Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T21:55:07.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘Simple’ can be good, too: testing three hard bottom sampling methods on macrobenthic and meiobenthic assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

Kleoniki Keklikoglou*
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Georgios Chatzigeorgiou
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Sarah Faulwetter
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Section of Marine Biology, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
Vassiliki Kalogeropoulou
Affiliation:
Animal and Plant Health Agency, KT153NB Addlestone, Surrey, UK
Wanda Plaiti
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Maria Maidanou
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Costas Dounas
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Nikolaos Lampadariou
Affiliation:
Institute of Oceanography, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Christos Arvanitidis
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Thalassocosmos, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
*
Author for correspondence: Kleoniki Keklikoglou, E-mail: keklikoglou@hcmr.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subtidal hard bottoms are of particular scientific and economic value as they are highly productive systems. They are less well studied compared with soft bottoms, as they often require manual sample collection via scuba diving. Although a multitude of sampling devices is available for soft bottoms, only a few are suitable for hard substrates, and their performance is largely unstudied. In the present study, three hard bottom sampling methods were compared, regarding their sampling efficiency and the damage they may cause to macrobenthic and meiobenthic organisms. Two of the sampling methods examined are typically employed for the study of hard bottom substrates (manual collection, airlift device), while the third involves a newly constructed sampler (MANOSS – Manual Operated Suction Sampler). All three sampling methods were tested at 12 m depth on a hard bottom substrate with algal coverage dominated by Cystoseira spp. No overall significant differences were observed between the sampling efficiency and the damage caused by the three sampling methods regarding the macrofaunal assemblages, with the exception of the MANOSS method which collected more species than the manual method. In addition, significant differences were observed in the collecting performance for the meiobenthic assemblages, presenting significantly higher densities of meiofauna sampled by the MANOSS compared with the manual collection method, while the airlift device presented an intermediate efficiency. However, taking into account other factors such as cost, ease of use and the scope of each study, none of the methods clearly outperforms the others.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

Introduction

The degradation of coastal ecosystem functioning and the loss of important habitats, as a result of human activities and climate change, are widely recognized (e.g. Bianchi & Morri, Reference Bianchi and Morri2000; Lotze et al., Reference Lotze, Lenihan, Bourque, Bradbury, Cooke, Kay, Kidwell, Kirby, Peterson and Jackson2006). Coastal rocky habitats are among the most productive systems, characterized by a high biodiversity, primarily due to their structural heterogeneity (Bianchi et al., Reference Bianchi, Pronzato, Cattaneo-Vietti, Benedetti-Cecchi, Morri, Pansini, Chemello, Milazzo, Fraschetti, Terlizzi, Peirano, Salvati, Benzoni, Calcinai, Cerrano, Bavestrello, Gambi and Dappiano2004; Guidetti et al., Reference Guidetti, Bianchi, Chiantore, Schiaparelli, Morri and Cattaneo-Vietti2004). They are important fishing grounds, as they host species of great commercial value, and they are highly valued for recreational diving (Bianchi et al., Reference Bianchi, Pronzato, Cattaneo-Vietti, Benedetti-Cecchi, Morri, Pansini, Chemello, Milazzo, Fraschetti, Terlizzi, Peirano, Salvati, Benzoni, Calcinai, Cerrano, Bavestrello, Gambi and Dappiano2004). They are, however, also rapidly degrading as a consequence of human activities (Airoldi et al., Reference Airoldi, Connell, Beck and Wahl2009), and despite their importance they are much less studied than soft substrates, as the complexity of this environment often requires scuba diving for a manual collection of samples (Hiscock, Reference Hiscock, Baker and Wolff1987; Karalis et al., Reference Karalis, Antoniadou and Chintiroglou2003; Bianchi et al., Reference Bianchi, Pronzato, Cattaneo-Vietti, Benedetti-Cecchi, Morri, Pansini, Chemello, Milazzo, Fraschetti, Terlizzi, Peirano, Salvati, Benzoni, Calcinai, Cerrano, Bavestrello, Gambi and Dappiano2004; Antoniadou & Chintiroglou, Reference Antoniadou and Chintiroglou2005; Chintiroglou et al., Reference Chintiroglou, Antoniadou, Vafidis and Koutsoubas2005). This is also reflected by the existence of a wide variety of samplers for the study of soft substrates, such as box samplers and corers, grabs, dredges and trawls (Eleftheriou & McIntyre, Reference Eleftheriou and McIntyre2005), while, in contrast, methods for sampling hard substrates are limited and their efficiency is much less known (Gibbons & Griffiths, Reference Gibbons and Griffiths1988; Bianchi et al., Reference Bianchi, Pronzato, Cattaneo-Vietti, Benedetti-Cecchi, Morri, Pansini, Chemello, Milazzo, Fraschetti, Terlizzi, Peirano, Salvati, Benzoni, Calcinai, Cerrano, Bavestrello, Gambi and Dappiano2004).

