Jr, Reference Bologna and Heck1999), which play an important role as space available for shelter against predators, but also due to changes in the hydrodynamic properties of the habitat. In the Mediterranean Sea, Hendriks et al. (Reference Hendriks, Bouma, Morris and Duarte2010) demonstrated that, seasonally, Caulerpa species are able to attenuate water flow, trap particles and protect the sediment from erosion even better than seagrasses (particularly C. prolifera VS Cymodocea nodosa). Hence, the replacement of C. nodosa meadows by Caulerpa prolifera may involve a significant change in the hydrodynamic properties of the sea-floor, modifying the local ecosystem functioning and affecting associated fauna compared with seagrass meadows. The high accumulation of detritus in C. prolifera-dominated beds plays an important role as a trophic resource for marine invertebrates, and can affect the overall trophic web (Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009), favouring macrofaunal assemblages mainly dominated by crustaceans and polychaetes (Hendriks et al., Reference Hendriks, Bouma, Morris and Duarte2010; Monterroso et al., Reference Monterroso, Riera and Núñez2012) and, probably, several facultative species which could also be found in infaunal environments.

Differences within invertebrate assemblages are expected between different types of vegetation within the same geographical and environmental context (Sirota & Hovel, Reference Sirota and Hovel2006). Low epifaunal abundances associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows may be explained by space limitation; the architecture of C. nodosa is less complex for fauna that are limited by space in comparison to other seagrasses, such as Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis griffithii, which have a higher leaf surface area and algal epiphyte biomass (Gartner et al., Reference Gartner, Tuya, Lavery and McMahon2013). Epifaunal assemblages are also subjected to substrate competitive exclusion due to source limitation (Duffy & Harvilicz, Reference Duffy and Harvilicz2001) and to fish predatory pressure. Seagrasses play an important role in providing habitat for nearshore fish assemblages (Espino et al., Reference Espino, Tuya, Brito and Haroun2011a). In the study region, C. nodosa meadows play a ‘nursery’ role for the early stages of numerous fish species (Espino et al., Reference Espino, Tuya, Brito and Haroun2011a, Reference Espino, Tuya, Brito and Harounb). The abundance of fish is ~3–4 times larger in C. nodosa- than in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds (Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Png-Gonzalez, Riera, Haroun and Espino2013b). Epifaunal organisms, particularly crustaceans, are the main constituent of diets of seagrass-associated fish (Yamada et al., Reference Yamada, Hori, Tanaka, Hasegawa and Nakaoka2010; Horinouchi et al., Reference Horinouchi, Tongnunui, Furumitsu, Nakamura, Kanou, Yamaguchi, Okamoto and Sano2012). Hence, it is worth noting that the contrasting abundance patterns of epifaunal and fish assemblages between Cymodocea nodosa and Caulerpa prolifera bottoms might fits a classical ‘predation’ model, where a large abundance of predators (here, fish) remove large quantities of prey (here, epifauna) and so explain the decreasing abundance of prey in such habitats (here, Cymodocea nodosa seagrass meadows) (Verdiell-Cubedo et al., Reference Verdiell-Cubedo, Oliva-Paterna and Torralva-Forero2007).

Amphipod assemblages

The amphipod assemblage structure differed between habitats at both sampling times, including larger abundances of amphipods (~3 times) in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows. This outcome disagrees with amphipod abundances reported by Vázquez-Luis et al. (Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009) for the same habitats, at two different seasons (September 2004 and March 2005), in the western Mediterranean Sea (313.89 ± 75.63 ind m−2 in Caulerpa prolifera and 494.44 ± 160.17 ind m−2 in Cymodocea nodosa, mean ± SE). The variation of amphipod abundances between both studies, especially in bottoms constituted by Caulerpa prolifera, may be due to the difference in the sampling seasons or merely due to the difference between the sampling areas (Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean vs Alicante in the Mediterranean Sea).

