Macrobenthic colonisation of artificial reefs on the southern coast

of Portugal (Ancao, Algarve)

Diana Boaventura1,2,*, Ana Moura3, Francisco Leitao3, Susana Carvalho3, Joao Curdia3,Paula Pereira, Luıs Cancela da Fonseca1,3, Miguel Neves dos Santos3

& Carlos Costa Monteiro31Laboratorio Marıtimo da Guia/IMAR, FCUL, University of Lisbon, Estrada do Guincho, 2750-374, Cascais, Portugal2Escola Superior de Educacao Joao de Deus, Avenida Alvares Cabral, 69, 1269-094 , Lisboa, Portugal3Instituto de Investigacao das Pescas e do Mar, Centro regional de Investigacao das Pescas do Sul (IPIMAR-CRIPSul),Av. 5 de Outubro, 8700-305, Olhao, Portugal(*Author for correspondence: E-mail: d.boaventura@netcabo.pt)

Key words: artificial reefs, macrobenthic communities, colonisation, hard substrata, Portugal

Abstract

Artificial reef systems play an important role in the increase of natural production of biological marineresources and they have been deployed worldwide. In Portugal, seven artificial systems have been deployedalong the southern coast of the Algarve. Research to date has focussed mainly on fish populations,particularly those of economical importance. The present work aims to study the macrobenthic commu-nities of the artificial reef structures, as these will enhance the food resources and shelter, making the reefsmore attractive to fish. In particular, we experimentally analysed the sequence of colonisation of macro-benthic communities of the Ancao artificial reef system, which was deployed in the summer of 2002. Thestudy of the colonisation of benthic communities was done using samples of concrete cubic units(15 · 15 cm) that were suspended at the reef modules at a depth of 20 m, at the time of the reef immersion.Four replicate samples were collected by SCUBA diving from two groups of the Ancao reef every threemonths from the starting date. Sampling was done using essentially non-destructive methods to assess thepercentage cover of macrobenthic organisms in both vertical and horizontal surfaces. The percentage coverof the taxonomic groups was compared within the different surfaces of the samples and between the tworeef groups. The bottom surface of cubic samples had a significantly higher colonisation related to thedominance of barnacle cover, probably due to lower sedimentation levels. Samples from both reef groupsshowed a similar pattern of colonisation. Barnacles, bryozoans and serpulids dominated the samples threemonths immediately after the beginning of the experiment. Other invertebrates groups, such as Porifera,Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, other sessile Polychaeta, Decapoda, Gastropoda and Bivalvia, were more abundantafter six months of colonisation.

Introduction

Artificial reefs are submerged structures placed onthe seabed deliberately to imitate some charac-teristics of natural reefs, as defined by the Euro-pean Artificial Reef Research Network (Jensen,1997). Artificial reef systems are usually developedfor fish exploitation, for protection of marineareas from illegal fisheries, and more recently, for

preservation and rehabilitation of natural habitats(Pickering et al., 1998). These structures havebeen deployed worldwide and, according to Sea-man & Sprague (1991), the major areas presentingthis kind of activity include the Mediterraneanand Caribbean Seas, South-eastern Asia, Japan,North America, Australia and some islands in theSouth Pacific. The expansion of this activity isrelated to the evolution of the structures and

Hydrobiologia (2006) 555:335–343 � Springer 2006H. Queiroga, M.R. Cunha, A. Cunha, M.H. Moreira, V. Quintino, A.M. Rodrigues, J. Serodio & R.M. Warwick (eds),Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and Processes, Assessment, Threats, Management and ConservationDOI 10.1007/s10750-005-1133-1

materials used in the reef’s construction, as well astheir purposes.

In Europe, the construction of artificial reefsstarted in the late 1960s. However, only in the1980s and 1990s their use has increase signifi-cantly, especially in the Mediterranean (Allemandet al., 2000; Badalamenti et al., 2000; Barnabeet al., 2000; Moreno, 2000; Revenga et al., 2000).

In Portugal, seven artificial systems have beenimplanted along the southern coast of the Algarveover the last decade. The grounds for initiatingthis programme and for locating it on the south-ern coast of Portugal included the presence ofseveral highly productive lagoon and estuarinesystems in this region, the relative scarcity ofnatural reefs (especially on the south-eastern partof this coast), the high fishing intensity offshore,and the need to provide alternative means thatwould minimise the effect of fishing in order toyield a sustainable management of this coastalregion (Monteiro & Santos, 2000). Research todate on these Portuguese artificial reefs hasfocussed mainly on fish populations, particularlythose of economical importance (e.g. Santos, 1997;Santos & Monteiro, 1997, 1998). The presentwork aims to study the macrobenthic communitiesof the artificial reef structures, as these willenhance the food resources and shelter, makingthe reefs more attractive to fish. In particular, weaimed to experimentally analyse the sequence ofcolonisation of macrobenthic communities of theAncao artificial reef system and to comparecolonisation at two reef groups in surfaces withdifferent orientation.

Materials and methods

Study site

This study was carried out on the southern coast ofPortugal (Algarve). Figure 1 shows the seven reefsystems that were implanted on the southern coastsince 1990. Two types of concrete modules wereused in the Algarve reef systems: small modules(2.7 m3) and large modules (174 m3). These weredeployed in different lines, the small modules beingcloser to the coast and at shallower depths than thelarge ones. The sequence of macrobenthic coloni-sation was experimentally analysed on the artificialreef system of Ancao (36�59¢ N, 7 60¢ W) (Fig. 1).Several new reef groups were immersed at Ancao inthe summer of 2002 (August) and the present workcompared the patterns of colonisation between twosmall artificial reef groups (groups A10a and A11a)of 35 units each.

Material and methods

The study of colonisation of benthic communitieswas done using samples of concrete cubic units(15 · 15 cm) that were suspended at the small reefmodules at a depth of approximately 20 m, at thetime of the reef immersion. The cubic units weremade from the same material used for the con-struction of the artificial reef modules. Four repli-cate samples were collected by SCUBA diving fromtwo groups of the Ancao reef every 3 months fromthe starting date over a one-year period. Samplingwas done using essentially non-destructive methods

Figure 1. Study site. Location of artificial reefs on the southern coast of Portugal. The present study was conducted on the Ancao reef

(indicated with number 4).

336

(point intersection) (see Hawkins & Jones, 1992 fora review) to assess the percentage cover of macro-benthic organisms in both vertical and horizontalsurfaces. The percentage cover of sessile organismswas estimated with the intersection point methodusing a quadrat of 15 · 15 cm with 49 intersectionpoints. The species present within the quadrat butwhich did not match any intersection point wererecorded. In case of species overlapping samplingwas stratified in different layers. The quadrats werephoto-documented with a digital camera. Addi-tionally, the different faces of the cubic sampleswerescrapped for a posteriori laboratory analysis. Thismanuscript is focused on the results from the non-destructive methods, i.e. percentage cover of sessilespecies and presence/absence data. The adoptedmethodology entailed sampling the species whoseidentification and quantification in quadrats wasreliable. Very small organisms (e.g. amphipods)and/or highly motile species (e.g. crabs) were notquantified (see Hawkins & Jones, 1992).

Data analysis

The total percentage cover of replicate sampleswas analysed using ANOVA. The factors testedwere ‘reef groups’ (fixed, orthogonal, two levels)and ‘surfaces’ (fixed, orthogonal, two levels).Cochran’s C-test was used to check homogeneityof variance. Tests of homogeneity, ANOVA andSNK (Student–Newman–Keuls) a posteriori com-parison tests were done using GMAV5 for Win-dows Statistical Software (Institute of MarineEcology, Sydney, Australia).

Results

Total percentage cover

Figure 2 shows the results of the total percentagecover of the top vs. bottom and outside vs. insidesurfaces of the cubic samples, for the two studiedreef groups. These results refer to the first12 months after the reef immersion. The coloni-sation patterns for total percentage cover weresimilar at both studied reef groups (A10a andA11a). Three months after the beginning of theexperiment the total cover exceeded 50% and afterthe sixth month the samples were totally colonised

(values above 100% were obtained due to morethan one layer of organisms). However, the com-parison of the different cube surfaces revealed thatthe bottom surface had a higher colonisation thanthe top surface, particularly for the 3rd and12th months, where these differences were signifi-cantly different (Table 1). There was also a sig-nificantly higher total cover on the 3rd month atthe reef group A10a for the bottom surface(Table 1, SNK test). No significant differenceswere observed on the total cover for the inside andoutside surfaces (Table 2).

Major taxonomical groups

Cirripedia, Serpulidae, Bryozoa and Ascidiaceawere the major sessile taxonomical groups to col-onise the cubic samples (Figs. 3 and 4) at both reefgroups and for the different surfaces. Barnaclesclearly dominated the samples throughout theyear. Barnacle cover was already higher than thatof other groups by the third month and continuedto increase until the sixth month. There was ageneral decline in barnacle cover after the sixthmonth associated with an increase of other taxo-nomical groups such as bryozoans. This pattern

Top vs Bottom

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

A10a T

A10a B

A11a T

A11a B

Outside vs Inside

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 3 6 9 12

Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

A10a O

A10a I

A11a O

A11a I

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Mean percentage cover (±SE) on the two studied

reef groups (A10a and A11a). (a) – Top (T) vs. Bottom (B)

surfaces; (b) – Outside (O) vs. Inside (I) surfaces.

337

was similar for both reef groups and for most ofthe surface orientations. The only exception wasthe higher mean percentage cover of barnaclesfound on the bottom surface on the third monthwith values of 76.6% and 68.1% for reef groupA10a and A11a, respectively. These resultsconform to the significant differences obtained forthe total percentage cover. Serpulids showed, ingeneral, a small peak at the third month but meanpercentage cover did not exceed 20%. The ascidi-ans were more abundant on the bottom surface,which was less exposed to the light.

Other sessile groups such as Porifera, Hydro-zoa, Anthozoa, and other sessile Polychaetashowed a generally low percentage cover whichhad increased after the sixth month of theexperiment to 5–10%, particularly on the top

surface where cover reached 20% (Fig. 5). The listof identified species to date from the scrappedsurfaces of the samples is given in the Appendix A.In general, non-sessile organisms (e.g. decapods,gastropods, bivalves) were also observed toincrease after the sixth month but their densitieshave not been processed for this article.

Discussion

Previous studies of artificial reefs have focussedmostly on aspects of fishery ecology; however, tomanage and understand these artificial habitatsit is essential to integrate all aspects of the hardsubstratum ecology (see Svane & Petersen, 2001for a review). The present study has providedinformation on the patterns of macrobenthic col-

Table 1. Results of ANOVA performed at months 3 and 12 for the top and bottom surfaces at the two studied reef groups

Source of variation df 3 months 12 months

MS F MS F

Reef group=Re 1 26.52 0.97 ns 77.88 3.22 ns

Surface Orientation=Su 1 3025.00 110.54*** 1054.63 43.61***

Re ·Su 1 276.39 10.10** 58.14 2.40 ns

Residual 12 27.37 24.18

Cochran’s test C=0.55 ns C=0.49 ns

SNK tests Re· Su, SE=2.62

Top surface

Reef A10a (56.54) = Reef A11a (62.28 ns)

Bottom surface

Reef A10a (92.35)>Reef A11a (81.46*)

Reef Group A10a

Top (56.54)<Bottom (92.35**)

Reef Group A11a

Top (62.28)<Bottom (81.46**)

ns=not significant; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Table 2. Results of ANOVA performed at months 3 and 12 for the outside and inside surfaces at the two studied reef groups

Source of variation df 3 months 12 months

MS F MS F

Reef group=Re 1 102.52 0.62 ns 149.76 1.24 ns

Surface Orientation=Su 1 605.16 3.63 ns 5.94 0.05 ns

Re ·Su 1 127.13 0.76 ns 78.10 0.65 ns

Residual 12 166.65 120.38

Cochran’s test C=0.43 ns C=0.47 ns

ns=not significant.

338

onisation of artificial reefs on the southern Portu-guese coast. Two reef groups at the Ancao artificialreef system were analysed and colonisation wascompared between surfaces with different orienta-tion. The replicate cubic units used in this workwere made with the same material of the reef

structure (concrete) and were suspended at the reefblocks at the time of the reef immersion to ensurethat the colonisation patterns would be represen-tative of the reef structure. Three months afterimmersionmore than half of the area of the sampleswas colonised by macrobenthic species and after

A10a - Top

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

Serpulidae

Cirripedia

Bryozoa

Ascidiacea

A10a - Bottom

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

A11a - Top

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

Serpulidae

Cirripedia

Bryozoa

Ascidiacea

A11a - Bottom

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

(a) (b)

(d)(c)

Figure 3. Major taxonomical groups at the two studied reef groups, Top vs. Bottom surfaces.

A10a Outside

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12

Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

Serpulidae

Cirripedia

Bryozoa

Ascidiacea

A10a Inside

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n pe

rcen

tage

cov

er

A11a - Outside

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

Serpulidae

Cirripedia

Bryozoa

Ascidiacea

A11a - Inside

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

(a) (b)

(d)(c)

Figure 4. Major taxonomical groups at the two studied reef groups, Outside vs. Inside surfaces.

339

the sixth month the entire surface was covered.Sessile encrusting organisms such as barnacles,bryozoans, serpulids and ascidians colonised thecubic samples with a clear dominance of barnacles.These taxonomical groups have been seen to colo-nise artificial reefs in many other artificial reefstructures (e.g. Cummings, 1994; Relini et al., 1994;Badalamenti et al., 2000; D’Anna et al., 2000;Relini, 2000). Despite the general presence of thesetaxonomical groups in the first year of colonisationof artificial substrata, the sequence of macrobenthiccolonisation varied with seasons or places in severalstudies conducted in the Mediterranean (e.g.Badalamenti et al., 2000; Relini, 2000). In theAncao reef similar patterns of colonisation wereobtained at the two studied reef groups. The heavyinitial settlement of barnacles matches the obser-vations of Cummings (1994) for the colonisation ofan artificial reef in Florida. The barnacle coverdeclined at Ancao six months after immersion and amore heterogeneous community was established.

Surfaces with different orientation showeddifferent colonisation patterns at both reef groupsof the Ancao system. This result is consistentwith previous work (e.g. D’Anna et al., 2000;Glasby & Connell, 2001), which showed thatdifferent assemblages developed on surfaces of

different orientation. In this study the bottomsurface of the cubic units revealed a significantlyhigher percentage of colonisation possibly relatedto lower sedimentation levels, particularly withrespect to barnacle cover. Ascidians were alsomore abundant on this surface, which was lessexposed to the light. Similar results were foundby Hatcher (1998) in the Poole Bay ArtificialReef (UK), where the epibenthic biomass wasseen to be greater on the bases of the samplesthan on the top of the samples, throughout thestudy.

In contrast with the results obtained for otherEuropean reefs (e.g. Hatcher, 1998; D’Annaet al., 2000; Relini, 2000), macroalgae were ab-sent in our study during the first year of coloni-sation. Several explanations can be offered forthis fact. Our study was done at 20 m depth andthe turbidity of the water was generally high.Most of the studies where macroalgae werepresent during the first year were done at shal-lower depths and clearer waters (e.g. D’Annaet al., 2000; Relini, 2000). Marked differences incolonisation stages were described by D’Annaet al. (2000) for clear and turbid waters, showinga major effect of light on algal cover. Ongoingstudies on the comparison among different reefson the southern coast, however, seem to indicatethat both older artificial reef structures and arti-ficial reefs which are closer to natural rock sub-strata have macroalgae (see also Monteiro &Santos, 2000). It is possible that macroalgaespecies will start to colonise the Ancao reef inlater years. Other studies in progress at this re-gion comparing different reefs, depths, and tem-poral variation will enable to clarify this andother points of colonisation patterns.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the INIAP (Instituto nacional deInvestigacao Agraria e das Pescas) scientific divingteam and research vessel crew for helping in field-work. We would like to thank A. Silva for help inthe lab. The research work was supported bythe project ‘‘Implantacao e estudo integrado desistemas recifais’’ of MARE programme and by aPost-Doc scholarship of FCT-CFRH/BPD/3608/2000.

Top vs Bottom

0

10

20

30

0 3 6 9 12

Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

A10a T

A10a B

A11a T

A11a B

Outside vs Inside

0

10

20

30

0 3 6 9 12Time (months)

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

cove

r

A10a O

A10a I

A11a O

A11a I

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Other taxonomical groups (Porifera, Hydrozoa,

Anthozoa, and sessile Polychaeta other than Serpulidae) at the

two studied reef groups (A10a and A11a). (a) – Top (T) vs.

Bottom (B) surfaces; (b) – Outside (O) vs. Inside (I) surfaces.

340

References

Allemand, D., E. Debernardi & W. Seaman Jr., 2000. Artificial

reefs in the principality of Monaco: protection and

enhancement of coastal zones. In Jensen, A. C., K. J. Col-

lins, & A. P. M. Lockwood (eds), Artificial Reefs in Euro-

pean Seas. Kluwer Academics Publishers, London: 151–

166.

Badalamenti, F., G. D’Anna & S. Riggio, 2000. Artificial reefs

in the gulf of Castellammare (North-west Sicily): a case

study. In Jensen, A. C. K. J. Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood

(eds), Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academics

Publishers, London: 75–96.

Barnabe, G., E. Charbonnel, J.-Y. Marinaro, D. Ody & P.

Francour, 2000. Artificial reefs in France: analysis, assess-

ments and prospects. In Jensen, A. C. K. J. Collins, & A. P.

M. Lockwood (eds), Artificial Reefs in European Seas.

Kluwer Academics Publishers, London: 167–184.

Cummings, S. L., 1994. Colonisation of a nearshore artificial

reef at Boca Raton (Palm Beach County), Florida. Bulletin

of Marine Science 55: 1193–1215.

D’Anna, G., F. Badalamenti & S. Riggio, 2000. Artificial reefs

in North-West Sicily: comparisons and conclusions. In

Jensen, A. C. K. J. Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood (eds),

Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academics Pub-

lishers, London: 97–112.

Glasby, T. M. & S. D. Connell, 2001. Orientation and position

of substrata have large effects on epibiotic assemblages.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 214: 127–135.

Hatcher, A. M., 1998. Epibenthic colonisation patterns on slabs

of stabilised coal-waste in Poole Bay, UK. Hydrobiologia

367: 153–162.

Hawkins, S. J. & H. D. Jones, 1992. Rocky Shores.

Marine Field Course Guide 1. Immel Publishing, London

144 pp.

Jensen, A. C. (ed.), 1997. European artificial reef research.

Proceedings of the First EARRN Conference, March 1996

Ancona, Italy. Southampton Oceanographic Centre,

Southampton.

Monteiro, C. C. & M. N. Santos, 2000. Portuguese artificial

reefs. In Jensen, A. C. K. J. Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood

(eds), Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academics

Publishers, London: 249–261.

Moreno, I., 2000. Artificial reef programme in the Balearic Is-

lands: western Mediterranean sea. In Jensen, A. C. K. J.

Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood (eds), Artificial Reefs in

European Seas. Kluwer Academics Publishers, London:

219–233.

Pickering, H., D. Whitmarsh & A. Jensen, 1998. Artificial reefs

as a tool to aid rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: inves-

tigating the potential. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37: 505–514.

Relini, G., 2000. The Loano artificial reef. In Jensen, A. C. K. J.

Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood (eds), Artificial Reefs in

European Seas. Kluwer Academics Publishers, London:

129–149.

Relini, G., N. Zamboni, N. Tixi & G. Torchia, 1994. Patterns of

sessile macrobenthos community development on an artifi-

cial reef in the gulf of Genoa (Northwestern Mediterranean).

Bulletin of Marine Science 55: 745–771.

Revenga, S., F. Fernandez, J. L. Gonzalez & E. Santaella, 2000.

Artificial reefs in Spain: the regulatory framework. In Jen-

sen, A. C. K. J. Collins, & A. P. M. Lockwood (eds),

Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academics Pub-

lishers, London: 185–194.

Santos, M. N., 1997. Ichthyofauna of the artificial reefs of the

Algarve coast. Exploitation strategies and management of

local fisheries. PhD Thesis, University of Algarve.

Santos, M. N. & C. C. Monteiro, 1997. The Olhao artificial reef

system (south Portugal): fish assemblages and fishing yield.

Fisheries Research 30: 33–41.

Santos, M. N. & C. C. Monteiro, 1998. Comparison of the

catch and fishing yield from an artificial reef system and

neighbouring areas off Faro (Algarve, south Portugal).

Fisheries Research 39: 55–65.

Seaman, Jr. W. & L. M. Sprague, 1991. Artificial habitats

practices in aquatic systems. In Seaman Jr. W. & L. Sprague

(eds), Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fish-

eries. Academic Press Inc: 1–29.

Svane, I. & J. K. Petersen, 2001. On the problems of epibioses,

fouling and artificial reefs, a review. P.S.Z.N.: Marine

Ecology 22: 169–188.

Appendix A

Table A.1. List of identified taxa (Und.=Undetermined)

PORIFERA

CNIDARIA

Hydrozoa Und. Hydrozoa

Anthozoa Und. Anthozoa

PLATYHELMINTHES

Turbellaria Und. Turbellaria

NEMERTEA

NEMATA

ANNELIDA

POLYCHAETA

Polynoidae Malmgrenia ljungmani

(Malmgren, 1865)

Und. Polynoidae

Pholoidae Pholoe synophtalmica

Claparede, 1868

Chrysopetalidae Und. Chrysopetalidae

Phyllodocidae Und. Phyllodocidae

Hesionidae Syllidia armata Quatrefages, 1865

Podarke sp.

Und. Hesionidae

Continued on p. 342

341

Table A.1. (Continued)

Syllidae Autolytus spp.

Autolytus cf. alexandri Malmgren, 1874

Autolytus cf. brachycephalus

(Marenzeller, 1874)

Autolytus langerhansi Gidholm, 1967

Proceraea sp.

Pseudobrania limbata (Claparede, 1868)

Sphaerosyllis cryptica Ben-Eliahu, 1977

Sphaerosyllis hystrix Claparede, 1863

Sphaerosyllis taylori Perkins, 1981

Exogone naidina Oersted, 1845

Exogone verugera Claparede, 1868

Syllides articulocirratus (Gillandt, 1979)

Pionosyllis sp.

Syllis spp.

Typosyllis hyalina (Grube, 1863)

Typosyllis cf. variegata (Grube, 1860)

Typosyllis spp.

Und. Syllidae

Nereididae Websterinereis glauca (Claparede, 1870)

Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris sp.

Dorvilleidae Und. Dorvilleidae

Spionidae Polydora spp.

ChaetopteridaeChaetopterus variopedatus (Renier, 1804)

Ophellidae Aphelochaeta sp.

Capitellidae Capitella spp.

Ampharetidae Und. Ampharetidae

Terebellidae Und. Amphitritinae

Und. Terebellidae

Sabellaridae Sabellaria sp.

Sabellidae Und. Sabellidae

Serpulidae Serpula concharum Langerhans, 1880

Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767

Vermiliopsis cf. monodiscus Zibrowius,

1967

Pomatocerus triqueter (Linnaeus, 1767)

Pomatocerus lamarckii

(Quatrefages, 1865)

Hydroides cf. norvegica Gunnerus, 1768

Hydroides cf. nigra Zibrowius, 1971

Hydroides stoichadon Zibrowius, 1971

Filograna sp.

Protula sp.

Filogranula cf. stellata (Southward, 1963)

Und. Serpulidae

ARTHROPODA

CRUSTACEA

Table A.1. (Continued)

CIRRIPEDIA

Balanidae Balanus amphitrite Darwin, 1854

Megabalanus tulipiformis (Ellis, 1758)

OSTRACODA

COPEPODA

AMPHIPODA

Stenothoidae Stenothoe cf. valida Dana, 1855

Aoridae Aora gracilis (Bate, 1857)

Microdeutopus versiculatus (Bate, 1856)

Microdeutopus armatus Chevreux, 1887

Isaeidae Gammaropsis maculata

(Johnston, 1827)

Corophiidae Corophium sextonae Crawford, 1937

Ericthonius brasiliensis (Dana, 1855)

Ischyroceridae Jassa marmorata Holmes, 1903

Caprellidae Caprella sp.

Caprella acanthifera Leach, 1814

Phtisica marina Slabber, 1769

TANAIDACEA

Apseudidae Apseudes talpa (Montagu, 1808)

Und. Tanaidacea

ISOPODA

Gnathiidae Und. Gnathiidae

Anthuridae Und. Anthuridae

Munnidae Und. Munnidae

Janiridae Janira maculosa Leach, 1814

Und. Isopoda

DECAPODA

CARIDEA

Hippolytidae Hippolyte longirostris

(Czerniavsky, 1868)

Hypolite varians Leach, 1814

Thoralus cranchii (Leach, 1817)

Eualus occultus (Lebour, 1936)

Eualus sp.

Und. Caridea

ANOMURA

Galatheidae Galathea intermedia Lilljeborg, 1851

Porcellanidae Pisidia cf. bluteli (Risso, 1816)

BRACHYURA

Majidae Inachus leptochirus Leach, 1817

Xanthidae Pilumnus cf. hirtellus

(Linnaeus, 1761)

Und. Decapoda

PYCNOGONIDA Und. Pycnogonida

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Continued on p. 343

342

Table A.1. (Continued)

Trochidae Jujubinus exasperatus (Pennant, 1777)

Rissoidae cf. Pusillina sarsii (Loven, 1846)

Alvania sp.

Cerithiidae Bittium spp.

Muricidae Ocinebrina aciculata (Lamarck, 1822)

Muricidae sp.

Nassariidae Nassarius cf. pygmaeus (Lamarck, 1822)

Pyramidellidae Chrysallida spp.

Odostomia spp.

Cylichnidae cf. Scaphander sp.

Limapontiidae cf. Limapontia depressa Alder

& Hancock, 1862

Und. Gastropoda

BIVALVIA

Mytilidae Modiolus modiolus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Musculus costulatus (Risso, 1826)

Musculus discors (Linnaeus, 1767)

Pinnidae Und. Pinnidae

Pectinidae Und. Pectinidae

Anomiidae Und. Anomiidae

Ostreidae Und. Ostreidae

Cardiidae Und. Cardiidae

Table A.1. (Continued)

Tellinidae Tellina sp.

Hiatellidae Hiatella arctica (Linnaeus, 1767)

Und. Bivalvia

BRYOZOA

CYCLOSTOMATA

Crisiidae Crisia ramosa Harmer, 1891

CHEILOSTOMATA

Scrupariidae Scruparia chelata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Bugulidae Bugula neritina (Linnaeus, 1758)

Umbonulidae Umbonula ovicellata Hastings, 1944

Schizoporellidae Schizobrachiella sanguinea

(Norman, 1868)

ECHINODERMATA

OPHIUROIDEA

Und. Ophiuroidea

ECHINOIDEA

Und. Echinoidea

CHORDATA

UROCHORDATA

Styelidae Botryllus schlosseri (Pallas, 1766)

Und. Urochordata

343