Amphipod assemblages before and after beach nourishment in the central Adriatic Sea (Italy)

Crustaceana 86 (7-8) 853-870

Proceedings MEB Amphipoda, Palermo 2011

AMPHIPOD ASSEMBLAGES BEFORE AND AFTER BEACHNOURISHMENT IN THE CENTRAL ADRIATIC SEA (ITALY)

BY

L. LATTANZI1,2), M. TARGUSI1) and L. NICOLETTI1)1) ISPRA — Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research,

Via di Casalotti 300, 00166 Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT

This study analyses the amphipod assemblages found in seven sites situated along the coastsof the Marche Region (central Adriatic Sea, Italy), before and after beach nourishment activities.The aim of this paper was to evaluate the changes in the structure and species composition ofamphipod assemblages after nourishment. Amphipod samples were collected at each site at 2 mand 5 m depths during two different periods: May-June 2008 (before) and June-July 2010 (after).Granulometric analyses were also carried out at the same depths. Nourishment was performed intwo periods: May-November 2009 (in all sites except Civitanova Marche) and February 2010 (onlyin Civitanova Marche). The amphipod assemblages collected before and after beach nourishmentat the two depths differed in terms of species composition and abundance, while no significantdifferences were observed between the control stations and the impacted stations (affected by beachnourishment). The differences observed can probably be ascribed to the changes in the abiotic andbiotic factors caused by the nourishment activities in the seven sites.

Key words. — beach nourishment, amphipod assemblages, central Adriatic Sea

RIASSUNTO

Nel presente lavoro sono stati analizzati, prima e dopo le attività di ripascimento, i popolamentiad anfipodi in 7 siti posizionati lungo le coste marchigiane (Mar Adriatico centrale, Italia). Obiettivodi questo lavoro è valutare modificazioni nella struttura e composizione specifica dei popolamenti adanfipodi in relazione a possibili cambiamenti fisici indotti dalle attività di ripascimento. I campiona-menti sono stati effettuati in ogni sito alle profondità di 2 m e 5 m in due diversi periodi: Maggio-Giugno 2008 (prima) e Giugno-Luglio 2010 (dopo). I popolamenti analizzati sono risultati diversiper abbondanze e composizione specifica, prima e dopo le attività di ripascimento e alle diverseprofondità, mentre non si evidenziano significative differenze tra le stazioni di controllo e quelle diimpatto (dove è avvenuto il ripascimento). Tali differenze sono dovute probabilmente a cambiamentinei fattori biotici e abiotici avvenuti nei 7 siti in conseguenza delle attività di ripascimento.

Parole chiave. — ripascimento, anfipodi, Mar Adriatico centrale

2) Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI:10.1163/15685403-00003214

854 L. LATTANZI, M. TARGUSI & L. NICOLETTI

INTRODUCTION

The increasing urbanisation of coastal areas, together with poor coastal defencepolicies, have turned coastal erosion into a problem of growing intensity (Airoldiet al., 2005; Airoldi & Beck, 2007; Colosio et al., 2007).

In the past, coastal erosion problems have commonly been addressed byconstructing hard structures such as seawalls, groins and breakwaters. Harddefence structures have proliferated in Europe in the past century; in Italy, onthe Adriatic coast in particular, these structures cover over half of the shoreline,and have brought significant changes in the coastal landscapes (Bacchiocchi &Airoldi, 2003; Airoldi et al., 2005). These structures also affect the area’s naturaland environmental characteristics, as well the benthic biota inhabiting the upperinfra-littoral zone (e.g. macrozoobenthos, macroalgae) (Airoldi et al., 2005; Martinet al., 2005; Phillips & Jones, 2006).

Nowadays, the need for a sustainable management has stimulated an interest for“softer” coastal defence approaches (Charlier, 2003) such as beach nourishment.This is one of the most frequently used “soft” techniques, and it is considered tobe a good alternative to hard structures (Green, 2002; Speybroeck et al., 2006).Beach nourishment has been proven to produce the lowest amount of damage onthe marine environment’s ecosystem, thus being very sustainable technique (Milleret al., 2002; Speybroeck et al., 2006).

Many studies have analysed the physical and chemical effects of beach nour-ishment (e.g. Stauble & Nelson, 1985; Houston, 1996; Dean, 2003; Nordstrom,2005; Cohen & Anthony, 2007; Park et al., 2009), while only few studies areavailable concerning its effects on macrozoobenthic communities (Nelson, 1993;Green, 2002; Colosio et al., 2007; Covazzi Harriague & Albertelli, 2007).

Amphipod crustaceans are an important component — in terms of abundanceand species richness — of the soft bottom’s benthic faunas, particularly in coastalwaters (Marques & Bellan-Santini, 1987; Scipione & Lattanzi, 1995; Zettler,2001; Moreira et al., 2008; Vázquez-Luis et al., 2008; de-la-Ossa-Carreteroet al., 2010). The distribution and abundance of amphipods inhabiting marinesediments are influenced by a number of abiotic factors, including sedimentcomposition and organic contents (Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez, 2004, 2006;Moreira et al., 2008), as well as by biotic interactions such as predation (Nelson,1979). Many amphipod species are also sensitive to hydrocarbon pollution andother perturbations, and their abundance and species diversity may, therefore, beused as indicators of the environmental conditions (Lee & Page, 1997; GomezGesteira & Dauvin, 2000, 2005; de la Huz et al., 2005; Dauvin & Ruellet, 2007;Moreira et al., 2008; Puente et al., 2009; de-la-Ossa-Carretero et al., 2012).Furthermore, amphipods play an important role as trophic resources for fish

INFLUENCE OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON AMPHIPOD COMMUNITIES 855

populations (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 1999; Stål et al., 2006) and in the constructionof benthic assemblages (Duffy & Hay, 2000; Scipione et al., 2005; Moreira et al.,2008). Also, within amphipod communities a striking variety of life histories andfeeding behaviours can be found, thus allowing for exploiting a wide range ofmarine habitats (Biernbaum, 1979; Dauby et al., 2001; Moreira et al., 2008).

The purpose of this study was to analyse the effects of beach nourishment withrelict marine sands on the structure and composition of amphipod assemblages.Therefore, data related to the amphipod assemblages were extracted from themacrozoobenthic dataset.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study area included seven sites located along the coasts of the MarcheRegion. From North to South, these sites were: Civitanova Marche (CM), Fermo(FE), Pedaso (PE), Campofilone (CF), Massignano (MS), Cupramarittima (CU)and Grottammare (GR). Several coastal defence structures — such as breakwatersand groins — were present in the study area. A total of 46 sampling stations wereplaced along 23 perpendicular transects, at 2 m (shallow stations = s) and 5 m(deep stations = d) water depths. Fig. 1 shows an example of the sampling planadopted in each study site according to the design proposed by Nicoletti et al.(2006). At each of the seven sites, a number of stations were placed in the zonesof the beaches where the nourishment would be given (impacted stations), whilecontrol stations were placed in neighbouring areas. The number of transects andstations in each study site varied according to the size of the nourishment areas(table I).

Macrozoobenthic samplings were carried out using a Van Veen grab with asurface of 0.02 m2, and three replicates were collected at each station. Sampleswere sieved through a 1 mm mesh and the retained material was preserved in 4%CaCO3-buffered formalin in seawater. All gathered amphipods were counted andclassified to the lowest possible taxonomic level.

Nourishment activities, performed using relict sands, were carried out in twodifferent periods: May-November 2009 (in all sites except CM) and February 2010(CM only). The monitoring surveys were carried out in May-June 2008 (beforebeach nourishment) and in June-July 2010 (after beach nourishment).

Amphipoda assemblages found at the two investigated depths were analysedusing the main ecological indices (Shannon-Wiener and Pielou).

Differences in space and time between assemblages were calculated using theBray-Curtis similarity index, and an MDS (non-metric multidimensional scaling)analysis was used with the species-abundance matrix. Abundance data were


Fig. 1. Locations of the sampling stations in the CM site.


TABLE ISampling sites with number of stations (s = shallow stations; d = deep stations) and number of

transects

Site No. of No. of Stationstransects stations

CM 4 (1-4) 8 CM1s, CM1d, CM2s, CM2d, CM3s, CM3d, CM4s, CM4dFE 4 (5-8) 8 FE5s, FE5d, FE6s, FE6d, FE7s, FE7d, FE8s, FE8dPE 3 (9-11) 6 PE9s, PE9d, PE10s, PE10d, PE11s, PE11dCF 2 (12-13) 4 CF12s, CF12d, CF13s, CF13dMS 2 (14-15) 4 MS14s, MS14d, MS15s, MS15dCU 4 (16-19) 8 CU16s, CU16d, CU17s, CU17d, CU18s, CU18d, CU19s, CU19dGR 4 (20-23) 8 CU20s, CU20d, CU21s, CU21d, CU22s, CU22d, CU23s, CU23d

Impacted stations are in boldface.

square-root transformed so that the ensuing ordination was not solely determinedby the most dominant species (Clarke & Green, 1988; Clarke, 1993).

The one-way analysis of the similarity test (ANOSIM) was used for testinghypotheses about spatial differences and temporal changes in assemblages andparticularly for detecting environmental impacts (Chapman & Underwood, 1999).

The species showing the greatest contribution to similarity (intra-group) and dis-similarity (inter-group) among assemblages were investigated using the similaritypercentage (SIMPER) analysis.

The statistical analyses were used to evaluate the null hypothesis that therewere no differences in the composition and structure of the amphipod assemblagesbefore and after beach nourishment.

Multivariate analyses were performed using the software package PRIMER v.6+(Clarke & Gorley, 2006).

Surface sediment was also collected from each sampling station by means of abox corer. Granulometric analyses were performed using a standardised method-ology (Holme & McIntyre, 1971) and sediment classification was determined ac-cording to Shepard (1954).

RESULTS

The taxonomic analysis of the amphipods collected during the two monitoringsurveys at depths of 2 m and 5 m led to the identification of 8253 individualsbelonging to 40 different species. Tables II and III show the list of species collectedin each site, before and after beach nourishment at the two different depths.

During the first monitoring survey, the most abundant species collected atthe shallow stations (with a > 4% percentage of abundance) were Bathyporeia


TA

BL

EII

Am

phip

odsp

ecie

s,th

eir

abun

danc

ean

dto

taln

umbe

rof

spec

ies

at−2

m(s

)be

fore

(b)

and

afte

r(a

)be

ach

nour

ishm

ent

Spec

ies

Stat

ions

CM

s/b

CM

s/a

FEs/

bFE

s/a

PEs/

bPE

s/a

CFs

/bC

Fs/a

MSs

/bM

Ss/a

CU

s/b

CU

s/a

GR

s/b

GR

s/a

Am

peli

sca

brev

icor

nis

(Cos

ta,1

853)