The diversity of amphipods recorded in Cymodocea nodosa seagrass meadows at Gran Canaria (16 amphipod species in November 2011 and 17 in October 2012) are comparable, or even lower, than the number of amphipod species reported by several studies from the Mediterranean Sea (28 species, Sánchez-Jerez et al., Reference Sánchez-Jerez, Barberá Cebrián and Ramos-Esplá1999; 13 species in September and 21 in March, Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009). On bottoms dominated by Caulerpa prolifera, a total of 27 and 20 amphipod species (November 2011 and October 2012, respectively) were identified by our study, which contrast with 17 amphipod species recorded by Sánchez-Moyano et al. (Reference Sánchez-Moyano, García-Asencio and García-Gómez2007) in Algeciras Bay, and values of 6 and 18 species reported by Vázquez-Luis et al. (Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009), at two different seasons, also in the Mediterranean Sea. The variation within the total number of amphipod species among studies show a more diverse assemblage of amphipods in C. prolifera-dominated beds at Gran Canaria.

Several authors have stated that amphipods are able to actively select their host habitat (Hay et al., Reference Hay, Duffy and Fenical1990; Poore, Reference Poore2005; Poore & Hill, Reference Poore and Hill2006), a fact that is related to differences in palatability and food preferences by herbivores (Ortega et al., Reference Ortega, Díaz and Martín2010). However, although the active selection appears important, it is not sufficient to explain differential patterns of epifaunal distribution and abundance among host plants (Virnstein & Howard, Reference Virnstein and Howard1987). The presence of diverse amphipods on plant species may result from ecological processes unrelated to herbivore preferences or the quality of the host for growth and survival, but from variation in the risk of predation among hosts (Poore, Reference Poore2005). As reported above, the susceptibility of amphipods to fish predation commonly varies across algal species, usually decreasing with increased structural complexity of the host or with the presence of secondary metabolites that are deterrent to omnivorous fish (Poore, Reference Poore2005; Verdiell-Cubedo et al., Reference Verdiell-Cubedo, Oliva-Paterna and Torralva-Forero2007; Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2010).

In the current study, some species seem to show preference for specific habitats. Overall, it is possible to distinguish between gammarids, typically associated with C. prolifera-dominated beds, and caprellids, typically associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows. Within gammarids, individuals belonging to the family Aoridae (here, Aora spinicornis and Microdeutopus stationis) have been exclusively found in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds. This outcome contrasts with previous records from the Mediterranean Sea. For example, A. spinicornis has been found among hydroids, phanerogams and algae, and on sandy and muddy bottoms as well (Ruffo, Reference Ruffo1982; Conradi & López-González, Reference Conradi and López-González1999); whilst M. stationis has been almost exclusively found on fine sand, particularly among the phanerogams Cymodocea nodosa and Posidonia oceanica, with some records on coralligenous habitats (Ruffo, Reference Ruffo1998) and macrophytes (Conradi & López-González, Reference Conradi and López-González1999). However, other authors have also found large abundances of Microdeutopus spp. in Caulerpa beds and on rocky habitats (Roberts & Poore, Reference Roberts and Poore2005; Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2008, Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009), with preference for environments with low hydrodynamic regimes and high sedimentation rates (Conradi et al., Reference Conradi, López-González and García-Gómez1997; Guerra-García & García-Gómez, Reference Guerra-García and García-Gómez2005). In our study, other species significantly more abundant in C. prolifera-dominated beds was the free-living, herbivore, Dexamine spinosa, which is very common within algal canopies in the shallow subtidal zone (Lincoln, Reference Lincoln1979; Ruffo, Reference Ruffo1982), but also on sandy bottoms with bio-detritus (Conradi & López-González, Reference Conradi and López-González1999). Apherusa bispinosa and Ischyrocerus inexpectatus were also collected in higher abundances in C. prolifera-dominated beds. Consistent with our results, Farlin et al. (Reference Farlin, Lewis, Anderson and Lai2010) reported that ischyrocerids, such as Ischyrocerus inexpectatus, tend to feed more on algae than on seagrasses. As with the previous gammarids, Ampithoe ramondi was, again, more abundant in C. prolifera-dominated beds than in Cymodocea nodosa meadows, although differences were not so high. Ampithoids are cosmopolitan, herbivorous amphipods, which usually occur in shallow subtidal zones amongst native seaweeds and seagrasses (Lincoln, Reference Lincoln1979; Ruffo, Reference Ruffo1982; Poore, Reference Poore2005; Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2008, Reference Vázquez-Luis, Sanchez-Jerez and Bayle-Sempere2009), tending to feed more on seagrasses (Farlin et al., Reference Farlin, Lewis, Anderson and Lai2010), which contrasts with our results. The caprellid Pseudoprotella phasma has been found in both habitats, but mainly inhabiting C. nodosa meadows; this species might also be found among algae (Ruffo, Reference Ruffo1993), with a preference for environments with high hydrodynamics (Conradi & López-González, Reference Conradi and López-González2001). Finally, the caprellid Mantacaprella macaronensis has shown a clear preference for C. nodosa seagrass meadows, with few abundances occurring in Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds. This caprellid species has also been found in rocky habitats from the Macaronesian archipelago of Cape Verde (Vázquez-Luis et al., Reference Vázquez-Luis, Guerra-García, Carvalho and Png-Gonzalez2013).

