Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:51:01.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovery of intertidal benthic diatoms after biocide treatment and associated sediment dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. J. C. Underwood  and
D. M. Paterson
G. J. C. Underwood
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG
D. M. Paterson
Affiliation:
Gatty Marine Laboratory, The University, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It appears that, under suitable conditions, diatom assemblages can respond very quickly to a toxic event. The data suggest an inoculum of cells from the water column can multiply rapidly. Sediment-inhabiting macrofauna are more seriously affected, reducing grazing restrictions on the developing diatom assemblages. The structure and behaviour of the sediment was intimately related to biological factors including bioturbation and biogenic stabilization in a complex and interdependent manner. Further work is now required on the interaction of grazing organisms and microbial communities in the dynamics of intertidal cohesive sediments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 25 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Admiraal, W., 1984. The ecology of estuarine sediment-inhabiting diatoms. Progress in Phycological Research, 3, 269–322.Google Scholar
Allen, J. R. L., 1985. Principles of physical sedimentology. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Anderson, F.E., 1983. The northern muddy intertidal: seasonal factors controlling erosion and deposition - a review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40 (supplement 1), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De, Boer P. L., 1981. Mechanical effects of micro-organisms on intertidal bedform migration. Sedimentology, 28, 129–132.Google Scholar
Branch, G. M. & Pringle, A., 1987. The impact of the sand prawn Callianassa krausii Stebbing on the sediment turnover and on bacteria, meiofauna, and benthic microflora. journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 107, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammen, L. M., 1982. Effect of particle size on organic content and microbial abundance within four marine sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 9, 273–280.Google Scholar
Cammen, L. M. & Walker, J. A., 1986. The relationship between bacteria and micro-algae in the sediment of a Bay of Fundy mudflat. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 22, 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, S. M., 1979. Benthic microalgal populations on intertidal sediments and their role as precursors to salt marsh development. In Ecological processes in coastal environments. First European Ecological Symposium (ed. Jefferies, R.L. and Davy, A.J.), pp. 25–42. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Daborn, G. R., 1991. Animal-sediment interactions. In Littoral investigation of sediment properties, publication 17 (ed. Daborn, G.R.), pp. 205–226. Nova Scotia: Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research.Google Scholar
Dade, B. W., Davis, J. D., Nichols, P.D., Nowell, A.R.M., Thistle, D., Trexler, M.B. & White, D.C., 1990. Effects of bacterial exopolymer adhesion on the entrainment of sand. Geomicrobiotogy Journal, 8, 1–16.Google Scholar
Delo, E. A. & Ockenden, M. C., 1992. Estuarine muds manual. Report SR 309. Wallingford: HR Wallingford.Google Scholar
Eaton, J. W. & Moss, B., 1966. The estimation of numbers and pigment content in epipelic algal populations. Limnology and Oceanography, 11, 584–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, L. A. & Pickett-Heaps, J. D., 1984. Diatom locomotion. Progress in Phycological Research, 3, 47–88.Google Scholar
Frid, C. L. J., 1989. The role of recolonization processes in benthic communities, with special reference to the interpretation of predator-induced effects. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 126, 163–171.Google Scholar
Grant, J., Bathmann, U. V. & Mills, E. L., 1986 a. The interaction between benthic diatom films and sediment transport. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 23, 225–238.Google Scholar
Grant, J. & Gust, G., 1987. Prediction of coastal sediment stability from photopigment content of mats of purple sulphur bacteria. Nature, London, 330, 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J., Mills, E. L. & Hopper, Cm., 1986 b. A chlorophyll budget of the sediment-water interface and the effect of stabilizing biofilms on particle fluxes. Ophelia, 26, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinzelmann, C. & Wallisch, S., 1991. Benthic settlement and bed erosion. A review. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 29, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbie, J. E., Daley, R. J. & Jasper, S., 1977. Use of nuclepore filters for counting bacteria by fluorescence microscopy. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 33, 1225–1228.Google Scholar