046

430

536

1010

2015

3044

1359

Aor

asp

.0

00

00

01

00

00

00

0A

tylu

sgu

ttat

us(C

osta

,185

1)0

00

00

00

10

00

00

0A

tylu

sm

assi

lien

sis

Bel

lan-

Sant

ini,

1975

10

10

10

00

00

00

00

Dex

amin

esp

.0

00

00

00

00

01

00

0A

pher

usa

chie

regh

inii

Gio

rdan

iSoi

ka,1

949

01

00

00

00

00

00

01

Gam

mar

opsi

ssp

.0

00

00

00

00

00

00

2M

icro

prot

opus

mac

ulat

usN

orm

an,1

867

01

05

00

00

01

04

00

Jass

am

arm

orat

aH

olm

es,1

905

00

10

00

00

00

00

00

Jass

aoc

ia(B

ate,

1862

)0

00

00

00

00

00

01

0L

euco

thoe

inci

saR

ober

tson

,189

20

00

01

20

00

00

00

0L

euco

thoe

oboa

Kar

aman

,197

10

00

20

00

00

00

00

0L

euco

thoe

pach

ycer

aD

ella

Val

le,1

893

00

00

00

01

00

00

00

Leu

coth

oese

rrat

icar

paD

ella

Val

le,1

893

00

07

00

00

00

03

80

Leu

coth

oesp

.0

00

00

00

00

00

10

0H

ippo

med

onm

assi

lien

sis

Bel

lan-

Sant

ini,

1965

25

63

15

23

60

71

35

Meg

alur

opus

mas

sili

ensi

sL

edoy

er,1

976

520

265

343

21

08

451

826

Defl

exil

odes

acut

ipes

(Led

oyer

,198

3)0

11

45

85

08

36

81

6Pe

rioc

ulod

eslo

ngim

anus

long

.0

616

400

250

42

205

1510

24(B

ate

&W

estw

ood,

1868

)Po

ntoc

rate

sar

enar

ius

(Bat

e,18

58)

1110

240

00

30

20

00

530

Sync

heli

dium

hapl

oche

les

(Gru

be,1

864)

05

02

00

00

00

02

00

Sync

heli

dium

long

idig

itat

umR

uffo

,194

70

140

00

00

10

00

00

95B

athy

pore

iagu

illi

amso

nian

a(B

ate,

1857

)13

210

44

01

11

00

07

1B

athy

pore

iali

ndst

rom

iSte

bbin

g,19

063

01

00

00

00

00

02

0B

athy

pore

iaph

aiop

htha

lma

Bel

lan-

Sant

ini,

1973

7099

5612

01

31

00

03

5871

Uro

thoe

pulc

hell

a(C

osta

,185

3)0

00

100

00

20

00

016

0P

seud

olir

ius

kroy

eri(

Hal

ler,

1879

)0

01

00

00

00

02

00

0Pa

riam

bus

typi

cus

(Krø

yer,

1884

)0

640

9327

263

028

013

038

112

Tota

lnum

ber

ofsp

ecie

s7

1312

138

88

116

67

1112

11


TA

BL

EII

IA

mph

ipod

spec

ies,

thei

rab

unda

nces

and

tota

lnum

ber

ofsp

ecie

sat

−5m

dept

h(d

)be

fore

(b)

and

afte

r(a

)be

ach

nour

ishm

ent

Spec

ies

Stat

ions

CM

s/b

CM

s/a

FEs/

bFE

s/a

PEs/

bPE

s/a

CFs

/bC

Fs/a

MSs

/bM

Ss/a

CU

s/b

CU

s/a

GR

s/b

GR

s/a

Am

peli

sca

brev

icor

nis

(Cos

ta,1

853)

838

317

015

18

77

1670

1147

Am

phil

ochu

sbr

unne

usD

ella

Val

le,1

893

02

02

01

00

01

08

01

Am

phil

ochu

sne

apol

itan

usD

ella

Val

le,1

893

10

01

00

00

00

10

01

Aor

asp

inic

orni

sA

fons

o,19

760

00

10

00

00

00

00

0A

ora

sp.

10

00

00

00

00

00

00

Aut

onoe

spin

iven

tris

Del

laV

alle

,189

30

00

00

10

00

00

00

0A

poco

roph

ium

acut

um(C

hevr

eux,

1908

)0

00

00

00

00

10

00

0M

onoc

orop

hium

ache

rusi

cum

(Cos

ta,1

851)

00

10

00

00

00

00

00

Aty

lus

mas

sili

ensi

sB

ella

n-Sa

ntin

i,19

750

50

00

00

00

00

00

0A

pher

usa

chie

regh

inii

Gio

rdan

iSoi

ka,1

949

01

00

00

00

00

00

00

Mic

ropr

otop

usm

acul

atus

Nor

man

,186

71

60

30

00

50

00

50

0Ja

ssa

mar

mor

ata

Hol

mes

,190

50

04

03

00

00

04

01

0M

icro

jass

acu

mbr

ensi

s0

10

00

00

00

00

00

0(S

tebb

ing

&R

ober

tson

,189

1)L

euco

thoe

inci

saR

ober

tson

,189

20

10

10

10

00

00

20

0L

euco

thoe

oboa

Kar

aman

,197

10

20

10

01

00

00

04

0


TA

BL

EII

I(C

ontin

ued)

Spec

ies

Stat

ion

CM

s/b

CM

s/a

FEs/

bFE

s/a

PEs/

bPE

s/a

CFs

/bC

Fs/a

MSs

/bM

Ss/a

CU

s/b

CU

s/a

GR

s/b

GR

s/a

Leu

coth

oeoc

cult

aK

rapp

-Sch

icke

l,19

750

00

00

10

00

00

00

0L

euco

thoe

pach

ycer

aD

ella

Val

le,1

893

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

Leu

coth

oese

rrat

icar

paD

ella

Val

le,1

893

01

04

01

01

03

012

03

Leu

coth

oesp

inic

arpa

(Abi

ldga

ard,

1789

)0

00

00

00

00

00

20

0L

euco

thoe

sp.

00

00

00

00

00

01

00

Hip

pom

edon

mas

sili

ensi

sB

ella

n-Sa

ntin

i,19

652

61

27

31

04

25

52

9Ly

sian

assa

cost

ae(M

ilne-

Edw

ards

,183

0)0

00

00

00

30

10

20

0O

rcho

men

esp

.0

00

00

20

00

00

00

0M

egal

urop

usm

assi

lien

sis

Led

oyer

,197

64

317

605

920

143

201

743

46D

eflex

ilod

esac

utip

es(L

edoy

er,1

983)

1315

2737

298

100

324

293

3012

Peri

ocul

odes

long

iman

uslo

ng.

1725

945

071

034

039

075

066

(Bat

e&

Wes

twoo

d,18

68)

Sync

heli

dium

long

idig

itat

umR

uffo

,194

70

450

00

00

00

00

10

0B

athy

pore

iabo

rgid

’Ude

kem

d’A

coz,

2005

01

00

00

00

00

00

00

Bat

hypo

reia

guil

liam

soni

ana

(Bat

e,18

57)

132

520

36

210

115

721

714

Bat

hypo

reia

phai

opht

halm

aB

ella

n-Sa

ntin

i,19

730

100

00

00

10

10

00

0U

roth

oepu

lche

lla

(Cos

ta,1

853)

10

04

03

00

00

01

00

Pari

ambu

sty

picu

s(K

røye

r,18

84)

1025

059

645

5615

626

213

368

19

450

4312

0To

taln

umbe

rof

spec

ies

1118

914

614

69

613

816

819


phaiophthalma Bellan-Santini, 1973 (32.4%), Pontocrates arenarius (Bate, 1858)(16.1%) and Ampelisca brevicornis (Costa, 1853) (14.2%). During the secondmonitoring survey, the most abundant species were Pariambus typicus (Krøyer,1844) (33.7%), A. brevicornis (15.8%), Megaluropus massiliensis Ledoyer, 1976(14.1%) and B. phaiophthalma (12.3%).

At 5 m of depth and before nourishment, P. typicus (35.1%) and Deflexilodesacutipes (Ledoyer, 1983) (31.7%) were the most abundant species, while thedominant species after nourishment was P. typicus (76.5%).

Species diversity (H ′ log2) and the evenness index (J ) values calculated at 2 mdepth were overall higher after nourishment than before, while the opposite wasobserved at 5 m depth (table IV).

TABLE IVShannon-Wiener (H ′ log2) and Pielou (J ) indices(mean ± s.e.) before (b) and after (a) beach nour-

ishment at 2 m (s) and 5 m (d) water depths

H ′ log2 J

CMs/b 1.36 ± 0.26 0.57 ± 0.11FEs/b 1.98 ± 0.76 0.75 ± 0.08PEs/b 1.80 ± 0.13 0.80 ± 0.16CFs/b 2.20 ± 0.28 0.82 ± 0.02MSs/b 1.78 ± 0.09 0.83 ± 0.03CUs/b 1.72 ± 0.19 0.65 ± 0.06GRs/b 1.73 ± 0.24 0.65 ± 0.06CMs/a 1.99 ± 0.29 0.72 ± 0.09FEs/a 2.42 ± 0.22 0.81 ± 0.07PEs/a 1.40 ± 0.40 0.54 ± 0.13CFs/a 2.13 ± 0.33 0.73 ± 0.09MSs/a 2.09 ± 0.01 0.90 ± 0.00CUs/a 2.10 ± 0.10 0.75 ± 0.04GRs/a 2.16 ± 0.20 0.76 ± 0.05CMd/b 2.05 ± 0.20 0.83 ± 0.06FEd/b 1.69 ± 0.31 0.71 ± 0.11PEd/b 1.54 ± 0.35 0.77 ± 0.11CFd/b 1.61 ± 0.36 0.82 ± 0.03MSd/b 1.59 ± 0.13 0.70 ± 0.03CUd/b 1.91 ± 0.06 0.89 ± 0.03GRd/b 1.90 ± 0.21 0.82 ± 0.05CMd/a 1.90 ± 0.16 0.63 ± 0.06FEd/a 1.47 ± 0.10 0.48 ± 0.05PEd/a 1.34 ± 0.41 0.44 ± 0.15CFd/a 1.55 ± 0.30 0.55 ± 0.16MSd/a 0.81 ± 0.30 0.25 ± 0.09CUd/a 1.93 ± 0.08 0.58 ± 0.02GRd/a 2.26 ± 0.06 0.84 ± 0.03


Fig. 2. Results of the n-MDS analysis for 2 m (s) and 5 m (d) water depths, before (b) and after (a)beach nourishment.

The n-MDS analysis highlighted differences between amphipod assemblagesbefore and after nourishment, as well as between 2 m and 5 m depths (fig. 2). Inparticular, the assemblages collected after nourishment at 5 m depth segregatedon the top of the plot and seemed to be more homogeneous compared to assem-blages collected before at the same depth. The ANOSIM test confirmed that all theobserved differences were statistically significant (Global R = 0.511; p<0.001).No significant differences in terms of species composition and community struc-ture were observed between the assemblages collected at the control and impactedstations (fig. 3).

Tables V and VI show the species that most contribute to intra-group similarityand to inter-group dissimilarity.

The granulometric analyses carried out before and after nourishment for 2 mand 5 m depths indicated a high homogeneity of surface sediments, which weremostly composed of fine sand, with percentages ranging between 87% and 95%.In particular, sediments obtained before the nourishment event were well-sortedand composed of fine and very fine sand with a rather low pelitic fraction (silt +clay, <5%). After nourishment, sediments became more homogeneous, with amostly-fine-sand composition. Only a few stations showed an increase in the peliticfraction at 2 m and 5 m after nourishment.


Fig. 3. Results of the n-MDS analysis for 2 m (s) and 5 m (d) depths, before (b) and after (a) beachnourishment, in the control (c) and impacted (i) stations.

DISCUSSION

The Amphipoda assemblages analysed before and after beach nourishmentincluded both the species that normally inhabit sandy substrata and those belongingto the Well-Sorted Fine Sand Biocoenosis (SFBC), as described by several authorsfor macrozoobenthic assemblages in the central Adriatic Sea (Froglia et al., 2001;Froglia, 2002; ARPAM, 2003).

Nevertheless, the assemblages analysed before and after nourishment and atdepths of 2 and 5 m differed in terms of abundance and species richness.

At shallow stations before nourishment the assemblages were characterisedby the presence of species that normally live in medium and fine sand, suchas Bathyporeia phaiophthalma and Pontocrates arenarius (Marques & Bellan-Santini, 1993). After beach nourishment, species typically found on fine sands suchas Pariambus typicus (Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez, 2006), as well as speciesinhabiting muddy sand, such as Megaluropus massiliensis (Kirkim et al., 2006),were among the most abundant species.

At the deeper stations during the two monitoring surveys the dominant specieswas P. typicus, although Ampelisca brevicornis and Perioculodes longimanuslongimanus (Bate & Westwood, 1868), which are known to tolerate differentsediment fractions, were also very abundant (Marques & Bellan-Santini, 1993;de-la-Ossa-Carretero, 2012).


TABLE VSIMPER analysis results related to the intra-group similarity

Species Average Average SD Contribution Cumulativeabundance similarity similarity (%) (%)

Group before/2 m (average similarity 34.57)Ampelisca brevicornis 1.46 8.19 0.68 23.70 23.70Bathyporeia phaiophthalma 1.09 4.91 0.47 14.19 37.89Hippomedon massiliensis 0.89 4.84 0.82 13.99 51.87Megaluropus massiliensis 0.81 4.33 0.66 12.52 64.39Deflexilodes acutipes 0.76 3.79 0.57 10.96 73.35Pontocrates arenarius 1.31 3.39 0.54 9.80 85.15Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana 0.87 2.97 0.58 8.59 93.74

Group before/5 m (average similarity 51.30)Deflexilodes acutipes 2.52 21.01 2.07 40.95 40.95Pariambus typicus 2.26 13.88 1.65 27.06 68.01Ampelisca brevicornis 1.07 5.81 0.78 11.32 79.34Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana 0.89 3.41 0.57 6.64 85.97Megaluropus massiliensis 0.73 3.38 0.64 6.60 92.57

Group after/2 m (average similarity 50.92)Ampelisca brevicornis 3.07 14.50 2.55 28.47 28.47Megaluropus massiliensis 2.69 10.11 1.92 19.86 48.33Pariambus typicus 3.54 9.94 1.13 19.52 67.85Perioculodes longimanus long. 2.05 7.32 1.17 14.38 82.23Bathyporeia phaiophthalma 1.89 3.90 0.73 7.67 89.90Hippomedon massiliensis 0.72 1.81 0.63 3.55 93.45

Group after/5 m (average similarity 64.00)Pariambus typicus 10.83 25.98 3.71 40.59 40.59Megaluropus massiliensis 3.64 11.25 3.60 17.57 58.16Perioculodes longimanus long. 3.74 11.16 2.96 17.44 75.61Ampelisca brevicornis 2.70 7.62 2.63 11.91 87.51Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana 1.53 2.84 0.96 4.44 91.96

The increase in abundance during the second monitoring of M. massiliensisand the occurrence of Leucothoe oboa G. Karaman, 1971 (species which tolerateincreases in the sediment’s fine fraction), reflect the increase in the pelitic fractioncaused by the nourishment activities.

After beach nourishment and mainly at 5 m depth, the amphipod assemblageswere characterised by an increase in the total number of individuals, due to thehigh abundance of a few “opportunistic” species (e.g. Pariambus typicus), andby an increase in species richness caused by the presence of new species (e.g.Amphilochus brunneus Della Valle, 1893, Leucothoe serraticarpa Della Valle,1893 and Bathyporeia phaiophthalma).

INFLUENCE OF BEACH NOURISHMENT ON AMPHIPOD COMMUNITIES 865T

AB

LE

VI

SIM

PER

anal

ysis

resu

ltsre

late

dto

the

inte

r-gr

oup

diss

imila

rity

Spec

ies

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

SDC

ontr

ibut

ion

Cum

ulat

ive

abun

danc

eab

unda

nce

diss

imila

rity

diss

imila

rity

(%)

(%)

befo

reaf

ter

Gro

upbe

fore

and

afte

r/2

m(a

vera

gedi

ssim

ilari

ty68

.24)

Pari

ambu

sty

picu

s0.

303.

5412

.59

1.23

18.2

618

.26

Bat

hypo

reia

phai

opht

halm

a1.

901.

898.

631.

1012

.65

31.1

1M

egal

urop

usm

assi

lien

sis

0.81

2.69

7.29

1.46

10.6

941

.79

Am

peli

sca

brev

icor

nis

1.46

3.07

7.14

1.42

10.4

652

.25

Peri

ocul

odes

long

iman

uslo

ng.

0.70

2.05

6.70

1.34

9.82

62.0

7Po

ntoc

rate

sar

enar

ius

1.31

0.24

4.53

0.89

6.64

68.7

1D

eflex

ilod

esac

utip

es0.

760.

723.

521.

095.

1673

.87

Sync

heli

dium

long

idig

itat

um0.

000.

993.

370.

514.

9478

.81

Bat

hypo

reia

guil

liam

soni

ana

0.87

0.30

3.07

0.98

4.50

83.3

1H

ippo

med

onm

assi

lien

sis

0.89

0.72

2.97

1.08

4.36

87.6

7U

roth

oepu

lche

lla

0.23

0.30

1.49

0.53

2.19

89.8

6L

euco

thoe

serr

atic

arpa

0.00

0.33

1.32

0.55

1.94

91.8

0G

roup

befo

rean

daf

ter/

5m

(ave

rage

diss

imila

rity

65.3

7)Pa

riam

bus

typi

cus

2.26

10.8

321

.13

1.89

32.3

332

.33

Peri

ocul

odes

long

iman

uslo

ng.