In conclusion, our study shows that Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds have a more abundant and diverse epifaunal assemblage than Cymodocea nodosa meadows, which is also reflected on amphipod assemblages, and is temporally consistent. Therefore, C. prolifera meadows seem to be a favourable habitat for epifauna in soft vegetated habitats in the Canary Islands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge T. Sánchez and F. Espino for their help during fieldwork, and J. Suárez for providing help at the laboratory.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

This study was partially supported by the UE project ECOSERVEG, within the BEST initiative (Voluntary Scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of the EU Outermost Regions and Oversees Countries and Territories, Grant no. 07.032700/2012/635752/SUB/B2). F. Tuya was supported by the MINECO ‘Ramón y Cajal’ programme.

Appendix

Abundances (ind m−2 ± SE) of epifaunal organisms at each habitat and time. The total abundance and number of species are also included.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, M.J. (2001a) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Australian Journal of Ecology 26, 3246.Google Scholar
Anderson, M.J. (2001b) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 626639.Google Scholar
Barberá, C., Tuya, F., Boyra, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Blanch, I. and Haroun, R.J. (2005) Spatial variation in the structural parameters of Cymodocea nodosa seagrass meadows in the Canary Islands: a multiscaled approach. Botanica Marina 48, 122126.Google Scholar
Bologna, P.A.X. and Heck, K.L Jr. (1999) Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes. Relative importance of trophic and structural characteristics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 242, 2139.Google Scholar
Box, A., Sureda, A., Tauler, P., Terrados, J., Marbà, N., Pons, A. and Deudero, S. (2010) Seasonality of caulerpenyne content in native Caulerpa prolifera and invasive C. taxifolia and C. racemosa var. cylindracea in the western Mediterranean Sea. Botanica Marina 53, 367375.Google Scholar
Brearley, A., Kendrick, A.J. and Walker, D. (2008) How does burrowing by the isopod Limnoria agrostisa (Crustacea: Limnoriidae) affect the leaf canopy of the southern Australian seagrass Amphibolis griffithii? Marine Biology 156, 6577.Google Scholar
Conradi, M. and López-González, P.J. (1999) The benthic Gammaridea (Crustacea, Amphipoda) fauna of Algeciras Bay (Strait of Gibraltar): Distributional ecology and some biogeographical considerations. Helgoland Marine Research 53, 28.Google Scholar
Conradi, M. and López-González, P.J. (2001) Relationships between environmental variables and the abundance of Peracarid fauna in Algeciras Bay (Southern Iberian Peninsula). Ciencias Marinas 27, 481500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conradi, M., López-González, P.J. and García-Gómez, C. (1997) The amphipod community as a bioindicator in Algeciras Bay (Southern Iberian Peninsula) based on a spatio-temporal distribution. Marine Ecology 18, 97111.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253260.Google Scholar
Duarte, C.M. (2000) Marine biodiversity and ecosystem services: an elusive link. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 250, 117131.Google Scholar
Duarte, C.M. (2002) The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29, 192206.Google Scholar
Duffy, J.E. (2006) Biodiversity and the functioning of seagrass ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311, 233250.Google Scholar
Duffy, J.E. and Harvilicz, A.M. (2001) Species-specific impacts of grazing amphipods in an eelgrass-bed community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 223, 201211.Google Scholar
Erickson, A.A., Paul, V.J., Van Alstyne, K.L. and Kwiatkowski, L.M. (2006) Palatability of macroalgae that use different types of chemical defenses. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32, 18831895.Google Scholar
Espino, F., Tuya, F., Brito, A. and Haroun, R. (2011a) Ichthyofauna associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows in the Canarian Archipelago (central eastern Atlantic): community structure and nursery role. Ciencias Marinas 37, 157174.Google Scholar
Espino, F., Tuya, F., Brito, A. and Haroun, R. (2011b) Variabilidad espacial en la estructura de la ictiofauna asociada a praderas de Cymodocea nodosa en las Islas Canarias, Atlántico nororiental subtropical. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 46, 391403.Google Scholar
Farlin, J.P., Lewis, L.S., Anderson, T.W. and Lai, C.T. (2010) Functional diversity in amphipods revealed by stable isotopes in an eelgrass ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 420, 277281.Google Scholar
Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P.S. and McMahon, K. (2013) Habitat preferences of macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 439, 143151.Google Scholar
