Click
here to close Hello! We notice that
you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Echinobase
and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a
current version of Chrome,
FireFox,
or Safari.
Vertical zonation of the Siberian Arctic benthos: bathymetric boundaries from coastal shoals to deep-sea Central Arctic.
Vedenin A
,
Galkin S
,
Mironov AN
,
Gebruk A
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
The bathymetric distribution of species of Annelida, Crustacea and Echinodermata from the region including the Kara, Laptev and East Siberian seas and the adjacent region of the deep-sea Central Arctic was analysed. We focused on vertical species ranges revealing zones of crowding of upper and lower species range limits. Using published data and in part the material obtained during the expeditions of the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, we evaluated species vertical distribution from 0 m to the maximum depth of the Central Arctic (~4,400 m). The entire depth range was divided into smaller intervals; number of upper and lower limits of species depth ranges was counted and plotted to visualize the range limits crowding. Several zones of crowding of vertical species range limits were found for all analysed macrotaxa. The most significant zones occurred at depths of 450-800 m and 1,800-2,000 m. The first depth zone corresponds to the boundary between the sublittoral and bathyal faunas. The last one marks the boundary between the bathyal and abyssal faunas. Depths of these boundaries differ from those reported from other Ocean regions; possible explanations of these differences are discussed.
Figure 1. Study area with formal borders of the Kara, Laptev and East Siberian seas.The adjacent sector of the Central Arctic Basin is outlined with dashed lines—the uniformity of fauna of the entire deep-sea Central Arctic is suggested.
Figure 2. Example of the plotted expected number of upper and lower vertical limits of species distribution based on Backus equation.a(x) upper—expected number of the upper vertical limits; a (x) lower—expected number of the lower vertical limits; a(x) upper + a (x) lower—summarized values of upper and lower vertical limits.
Figure 3. Distribution of upper and lower vertical limits in species of Annelida.Observed limits are coloured in blue; expected—in red; grey bars indicate Chi sq. values. (A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 4. Distribution of upper and lower vertical limits in species of Isopoda.Observed limits are coloured in blue; expected—in red; grey bars indicate Chi sq. values. (A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range, divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 5. Distribution of upper and lower vertical limits in species of Amphipoda.Observed limits are coloured in blue; expected—in red; grey bars indicate Chi sq. values. (A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range, divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 6. Distribution of upper and lower vertical limits in species of Echinodermata.Observed limits are coloured in blue; expected—in red; grey bars indicate Chi sq. values. (A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range, divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 7. Distribution of stations by depth.(A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range, divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 8. Combined distribution of the upper and lower species vertical limits in Annelida, Crustacea and Echinodermata.Observed limits are coloured in blue; expected—in red; grey bars indicate Chi sq. values. (A) Upper 800 m divided into 50-m intervals; (B) Entire depth range, divided into 200-m intervals.
Figure 9. Comparison of vertical boundaries in Annelida, Crustacea and Echinodermata revealed in our study with published data on other regions.Black colour indicates significant concentrations of the upper and lower vertical limits of species ranges. Grey colour indicates statistically insignificant concentrations.
Figure 10. Scheme of vertical zonation of benthic fauna distribution in the Siberian Arctic (based on species vertical ranges).Examples of characteristic species: 1—Branchiomma arctica; 2—Leptasterias groenlandica; 3—Ampelisca macrocephala; 4—Neohela monstrosa; 5—Melinnopsis arctica; 6—Bathybiaster vexillifer; 7—Elpidia heckeri; 8—Ymerana pteropoda; 9—Liljeborgia polosi. (Photographs of A. Vedenin). Dashed lines indicate approximate depths of corresponding boundaries outside the Arctic Ocean: upper line (green)—the boundary at ~200 m (sublittoral/bathyal), bottom line (yellow)—the boundary at ~3,000 m (bathyal/abyssal).
Boetius,
Export of algal biomass from the melting Arctic sea ice.
2013, Pubmed,
Echinobase
Boetius,
Export of algal biomass from the melting Arctic sea ice.
2013,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Dunton,
Arctic biogeography: The paradox of the marine benthic fauna and flora.
1992,
Pubmed
Jakobsson,
The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean Version 4.0.
2020,
Pubmed
Rybakova,
Deep-sea megabenthos communities of the Eurasian Central Arctic are influenced by ice-cover and sea-ice algal falls.
2019,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Thatje,
On the origin of Antarctic marine benthic community structure.
2005,
Pubmed
Vedenin,
List of macrobenthic species: Data from the siberian seas and the adjacent area of the deep-sea central arctic.
2021,
Pubmed
,
Echinobase
Vedenin,
Spatial distribution of benthic macrofauna in the Central Arctic Ocean.
2018,
Pubmed