0.43

3.74

9.95

2.41

14.1

446

.47

Meg

alur

opus

mas

sili

ensi

s0.

733.

648.

022.

4212

.26

58.7

3D

eflex

ilod

esac

utip

es2.

521.

185.

201.

547.

9666

.69

Am

peli

sca

brev

icor

nis

1.07

2.70

5.01

1.37

7.66

74.3

5B

athy

pore

iagu

illi

amso

nian

a0.

891.

533.

541.

295.

4179

.76

Hip

pom

edon

mas

sili

ensi

s0.

650.

802.

281.

093.

4883

.24

Leu

coth

oese

rrat

icar

pa0.

000.

721.

910.

952.

9286

.17

Am

phil

ochu

sbr

unne

us0.

000.

481.

210.

701.

8588

.02

Mic

ropr

otop

usm

acul

atus

0.04

0.48

1.16

0.64

1.77

89.7

9U

roth

oepu

lche

lla

0.04

0.27

0.89

0.53

1.36

91.1

5


The ability of some amphipods to respond quickly to disturbance and to reachhigh densities has been primarily attributed to their life-history features (e.g.tolerance to disturbed conditions, feeding behaviour, dynamics of colonisation)(Whitlatch & Zajac, 1985; Simpson & King, 2005; Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez, 2006). The high abundance of P. typicus could be ascribed to this species’capability to adopt different feeding behaviours depending on the availability ofprey, responding to changing environmental conditions (Scipione, 1989; Guerra-Garcia & Tierno de Figueroa, 2009). Since the diet of P. typicus mainly consists ofdetritus, it may also feed on small crustaceans and polychaetes (Guerra-Garcia &Tierno de Figueroa, 2009).

Knowing the amphipods’ colonisation dynamics is essential to better understandthe differences observed in amphipod structure and composition. As observedby Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez (2006), colonisation dynamics depend onboth, abiotic parameters (e.g. sediment characteristics) and biotic factors (e.g.availability of juveniles and adults). Because the peracarid crustaceans such asAmphipoda group lack a planktonic larvae, colonisation through the water columnhas to be conducted by juveniles or adults. According to different authors (Hughes& Horsfall, 1990; Diaz-Castaneda et al., 1993; Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez,2006), amphipods colonise sediment both via passive transport through the watercolumn, and through active migration of juveniles and adults, which are able tomove from the sediment to water column and back to the sediment. This indicatesthat the contribution of adults through the water column is very important, and wasprobably facilitated by transports of local currents.

The known ability of P. typicus to colonise new sediments and to move throughthe water column (Guerra-Garcia & Garcia-Gomez, 2006) is most likely the reasonwhy many adults of this species were not affected by the beach nourishmentactivities.

The absence of significant differences in terms of species composition and com-munity structure between the control and impacted stations probably indicate adiffused effect of beach nourishment activities. This might be due to a distributionof the sediments spilled along the coasts, as observed in others study on macro-zoobenthic assemblages (Gorzelany & Nelson, 1987; Covazzi Harriague & Al-bertelli, 2007).

The differences observed in the amphipod assemblages, before and after nour-ishment, seemed to be related to the nourishment activities but also to other fac-tors, such as the presence of hard structures that in coastal areas, dominated bysoft-bottoms, can modify the structure and composition of native macrozooben-thic assemblages (Moschella et al., 2005) and the amphipods’ life-history features(e.g. tolerance to disturbed conditions, feeding behaviours, dynamics of colonisa-tion, body sizes, body shapes, adult longevities).


Further medium- and long-term monitoring surveys should provide a moredetailed overview of the recovery process (e.g. macrozoobenthic assemblages),which would allow for creating a reference model in order to evaluate theenvironmental impact of beach nourishment activities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is a part of a multidisciplinary project funded by the MarcheRegion local authority and carried out by Italian National Institute for Environ-mental Protection and Research (ISPRA). We gratefully acknowledge Dr. AntonioPusceddu and the staff of the Dipartimento di Scienze del Mare dell’UniversitàPolitecnica delle Marche. We would like to especially thank our colleagues, Dr.Barbara La Porta and Dr. Raffaele Proietti, whose suggestion greatly improvedthis work.

REFERENCES

AIROLDI, L., M. ABBIATI, M. W. BECK, S. J. HAWKINS, P. R. JONSSON, D. MARTIN, P. S.MOSCHELLA, A. SUNDELO, R. C. THOMPSON & P. ÅBERG, 2005. An ecological perspectiveon the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures. CoastalEngineering, 52: 1073-1087.

AIROLDI, L. & M. W. BECK, 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe.Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 45: 345-405.

ARPAM, 2003. Rapporto sullo stato di qualità della fascia costiera marchigiana: balneabilità ebiocenosi. Rapporto conclusivo, Febbraio 2003: 138 pp.

BACCHIOCCHI, F. & L. AIROLDI, 2003. Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structuresfor coastal protection. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56: 1157-1166.

BIERNBAUM, C. K., 1979. Influence of sedimentary factors on the distribution of benthic amphipodsof Fishers Island Sound, Connecticut. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,38: 201-223.

CHAPMAN, M. G. & A. J. UNDERWOOD, 1999. Ecological patterns in multivariate assemblages:information and interpretation of negative values in ANOSIM tests. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries, 180: 257-265.

CHARLIER, R. H., 2003. Hold the sea back — is it sustainable? Retrospective and projection.Journal of Coastal Research, 19: 875-883.

CLARKE, K. R., 1993. Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure.Australian Journal of Ecology, 18: 117-143.

CLARKE, K. R. & R. N. GORLEY, 2006. Primer v6: User Manual/Tutorial. (PRIMER-E, Ply-mouth).

CLARKE, K. R. & R. H. GREEN, 1988. Statistical design and analysis for a biological effects study.Marine Ecology Progress Series, 46: 213-226.

COHEN, O. & E. J. ANTHONY, 2007. Gravel beach erosion and nourishment in Nice, French Riv-iera. Érosion et rechargement artificiel des plages de galets de Nice, Côte d’Azur. Mediterranée,108: 99-103.

COLOSIO, F., M. ABBIATI & L. AIROLDI, 2007. Effects of beach nourishment on sediments andbenthic assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 1197-1206.


COVAZZI HARRIAGUE, A. & G. ALBERTELLI, 2007. Environmental factors controlling macrofau-nal assemblages on six microtidal beaches of the Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean). Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science, 73: 8-16.

DAUBY, P., Y. S. CAILTEUR & C. DE BROYER, 2001. Trophic diversity within the eastern WeddellSea amphipod community. Hydrobiologia, 443: 69-86.

DAUVIN, J. C. & T. RUELLET, 2007. Polychaete/amphipod ratio revisited. Marine PollutionBulletin, 55: 215-224.

DE LA HUZ, R., M. LASTRA, J. JUNOY, C. CASTELLANOS & J. M. VIEITEZ, 2005. Biologicalimpacts of oil pollution and cleaning in the intertidal zone of exposed sandy beaches:preliminary study of the “Prestige” oil spill. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 65: 19-29.

DE-LA-OSSA-CARRETERO, J. A., J. C. DAUVIN, Y. DEL-PILAR-RUSO, F. GIMÉNEZ-CASALDUERO & J. L. SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO, 2010. Inventory of benthic amphipods from finesand community of the Iberian Peninsula east coast (Spain), western Mediterranean, with newrecords. Marine Biodiversity Records, 3: e119.

DE-LA-OSSA-CARRETERO, J. A., Y. DEL-PILAR-RUSO, F. GIMÉNEZ-CASALDUERO, J. L.SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO & J. C. DAUVIN, 2012. Sensitivity of amphipods to sewage pollution.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96: 129-138.

DEAN, R. G., 2003. Beach nourishment: theory and practice. (World Scientific, River Edge, NJ).DIAZ-CASTANEDA, V., S. FRONTIER & V. ARENAS, 1993. Experimental re-establishment of a

soft bottom community: utilization of multivariate analyses to characterize different benthicrecruitments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 37: 387-402.

DUFFY, J. E. & M. E. HAY, 2000. Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of abenthic community. Ecological Monographs, 70: 237-263.

FROGLIA, C., 2002. Studio biologico — ambientale dell’area proposta per l’istituzione della riservamarina “Parco Marino del Piceno” — II FASE: Fase Implementativa. (C.N.R. — Istituto diRicerche sulla Pesca Marittima, Ancona).

FROGLIA, C., F. MARABINI, M. MARINI & C. SOLUSTRI, 2001. Studio biologico — ambientaledell’area proposta per l’istituzione della riserva marina “Parco Marino del Piceno” — I FASE:Fase Conoscitiva. (C.N.R. — Istituto di Ricerche sulla Pesca Marittima, Ancona).

GESTEIRA GOMEZ, J. L. & J. C. DAUVIN, 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of impact ofoil spills on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(11): 1017-1027.

— — & — —, 2005. Impact of the Aegean sea oil spill on the subtidal fine sand macrobenthiccommunity of the Area-Betanzos Ria (Northwest Spain). Marine Environmental Research, 60:289-316.

GORZELANY, J. F. & W. G. NELSON, 1987. The effects of beach replenishment on the benthos ofa sub-tropical Florida beach. Marine Environmental Research, 21: 75-94.

GREEN, K., 2002. Beach nourishment: a review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission), Habitat Management Series, 7: 174 pp.

GUERRA-GARCÍA, J. M. & J. C. GARCÍA-GÓMEZ, 2004. Crustacean assemblages and sedimentpollution in an exceptional case study: a harbour with two opposing entrances. Crustaceana,77(3): 353-370.

— — & — —, 2006. Recolonization of defaunated sediments: fine versus gross sand and dredgingversus experimental trays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68: 328-342.

GUERRA-GARCÍA, J. M. & J. M. TIERNO DE FIGUEROA, 2009. What do caprellids (Crustacea:Amphipoda) feed on? Marine Biology, 156: 1881-1890.

HOLME, N. A. & A. D. MCINTYRE, 1971. Methods for study of marine benthos: 1-334. (Oxfordand Edimburgh).

HOUSTON, J. R., 1996. Engineering practice for beach-fill designs. Shore and Beach, 64: 27-35.


HUGHES, R. G. & I. M. HORSFALL, 1990. Differences in the swimming behaviour of the amphipodCorophium volutator from different populations. Journal of the Marine Biological Associationof the United Kingdom, 70: 143-148.

KIRKIM, F., M. SEZGIN, T. KATAGAN, L. BAT & E. AYDEMIR, 2006. Some benthic soft-bottomcrustaceans along the Anatolian Coast of the Black Sea. Crustaceana, 79(11): 1323-1332.

LEE, R. F. & D. S. PAGE, 1997. Petroleum hydrocarbons and their effects in subtidal region aftermajor oil spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34: 928-940.

MARQUES, J. C. & D. BELLAN-SANTINI, 1987. Crustacés Amphipodes des côtes du Portugal:faune de l’estuaire du Mira (Alentejo, côte sud-ouest). Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 28: 465-480.

— — & — —, 1993. Biodiversity in the ecosystem of the Portuguese continental shelf: distributionalecology and the role of benthic amphipods. Marine Biology, 115: 555-564.

MARTIN, D., F. BERTASI, M. A. COLANGELO, V. DE MINDERT, M. FROST, S. J. HAWKINS,E. MACPHERSON, P. S. MOSCHELLA, M. P. SATTA, R. C. THOMPSON & V. U. CEC-CHERELLI, 2005. Ecological impact of coastal defence structures on sediment and mobilefauna: evaluating and forecasting consequences of unavoidable modifications of native habi-tats. Coastal Engineering, 52: 1027-1051.

MILLER, D. C., C. L. MUIR & O. A. HAUSER, 2002. Detrimental effects of sedimentation onmarine benthos: what can be learned from natural processes and rates? Ecological Engineering,19: 211-232.

MOREIRA, J., L. GESTSO & J. S. TRONCOSO, 2008. Diversity and temporal variation of peracaridfauna (Crustacea: Peracarida) in the shallow subtidal of a sandy beach: Playa America (Galicia,NW Spain). Marine Ecology, 29(1): 12-18.

MOSCHELLA, P. S., M. ABBIATI, P. ÅBERG, L. AIROLDI, J. M. ANDERSON, F. BACCHIOCCHI,F. BULLERI, G. E. DINESEN, M. FROST, E. GACIA, L. GRANHAG, P. R. JONSSON, M. P.SATTA, A. SUNDELÖF, R. C. THOMPSON & S. J. HAWKINS, 2005. Low-crested coastaldefence structures as artificial habitats for marine life: using ecological criteria in design.Coastal Engineering, 52: 1053-1071.

NELSON, W. G., 1979. Experimental studies of selective predation on amphipods consequences foramphipod distribution and abundance. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,38: 225-245.

— —, 1993. Beach restoration in the south-eastern United States: environmental effects andbiological monitoring. Ocean and Coastal Management, 19: 157-182.

NICOLETTI, L., D. PAGANELLI & M. GABELLINI, 2006. Environmental aspects of relict sanddredging for beach nourishment: proposal for a monitoring protocol. Quaderno ICRAM n.5:155 pp.

NORDSTROM, K. F., 2005. Beach nourishment and coastal habitats: research needs to improvecompatibility. Restoration Ecology, 13(1): 215-222.

PARK, J. Y., P. T. GAYES & J. T. WELLS, 2009. Monitoring beach renourishment along thesediment-starved shoreline of Grand Strand, South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research,25(2): 336-349.

PHILLIPS, M. R. & A. L. JONES, 2006. Erosion and tourism infrastructure in the coastal zone:problems, consequence and management. Tourism Management, 27(3): 517-524.

PUENTE, A., J. A. JUANES, G. CALDERON, B. ECHAVARRI-ERASUN, A. GARCIA & G. GARCIA-CASTRILLO, 2009. Medium-term assessment of the effects of the Prestige oil spill on estuarinebenthic communities in Cantabria (Northern Spain, Bay of Biscay). Marine Pollution Bulletin,58: 487-495.

SANCHEZ-JEREZ, P., C. BARBERÁ-CEBRIÁN & A. A. RAMOS-ESPLÁ, 2000. Influence ofthe structure of Posidonia oceanica meadows modified by bottom trawling on crustaceanassemblages: comparison of amphipods and decapods. Scientia Marina, 64: 319-326.


SCIPIONE, M. B., 1989. Comportamento trofico dei crostacei Anfipodi in alcuni sistemi bentonicicostieri. Oebalia, 15(1): 249-260.

SCIPIONE, M. B. & L. LATTANZI, 1995. Caratterizzazione del benthos di fondo mobile delle costelaziali: popolamenti ad Anfipodi. Biologia Marina Mediterranea, 2(2): 415-416.

SCIPIONE, M. B., L. LATTANZI, P. TOMASSETTI, C. CHIMENZ, F. MAGGIORE, L. MARINIELLO,R. CIRONI & E. TARAMELLI, 2005. Biodiversity and zonation patterns of crustacean per-acarids and decapods of coastal soft-bottom assemblages (central Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Vie etMilieu, 55: 143-161.

SHEPARD, F. P., 1954. Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios. Journal Sedimentary Petrology,24: 151-158.

SIMPSON, S. L. & C. K. KING, 2005. Exposure-pathway models explain causality in whole-sediment toxicity tests. Environmental Science Technology, 39: 837-843.

SPEYBROECK, J., D. BONTE, W. COURTENS, T. GHESKIERE, P. GROOTAERT, J. P. MAELFAIT,M. MATHYS, S. PROVOOST, K. SABBE, E. W. M. STIENEN, V. VAN LANCKER, M. VINCX

& S. DEGRAER, 2006. Beach nourishment: an ecologically sound coastal defence alternative?A review. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 419-435.

STÅL, J., L. PIHL & H. WENNHAGE, 2006. Food utilisation by coastal fish assemblages in rockyand soft bottoms on the Swedish west coast: inference for identification of essential fishhabitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 71: 593-607.

STAUBLE, D. K. & W. G. NELSON, 1985. Guidelines for beach nourishment: a necessity for projectmanagement. In: O. T. MAGOON, H. CONVERSE, D. MINER, D. CLARK & L. T. TOBIN

(eds.), Coastal zone, 85: 1002-1021.VÁZQUEZ-LUIS, M., P. SANCHEZ-JEREZ & J. T. BAYLE-SEMPERE, 2008. Changes in amphipod

(Crustacea) assemblages associated with shallow-water algal habitats invaded by Caulerparacemosa var. cylindracea in the western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Environmental Research,65: 416-426.

WHITLATCH, R. B. & R. N. ZAJAC, 1985. Biotic interactions among estuarine infaunal opportunis-tic species. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 21: 299-311.

ZETTLER, M. L., 2001. Some malacostracan assemblages in the southern and western Baltic Sea.Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge, 9: 127-143.

First received 18 February 2012.Final version accepted 6 August 2012.

Amphipod assemblages before and after beach nourishment in the central Adriatic Sea (Italy)

Documents

Transcript of Amphipod assemblages before and after beach nourishment in the central Adriatic Sea (Italy)