Guerra-García, J.M. and García-Gómez, J.C. (2005) Assessing pollution levels in sediments of a harbour with two opposing entrances. Environmental implications. Journal of Environmental Management 77, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haroun, R., Gil-Rodríguez, M.C. and Wildpret de la Torre, W. (2003) Plantas Marinas de las Islas Canarias. Toledo: Canseco Editores.Google Scholar
Hay, M.E., Duffy, J.E. and Fenical, W. (1990) Host-plant specialization decreases predation on a marine amphipod: an herbivore in plant's clothing. Ecology 71, 733743.Google Scholar
Hendriks, I.E., Bouma, T.J., Morris, E.P. and Duarte, C.M. (2010) Effects of seagrasses and algae of the Caulerpa family on hydrodynamics and particle-trapping rates. Marine Biology 157, 473481.Google Scholar
Horinouchi, M., Tongnunui, P., Furumitsu, K., Nakamura, Y., Kanou, K., Yamaguchi, A., Okamoto, K. and Sano, M. (2012) Food habits of small fishes in seagrass habitats in Trang, southern Thailand. Fisheries Science 78, 577587.Google Scholar
Hughes, A.R., Williams, S.L., Duarte, C.M., Heck, K.L. Jr and Waycott, M. (2009) Associations of concern: declining seagrasses and threatened dependent species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 242246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, V., Thibaut, T., Meinesz, A. and Pohnert, G. (2002) Comparison of the wound-activated transformation of caulerpenyne by invasive and noninvasive Caulerpa species of the Mediterranean. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 20912105.Google Scholar
Lincoln, R.J. (1979) British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. London: British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Martínez-Samper, J. (2011) Análisis espacio-temporal de las praderas de Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson en la isla de Gran Canaria. MSc thesis. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.Google Scholar
Monterroso, O., Riera, R. and Núñez, J. (2012) Subtidal soft-bottom macroinvertebrate communities of the Canary Islands. An ecological approach. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 60, 19.Google Scholar
Ortega, I., Díaz, Y.J. and Martín, A. (2010) Feeding rates and food preferences of the amphipods present on macroalgae Ulva sp. and Padina sp. Zoologica Baetica 21, 4553.Google Scholar
Orth, R.J., Carruthers, T.J.B., Dennison, W.C., Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck, K.L Jr, Hughes, A.R., Kendrick, G.A., Kenworthy, W.J., Olyarnik, S., Short, F.T., Waycott, M. and Williams, S. (2006) A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56, 987996.Google Scholar
Pavón-Salas, N., Herrera, R., Hernández-Guerra, A. and Haroun, R. (2000) Distributional pattern of seagrasses in the Canary Islands (Central–East Atlantic Ocean). Journal of Coastal Research 16, 329335.Google Scholar
Poore, A.G.B. (2005) Scales of dispersal among hosts in a herbivorous marine amphipod. Austral Ecology 30, 219228.Google Scholar
Poore, A.G.B. and Hill, N.A. (2006) Sources of variation in herbivore preference: among-individual and past diet effects on amphipod hosts choice. Marine Biology 149, 14031410.Google Scholar
Reyes, J., Sansón, M. and Afonso-Carrillo, J. (1995) Distribution and reproductive phenology of the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson in the Canary Islands. Aquatic Botany 50, 171180.Google Scholar
Roberts, D.A. and Poore, A.G.B. (2005) Habitat configuration affects colonization of epifauna in a marine algal bed. Biological Conservation 127, 1826.Google Scholar
Ruffo, S. (1982) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean. Part 1. Monaco: Mémoires de l'Institut Océanographique.Google Scholar
Ruffo, S. (1993) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean. Part 3. Monaco: Mémoires de l'Institut Océanographique.Google Scholar
Ruffo, S. (1998) The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean. Part 4. Monaco: Mémoires de l'Institut Océanographique.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Jerez, P., Barberá Cebrián, C. and Ramos-Esplá, A.A. (1999) Comparison of the epifauna spatial distribution in Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa and unvegetated bottoms: importance of meadow edges. Acta Oecologica 20, 391405.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Jerez, P., Barberá-Cebrián, C. and Ramos-Esplá, A.A. (2000) Influence of the structure of Posidonia oceanica meadows modified by bottom trawling on crustacean assemblages: Comparison of amphipods and decapods. Scientia Marina 64, 319326.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Moyano, J.E., Estacio, F.J., García-Adiego, E.M. and García-Gómez, J.C. (2001a) Effect of the vegetative cycle of Caulerpa prolifera on the spatio-temporal variation of invertebrate macrofauna. Aquatic Botany 70, 163174.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Moyano, J.E., García-Adiego, E.M., Estacio, F.J. and García-Gómez, J.C. (2001b) Influence of the density of Caulerpa prolifera (Chlorophyta) on the composition of the macrofauna in a meadow in Algeciras Bay (Southern Spain). Ciencias Marinas 27, 4771.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Moyano, J.E., García-Asencio, I. and García-Gómez, J.C. (2007) Effects of temporal variation of the seaweed Caulerpa prolifera cover on the associated crustacean community. Marine Ecology 28, 324337.Google Scholar