The choice of the sampling method is a challenge as it should be as effective as possible in terms of qualitative and quantitative collection of samples (Kikuchi et al., Reference Kikuchi, Fonseca-Gessner and Shimizu2006). Hard bottom sampling methods can be either non-destructive (e.g. visual census) or destructive. The destructive methods are carried out in three successive steps: (a) blocking a surface, usually by means of a rectangle frame with soft material on the side which is attached on the surface and a net on its back, (b) surface scraping with a spatula or a similar tool and (c) collection of the scraped sample, either manually or with a suction device. Surface scraping is a widely known sampling method for collecting benthic organisms but there is evidence of escape ability of the mobile organisms (Abbiati, Reference Abbiati1991). The first use of a suction device for the collection of benthic organisms was by Brett (Reference Brett1964). Subsequently, several variations of suction devices have been developed (e.g. Hiscock & Hoare, Reference Hiscock and Hoare1973; Elliott & Tullett, Reference Elliott and Tullett1983; Rostron, Reference Rostron, Davies, Baxter, Bradley, Connor, Khan, Murray, Sanderson, Turnbull and Vincent2001) which included modifications related to the convenience of handling, the targeted organisms and the habitat type. Finally, two types of suction devices have prevailed, differing in how the suction effect is created: through a water pump or through compressed air (Drake and Elliott, Reference Drake and Elliott1982; Hiscock, Reference Hiscock, Baker and Wolff1987).

Despite the development of various sampling methods, few studies have been carried out to compare their efficiency. These studies focus on the collection ability and not on the damage caused to the organisms by each of these methods (e.g. Emery, Reference Emery1968; Gale & Thompson, Reference Gale and Thompson1975; Tanner et al., Reference Tanner, Hawkes and Lebednic1977; Brooks, Reference Brooks1994; Metaxas & Scheibling, Reference Metaxas and Scheibling1994). Most studies on the damaging effect of sampling devices investigate fishing gears and their effects on benthic organisms (e.g. Hall-Spencer et al., Reference Hall-Spencer, Froglia, Atkinson and Moore1999; Bergmann et al., Reference Bergmann, Beare and Moore2001; Jennings et al., Reference Jennings, Pinnegar, Polunin and Warr2001; Pranovi et al., Reference Pranovi, Raicevich, Franceschini, Torricelli and Giovanardi2001).

The present study attempts to fill the aforementioned gap by testing three different sampling methods for hard substrates. Two of these are commonly used for the sampling of benthic organisms in hard substrates: simple surface scraping and manual sample collection, and surface scraping and the use of a suction device connected to a compressed air tank. The third method is a manually operated suction device developed recently by the Hellenic Center for Marine Research (HCMR) (Chatzigeorgiou et al., Reference Chatzigeorgiou, Dailianis, Faulwetter and Pettas2012).

We quantify the effectiveness of the three different sampling methods for macrofaunal and meiofaunal assemblages and assess the severity of organismal damage caused by each method, thus contributing to the effectiveness of hard substrate studies. Our null hypothesis, therefore, is that there are no differences in the capacity of the three sampling methods, concerning (a) the collection of macrofaunal and meiofaunal assemblages and (b) the organismal damage caused by each sampling method.

Materials and methods

Collection of samples

Samples were taken in December 2012, on a single sampling site located at the North coast of Crete (Alykes, Eastern Mediterranean, 35°24′52″N 24°59′18″E). The sampling area is characterized by a continuous hard bottom substrate with dense algal coverage (Cystoseira spp., Sargassum sp., Jania rubens), moderate wave exposure and no records of significant anthropogenic impact.

In total, eight replicate units per method were collected, randomly, by scuba divers going in a random direction and for a random distance at 12 m depth and sampled using each of the following sampling methods (Figure 1): (a) scraping and manual collection of the sample (hereafter referred to as ‘FRAME’), (b) scraping and use of a Manually Operated Suction Sampler (hereafter referred to as ‘MANOSS’, described in detail in Chatzigeorgiou et al., Reference Chatzigeorgiou, Dailianis, Faulwetter and Pettas2012) and (c) scraping and use of an airlift sampler (hereafter referred to as ‘SUCTION’). For all methods, a plexiglass frame (25 × 25 cm) with a 63 µm mesh size net was attached to the rock and the framed surface was scraped. With the FRAME method, the scraped material was collected into the attached net by the diver by hand and subsequently the net was removed and placed into a plastic bag. The scraped material of the MANOSS and SUCTION methods were collected by placing the nozzle of the respective collecting device into the opening of the net attached to the frame and sucking the sample into a collecting bag (63 µm mesh size). The suction was achieved by means of a manually operated suction sampler with a hand operated plunger (MANOSS) and an airlift sampler connected with an air tank (SUCTION). Samples were subsequently washed through two sieves with mesh sizes of 500 and 63 µm to separate macro- and meiobenthic organisms and fixed in 4% formalin buffered in filtered (63 µm) seawater. More details about the sampling methods can be found in Chatzigeorgiou et al. (Reference Chatzigeorgiou, Dailianis, Faulwetter and Pettas2012).

