Effect of observation method on the perception of community structure and water quality in a brackish water ecosystem

The EU Water Framework Directive is a Community legislative instrument in the field of environmental protection that establishes a common framework for keeping water quality at a favourable level. To implement the directive, classifi- cation systems need to be established that allow detection of human impacts at early stages and, thus, more effective management of coastal communities. Due to the spatial variability of communities, however, the results of any assessment are highly dependent on the selection of data. In this study we identified local spatial scales in which variability of macrophyte communities was maximised, quantified links between observed patterns of sediment types and communities and estimated how selection criteria impacted the outcome of the assessment of indicator class value in four different communities of the Northern Baltic Sea. The main findings of the study were that: (i) there were no clear local spa- tial scales in which the variability of benthic communities was maximised; (ii) hard-bottom communities were better predicted by the spatial arrangement of sediment characteristics than soft-bottom communities; (iii) the selection of method had no effect on the estimates of macrophyte cover and indicator class; but (iv) method impacted independently of habitat type on error estimates of macrophyte cover and indicator class. To conclude, in such homogeneous and low diversity macrophyte communities it is preferable to use methods that result in lower error estimates of algal coverage and, thus, result in lower uncertainties of estimates in the water quality class.

[1]  Major Changes in Macroalgae Community Composition Affectthe Food and Habitat Preference of Idotea baltica , 2000 .

[2]  R. B. Aronson,et al.  Scale-dependent spatial variability of coral assemblages along the Florida Reef Tract , 1999, Coral Reefs.

[3]  S. Weinberg A comparison of coral reef survey methods , 1981 .

[4]  K. Herkül,et al.  Contribution of scale-dependent environmental variability on the biomass patterns of drift algae and associated invertebrates in the Gulf of Riga, northern Baltic Sea , 2008 .

[5]  A. Morin Variability of Density Estimates and the Optimization of Sampling Programs for Stream Benthos , 1985 .

[6]  R. van Woesik,et al.  Coral Reef Benthic Video Surveys Facilitate Long-Term Monitoring in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Toward an Optimal Sampling Strategy , 2006 .

[7]  B. K. Eriksson,et al.  Local distribution patterns of macroalgae in relation to environmental variables in the northern Baltic Proper , 2005 .

[8]  J. Kotta,et al.  Response of zoobenthic communities to changing eutrophication in the northern Baltic Sea , 2007, Hydrobiologia.

[9]  S. Orfanidis,et al.  Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: A marine benthic macrophytes-based model. , 2001 .

[10]  K. Herkül,et al.  Seasonal variability in the grazing potential of the invasive amphipod Gammarus tigrinus and the native amphipod Gammarus salinus (Amphipoda: Crustacea) in the northern Baltic Sea , 2009, Biological Invasions.

[11]  J. Randerson,et al.  Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components , 1998, Science.

[12]  S. Levin THE PROBLEM OF PATTERN AND SCALE IN ECOLOGY , 1992 .

[13]  J. Kotta,et al.  Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays , 2008 .

[14]  S. Olenin,et al.  Overgrowth patterns of the red algae Furcellaria lumbricalis at an exposed Baltic Sea coast: The results of a remote underwater video data analysis , 2007 .

[15]  M. Pedersen,et al.  Patterns of macroalgal diversity, community composition and long-term changes along the Swedish west coast , 2001, Hydrobiologia.

[16]  R. Warwick,et al.  Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance , 2003 .

[17]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[18]  H. Cornell,et al.  Scale-dependent variation in local vs. regional effects on coral species richness , 1998 .

[19]  R. Ormond,et al.  Comparative accuracy and efficiency of six coral community survey methods , 2007 .

[20]  J. Kotta,et al.  Role of benthic macroalgae in regulating macrozoobenthic assemblages in the Väinameri (north-eastern Baltic Sea) , 2001 .

[21]  J. Juanes,et al.  Macroalgae, a suitable indicator of the ecological status of coastal rocky communities in the NE Atlantic , 2008 .

[22]  K. Denman,et al.  Spectral Analysis in Ecology , 1975 .

[23]  Georg Martin,et al.  Gulf of Riga and Pärnu Bay , 2008 .

[24]  J. Steele,et al.  COUPLING BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCALES , 1994 .

[25]  D. Schiel,et al.  Gradients of disturbance to an algal canopy and the modification of an intertidal community , 2007 .

[26]  A. M. Olson,et al.  Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  J. Kotta,et al.  Seasonal changes in situ grazing of the mesoherbivores Idotea baltica and Gammarus oceanicus on the brown algae Fucus vesiculosus and Pylaiella littoralis in the central Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[28]  Charles W. Martin,et al.  Mapping and Monitoring of Coral Communities and Their Spatial Patterns Using a Surface-Based Video Method from a Vessel , 2001 .

[29]  P. Chambers,et al.  The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes , 2001, Hydrobiologia.

[30]  K. Sand‐Jensen,et al.  Interactions among phytoplankton, periphyton, and macrophytes in temperate freshwaters and estuaries , 1991 .

[31]  N. Andrew,et al.  Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology , 1987 .