Sirota, L. and Hovel, K.A. (2006) Simulated eelgrass Zostera marina structural complexity: effects of shoot length, shoot density, and surface area on the epifaunal community of San Diego Bay, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326, 115131.Google Scholar
Smyrniotopoulos, V., Abatis, D., Tziveleka, L.-A., Tsitsimpikou, C., Roussis, V., Loukis, A. and Vagias, C. (2003) Acetylene sesquiterpenoid esters from the green alga Caulerpa prolifera. Journal of Natural Products 66, 2124.Google Scholar
Taylor, R.B. and Cole, R.G. (1994) Mobile epifauna on subtidal brown seaweeds in northeastern New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series 115, 271282.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M.S., Wernberg, T., Engelen, A.H., Tuya, F., Vanderklift, M.A., Holmer, M., McGlathery, K.J., Arenas, F., Kotta, J. and Silliman, B.R. (2012) A meta-analysis of seaweed impacts on seagrasses: generalities and knowledge gaps. PloS ONE 7(1): e28595.Google Scholar
Tuya, F., Martín, J.A. and Luque, A. (2006) Seasonal cycle of a Cymodocea nodosa seagrass meadow and of the associated ichthyofauna at Playa Dorada (Lanzarote, Canary Islands, eastern Atlantic). Ciencias Marinas 32, 695704.Google Scholar
Tuya, F., Hernandez-Zerpa, H., Espino, F. and Haroun, R. (2013a) Drastic decadal decline of the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa at Gran Canaria (eastern Atlantic): interactions with the green algae Caulerpa prolifera. Aquatic Botany 105, 16.Google Scholar
Tuya, F., Png-Gonzalez, L., Riera, R., Haroun, R. and Espino, F. (2013b) Ecological function differs between landscapes dominated by seagrasses and green rhizophytic seaweeds. PloS ONE (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Vázquez-Luis, M., Sanchez-Jerez, P. and Bayle-Sempere, J.T. (2008) Changes in amphipod (Crustacea) assemblages associated with shallow-water algal habitats invaded by Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea in the western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Environmental Research 65, 416426.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Luis, M., Sanchez-Jerez, P. and Bayle-Sempere, J.T. (2009) Comparison between amphipod assemblages associated with Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea and those of other Mediterranean habitats on soft substrate. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 84, 161170.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Luis, M., Sanchez-Jerez, P. and Bayle-Sempere, J.T. (2010) Effects of Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea on prey availability: an experimental approach to predation of amphipods by Thalassoma pavo (Labridae). Hydrobiologia 654, 147154.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Luis, M., Guerra-García, J.M., Carvalho, S. and Png-Gonzalez, L. (2013) A new genus and species of Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from Canary Islands and Cape Verde. Zootaxa 3700, 159172.Google Scholar
Verdiell-Cubedo, D., Oliva-Paterna, F.J. and Torralva-Forero, M. (2007) Fish assemblages associated with Cymodocea nodosa and Caulerpa prolifera meadows in the shallow areas of the Mar Menor coastal lagoon. Limnetica 26, 341350.Google Scholar
Virnstein, R.W. and Howard, R.K. (1987) Motile epifauna of marine macrophytes in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. II. Comparisons between drift algae and three species of seagrasses. Bulletin of Marine Science 41, 1326.Google Scholar
Waycott, M., Duarte, C.M., Carruthers, T.J.B., Orth, R.J., Dennison, W.C., Olyarnik, S., Calladine, A., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck, K.L Jr, Hughes, A.R., Kendrick, G., Kenworthy, W.J., Short, F.T. and Williams, S.L. (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS 106, 1237712381.Google Scholar
Yamada, K., Hori, M., Tanaka, Y., Hasegawa, N. and Nakaoka, M. (2010) Contribution of different functional groups to the diet of major predatory fishes at a seagrass meadow in northeastern Japan. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86, 7182.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the study area showing the sampled localities at Gran Canaria. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa meadows; circles, Caulerpa prolifera-dominated beds; filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) of the four dominant epifaunal groups at each habitat in (A) November 2011 and (B) October 2012.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Mean species density (number of species ±SE) of the four dominant epifaunal groups at each habitat in (A) November 2011 and (B) October 2012.