Fig. 1. Illustration of the three different sampling methods: (A) FRAME, (B) MANOSS and (C) SUCTION.

Laboratory procedures

The eight replicate units collected for each sampling method were analysed for both meio- and macrofauna. Macrofauna samples were washed to remove the remaining formalin and were stored in 70% ethanol. All specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level.

Meiofaunal samples were washed through a 63 µm mesh to remove any material with a size below 63 µm and meiofaunal organisms were extracted through centrifugation with Ludox (1.15 specific gravity) as a flotation medium (de Jonge & Bouwman, Reference de Jonge and Bouwman1977). Centrifugation was repeated two more times, as this is considered sufficient for the extraction of ~97% of the organisms (Austen & Warwick, Reference Austen and Warwick1989). Finally, the treated samples were stained in rose bengal (1 g l−1) and specimens were sorted and identified to major taxonomic groups under a stereoscopic microscope.

Traits analysis

Three biological traits describing body shape, body design and movement method were selected to potentially identify specific characteristics of macrofaunal species related to sampling selectivity and to the susceptibility to damage induced by each sampling method. The selected traits were subdivided into 13 categories (Table 1), describing the species’ geometric shape, their ability to escape and their fragility which may lead to difficulties during the identification procedure.

Table 1. Biological traits and the relative categories

All trait categories were scored as presence or absence (1 or 0, respectively) for each species and they were weighted according to their abundances. Missing information for trait categories at the species level was derived from congeners.

Trait analysis was not performed on meiofaunal assemblages since individuals were identified to major taxa.

Assessment of damage

Damage may occur to the morphological integrity of benthic organisms through the scraping phase (all samplers) in addition with water flow (in case of MANOSS) and air decompression (in case of SUCTION) as the air that mixes with the water and sampled material is likely to cause damage to the sampled material. To assess the impact of each sampling method on any damage caused to the macrofaunal organisms, a five-point scale of damage was developed for each taxonomic group (Table 2). Damage scores were defined to assess: (a) the impact of each method on the ‘identifiability’ of the individual to species level and (b) the severity of the damage in terms of mechanical force provoked by each sampling method. A Mean Damage Index (MDI) was calculated for each species, major phyla and trait categories as described by Jenkins et al. (Reference Jenkins, Beukers-Stewart and Brand2001), using the following formula:

$$\displaystyle{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i{\rm = 1}}^{i{\rm = 5}} n_ii} \over {\rm N}}$$

where n i = number of individuals of damage score i, and N = total number of individuals.

Damage on meiofauna specimens could not be assessed due to their small size.

Statistical analyses

Since the assumptions of parametric ANOVA were violated, non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests (Kruskal & Wallis, Reference Kruskal and Wallis1952) were used in order to assess potential differences between the selectivity of the sampling methods based on: (a) macrofaunal diversity, expressed either as species richness, the Margalef index (Margalef, Reference Margalef1958) or the Shannon–Wiener index (Shannon & Weaver, Reference Shannon and Weaver1963); (b) the abundance (number of individuals) of the most dominant macrofaunal species; (c) the abundance of the trait categories; and (d) the meiofaunal densities (in individuals per 10 cm2) for each replicate. Regarding the abundance of the most dominant macrofaunal species, the Kruskal–Wallis test was restricted to the most dominant species to avoid potential variation by rare species. For their selection, species’ abundance values were ranked and plotted based on the total abundance across all samples; a break-off point was chosen where the curve showed a sudden increase in abundance values. This break-off point was then used as a threshold to exclude rare species.

Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were also performed in order to assess potential differences between the damage caused by the sampling methods based on the Mean Damage Index (MDI) of: (a) the total macrofaunal species, (b) the major phyla and (c) the trait categories for each replicate.

Mann–Whitney U tests were used as post-hoc pairwise comparisons between the sampling methods with a Bonferroni correction lowering the level of significance to 0.017.