Jensen, A., 1978. Chlorophylls and carotenoids. In Handbook of phycological methods: physiological and biochemical methods (ed. Hellebust, J.A. and Craigie, J.S.), pp. 59–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Little, C., Paterson, D. M., Crawford, R. M., Underwood, G.J.C. & McArthur, J., 1992. Algal stabilization of estuarine sediment. Report (May 1992) to the Energy Technology Support Unit, United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Wong, P. T. S. & Dutka, B. J., 1973. Determination of carbohydrate in lake sediment by a modified phenol-sulfuric acid method. Water Research, 7, 741–746.Google Scholar
Lopez, G. R., Tantichodok, P. & Cheng, I.-J., 1989. Radiotracer methods for determining utilization of sedimentary organic matter by deposit feeders. In Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies, vol. 31 (ed. Lopez, G.et al.), pp. 149–170. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Meadows, P. S. & Tait, J., 1989. Modification of sediment permeability and shear strength by two burrowing invertebrates. Marine Biology, 101, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medlin, L. K., 1983. Community analysis of epiphytic diatoms from selected species of macroalgae collected along the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico. PhD thesis, Texas A & M University.Google Scholar
Meyer-Reil, L.-A., 1990. Micro-organisms in marine sediments: considerations concerning activity measurements. Archivfiir Hydrobiologie Beiheft Ergebnisse der Limnologie, 34,1–6.Google Scholar
Montague, C. L., 1986. Influence of biota on erodibility of sediments. In Estuarine cohesive sediment dynamics (ed. Mehta, A.J.), pp. 251–269. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Morrisey, D. J., 1988. Differences in effects of grazing by deposit-feeders Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) and Corophium arenarium Crawford (Amphipoda) on sediment microalgal populations. II. Quantitative effects. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 118, 43–53.Google Scholar
Parkes, R. J. & Taylor, J., 1985. Characterization of microbial populations in polluted marine sediments. Journal of Applied Bacteriology Symposium, supplement 14, 155–173S.Google Scholar
Paterson, D. M., 1989. Short-term changes in the erodibility of intertidal cohesive sediments related to the migratory behaviour of epipelic diatoms. Limnology and Oceanography, 34,223–234.Google Scholar
Paterson, D. M., 1990. The influence of epipelic diatoms on the erodibility of an artificial sediment. Proceedings of theTenth International Symposium on Living and Fossil Diatoms, 1988 (ed. Simola, H.), pp. 345–355. Joensuu, Finland: Koenigstein.Google Scholar
Paterson, D. M., 1991. Biological effects of surface cohesions. In Littoral investigation of sediment properties, publication 17 (ed. Daborn, G.R.), pp. 183–189. Nova Scotia: Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research.Google Scholar
Paterson, D. M., Crawford, R. M. & Little, C., 1986. The structure of benthic diatom assemblages: a preliminary account of the use and evaluation of low-temperature scanning electron micros-copy. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 96, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, D. M., Crawford, R. M. & Little, C., 1990. Subaerial exposure and changes in the stability of intertidal estuarine sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 30, 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, D. M. & Underwood, G. J. C., 1992. The mudflat ecosystem and epipelic diatoms. Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists’ Society, 50, 74–82.Google Scholar
Reise, K., 1985. Tidal flat ecology: an experimental approach to species interaction. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Round, F. E. & Palmer, J. D., 1966. Persistent, vertical-migration rhythms in benthic microflora. II. Field and laboratory studies on diatoms from the banks of the River Avon. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 46, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, G. J. C., McArthur, J., Paterson, D. M., Little, C. & Crawford, R.M., in press. Biogenic stabilization and altered tidal range: preliminary observations. In The changing coastline. Proceedings of the Twentieth Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association (ed. Pethick, J. and Jones, N.V.).Google Scholar
Vos, Pc., Boer, P. L. De & Misdorp, R., 1988. Sediment stabilization by benthic diatoms in intertidal sandy shoals: qualitative and quantitative observations. In Tide-influenced sedimentary environments and facies (ed. De Boer, P.L.et al.), pp. 511–526. Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar