We studied the habitat structure (macrofaunal assemblages and bottom types) and zonation patterns of 29 unvegetated shoreline strands along the 900-km coast of Catalonia (NW Mediterranean Sea). Organisms were sampled with grabs, pitfall traps, sticky traps, clam nets and spades to ensure capture of the different proportions of macrofaunal assemblages from the supra-, medio- and infralittoral levels. We collected 211 taxa: 194 animals and 17 algae. The most abundant and dominant organisms collected with van Veen grabs were Nematoda, Oligochaeta and Collembola at the supralittoral level; the polychaetes Saccocirrus spp. and Pisione remota, the amphipod Corophium orientale, Nematoda, and Turbellaria at the mediolittoral level; and Nematoda at the upper infralittoral level. SIMPER analysis revealed great dissimilarity between the organisms inhabiting the supralittoral and the other littoral levels. Regarding the epifauna, the sticky traps used at the supralittoral level mainly collected Collembola, which were nearly absent in pitfall traps. The qualitative study performed with a clam net and a small spade revealed that Nematoda, Saccocirrus spp., Turbellaria, Nemertea and the polychaete P. remota were the most abundant animals at both the medio- and the infralittoral levels and no differences were found between these levels. Different qualitative sampling methodologies showed that in fine sediments the bivalves Donax trunculus and D. semistriatus determined more than 97% of dissimilarity from coarse-sand sites. Richness increased in protected sandy and cobble shores. Littoral level and bottom-type features were only to a certain extent valid indicators of specific biotic components for a specific habitat.
RESUMEN
Se ha estudiado la estructura de los hábitats (comunidades de macrofauna y tipos de sedimento) y los patrones de zonación de 29 playas desprovistas de vegetación a lo largo de los 900 km de la costa de Cataluña (Mediterráneo noroccidental). El muestreo de los organismos se realizó mediante dragas, trampas de caída, trampas adhesivas, redes de marisqueo y palas para asegurar una captura exhaustiva de los organismos presentes en las comunidades de macrofauna de los niveles supralitoral, mediolitoral e infralitoral. Se colectaron 211 taxones: 194 animales y 17 algas. Los organismos más abundantes y dominantes recolectados con dragas van Veen fueron: Nematodos, Oligoquetos y Colémbolos en el nivel supralitoral; los poliquetos Saccocirrus spp. y Pisione remota, el anfípodo Corophium orientale, Nematodos y Turbelarios en el nivel mediolitoral; y Nematodos en la parte menos profunda del nivel infralitoral. Los análisis SIMPER detectaron grandes diferencias entre los organismos del nivel supralitoral y los de los otros niveles. Respecto a la epifauna, las trampas adhesivas usadas en el nivel supralitoral capturaron principalmente Colémbolos, los cuales estaban ausentes en las trampas de caida. El estudio cualitativo realizado con una red de marisqueo y una pala pequeña reveló que Nematodos, los poliquetos Saccocirrus spp. y Pisione remota, Turbelarios y Nemertinos eran los animales más abundantes tanto en el nivel mediolitoral como en el nivel infralitoral y que no había diferencias entre ambos niveles. Diferentes métodos cualitativos de muestreo revelaron que en los sedimentos finos los bivalvos Donax trunculus y D. semistriatus determinaban más del 97% de la disimilitud con los sedimentos gruesos. La riqueza en especies aumentaba en playas mixtas de arenas y cantos. El nivel y el tipo de sedimento fueron solo hasta cierto punto indicadores válidos de la composición de especies para cada hábitat concreto.
KEYWORDSmacrofaunazonation patternslittoral habitatsCataloniabeachPALABRAS CLAVEmacrofaunapatrones de zonaciónhábitats litoralesCataluñaplayasINTRODUCTION
The distribution of habitats along rocky sea shores has been extensively studied (e.g. Underwood and Denley 1984, Menge et al. 1985, Fraschetti et al. 2005) and shows well-defined patterns of animal and plant assemblages along the vertical axis perpendicular to the shoreline (e.g. Chappuis et al. 2014, Stotz et al. 2016). Similar distributions have been described for sandy beaches (McLachlan and Jaramillo 1995, Pérez-Domingo et al. 2008, Reyes-Martínez et al. 2015), for which clear faunal zonation patterns along the vertical axis are acknowledged (Schlacher and Thompson 2013). On the other hand, shores characterized by the presence of coarse sediments ranging from gravels to large cobbles have been poorly studied as for habitat species compositions (but see Gauci et al. 2005). For such bottoms, the macroscopic features defining the habitats are often provided by the grain size rather than the presence of particular species or species guilds. Altogether, these systems may occupy large portions of the coastlines of many seas (Schlacher and Thompson 2013). Nonetheless, as other authors have long pointed out, these environments, often regarded as marine deserts (see McLachlan 1983), are among the least known because of their biodiversity and the functioning of their communities.
Shoreline strands, and notably sandy beaches, are also well-known for their ecological importance, for the special adaptations of their fauna and flora, and for the tremendous impacts of human activities and natural disturbances (Węslawski et al. 2000, McLachlan and Brown 2006, Bessa et al. 2013). In spite of the existence of several seminal reports (Dahl 1952, McLachlan 1983) and other similar studies from other seas (e.g. Janssen and Mulder 2005, Rodil et al. 2006, Rodil et al. 2014), most research on the macroinvertebrate fauna from shoreline strands of the Mediterranean Sea has focussed on the organisms inhabiting lower infralittoral habitats (Pinedo et al. 1997, Sardá et al. 1999, Labrune et al. 2007). To date, there are a few comprehensive accounts in the literature about the macroinvertebrates from Mediterranean Sea shoreline strands and beaches in general (Deidun et al. 2003, Colombini et al. 2003, Gauci et al. 2005). Mediterranean shoreline strands are inhabited by animals ranging from tiny Collembola and flying insects to large bivalves and crustaceans (Marques et al. 2003, Colombini et al. 2005, Covazzi Harriague and Albertelli 2007). However, very little information is available for the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, where research has only been conducted on small swimming animals, mainly crustaceans (Munilla and San Vicente 2005).
In the last few decades of the twentieth century, the focus of conservation shifted unmistakably from species to habitats. In Europe, the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) states that the habitat of a species is an environment defined by specific abiotic and biotic factors, in which the species lives at any stage of its biological cycle.
Many habitat classification schemes often use the classical division of the littoral into three main levels: supra-, medio- and infralittoral. For example, while the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) considers these divisions in some instances (e.g. A.2.25, Mediterranean communities of mediolittoral sands), in other cases the nomenclature does not specify the littoral level to which a habitat is assigned (e.g. A2.11 Shingle (pebble) and gravel shores). Other classification schemes for the Mediterranean Sea adopt these divisions. In the Lista Patrón de los Hábitats Marinos Presentes en España” (hereafter LPRE, Templado et al. 2012), and to a lesser extent in the original Coordination of the Information of the Environment (CORINE) Biotopes, each habitat is framed within the corresponding littoral level.
The main goal of this study was to characterize sediment grain features and macrofaunal assemblages from 29 unvegetated shoreline strands along the whole coast of Catalonia (NW Mediterranean Sea). The study represents the first descriptive assessment of the zonation patterns of the organisms found from the upper supralittoral level down to the upper infralittoral level (one metre depth). By relating taxon presence and abundance to granulometric features of the strands, we also evaluate whether the EUNIS, CORINE Biotopes (Ballesteros et al. 2014) and LPRE (Templado et al. 2012) habitat classifications, which are based on sediment composition and shore levels, reflect actual differences in species distributions for the area studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODSSampling
To avoid the presence of people and beach-cleaning machines, which operate mainly in summer, 29 shoreline strands (Fig. 1) were visited between autumn and winter either in 2010 or 2011. To study habitat structure and species composition, sediment samples for granulometric and biological analysis were collected at each site and for each level (supra-, medio- and upper infralittoral, see Fig. 2).
Map of the studied coastline. The position of each site is shown (see Tables 1 and 2 for details).
The three littoral levels on a sand-dominated (A) and a cobble-dominated (B) strand.
The sediment was stored in 250-mL plastic pots and taken to the laboratory. Most samples were analysed by sieving the dry sediment through a 2000, 1000, 750, 500, 375, 250, 125 and 63 µm column of mesh sizes. When very fine grains were found, the samples were analysed using an automatic Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern instruments Ltd., UK).
To obtain the most representative organisms characterizing the habitats, samplings were carried out using different devices at 29 sites (Fig. 1). We selected 19 sites as representative of different grain sizes and general strand morphology to sample the infauna at each level using a van Veen grab of 600 cm2 area (Table 1). At each site, one single grab was used at each littoral level. The van Veen grab is a widely used device and was used in order to facilitate comparison of our data with those from other studies.
The different methods employed at each site to sample the three littoral levels.
supralittoral
mediolittoral
infralittoral
1 Borró Gran
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
2 Canyelles
pitfall trap, spade (wrack)
−
−
3 Port de la Selva
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap, spade (wrack)
grab, spade
grab
4 Jonquet
−
−
spade
5 Portlligat
grab
grab
grab, clam net, spade
6 Confitera
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
7 Ros
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
8 Llaner
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
9 Empuriabrava
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
10 Sant Pere Pescador
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
11 Montgó
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
12 Palamós
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
13 Sant Pol
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
14 Sant Feliu
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
15 Llevador
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
16 Sant Francesc
grab
grab
grab
17 Malgrat
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
18 Arenys de Mar
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
19 Remolar
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
20 Castelldefels
grab
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
21 Delta del Foix
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
22 Cubelles
−
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
23 Torredembarra
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
24 Pineda
spade
clam net, spade
clam net, spade
25 Cala Font
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
26 Estany Podrit
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
27 Marquesa
−
spade
spade
28 Aluet
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
29 Martinenca
grab, pitfall trap, sticky trap
grab
grab
To collect the organisms that move over the shore sediment at the supralittoral level (epifauna), pitfall traps and sticky traps were used. Pitfall traps were made of 500-mL plastic pots filled with tap water and a few drops of formaldehyde. Each trap was inserted into the sediment so that the pot mouth was flush with the strand surface. At one side of the pitfall trap, a 66×4.5 cm sticky trap was installed. Both devices were left at dusk and collected the next morning. For several reasons (e.g. broken, missing or flooded traps), data were not available for all the 19 sites (see details in Table 1).
The van Veen grab sampling area of 600 cm2 is too small for a representative sampling of large molluscs. To ensure their collection, a clam net (30×15 cm mouth, 0.7 cm mesh size) was used in the medio- and the upper infralittoral levels at nine sites for which previous knowledge about past presence of bivalves existed (Table 1). The clam net was trawled once along an approximately 20-m-long transect parallel to the shore at each site and for each littoral level (see Table 1 for details). A tiny spade (30 cm long, 7 wide) was also used to sample sediments where the clam net was difficult to handle (e.g. around stones). At one particular site on the Ebre River Delta outer beach (site 27, Marquesa Beach) medio- and infralittoral habitats were represented by compacted clays. Since the use of the grab was practically impossible, sampling was done with the tiny spade. At that site, the medio- and infralittoral levels, which were hardly distinguishable, were sampled through a single sediment collection. The sample volume was comparable to that collected for the other sediment types. The spade was also used at Jonquet (site 4) to sample the infralittoral sediment around Cymodocea nodosa sheaths and to collect Posidonia oceanica wracks at the supralittoral level of two sites: Canyelles (site 2) and Port de la Selva (site 3, Table 1).
All samples were stored in sealed plastic bags with a formalin-seawater solution and taken to the laboratory for sorting and identification of the organisms under the dissecting microscope.
Quantitative data were obtained from the grab, pitfall and sticky trap methodologies. Samples taken with both the net and the spade were qualitatively analysed. The presence of seagrass and seaweeds was also recorded. The sampling tools employed at each study site are detailed in Table 1.
Data treatment and statistical analysis
Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately. Abundance data resulting from grabs (ind m–2) and traps (standardized to individuals per hour per trap) were square root transformed for further analysis. All organisms collected with the spade or the clam net were analysed based on their presence or absence in the samples. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) ordinations based on taxa composition (Bray-Curtis similarity, average link grouping) were done to identify patterns of similarities among sites. An analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was used to test the differences between groups of samples. Finally, the similarity/dissimilarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) was performed in order to identify the species characterizing each level or group of samples.
PRIMER v6 software with PERMANOVA add-on was used to run the analyses.
RESULTS
The granulometry of the studied shoreline strands ranged from fine sands to large cobbles (Table 2). The sediment type often changed throughout the three shore levels (supra-, medio- and infralittoral). P. oceanica wracks (two sites), C. nodosa meadows (one site), and compacted clays (one site) were also found (Table 2). Sediment codes used in the analyses and relative figures (see below) and in the Supplementary Material are listed in Table 3.
The different substrate types found at each site for the three littoral levels.
supralittoral
mediolittoral
infralittoral
1 Borró Gran
cobbles, gravels, and sand
gravels, cobbles, and sand
gravels and sand
2 Canyelles
P. oceanica wracks
−
−
3 Port de la Selva
cobbles, gravels, and P. oceanica wracks
coarse sands, gravels, and P. oceanica wracks
cobbles and gravels
4 Jonquet
−
−
cobbles, gravels, and C. nodosa
5 Portlligat
cobbles and fine sands
coarse sands and gravels
cobbles
6 Confitera
−
cobbles and gravels
cobbles and gravels
7 Ros
−
coarse sands and gravels
cobbles and gravels
8 Llaner
−
coarse sands and gravels
cobbles and gravels
9 Empuriabrava
gravels
coarse sands and gravels
cobbles, gravels, and coarse sands
10 Sant Pere Pescador
medium sands
gravels and very coarse sands
medium sands
11 Montgó
cobbles and gravels
gravels and cobbles
cobbles and gravels
12 Palamós
−
gravels
gravels and very coarse sands
13 Sant Pol
gravels
gravels and very coarse sands
medium sands
14 Sant Feliu
−
very coarse sands and gravels
very coarse sands and gravels
15 Llevador
cobbles
cobbles
large cobbles
16 Sant Francesc
very coarse sands and gravels
very coarse sands and gravels
very coarse sands and gravels
17 Malgrat
gravels
gravels and cobbles
cobbles and gravels
18 Arenys de Mar
gravels and cobbles
very coarse sands and gravels
gravels and cobbles
19 Remolar
medium and fine sands
medium sands
fine sands
20 Castelldefels
fine and medium sands
medium sands
fine sands
21 Delta del Foix
cobbles and gravels
gravels and cobbles
large cobbles
22 Cubelles
−
fine sands
fine sands
23 Torredembarra
fine sands
fine and medium sands
fine sands
24 Pineda
fine sands
fine sands
fine sands
25 Cala Font
fine sands
fine sands
fine sands
26 Estany Podrit
cobbles and gravels
cobbles and gravels
fine sands
27 Marquesa
−
compacted clays
compacted clays
28 Aluet
fine sands
fine and medium sands
fine sands
29 Martinenca
fine sands
fine and medium sands
fine and medium sands
Codes used for the sediment description in the analyses and figures. Only dominant proportions are shown.
Code
Sediment description
C
Large to small cobbles and cobbles with sands
CG
Cobbles and gravels
G
Gravels and gravels with sands
CoSG
Coarse to very coarse sands and gravels
MeS
Medium sands alone or with fine sands
FiS
Fine sands alone or with medium sands
CC
Compacted clays
PO
Posidonia oceanica wracks
We distinguished five different habitats at the supralittoral, six at the mediolittoral, and seven at the infralittoral level by their substrate characteristics (see Appendix 1). These habitats corresponded to different extents to habitats from the LPRE, EUNIS, and CORINE Biotopes nomenclatures (Appendix 1). Correspondences with habitat codes from the three classifications and with the main taxa found in each of the sampled habitats are detailed in the Appendix 1.
Grabs, traps and clam nets allowed us to collect a wide proportion of the organisms inhabiting the strands. A total of 211 taxa were collected, most of them animals (194; Supplementary Material, Table S1) but also some algae (17).
In the supralittoral level, Nematoda and Oligochaeta were the most abundant and frequent taxa collected with the grabs (Table 4). Springtails (Collembola) were the most abundant and dominant organisms in the sticky traps, except at most fine-sand sites, where few organisms were collected with this method (see Supplementary Material, Table S1). Pitfall traps captured few specimens, of which the Collembola and the amphipods Talitrus saltator and Cryptorchestia cavimana were the most abundant ones (Supplementary Material, Table S1). At the mediolittoral level, polychaetes of the genus Saccocirrus were the most abundant organisms captured with the grabs (Table 5), mainly in coarse sediments, followed by the amphipod Corophium orientale, Nematoda, Turbellaria, and the polychaete Pisione remota (Table 5). At the infralittoral level, Nematoda were overall the most abundant animals, but Saccocirrus spp. were the most frequent organisms at most northern sites with coarse sediments (Table 5). Some taxa were irregularly very abundant: Polychaetes (Ctenodrilus serratus, Eurydice affinis, Malacoceros fuliginosus, Notomastus latericeus and Salvatoria spp.), amphipods (Hyale perieri and Melita spp.) and the gastropod Neverita josephinia (Table 5).
Main taxa collected at the supralittoral level with the grab method. Taxa are ordered by their total abundance (ind m–2). Only taxa representing up to 70% of the total abundance at each site are included. See Tables 1 and 2 for site numbers. Asterisks indicate widespread taxa that are not included in the 70% of the total abundance at a particular site.
1
3
5
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
28
29
Nematoda
32
*
5
3200
*
Corophium orientale
800
Oligochaeta
144
64
4
28
67
46
*
*
Turbellaria
283
Collembola
*
33
8
67
Antalis cf. vulgaris
133
Siphonoecetes dellavallei
67
Staphylinidae
8
*
Leptochelia savignyi
4
*
*
Coleoptera sp1
4
*
Formicidae
8
8
Apocrita
4
8
Diptera sp. 7
8
Labidura riparia
8
Aora gracilis
8
Platynereis sp.
8
Ampithoe cf. spuria
4
Abundance
0
180
96
32
20
84
83
33
16
50
216
0
6
367
83
0
0
4684
12
Richness
0
3
2
6
4
11
2
1
3
2
3
0
2
6
2
0
0
13
2
Main taxa collected at the mediolittoral (M) and the infralittoral (I) levels with the grab method. Taxa are ordered by their total abundance (ind m–2). Only taxa representing up to 70% of the total abundance at each site are included. See Tables 1 and 2 for site numbers. Asterisks indicate widespread taxa that represent less than 70% of the total abundance at a particular site.
1
3
5
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
25
26
28
29
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
Nematoda
*
233
6017
1883
3534
150
*
*
*
*
*
3334
8668
Saccocirrus spp.
*
67
*
*
*
*
50
133
283
133
10000
350
83
*
179
*
400
*
Turbellaria
1334
1200
*
*
800
67
867
267
183
3267
*
Monocorophium insidiosum
7768
Corophium orientale
7418
*
Pisione remota
*
*
*
1000
*
200
200
*
2666
67
*
1083
Salvatoria spp.
67
*
*
2901
Melita spp.
*
*
*
*
5516
*
133
1334
Capitella spp.
2500
*
Ctenodrilus serratus
2667
*
Eurydice affinis
2367
83
*
*
*
50
183
Notomastus laterieus
2851
Hyale perieri
2717
Malacoceros fuliginosus
*
2434
Nemertea
*
*
*
17
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Microdeutopus similis
*
*
Oligochaeta
*
17
*
*
*
*
Donacilla cornea
*
*
Neverita josephinia
666
Hesionura serrata
*
67
*
200
Dosinia lupinus
*
200
17
Jassa ocia
*
*
Echinogammarus cf. foxi
*
66
Scolelepis mesnili
33
100
Donax trunculus
17
50
33
Copepoda
*
17
17
33
Synchelidium cf. haplochele
83
Lumbrineris acuta
67
Syllis variegata
67
Scolelepis squamata
*
17
*
Bivalvia
17
17
Amphitoe cf. spuria
33
Caulleriella sp.
33
Jaera nordmanni
*
Kurtiella bidentata
17
Abundance
4718
283
1700
4197
233
6983
3944
5884
33
217
217
517
500
150
10050
716
167
6183
4849
300
562
533
433
50
6100
16296
83
50
67
83
17
133
16352
22071
183
167
Richness
7
5
3
8
1
14
6
10
2
4
2
5
3
2
2
12
4
8
7
4
5
4
2
3
8
27
3
2
3
3
1
3
7
35
1
5
The qualitative samplings carried out with the clam net and the spade at the medio- and infralittoral levels allowed us to collect some bivalves species that were absent in the samples collected with the grabs. The bivalves Donax semistriatus, D. trunculus and Ensis minor were exclusively present at the southern sites (Table 6). Nematoda, Saccocirrus spp. Turbellaria, Nemertea and the polychaete P. remota were the organisms most frequently collected (Table 6) through the qualitative sampling. The maximum numbers of taxa (24) were found at the infralittoral level of the shallow meadow of C. nodosa (site 4, Table 2 and Supplementary Material, Table S1) and 20 of them were exclusively present at this site. The isopod Sphaeroma serratum was exclusively present at Marquesa (site 27, see Supplementary Material, Table S1) and represented a new finding for the Iberian Peninsula.
Main taxa collected through the qualitative sampling at the supralittoral (S), mediolittoral (M) and infralittoral (I) levels. Taxa are ordered by their total frequency throughout sites. Only taxa found at more than one site are shown. For the site numbers see Tables 1 and 2.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
14
20
22
24
27
S
S
M
I
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
M
I
S
M
I
M-I
Nematoda
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Saccocirrus
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Turbellaria
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Nemertea
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pisione remota
+
+
+
+
+
+
Oligochaeta
+
+
+
+
+
Donax trunculus
+
+
+
+
Portumnus latipes
+
+
+
+
Donax semistriatus
+
+
+
Nereididae
+
+
+
Scolelepis squamata
+
+
+
Capitella spp.
+
+
Carcinus aestuarii
+
+
Cerastoderma glaucum
+
+
Ensis minor
+
+
Eurydice affinis
+
+
Hesionura serrata
+
+
Naineris laevigata
+
+
Nassarius mutabilis
+
+
Protodrillus sp.
+
+
Siphonoecetes dellavallei
+
+
Richness
9
1
1
24
2
2
6
3
3
4
9
5
6
10
4
2
6
3
7
4
5
9
6
Erect algae covered the upper surface of the large cobbles of Llevador (site 15) and Delta del Foix (site 21). The green algae Chaetomorpha mediterranea and Cladophora spp., the red algae Polysiphonia tripinnata and Ceramium diaphanum, and the brown alga Dictyota sp. were found at Llevador. Cobbles from Delta del Foix were colonized by the red algae Gelidium pusillum, Haliptilon virgatum, Ceramium gr. strictum, Polysiphonia sertularioides and Corallina elongata and the green alga Cladophora albida. The presence of algae was also observed in the infralittoral fine sands of Aluet (site 28), where the red alga Chondria capillaris and the green alga Ulva curvata were present. The xanthophyte Vaucheria submarina was collected in Cubelles (site 22). Finally, several algae were collected over the compacted clays of Marquesa beach (site 27): the green algae Cladophora vagabunda and Ulva prolifera and the red algae C. diaphanum and Polysiphonia sp.
The MDS analysis with the data collected with the grabs showed that only the supralittoral segregated from the other two levels, which were highly overlapped (Fig. 3A). The ANOSIM test showed that the supralittoral level was significantly different from the medio- and infralittoral levels (p<0.001), but no significant differences were found between these two levels (p>0.05). SIMPER analysis revealed that the average dissimilarity was more than 97% between the organisms inhabiting the supralittoral and those of the medio- and infralittoral levels (Table 7). The presence of Oligochaeta at the supralittoral level and Saccocirrus spp. and Nematoda at the medio- and infralittoral levels determined the dissimilarities between levels. As for the distribution of granulometry across the samples (Fig. 3B), most bottom types were mixed up together (ANOSIM; p>0.05), although fine sands were slightly segregated at the MDS plot. The dissimilarity of fine-sand assemblages from the rest of sediment types was more than 96% (SIMPER analysis). P. remota, Saccocirrus spp. and Turbellaria, which strongly characterized medium to large grain-sized strands at the medio- and infralittoral levels, were in fact negligible in fine sands, where Nematoda, Scolelepis squamata, S. mesnili, D. trunculus and E. affinis dominated.
MDS plots. A, plot based on macrofauna abundance (ind m–2) of grab samples showing the littoral level: S, supralittoral, dark triangle; M, mediolittoral, quadrat; I, infralittoral, bright triangle. B, plot based on macrofauna abundance (ind m–2) of grab samples showing the sediment type. C, plot based on macrofauna abundance (ind m–2) of the medio- and infralittoral grab samples showing the sediment type. D, plot based on macrofauna collected with traps in the supralittoral, with label indicating the sampling method (P, pitfall; S, sticky). Labels indicate the site number and the littoral level in plots A, B and C. Sediment types (see Table 3 for codes) are plotted as follows: C, rhombus; CG, bright triangle; G, dark triangle; CoSG, quadrat; MeS, circle; FiS, asterisk; PO, quadrat.
Contributions and average abundances of species responsible for 70% of dissimilarities (SIMPER analysis) between groups (supralittoral (S), mediolittoral (M), and infralittoral (I) levels) based on total macrofaunal composition. Total dissimilarity between groups is included.
Taxa
Average abundance
Average abundance
Contribution (%)
Cumulative contribution (%)
Groups M and I (89.20 %)
Group M
Group I
Saccocirrus spp.
11.51
6.38
13.93
13.93
Nematoda
9.84
14.80
11.59
25.52
Turbelaria
10.13
3.64
8.50
34.03
Pisione remota
8.98
3.94
8.16
42.19
Eurydice affinis
4.24
1.37
5.69
47.88
Nemertea
4.55
2.45
4.65
52.53
Scolelepis mesnili
0
0.88
2.89
55.42
Dosinia lupinus
1.01
0.45
2.70
58.12
Donax trunculus
0
0.94
2.68
60.80
Melita bulla
1.32
1.98
2.67
63.47
Hesionura serrata
0.32
1.69
2.62
66.10
Melita palmata
0
4.36
2.43
68.53
Ctenodrilus serratus
0
3.72
2.10
70.63
Groups M and S (97.73 %)
Group M
Group S
Saccocirrus spp.
11.51
0
15.01
15.01
Nematoda
9.84
4.89
12.09
27.09
Turbelaria
10.13
1.20
9.71
36.81
Oligochaeta
0.62
3.45
8.42
45.23
Pisione remota
8.98
0
7.90
53.12
Eurydice affinis
4.24
0
7.55
60.67
Nemertea
4.55
0
4.88
65.55
Dosinia lupinus
1.01
0
4.49
70.04
Groups I and S (97.09 %)
Group I
Group S
Nematoda
14.80
4.89
11.00
11.00
Saccocirrus spp.
6.38
0
10.57
21.57
Oligochaeta
2.36
3.45
7.62
29.18
Turbelaria
3.64
1.20
4.88
34.06
Scolelepis mesnili
0.88
0.25
4.56
38.63
Pisione remota
3.94
0
4.18
42.81
Donax trunculus
0.94
0
3.98
46.79
Collembola
0
1.60
3.61
50.39
Hesionura serrata
1.69
0
3.09
53.49
Melita palmata
4.36
0
2.86
56.35
Nemertea
2.45
0
2.73
59.08
Melita bulla
1.98
0
2.61
61.69
Ctenodrilus serratus
3.72
0
2.31
64.00
Melita valesi
3.64
0
2.26
66.26
Scolelepis squamata
0.45
0
2.02
68.28
Eurydice affinis
1.37
0
1.96
70.24
Although medio- and infralittoral samples plotted together when supralittoral samples were excluded from the analyses (Fig. 3C), the infralittoral level of sites 19, 23, 25, 26, and 29 and the mediolittoral level of sites 11, 25 and 26 were segregated. The markedly different position was mainly due to the presence of the above-mentioned taxa, which were exclusive of fine sands, and the lack of those characteristic of coarse sediments.
The MDS analyses performed with the supralittoral epifauna captured with traps revealed no clear pattern (Fig. 3D) for either the sample device used (pitfall and sticky traps; ANOSIM, p>0.05) or the bottom type (ANOSIM, p>0.05). However, fine-sand sediments plotted separated from the other bottom types. SIMPER analysis revealed more than 93% dissimilarity between fine-sand assemblages and the other assemblages. Pairwise tests showed a significant difference (p<0.05, R=0.325) between the assemblages of macroinvertebrates inhabiting cobbles and gravels and those found in fine sands. When fine sands were removed from the analyses, the sampling methods (sticky and pitfall traps) were clearly separated (ANOSIM, R=0.420, p<0.05). Sticky traps mainly collected Collembola, which were almost absent in pitfall traps. The species T. saltator was exclusively found in pitfall traps.
The MDS analyses performed with the qualitative samples (Fig. 4) showed noticeable and significant dissimilarities between substrate types (ANOSIM, R=0.443, p<0.05). Fine sands plotted separately from the rest of bottom types (Fig. 4). The presence of the bivalves D. trunculus and D. semistriatus at the fine-sand sites accounted for more than 97% of the dissimilarity (SIMPER analysis) between these sites and those with P. oceanica wracks (R=0.625, p<0.05), cobbles and gravels (R= 0.528, p<0.01), coarse to very coarse sand and gravels (R=0.681, p<0.01), and those dominated by gravels (R=0.536, p<0.05). The high dissimilarities observed were mainly due to the presence of Turbellaria in P. oceanica wracks, cobbles and gravels, to the presence of Saccocirrus spp. in cobble and gravel bottoms, and to the presence of Nematoda, Oligochaeta and the species P. remota at sites dominated by coarse to very coarse sand and gravels. Those species were never recorded in the qualitative samples from sites dominated by fine sands. Finally, qualitative samples showed no clear pattern as regards the littoral levels (ANOSIM, p>0.05).
MDS plot based on qualitative samples. Labels include the site number (see Table 1) and the littoral level (S, supralittoral; M, mediolittoral; I, infralittoral). Sediment types (see Table 3 for codes) are plotted as follows: C, rhombus; CG, bright triangle; G, dark triangle; CoSG, dark quadrat; MeS, bright circle; FiS, asterisk; CC, dark circle; PO, bright quadrat.
DISCUSSION
With the exception of the studies of Munilla et al. (1998) and Munilla and San Vicente (2005) on suprabenthos of Catalan beaches and several studies focussing on a few macrobenthic taxa from vegetated sandy littoral ecosystems (e.g. Colombini et al. 2003), this is to our knowledge the first account of the whole spectrum of macrobenthic fauna and marine flora inhabiting the supra-, medio- and upper infralittoral of shoreline strands from a long (900 km) NW Mediterranean stretch of coast. To achieve this result, various complementary methods were used. None of them alone would have helped collect the entire spectrum of organisms from the studied habitats.
The distance to the shoreline is the main factor driving the different habitats’ structure (considered as macrofauna composition) in the strands. The macroinvertebrate assemblages at the supralittoral level were clearly different from those found at the medio- and infralittoral levels. This division between the supralittoral and the two other littoral levels has been observed in northern beaches of Spain (Rodil et al. 2006) and in Tunisia (Pérez-Domingo et al. 2008). Oligochaeta, Nematoda, and Turblellaria may be quantitatively dominant in several Mediterranean beach portions (see Covazzi Harriague et al. 2006) that are comparable to the supra- and mediolittoral levels studied here. Saccocirrus spp. and P. remota have been reported in coarse sediment of medio- and infralittoral beaches from other Mediterranean Sea areas (Villora-Moreno 1997, Covazzi Harriague and Albertelli 2007). The amphipods Monocorophium insidiosum and C. orientale, which were exclusively present in high numbers at sites 21 and 28, respectively, are used for toxicity testing and may prefer brackish waters (Prato et al. 2010). These two sites showed the highest infaunal richness. As regards the substrate types, the sediment classification (bottom type) was the second factor driving the difference in species composition. Fine sands showed distinctively different taxa from the rest of the sediments across the littoral levels. This pattern was even more evident when the supralittoral was excluded from the analyses, mainly because of the absence in fine-sand bottoms of Saccocirrus spp., P. remota, Hesionura serrata and Turbellaria, which were very common taxa in coarse sediments. The polychaete H. serrata, which is probably an alien species in the Mediterranean Sea (Zenetos et al. 2010), has been collected in medium to very coarse sediments in several areas of the NW Mediterranean (Authors, unpublished results). Fine-sand sites were inhabited by Nematoda and the polychaete S. mesnili, which reached 100 ind m–2 at the infralittoral level of site 26 (Estany Podrit), where it was dominant. S. mesnili is very common in fine-to-medium-sand bottoms in the lower infralittoral of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Pérez-Domingo et al. 2008). The cirolanid isopod E. affinis, which was captured only at fine-sand sites, is quite a common inhabitant of sandy beaches in the Mediterranean Sea (Dexter 1989, Munilla and San Vicente 2005). Finally, the bivalve D. trunculus was only observed in fine sediments (see also below) although its presence has been related to fine to medium sandy bottoms in the Mediterranean Sea (Pérez-Domingo et al. 2008, Weber and Zuschin 2013).
The qualitative samples collected with the clam nets and the spades were, overall, highly similar between the medio- and infralittoral levels. Clam nets proved to be irreplaceable tools for collecting the bivalve fauna from the medio- and infralittoral levels, particularly the species D. trunculus, D. semistriatus and E. minor, which were almost absent in the grab samples. The presence of some species in the qualitative samples was rather unexpected. The polychaete Perinereis sp., which may come from nearby rocky substrates, was not found again in subsequent samplings specifically targeting these organisms (Authors, unpublished research). Although we did not repeat the same samplings at the same site, the dominance of Nematoda, the Polychaeta Saccocirrus spp. and P. remota, Oligochaeta and Nemertea in the qualitative samples support the conclusion that these taxa are the most abundant in the shoreline strands studied. As expected, the compacted clays had a completely different flora and fauna. The bivalve Pholas dactylus, whose empty shells were copiously found in the immediate vicinity of the compacted clays, was absent in the qualitative samples. As in the case of the other bivalve species for which the collection of a large volume of sediment was needed for their detection, the spade sampling was possibly inadequate for the collection of this important boring mussel.
Traps (sticky and pitfall traps) collected a different array of organisms compared with the grabs at the supralittoral level, thus demonstrating their importance for properly describing species composition of beaches. Sticky traps were by far the most efficient devices for sampling animals moving over the sediment surface, such as insects. Epifauna abundance and richness in pitfall traps was much lower. Gauci et al. (2005) demonstrated the inefficiency of pitfall traps for capturing organisms on shingle beaches. Low animal abundance was also observed in Malta when pitfall traps were used (Deidun et al. 2003). The most frequent trap captures were Collembola (often representing more than 94% of the organisms at northern sites), Fucellia maritima and other diptera, as observed on other Mediterranean beaches (Colombini et al. 2005). On the other hand, the amphipod T. saltator—the only abundant organism in the pitfall traps (Supplementary Material, Table S1)—was not as frequent and abundant as described in other studies (Węslawski et al. 2000, Pérez-Domingo et al. 2008, Reyes-Martínez et al. 2015). This species generally shows low densities in late winter, a rapid increase from early spring to July, and the highest densities in summer (Marques et al. 2003, Gonçalves et al. 2009). Thus, seasonality may be a major cause of the low densities recorded in this study. T. saltator is also known to move to terrestrial habitats and dunes in winter (Gonçalves et al. 2009).
With the obvious exceptions of sites 2 and 3, where the presence of P. oceanica wracks led to a distinct faunal composition (Gauci et al. 2005), our results show that there is no clear correspondence between any particular taxon and a specific supralittoral habitat based on substrate types. Most macroinvertebrates that move over supralittoral surfaces show no preference for any particular grain size. However, Collembola, which do not fly, seem to avoid fine sands, possibly because they provide them with no shelter for hiding. Once more, fine sands definitively prove to be different habitats at all the littoral levels studied.
Our results, based upon both epifauna and infauna, support the existence of key differences in the assemblages across the littoral levels and among bottom types. However, these differences were not observed when we focused on either epifauna or macroinfauna separately or on the results from a single sampling methodology. For instance, if we do not consider the infauna, the supralittoral level of unvegetated strands characterized by coarse sands, gravels and cobbles harbours a quite homogeneous assemblage, populated primarily by Collembola and some insect groups. Moreover, the medio- and upper infralittoral levels show very similar habitats, with Nematoda, Turbellaria, the polychaetes P. remota and Saccocirrus spp., the isopod E. affinis, and some bivalves as the principal taxa. However, strands characterized by fine sands are host to very distinct medio- and infralittoral assemblages mainly because of the presence of the bivalves Donax spp. and E. minor, which were exclusively collected with the clam net.
Richness may increase on protected sandy shores. By providing a greater surface for colonization, hides and crevices, particularly when cobbles are large or the exposure to water movements is small enough (see Sousa 1979), cobble shores may contain several algae and many macroinvertebrate species.
Variability in the biotic component among beaches has been attributed to a set of different factors in the literature. Shore characteristics such as the presence of vegetation, slope and coastal exposure, human pressures and food availability are among the main factors driving differences in species composition and abundance. Vegetation cover seems to favour high diversity of species because of the higher numbers of microhabitats available (Colombini et al. 2003). In this study, we have not dealt with vegetated strands, which cannot be considered as belonging to the strictly marine supralittoral level. Nevertheless, the proximity of Salicornia-dominated salt marshes at site 28 may have played a role in determining the high numbers of observed taxa.
Gentle beach slopes, often accompanied by small grain sizes, on so-called dissipative beaches (low wave exposure) have often been related to higher abundance of species in other seas (see McLachlan 1996, McLachlan and Jaramillo 1995, Rodríguez et al. 2003). Here, despite the lack of strand slope and exposure assessments, the highest numbers of organisms and taxa were found at the more dissipative, gentle steeped sites regardless of the bottom type (i.e. sites 21 and 28). The cobble shore of site 21 (Delta del Foix) has extremely shallow waters, which protect the strand from the breaking waves (Authors, personal observations). The fine-sand shore at site 28 is confined into a shallow area in the largest bay of the Ebre Delta region.
Trampling and beach cleaning are among many human impacts that affect beaches worldwide (see Moffet et al. 1998, Gheskiere et al. 2005, Bessa et al. 2014). In the study area, mechanical beach cleaning and, especially, human trampling were very reduced or absent in autumn and winter months, when sampling was conducted. This may have helped reduce the potential effects of these activities on the results from the supralittoral and, to some extent, the mediolittoral levels. Site 28, where trampling and cleaning never occur, showed the highest numbers of species and individuals (see Table 5 and Supplementary Material, Table S1). However, other sites, which are very frequented by people in summer (site 9) and where machine beach cleaning is performed, showed similar species abundance and richness (Table 5 and Supplementary Material, Table S1). Daily and seasonal variability have also been claimed as important factors driving differences in richness and species abundance. However, such variability could not be observed in our study, since most sites were visited on one sampling date. This has been criticized by some authors (see Brazeiro and Defeo 1996). Nevertheless, results from so-called “snapshots” may reveal a shift of some taxa from one shore level to another rather than their complete disappearance (see Brazeiro and Defeo 1996). Moreover, much of the temporal difference has also been attributed to tidal migrations (see McLachlan and Jaramillo 1995), which are negligible because of the absence of tides in the study area. However, because of our winter-based sampling (see above), we ought to assume a bias in the estimations of the actual abundance for at least one species, T. saltator.
European environmental advisory programmes warn that conservation priorities need robust, widely accepted and affordable methods of habitat classification. In this study, we provide a clear assessment in this line, describing habitats in terms of features such as bottom type and the species that inhabit them. It seems that distance to the shoreline, particularly from the upper infralittoral to the mediolittoral level, and the bottom type features are only to a certain extent valid predictors of the presence of specific biotic components. Thus, general habitat divisions based upon littoral level and grain size ought to be accepted with caution. Finally, we provide a comparison between the most used classification schemes (EUNIS, CORINE Biotopes and LPRE nomenclatures; see Appendix 1), which we believe is especially valuable for managing practices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the rangers and managers of the Cap de Creus Natural Park, Delta de l’Ebre Natural Park, and the Consorci per a la Potecció i Gestió dels Espais Naturals del Delta del Llobregat. Esther Jordana, João Gil, Maria Paola Satta and Maria Paola Mura kindly helped with the identification of polychaetes and peracarids. Financial support came from the projects “Cartografia dels Hàbitats Litorals a Catalunya” (Departament de Territori i Sosteniblitat and Institut Cartogràfic, Generalitat de Catalunya) and INTRAMURAL CSIC 201330E065.
REFERENCES Ballesteros E. Mariani S. Cefalì M.E.20141251 Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Territori i Sostenibilitat Bessa F. Cunha D. Gonçalves S.C. Sandy beach macrofaunal assemblages as indicators of anthropogenic impacts on coastal dunes201330196204https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.022 Bessa F. Gonçalves S.C. Franco J.N.. Temporal changes in macrofauna as response indicator to potential human pressures on sandy beaches2014414957https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.023 Brazeiro A. Defeo O. Macroinfauna zonation in microtidal sandy beaches: is it possible to identify patterns in such variable environments? 199642523536https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.1996.0033 Chappuis E. Terradas M. Cefalì M.E. Vertical zonation is the main distribution pattern of littoral assemblages on rocky shores at a regional scale. 2014147113122https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.05.031 Colombini I. Fallaci M. Milanesi F. Comparative diversity analysis in sandy litoral ecosystems of the western Mediterranean 20035893104https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00035-0 Colombini I. Bouslama M.F. Elgtari M. Ecosystèmes côtiers sensibles de la Méditerranée: cas du littoral de Smir Bayed A. Scapini F. Study of the community structure of terrestrial arthropods of a Mediterranean sandy beach ecosystem of Morocco. 200544354 Covazzi Harriague A. Albertelli G. Environmental factors controlling macrofaunal assemblages on six microtidal beaches of the Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean).200773816https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.12.007 Covazzi Harrigaue A. Gaozza L. Montella A. Benthic communities on a sandy Ligurian beach ((NW Mediterranean). 2006571383394https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0264-3 Dahl E. Some aspects of the ecology and zonation of the fauna on sandy beaches 19524125https://doi.org/10.2307/3565072 Deidun A. Azzopardi M. Saliba S. Low faunal diversity on Maltese sandy beaches: fact or artefact? 2003588392https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00036-2 Dexter D.M. The sandy beach fauna of Egypt 198929261271https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714(89)90057-7 Fraschetti S. Terlizzi A. Benedetti-Cecchi L. Patterns of distribution of marine assemblages from rocky shores: evidence of relevant scales of variation 20052961329https://doi.org/10.3354/meps296013 Gauci M.J. Deidun A. Schembri P.J. Faunistic diversity of Maltese pocket sandy and shingle beaches: are these of conservation value?200547219241 Gheskiere T. Vincx M. Weslawski J.M. Meiofauna as descriptor of tourism-induced changes at sandy beaches 200560245265https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2004.10.006 Gonçalves S.C. Anastácio P.M. Pardal M.A. Sandy beach macrofaunal communities on the western coast of Portugal - Is there a steady structure under similar exposed conditions? 200981555568https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.12.004 Janssen G. Mulder S. Zonation of macrofauna across sandy beaches and surf zones along the Dutch coast. 200547265282 Labrune C. Grémare A. Amouroux J.M. Assessment of soft-bottom polychaete assemblages in the Gulf of Lions (NW Mediterranean) based on a mesoscale survey 200771133147https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.07.007 Marques J.C. Gonçalves S.C. Pardal M.A.Comparison of Talitrus saltator (Amphipoda, Talitridae) biology, dynamics, and secondary production in Atlantic (Portugal) and Mediterranean (Italy and Tunisia) populations 200358127148 McLachlan A. The ecology of sandy beaches in the Eastern Cape, South Africa McLachlan A. Erasmus T.1983 The Hague Junk 321380 McLachlan A. Physical factors in benthic ecology: effects of changing sand particle size on beach fauna 1996131205217https://doi.org/10.3354/meps131205 McLachlan A. Brown A.C.2006 Burlington, MA, USA Academic Press McLachlan A. Jaramillo E. Zonation on sandy beaches 199533305335 Menge B.A. Lubchenco J. Ashkenas L.R. Diversity, heterogeneity, and consumer pressure in a tropical rocky intertidal community 198565394405https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378915 Moffet M.D. McLachlan A. Winter P.E.D. Impact of trampling on sandy beach macrofauna 199848790https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806494 Munilla T. San Vicente C. Suprabenthic biodiversity of Catalan beaches (NW Mediterranean). 2005278191https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2004.09.006 Munilla T. Corrales M.J. San Vicente C. Suprabenthic assemblages from Catalan beaches: zoological groups 1998136778 Pérez-Domingo S. Castellanos C. Junoy J. The sandy beach macrofauna of Gulf of Gabès (Tunisia). 2008295159https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2007.00201.x Pinedo S. Sardá R. Martin D. Comparative study of the trophic structure of soft-bottom assemblages in the Bay of Blanes (Western Mediterranean Sea). 199760529542 Prato E. Bigongiari N. Barghigiani C. Comparison of amphipods Corophium insidiosum and C. orientale (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in sediment toxicity testing20104514611467https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2010.500941 Reyes-Martínez M.J. Ruiz-Delgado M.C. Sánchez-Moyano J.E. Biodiversity and distribution of macroinfauna assemblages on sandy beaches along the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain)201579367377https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04133.30A Rodil I.F. Lastra M. Sánchez-Mata A.G. Community structure and intertidal zonation of the macroinfauna in intermediate sandy beaches in temperate latitudes: North coast of Spain 200667267279https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.11.018 Rodil I.F. Compton T.J. Lastra M. Geographic variation in sandy beach macrofauna community and functional traits. 201415010110https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.06.019 Rodríguez J.G. Lastra M. López J. Meiofauna distribution along a gradient of sandy beaches in northern Spain 2003586369https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00039-8 Sardá R. Pinedo S. Martin D. Seasonal dynamics of macrofaunal key species inhabiting shallow soft-bottoms in the Bay of Blanes (NW MEditerranean). 199920315326https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(99)00135-6 Schlacher T.A. Thompson L. Spatial structure on ocean-exposed sandy beaches: faunal zonation metrics and their variability 20134784355https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10205 Sousa W.P. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the nonequilibrium maintenance of species diversity 19796012251239https://doi.org/10.2307/1936969 Stotz W.B. Aburto J. Caillaux L.M. Vertical distribution of rocky subtidal assemblages along the exposed coast of north-central Chile 20161073447https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2015.11.006 Templado J. Ballesteros E. Galparsoro I.2012 Madrid Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Gobierno de España Underwood A.J. Denley E.J. Paradigms, explanations, and generalizations in models for the structure of intertidal communities on rocky shores Strong D.R. Simberloff D.1984 Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press 151180https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400857081.151 Villora-Moreno S. Environmental heterogeneity and the biodiversity of interstitial polychaeta 199760494501 Weber K. Zuschin M.Delta-associated molluscan life and death assemblages in the northern Adriatic Sea: Implications for paleoecology, regional diversity and conservation 20133707791https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.11.021 Węslawski J.M. Kupidura T. Źabicki M. Sandhoppers, Talitrus saltator (Montagu, 1808) (Amphipoda, Gammaridea), at the Polish Baltic coast: seasonal and spatial distribution patterns 200073961969https://doi.org/10.1163/156854000505010 Zenetos A. Gofas S. Verlaque M. Alien species in the Mediterranean areas of the European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MFSD) by 2010. Part I. Spatial distribution 201011381493SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The following material is available through the online version of this article and at the following link: http://scimar.icm.csic.es/scimar/supplm/sm04445esm.xlsx
Table S1. – A, total abundance values for grabs and traps (ind. m–2 and ind. h–1 trap–1, respectively); and B, total abundance values for qualitative samples (ind. sample–1).
Habitats observed, correspondences among Mediterranean habitat classifications, and main taxa encountered; *habitats in the CORINE Biotopes Manual of the Catalan Habitats (see Ballesteros et al. 2014).
STAGE LEVEL
HABITAT OBSERVED
LPRE CODE (LEVEL)AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION
EUNIS CODE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION
CORINE CODE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION
MAIN TAXA
Supralittoral
Supralittoral cobbles alone or accompanied by gravels and sands