To compare multivariate patterns of species distribution between the different sampling methods, abundance values were square-root transformed and the Bray–Curtis coefficient (Bray & Curtis, Reference Bray and Curtis1957) was calculated between all possible pairs of samples. The produced dissimilarity matrices were displayed using non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (nMDS) (Clarke & Warwick, Reference Clarke and Warwick1994). An Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM; Clarke, Reference Clarke1993) was carried out to test for differences between the sampling methods.

All statistical analyses were performed using the software packages PRIMER (v. 6.1.3, PRIMER-E Ltd) (Clarke & Gorley, Reference Clarke and Gorley2006) and SPSS (v. 23, IBM SPSS).

Results

Assessment of sampling methods selectivity in macrofaunal assemblages

In total, 6651 individuals were analysed, consisting of 169 species (FRAME: 91 species, MANOSS: 120 species, SUCTION: 117 species). Mollusca, dominated by Gastropoda, were the most abundant group in all sampling methods, followed by Arthropoda, Annelida and Echinodermata (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Mean abundance ± SD of the major macrofaunal phyla on log scale, for each sampling method.

Table 3 summarizes the mean values of abundances, species number, species richness (Margalef index) and Shannon–Wiener index for each sampling method. No significant differences were observed between the sampling methods in terms of diversity indices or abundances. However, the MANOSS method captured significantly more species than the FRAME method (Mann–Whitney test; U = 8.5, P = 0.013), while the SUCTION method did not show any significant differences compared with the other two methods.

Table 3. Mean values of abundance, species number, species richness (Margalef) and Shannon–Wiener with their standard deviation (SD) for each sampling method

Kruskal–Wallis results are shown between the different sampling methods. Significant results are marked in bold (P < 0.05).

In general, no significant differences were detected between the different sampling methods regarding the macrofaunal abundances of the most dominant species, as shown Supplementary Table S1. The nMDS plot (not shown here) based on macrofauna species abundances did not reveal any clear pattern and showed a high stress value of >0.2. Accordingly, the ANOSIM test did not detect any significant differences in community structure between the different sampling methods (Supplementary Table S2; R = −0.002; P > 0.05).

Regarding traits, the most abundant characteristic for body shape, body design and movement method were conical shape, hard shell and crawling movement behaviour, respectively (Figure 3). However, no significant differences were observed between the different sampling methods for each trait category, except for the oval shape (Kruskal–Wallis; H = 8.162, P = 0.017) where organisms with this characteristic were significantly more abundant in the MANOSS method compared with the FRAME method (Mann–Whitney test; U = 7.5, P = 0.007).

Fig. 3. Mean abundance ± SD on log(x + 1) scale of the each trait category of (A) body shape, (B) body design and (C) movement method, for each sampling method.

Assessment of damage caused by sampling methods

Concerning the damage caused by the different sampling methods among the most dominant species, most species were preserved intact (damage score 1) or with minor or moderate damage (damage scores 2, 3), with the exception of some very fragile polychaete species (Supplementary Table S3). No significant differences between the sampling methods were observed in the MDI of the total number of species, nor within the major phyla or different trait categories (Table 4).

Table 4. The Mean Damage Index (MDI) of the total number of species, the major phyla and the trait categories for each sampling method (ranging from 1 to 5; for definition of the score values see Table 2)

Kruskal–Wallis results are shown between the different sampling methods.

Percentages of identified and unidentified (due to damage) organisms were estimated in order to assess the damage effect on the identifiability of the organisms. More than 95% of the individuals were identified to species level for all sampling methods (FRAME: 96.88%; MANOSS: 97.09%; SUCTION: 96.54%). No significant differences were observed between the sampling methods regarding the number of identified and unidentified organisms.

Sampling methods efficiency in meiofaunal assemblages

In total, 21 major meiofaunal groups were identified, out of which four presented higher densities for all three different sampling methods (Table 5). More specifically, nematodes, copepods, copepod nauplii and polychaetes represented the 95.82 ± 0.3% of the total meiofauna while the remaining percentage (4.18 ± 0.3%, ‘Others’) included 17 meiofaunal groups (Table 6) with low densities. Significant differences were detected between the different sampling methods regarding the meiofaunal densities of only copepods, polychaetes and ‘others’ (Table 5), which revealed significantly higher densities in MANOSS samples than in FRAME samples (Mann–Whitney test; copepods: U = 5, P = 0.005; polychaetes: U = 5, P = 0.005; others: U = 8.5, P = 0.014). However, no significant differences were observed between the sampling methods regarding the total meiofaunal and nematode densities (Table 5).

Table 5. Mean values of meiofaunal densities (ind. 10 cm−2) with their standard deviation (SD) for each sampling method and taxonomic group are presented

Kruskal–Wallis results are shown between the different sampling methods. Significant results are marked in bold (P < 0.05).

Table 6. Contribution of the 4.18 ± 0.3% of meiofaunal taxa to the total density of each sampling method

The nMDS plot (not shown here) of the meiofaunal densities similarity matrix, illustrated no discrimination for the community structure of the different sampling methods. The value of the ANOSIM test supported the hypothesis that there are no significant differences between the community structure of the sampling methodologies (Supplementary Table S2; R = 0.06; P > 0.05).

Discussion

Sampling efficiency in macrofaunal assemblages

Mollusca, specifically Gastropoda, were the most abundant taxonomic group (>50%) followed by Arthropoda (~20%) and Annelida (10–15%) in each sampling method. This contribution pattern of the major phyla seems to be common in hard bottom areas in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea according to related biodiversity studies (Antoniadou & Chintiroglou, Reference Antoniadou and Chintiroglou2005; Antoniadou et al., Reference Antoniadou, Koutsoubas and Chintiroglou2005). In general, no significant differences were detected between the different sampling methods regarding the macrofaunal abundances of the most dominant species and the diversity indices; in addition, the sampling methods presented a similar pattern regarding the community structure indicating similar sampling efficiency. However, the MANOSS method captured significantly more species than the FRAME method, indicating a potential loss of species that can easily escape from the scraping procedure, while the SUCTION method showed an intermediate efficiency. This may be related to the collection of the sample by hand in the FRAME method where loss of the scraped material is more likely to happen than when using a suction device. Furthermore, according to Abbiati (Reference Abbiati1991), mobile fauna can more easily escape from the sampling net during the scraping method, therefore this procedure is more effective for flora and sessile organisms. However, no significant differences were observed between the different sampling methods for the mobility traits, indicating that the loss of species is a mechanical characteristic of the FRAME method.

The sampling selectivity and the fragility of the organisms may be influenced by specific biological traits. For example, the existence of protective shells could reduce the severity of damage by sampling methods (Bergmann et al., Reference Bergmann, Beare and Moore2001) and the movement method could influence the sampling selectivity, as fast swimmers can more easily escape from the sampling methods in comparison to species with a low mobility (Sutherland, Reference Sutherland2006). All methods exhibited a similar distribution of biological traits, with the most representative trait categories being the conical shape, hard shell and crawling behaviour. These categories are mostly found in gastropods which were the most abundant taxonomic group. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the different sampling methods for each trait category, except for the oval shape where organisms with this characteristic were significantly more abundant in the MANOSS method compared with the FRAME method. However, these differences may be related to random effects as the oval shape is represented by organisms with low abundances.

In a study by Pranovi et al. (Reference Pranovi, Raicevich, Franceschini, Torricelli and Giovanardi2001), the percentages of damage induced by the studied gears were related to the morphology (with or without appendages), the body structure (hard or soft tissues) and the size of the organisms. Several indices have been used for the assessment of damage of macrofaunal organisms, mostly for assessing the impact of different fishing gears (e.g. Mensink et al., Reference Mensink, Fischer, Cadee, Ten Hallers-Tjabbes and Boon2000; Bergmann et al., Reference Bergmann, Beare and Moore2001; Jenkins et al., Reference Jenkins, Beukers-Stewart and Brand2001; Moschino et al., Reference Moschino, Deppieri and Marin2003). In the present study, no significant differences were observed in terms of MDI between the sampling methods for the most dominant species, the major phyla and the different trait categories as the observed damage may not be related to the sampling methods but to procedures common to all methods: scraping, washing, sieving and sorting (Bianchi et al., Reference Bianchi, Pronzato, Cattaneo-Vietti, Benedetti-Cecchi, Morri, Pansini, Chemello, Milazzo, Fraschetti, Terlizzi, Peirano, Salvati, Benzoni, Calcinai, Cerrano, Bavestrello, Gambi and Dappiano2004; Eleftheriou & McIntyre, Reference Eleftheriou and McIntyre2005).

Sampling efficiency in meiofaunal assemblages

Hard bottom areas are dominated by nematodes and copepods (Danovaro & Fraschetti, Reference Danovaro and Fraschetti2002; Fraschetti et al., Reference Fraschetti, Gambi, Giangrande, Musco, Terlizzi and Danovaro2006), a pattern which was also observed in the hard substrate meiofauna assemblages captured by the three different sampling methods. Different sampling efficiency of the major meiofaunal groups was observed between the three sampling methods. Specifically, significant differences were detected regarding the meiofaunal densities of copepods, polychaetes and the rarer (‘Others’) groups which revealed significantly higher densities in the MANOSS method compared with the FRAME method, with the SUCTION method again presenting an intermediate efficiency. The low densities of copepods and polychaetes in the meiofaunal samples collected with the FRAME method could be attributed to their relatively high mobility. High mobility can facilitate an easier escape from the collection net (Carleton & Hamner, Reference Carleton and Hamner1987; Abbiati, Reference Abbiati1991). Several epibenthic taxa are known to show an emergence behaviour, i.e. they are able to temporarily move into the hyperbenthos for a variety of reasons (e.g. predation, escape behaviour, foraging) (Alldredge & King, Reference Alldredge and King1985; Decho, Reference Decho1986; Armonies, Reference Armonies1988; Mees & Jones, Reference Mees and Jones1997; Giere, Reference Giere2009). Sample collection potentially acts as a threat for these organisms, activating this emergence behaviour and resulting in lower densities of these taxonomic groups in the samples.

