hala nader, alyson pickard, sam shaw, & jenna thebeau
TRANSCRIPT
The Effects of Substrate Composition on Intertidal
Organism Diversity Hala Nader, Alyson Pickard, Sam Shaw, & Jenna Thebeau
Diversity◦ Probability that two randomly selected organisms
from a community will belong to a different species
Background - Terms
Diversity◦ Probability that two randomly selected organisms
from a community will belong to a different species
Richness◦ Number of species in a community
Background - Terms
Diversity◦ Probability that two randomly selected organisms
from a community will belong to a different species
Richness◦ Number of species in a community
Evenness◦ The degree of similarity in the distribution of each
species within the community
Background - Terms
What effects diversity?◦ Vertical & horizontal stress gradients◦ Wave exposure◦ Temperature◦ Desiccation◦ Shelter availability
Introduction
Limitation Stress◦ Lack of available resources
Types of Stress
Limitation Stress◦ Lack of available resources
Disruptive Stress◦ Causes cellular damage
Types of Stress
3 categories:◦ Supralittoral◦ Midlittoral ◦ Infralittoral
Vertical Stress Gradients
3 categories:◦ Supralittoral◦ Midlittoral ◦ Infralittoral
Depends on elevationand exposure
Vertical Stress Gradients
Depend on ice scour intensity and wave exposure
Horizontal Stress Gradients
Depend on ice scour intensity and wave exposure
Wave exposure determines what type of substrate is found along horizontal gradient
Horizontal Stress Gradients
High wave exposure◦ Washes away small debris◦ Leaves large rocks & cobble◦ Low predation
Wave Exposure & Substrate
High wave exposure◦ Washes away small debris◦ Leaves large rocks & cobble◦ Low predation
Moderate wave exposure◦ Bedrock & cobble◦ Stable habitat
Wave Exposure & Substrate
High wave exposure◦ Washes away small debris◦ Leaves large rocks & cobble◦ Low predation
Moderate wave exposure◦ Bedrock & cobble◦ Stable habitat
Low wave exposure◦ Primarily muddy◦ Low drainage leading to anoxia
Wave Exposure & Substrate
Effect of substrate type on organism diversity and individual species preference
Aim of The Study
Effect of substrate type on organism diversity and individual species preference
Hypothesis◦ Diversity will change with respect to
substrate type
Aim of The Study
3 sites were sampled◦ Green’s Point
High wave exposure, large rock & cobble
Methods
3 sites were sampled◦ Green’s Point
High wave exposure, large rock & cobble
◦ Indian Point Moderate wave exposure, bedrock & cobble
Methods
3 sites were sampled◦ Green’s Point
High wave exposure, large rock & cobble
◦ Indian Point Moderate wave exposure, bedrock & cobble
◦ Bar Road Low wave exposure, mud & sand
Methods
10 samples along a 50 m transect line within midlittoral zone at each site
Methods
10 samples along a 50 m transect line within midlittoral zone at each site
1x1 m quadrat placed every 5 m
Methods
10 samples along a 50 m transect line within midlittoral zone at each site
1x1 m quadrat placed every 5 m
Estimation of the number of plant and animal species encountered
Methods
10 samples along a 50 m transect line within midlittoral zone at each site
1x1 m quadrat placed every 5 m
Estimation of the number of plant and animal species encountered
Species identified
Methods
Results
Plant Species Animal Species
A. nodosum
C. crispus
Corraline sp.
Dictyosiphon sp.
Elachista flaccida
F. vesiculosus
Lithothamnion sp.
U. lactuca
Acmae testudinaris Asterias forbesii B. balanus L. littorea L. obtusata N. lapillus S. balanoides S. droebachiensis
Results
Figure 1: The diversity of the 3 substrates based on the Shannon-Wiener diversity index
Bedrock Rocky Muddy0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Substrate Type
Div
ers
ity I
ndex V
alu
e
Results
Figure 2: Species Richness and the 3 locations
Bedrock Rocky Muddy0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Substrate Type
Num
ber
of
Encounte
red S
pecie
s
Results
Plant Species Animal Species
A. nodosum
C. crispus
Corraline sp.
Dictyosiphon sp.
Elachista flaccida
F. vesiculosus
Lithothamnion sp.
U. lactuca
Acmae testudinaris Asterias forbesii B. balanus L. littorea L. obtusata N. lapillus S. balanoides S. droebachiensis
Results
Plant Species Animal Species
A. nodosum
C. crispus
Corraline sp.
