27.10.2013 Views

Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries

Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries

Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />

12<br />

index, was also similar between farm and reference sites, with the most even samples<br />

(i.e. closest to 1 in the index) being Control site 6 (0.97) and Farm site 1 (0.89).<br />

Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon Wiener diversity index, and<br />

averaged between 2.15 and 2.9 at Control sites (3 and 1 respectively) and between<br />

1.93 and 2.89 at Farm sites (4 and 1). A complete list <strong>of</strong> biological indices can be<br />

found in Appendix 2 and a complete taxa list can be found in Appendix 3.<br />

The dominant infauna taxa across all sites were the window shell (Theora lubrica),<br />

various species <strong>of</strong> polychaetes (e.g. Heteromastus filiformis, Prionospio multicristata,<br />

Prionospio yuriel and Sphaerosyllis sp.), brittle stars, and oligochaete worms (Table<br />

1). The dominant epifauna taxa by abundance were Phoxocephalidae amphipods,<br />

Decapoda larvae (unidentified), Cumaceans and Melitidae amphipods.<br />

Patterns in infaunal community composition were further explored using multivariate<br />

statistical techniques (Figure 6, see Appendix 1 for Simper analysis). In addition to<br />

being distinguished by the low total abundance and taxa richness, multivariate<br />

analysis showed the infaunal community at Control site 2 was different to the other<br />

stations; due mainly to a greater abundance <strong>of</strong> the nut clam, Nucula gallinacea and<br />

Phyllodocidae polychaetes, and the near absence <strong>of</strong> polychaete worms like<br />

Sigalionidae sp., Cossura consimilis and Prionospio yuriel. This group was also<br />

differentiated by lower abundances <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> invasive bivalve (Theora lubrica),<br />

the capitellid worm (Heteromastus filiformis) and the polychaete worm (Sphaerosyllis<br />

sp).<br />

The infauna communities from the control and farm grab samples were generally<br />

separated at the 35% level <strong>of</strong> similarity (Figure 3). The majority <strong>of</strong> samples from the<br />

control sites and individual grabs from four farm sites (Li 292, 362, 379, and 396),<br />

were differentiated by greater numbers <strong>of</strong> polychaetes (Neonesidea sp., Sigalionidae,<br />

Cossura consimilis and Aglaophamus species), but also by lower abundances <strong>of</strong> most<br />

taxa found in the majority <strong>of</strong> farm samples. Grab samples from farm sites and<br />

individual grabs from Control site 1, 4 and 6, were grouped by higher abundances <strong>of</strong><br />

polychaete worms including Prionospio multicristata, Prionospio yuriel, and the<br />

capitellid worm (Heteromastus filiformis), but also had greater numbers <strong>of</strong> the invasive<br />

marine bivalve (Theora lubrica).<br />

The differences in infauna communities found between farm and control sites are<br />

indicative <strong>of</strong> a mildly enriched benthic environment beneath farms resulting in greater<br />

abundances <strong>of</strong> opportunistic species. However, in most cases the subtle differences<br />

observed were in the abundance <strong>of</strong> species, rather than their presence or absence.<br />

This suggests that infauna communities in the wider environment are already exposed<br />

to mild enrichment through natural sedimentation processes.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!