Conclusions

In Table 7, the advantages and disadvantages of the three different sampling methods are summarized. In general, the sampling methods do not differ in their efficiency of collecting macrofaunal assemblages with the exception of the MANOSS method which collects more species than the FRAME method. In addition, the MANOSS method showed a higher sampling efficiency in meiofaunal assemblages compared with the FRAME method. However, the selection of a sampling method in order to carry out a biodiversity study in hard substrates should also take into account the scope of the study, the efficiency of the sampling method required, as well as the technical characteristics of the method during its execution. For example, if the focus is to capture the entire diversity of the community, then the MANOSS method shows a clear advantage as it captures more species. Similarly, if the strength of the operating person is an issue, then the SUCTION method is equally effective as it performs similarly to MANOSS with the small price of losing some of the macrofaunal species. We conclude that ‘simple’ methods such as the FRAME method could be an effective and easy way for macrofauna collection, but a meiofaunal study requires a more advanced method such as MANOSS. Further studies, focusing on the comparison of the sampling methods on several hard substrates, in terms of region and type of substrate (e.g. artificial, ‘trottoir’) are necessary to establish a standardized sampling protocol for the macro- and meiobenthic assemblages in hard substrates.

Table 7. Summary of the basic advantages and disadvantages of the three different sampling methods