Dictyosiphon sp.
Elachista flaccida
F. vesiculosus
Lithothamnion sp.
U. lactuca
Acmae testudinaris Asterias forbesii B. balanus L. littorea L. obtusata N. lapillus S. balanoides S. droebachiensis
Results
Figure 3: Percent coverage per m2 (mean ±SEM) for 3 different substrates
A. nodosum B. balanus E. flaccida Lithothamnion spp.
S. balanoides Corraline spp. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Bedrock Rocky
Muddy
Species Name
% C
overa
ge /
m2
Results
Figure 4: Number of Nucella lapillus found per m2 (mean±SEM)
N. lapillus0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
BedrockRockyMuddy
Species Name
Num
ber
of
Org
anis
ms p
er
m2
Results
L. littorea0
10
20
30
40
50
60Bedrock
Rocky
Muddy
Species
Nu
mb
er
of
Org
an
ism
s p
er
m2
Figure 5: Number of Littorina littorea (mean ±SEM)
Results
F. vesiculosus 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bedrock Rocky
Muddy
Species
Nu
mb
er
of
Org
an
ism
s p
er
m2
Figure 6: Number of Fucus vesiculosus (mean±SEM)
Rocky substrate – Greens Point
◦ Ascophyllum nodosum (common brown algae) Found it in exposed areas Could be due to ability to attach to substrate
Discussion
Rocky substrate – Greens Point
◦ Ascophyllum nodosum (common brown algae) Found it in exposed areas Could be due to ability to attach to substrate
◦ Coralline spp. (red algae) and Elachista flaccide (brown algae) Sheltered due to canopy
Discussion
Rocky substrate – Greens Point
◦ Ascophyllum nodosum (common brown algae) Found it in exposed areas Could be due to ability to attach to substrate
◦ Coralline spp. (red algae) and Elachista flaccide (brown algae) Sheltered due to canopy
◦Nucella lapillus (whelk) Found due to coverage of plants
Discussion
Bedrock substrate – Indian Point
◦ Fucus vesiculosus (bladder wrack) Only grow if fucus spiralis is removed
Discussion
Bedrock substrate – Indian Point
◦ Fucus vesiculosus (bladder wrack) Only grow if fucus spiralis is removed
◦ Lithothamnion spp. (calcareous algae) Fucus could have provided shelter Rock provides suitable place to grow Larvae can settle due lower wave exposure
Discussion
Bedrock substrate – Indian Point
◦ Littorina littorea (periwinkle) Fucus provided shelter from wave exposure and
protection from desiccation Feed on green & brown algae
Discussion
Bedrock substrate – Indian Point
◦ Littorina littorea (periwinkle) Fucus provided shelter from wave exposure and
protection from desiccation Feed on green & brown algae
◦ Semibalanus balanoides (barnacle) Fucus provided shelter from wave exposure and
protection from desiccation Predators and competitors were absent from this
sampling site
Discussion
Muddy Substrate – Bar Road◦ Semibalanus balanoides (barnacle)
◦ Littorina littorea (periwinkle)
◦ Acmaea testudinalis (limpet)
Discussion
Muddy Substrate – Bar Road◦ Semibalanus balanoides (barnacle)
◦ Littorina littorea (periwinkle)
◦ Acmaea testudinalis (limpet)
◦ Possibility of burrowed organisms
Discussion
Species are not evenly distributed in environments ◦ Acorn barnacles are the dominant species◦ Plant species provide protection for animal species
Conclusions
Species are not evenly distributed in environments ◦ Acorn barnacles are the dominant species◦ Plant species provide protection for animal species
Bedrock substrates have the highest species richness
Conclusions
Species are not evenly distributed in environments ◦ Acorn barnacles are the dominant species◦ Plant species provide protection for animal species
Bedrock substrates have the highest species richness
Muddy substrates have the lowest species richness
Conclusions
Estimation of species numbers rather than an actual count of the species.
Limitations
Estimation of species numbers rather than an actual count of the species.
Sample Size
Limitations
Estimation of species numbers rather than an actual count of the species.
Sample Size
Some species not seen but present
Limitations
Greater variety of substrates
Future Direction
Greater variety of substrates
Monitoring physical and biological factors
Future Direction
Thanks!
Questions?