Figure 3

Table 1. Results of three-way ANCOVAs testing for differences between habitats, times and localities within habitats, for the abundance and species density of each dominant epifaunal group.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional nm-MDS plot showing similarities in the epifaunal assemblage structure between habitats and times. Each symbol corresponds to a sampling locality within each habitat. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa; circles, Caulerpa prolifera. Filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Figure 5

Table 2. Results of three-way PERMANOVA testing for differences in the epifaunal assemblage structure between habitats, times and localities within habitats.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. (A) Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) and (B) mean species density (number of species ±SE) of amphipods at each habitat and time.

Figure 7

Table 3. Results of 3-way ANCOVAs testing for differences in the total abundance and species density of amphipods between habitats, times and localities within habitats.

Figure 8

Fig. 6. Two-dimensional nm-MDS plot showing similarities in the amphipod assemblage structure between habitats and times. Each symbol corresponds to a sampling locality within habitats. Triangles, Cymodocea nodosa; circles, Caulerpa prolifera. Filled symbols, November 2011; open symbols, October 2012.

Figure 9

Table 4. Results of three-way PERMANOVA testing for differences in the amphipod assemblage structure between habitats, times and locations within habitats.

Figure 10

Fig. 7. Mean abundance (ind m−2 ±SE) of the most important amphipod species at each habitat. *, significant differences.

Figure 11

Table 5. Results of three-way ANCOVAs testing for differences in the abundance of the most important amphipod species between habitats, times and localities within habitats.