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315418000863.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Thanos Dailianis (Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Greece) for his assistance during the sampling procedure, Mr Manolis Pettas (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Greece) for the construction of suction devices and Nikos Sekeris (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Greece) for the construction of sampling nets. The authors would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for providing comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abbiati, M (ed.) (1991) Metodi di campionamento biologico subacqueo. In Lezioni del Corso Formativo per Ricercatore Scientifico Subacqueo. Pisa: International School of Scientific Diving, pp. 312.Google Scholar
Airoldi, L, Connell, SD and Beck, MW (2009) The loss of natural habitats and the addition of artificial substrata. In Wahl, M (ed.), Marine Hard Bottom Communities. Berlin: Springer, pp. 269280.10.1007/b76710_19Google Scholar
Alldredge, AL and King, JM (1985) The distance demersal zooplankton migrate above the benthos: implications for predation. Marine Biology 84, 253260.10.1007/BF00392494Google Scholar
Antoniadou, C and Chintiroglou, C (2005) Biodiversity of zoobenthic hard-substrate sublittoral communities in the Eastern Mediterranean (North Aegean Sea). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 62, 637653.10.1016/j.ecss.2004.09.032Google Scholar
Antoniadou, C, Koutsoubas, D and Chintiroglou, CC (2005) Mollusca fauna from infralittoral hard substrate assemblages in the North Aegean Sea. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135, 119126.Google Scholar
Armonies, W (1988) Active emergence of meiofauna from intertidal sediment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 43, 151159.10.3354/meps043151Google Scholar
Austen, MC and Warwick, RM (1989) Comparison of univariate and multivariate aspects of estuarine meiobenthic community structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29, 2342.10.1016/0272-7714(89)90071-1Google Scholar
Bergmann, M, Beare, DJ and Moore, PG (2001) Damage sustained by epibenthic invertebrates discarded in the Nephrops fishery of the Clyde Sea area, Scotland. Journal of Sea Research 45, 105118.10.1016/S1385-1101(01)00053-3Google Scholar
Bianchi, CN and Morri, C (2000) Marine biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: situation, problems and prospects for future research. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 367376.10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00027-8Google Scholar
Bianchi, CN, Pronzato, R, Cattaneo-Vietti, R, Benedetti-Cecchi, L, Morri, C, Pansini, M, Chemello, R, Milazzo, M, Fraschetti, S, Terlizzi, A, Peirano, A, Salvati, E, Benzoni, F, Calcinai, B, Cerrano, C and Bavestrello, G (2004) Hard bottoms. In Gambi, M and Dappiano, M (eds), Mediterranean marine benthos: a manual of methods for its sampling and study. Biologia Marina Meditteranea 11 (Suppl. 1), 185215.Google Scholar
Bray, RJ and Curtis, JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27, 325349.10.2307/1942268Google Scholar
Brett, C (1964) A portable hydraulic diver-operated dredge-sieve for sampling subtidal macrofauna. Journal of Marine Research 22, 205209.Google Scholar
Brooks, S (1994) An efficient and quantitative aquatic benthos sampler for use in diverse habitats with variable flow regimes. Hydrobiologia 281, 123128.10.1007/BF00006441Google Scholar
Carleton, JH and Hamner, WM (1987) A diver-operated device for the capture of mobile epibenthic organisms. Limnology and Oceanography 32, 503510.10.4319/lo.1987.32.2.0503Google Scholar
Chatzigeorgiou, G, Dailianis, T, Faulwetter, S and Pettas, M (2012) MANOSS – a manually operated suction sampler for hard bottom benthos. Transitional Waters Bulletin 6, 4249.Google Scholar
Chintiroglou, C, Antoniadou, C, Vafidis, D and Koutsoubas, D (2005) A review on the biodiversity of hard substrate invertebrate communities in the Aegean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science 6, 5162.10.12681/mms.185Google Scholar
Clarke, K (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 117143.10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.xGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K and Gorley, R (2006) PRIMER v6.1.5: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
Clarke, K and Warwick, R (1994) Similarity-based testing for community pattern: the two-way layout with no replication. Marine Biology 118, 167176.10.1007/BF00699231Google Scholar
Danovaro, R and Fraschetti, S (2002) Meiofaunal vertical zonation on hard-bottoms: comparison with soft-bottom meiofauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230, 159169.10.3354/meps230159Google Scholar
Decho, AW (1986) Water-cover influences on diatom ingestion rates by meiobenthic copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 33, 139146.10.3354/meps033139Google Scholar
de Jonge, VN and Bouwman, LA (1977) A simple density separation technique for quantitative isolation of meiobenthos using the Colloidal silica Ludox-TM. Marine Biology 42, 143148.10.1007/BF00391564Google Scholar
Drake, CM and Elliott, JM (1982) A comparative study of three air-lift samplers used for sampling benthic macro-invertebrates in rivers. Freshwater Biology 12, 511533.10.1111/j.1365-2427.1982.tb00644.xGoogle Scholar
Eleftheriou, A and McIntyre, A (2005) Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos, 3rd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science.10.1002/9780470995129Google Scholar
Elliott, JM and Tullett, PA (1983) A supplement to a bibliography of samplers for benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association, Occasional Publication 20, 27 pp.Google Scholar
Emery, AR (1968) Preliminary observations on coral reef plankton. Limnology and Oceanography 13, 293303.10.4319/lo.1968.13.2.0293Google Scholar
Fraschetti, S, Gambi, C, Giangrande, A, Musco, L, Terlizzi, A and Danovaro, R (2006) Structural and functional response of meiofauna rocky assemblages to sewage pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 540548.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.10.001Google Scholar
Gale, WF and Thompson, JD (1975) A suction sampler for quantitatively sampling benthos on rocky substrates in rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104, 398405.10.1577/1548-8659(1975)104<398:ASSFQS>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>Google Scholar
Gibbons, MJ and Griffiths, CL (1988) An improved quantitative method for estimating intertidal meiofaunal standing stock on an exposed rocky shore. South African Journal of Marine Science 6, 5558.10.2989/025776188784480537Google Scholar
Giere, O (2009) Meiobenthology: The Microscopic Motile Fauna of Aquatic Sediments, 2nd Edn. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Guidetti, P, Bianchi, CN, Chiantore, M, Schiaparelli, S, Morri, C and Cattaneo-Vietti, R (2004) Living on the rocks: substrate mineralogy and the structure of subtidal rocky substrate communities in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274, 5768.10.3354/meps274057Google Scholar
Guyonnet, B, Grall, J and Vincent, B (2008) Modified otter trawl legs to reduce damage and mortality of benthic organisms in North East Atlantic fisheries (Bay of Biscay). Journal of Marine Systems 72, 216.10.1016/j.jmarsys.2007.05.017Google Scholar
Hall-Spencer, JM, Froglia, C, Atkinson, RJA and Moore, PG (1999) The impact of Rapido trawling for scallops, Pecten jacobaeus (L.), on the benthos of the Gulf of Venice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56, 111124.10.1006/jmsc.1998.0424Google Scholar
Hiscock, K (1987) Subtidal rock and shallow sediments using diving. In Baker, JM and Wolff, W (eds), Biological Surveys of Estuaries and Coasts. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198237.Google Scholar
Hiscock, K and Hoare, R (1973) A portable suction sampler for rock epibiota. Helgolander Wiss. Meeresunters 25, 3538.10.1007/BF01609959Google Scholar
Jenkins, SR, Beukers-Stewart, BD and Brand, AR (2001) Impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna: a comparison of damage levels in captured and non-captured organisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215, 297301.10.3354/meps215297Google Scholar
Jennings, S, Pinnegar, J, Polunin, N and Warr, K (2001) Impacts of trawling disturbance on the trophic structure of benthic invertebrate communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 213, 127142.10.3354/meps213127Google Scholar
Karalis, P, Antoniadou, C and Chintiroglou, C (2003) Structure of the artificial hard substrate assemblages in ports in Thermaikos Gulf (North Aegean Sea). Oceanologica Acta 26, 215224.10.1016/S0399-1784(03)00040-9Google Scholar
Kikuchi, RM, Fonseca-Gessner, AA and Shimizu, GY (2006) Suction sampler for collection of benthic macroinvertebrates in several continental aquatic environments: a comparative study with the Hess and Surber samplers. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 18, 2937.Google Scholar
Kruskal, WH and Wallis, WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47, 583621.Google Scholar
Lotze, HK, Lenihan, HS, Bourque, BJ, Bradbury, RH, Cooke, RG, Kay, MC, Kidwell, SM, Kirby, MX, Peterson, CH and Jackson, JBC (2006) Depletion degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312, 18061809.10.1126/science.1128035Google Scholar
Margalef, R (1958) Information theory in ecology. General Systems 3, 3671.Google Scholar
Mees, J and Jones, MB (1997) The hyperbenthos. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 35, 221255.Google Scholar
Mensink, BP, Fischer, CV, Cadee, GC, Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, CC and Boon, JP (2000) Shell damage and mortality in the common whelk Buccinum undatum caused by beam trawl fishery. Journal of Sea Research 43, 5364.10.1016/S1385-1101(00)00003-4Google Scholar
Metaxas, A and Scheibling, RE (1994) Spatial and temporal variability of tidepool hyperbenthos on a rocky shore in Nova Scotia, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series 108, 175184.10.3354/meps108175Google Scholar
Moschino, V, Deppieri, M and Marin, MG (2003) Evaluation of shell damage to the clam Chamelea gallina captured by hydraulic dredging in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Journal of Marine Science 60, 393401.Google Scholar
Pranovi, F, Raicevich, S, Franceschini, G, Torricelli, P and Giovanardi, O (2001) Discard analysis and damage to non-target species in the ‘rapido’ trawl fishery. Marine Biology 139, 863875.Google Scholar
Rostron, DM (2001) Procedural guideline No. 3-10. sampling marine benthos using suction samplers. In Davies, J, Baxter, J, Bradley, M, Connor, D, Khan, J, Murray, E, Sanderson, W, Turnbull, C and Vincent, M (eds), Marine Monitoring Handbook. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, pp. 293305.Google Scholar
Shannon, C and Weaver, W (1963) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, WJ (2006) Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, C, Hawkes, MW and Lebednic, PA (1977) A hand-operated suction sampler for the collection of subtidal organisms. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 34, 10311034.Google Scholar
Veale, LO, Hill, AS, Hawkins, SJ and Brand, AR (2001) Distribution and damage to the by-catch assemblages of the northern Irish sea scallop dredge fisheries. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81, 8596.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Illustration of the three different sampling methods: (A) FRAME, (B) MANOSS and (C) SUCTION.

Figure 1

Table 1. Biological traits and the relative categories

Figure 2

Table 2. Damage scores for macrofauna, adapted from Bergmann et al. (2001); Jenkins et al. (2001); Veale et al. (2001); Pranovi et al. (2001); Guyonnet et al. (2008)

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Mean abundance ± SD of the major macrofaunal phyla on log scale, for each sampling method.

Figure 4

Table 3. Mean values of abundance, species number, species richness (Margalef) and Shannon–Wiener with their standard deviation (SD) for each sampling method

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Mean abundance ± SD on log(x + 1) scale of the each trait category of (A) body shape, (B) body design and (C) movement method, for each sampling method.

Figure 6

Table 4. The Mean Damage Index (MDI) of the total number of species, the major phyla and the trait categories for each sampling method (ranging from 1 to 5; for definition of the score values see Table 2)

Figure 7

Table 5. Mean values of meiofaunal densities (ind. 10 cm−2) with their standard deviation (SD) for each sampling method and taxonomic group are presented

Figure 8

Table 6. Contribution of the 4.18 ± 0.3% of meiofaunal taxa to the total density of each sampling method

Figure 9

Table 7. Summary of the basic advantages and disadvantages of the three different sampling methods

Supplementary material: File

Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material

Table S3

Download Keklikoglou et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB