Max Wisshak, Neele Meyer, Piotr Kuklinski, Andres Rüggeberg, André Freiwald
{"title":"‘Ten Years After’—a long-term settlement and bioerosion experiment in an Arctic rhodolith bed (Mosselbukta, Svalbard)","authors":"Max Wisshak, Neele Meyer, Piotr Kuklinski, Andres Rüggeberg, André Freiwald","doi":"10.1111/gbi.12469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rhodolith beds and bioherms formed by ecosystem engineering crustose coralline algae support the northernmost centres of carbonate production, referred to as polar cold-water carbonate factories. Yet, little is known about biodiversity and recruitment of these hard-bottom communities or the bioeroders degrading them, and there is a demand for carbonate budgets to include respective rates of polar carbonate build-up and bioerosion. To address these issues, a 10-year settlement and bioerosion experiment was carried out at the Arctic Svalbard archipelago in and downslope of a rhodolith bed.</p><p>The calcifiers recorded on experimental settlement tiles (56 taxa) were dominated by bryozoans, serpulids and foraminiferans. The majority of the bioerosion traces (30 ichnotaxa) were microborings, followed by attachment etchings and grazing traces. Biodiversity metrics show that calcifier diversity and bioerosion ichnodiversity are both elevated in the rhodolith bed, if compared to adjacent aphotic waters, but these differences are statistically insignificant. Accordingly, there were only low to moderate dissimilarities in the calcifier community structure and bioerosion trace assemblages between the two depth stations (46 and 127 m), substrate orientations (up- and down-facing) and substrate types (PVC and limestone), in that order of relevance. In contrast, surface coverage as well as the carbonate accretion and bioerosion rates were all significantly elevated in the rhodolith bed, reflecting higher abundance or size of calcifiers and bioerosion traces. All three measures were highest for up-facing substrates at 46 m, with a mean coverage of 78.2% (on PVC substrates), a mean accretion rate of 24.6 g m<sup>−2</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (PVC), and a mean bioerosion rate of −35.1 g m<sup>−2</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (limestone). Differences in these metrics depend on the same order of factors than the community structure. Considering all limestone substrates of the two platforms, carbonate accretion and bioerosion were nearly in balance at a net rate of −2.5 g m<sup>−2</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>.</p><p>A latitudinal comparison with previous settlement studies in the North Atlantic suggests that despite the harsh polar environment there is neither a depletion in the diversity of hard-bottom calcifier communities nor in the ichnodiversity of grazing traces, attachment etchings and microborings formed by organotrophs. In contrast, microborings produced by phototrophs are strongly depleted because of limitations in the availability of light (condensed photic zonation, polar night, shading by sea ice). Also, macroborings were almost absent, surprisingly. With respect to carbonate production, the Svalbard carbonate factory marks the low end of a latitudinal gradient while bioerosion rates are similar or even higher than at comparable depth or photic regime at lower latitudes, although this might not apply to shallow euphotic waters (not covered in our experiment), given the observed depletion in bioeroding microphytes and macroborers. While echinoid grazing is particularly relevant for the bioerosion in the rhodolith bed, respective rates are far lower than those reported from tropical shallow-water coral reefs. The slow pace of carbonate production but relatively high rates of bioerosion (both promoted by low carbonate supersaturation states in Arctic waters), in concert with high retention of skeletal carbonates on the seafloor and no calcite cements forming in open pore space created by microborers, suggest a low fossilisation potential for polar carbonates, such as those formed in the Mosselbukta rhodolith beds.</p>","PeriodicalId":173,"journal":{"name":"Geobiology","volume":"20 1","pages":"112-136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/gbi.12469","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geobiology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gbi.12469","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Rhodolith beds and bioherms formed by ecosystem engineering crustose coralline algae support the northernmost centres of carbonate production, referred to as polar cold-water carbonate factories. Yet, little is known about biodiversity and recruitment of these hard-bottom communities or the bioeroders degrading them, and there is a demand for carbonate budgets to include respective rates of polar carbonate build-up and bioerosion. To address these issues, a 10-year settlement and bioerosion experiment was carried out at the Arctic Svalbard archipelago in and downslope of a rhodolith bed.
The calcifiers recorded on experimental settlement tiles (56 taxa) were dominated by bryozoans, serpulids and foraminiferans. The majority of the bioerosion traces (30 ichnotaxa) were microborings, followed by attachment etchings and grazing traces. Biodiversity metrics show that calcifier diversity and bioerosion ichnodiversity are both elevated in the rhodolith bed, if compared to adjacent aphotic waters, but these differences are statistically insignificant. Accordingly, there were only low to moderate dissimilarities in the calcifier community structure and bioerosion trace assemblages between the two depth stations (46 and 127 m), substrate orientations (up- and down-facing) and substrate types (PVC and limestone), in that order of relevance. In contrast, surface coverage as well as the carbonate accretion and bioerosion rates were all significantly elevated in the rhodolith bed, reflecting higher abundance or size of calcifiers and bioerosion traces. All three measures were highest for up-facing substrates at 46 m, with a mean coverage of 78.2% (on PVC substrates), a mean accretion rate of 24.6 g m−2 year−1 (PVC), and a mean bioerosion rate of −35.1 g m−2 year−1 (limestone). Differences in these metrics depend on the same order of factors than the community structure. Considering all limestone substrates of the two platforms, carbonate accretion and bioerosion were nearly in balance at a net rate of −2.5 g m−2 year−1.
A latitudinal comparison with previous settlement studies in the North Atlantic suggests that despite the harsh polar environment there is neither a depletion in the diversity of hard-bottom calcifier communities nor in the ichnodiversity of grazing traces, attachment etchings and microborings formed by organotrophs. In contrast, microborings produced by phototrophs are strongly depleted because of limitations in the availability of light (condensed photic zonation, polar night, shading by sea ice). Also, macroborings were almost absent, surprisingly. With respect to carbonate production, the Svalbard carbonate factory marks the low end of a latitudinal gradient while bioerosion rates are similar or even higher than at comparable depth or photic regime at lower latitudes, although this might not apply to shallow euphotic waters (not covered in our experiment), given the observed depletion in bioeroding microphytes and macroborers. While echinoid grazing is particularly relevant for the bioerosion in the rhodolith bed, respective rates are far lower than those reported from tropical shallow-water coral reefs. The slow pace of carbonate production but relatively high rates of bioerosion (both promoted by low carbonate supersaturation states in Arctic waters), in concert with high retention of skeletal carbonates on the seafloor and no calcite cements forming in open pore space created by microborers, suggest a low fossilisation potential for polar carbonates, such as those formed in the Mosselbukta rhodolith beds.
由生态系统工程甲壳珊瑚藻类形成的Rhodolith床和生物池支持最北部的碳酸盐生产中心,被称为极地冷水碳酸盐工厂。然而,人们对这些硬底群落的生物多样性和吸收情况知之甚少,也不知道生物侵蚀剂对它们的降解作用,因此需要碳酸盐预算,以包括极性碳酸盐积累和生物侵蚀的各自速率。为了解决这些问题,在北极斯瓦尔巴群岛的rhodolith床及其下坡进行了为期10年的沉降和生物侵蚀实验。实验沉降瓦上记录的钙化动物(56个类群)以苔藓虫、蛇形虫和有孔虫为主。生物侵蚀痕迹以微钻孔为主,其次为附着蚀刻和放牧痕迹。生物多样性指标显示,与邻近的无光水体相比,rhodolith床的钙化物多样性和生物侵蚀技术多样性都有所增加,但这些差异在统计上不显著。因此,在两个深度站(46和127 m)之间,在基质取向(向上和向下)和基质类型(PVC和石灰石)之间,钙化菌群落结构和生物侵蚀痕迹组合仅存在低到中等的差异,按相关顺序排列。相比之下,rhodolith床层的表面覆盖度、碳酸盐增生速率和生物侵蚀速率均显著升高,反映出钙化物和生物侵蚀痕迹的丰度或大小更高。所有三个测量值在向上基质的46米处最高,平均覆盖率为78.2%(在PVC基质上),平均吸积率为24.6 g m−2年−1 (PVC),平均生物侵蚀率为- 35.1 g m−2年−1(石灰石)。这些指标的差异取决于与社区结构相同的因素顺序。考虑到两个平台的所有石灰岩基质,碳酸盐增生和生物侵蚀几乎处于平衡状态,净速率为- 2.5 g m−2年−1。与北大西洋先前定居研究的纬度比较表明,尽管极地环境恶劣,但硬底钙化群落的多样性没有减少,有机养生物形成的放牧痕迹、附着蚀刻和微钻孔的多样性也没有减少。相比之下,光养生物产生的微孔由于光的可用性的限制(冷凝光带、极夜、海冰遮阳)而严重枯竭。此外,令人惊讶的是,宏镗孔几乎不存在。在碳酸盐生产方面,斯瓦尔巴群岛碳酸盐工厂标志着纬度梯度的低端,而生物侵蚀率与低纬度的类似深度或光照制度相似甚至更高,尽管考虑到生物侵蚀微植物和大蛀虫所观察到的枯竭,这可能不适用于浅光水体(未包括在我们的实验中)。虽然棘刺类动物的放牧与rhodolith床的生物侵蚀特别相关,但其各自的速率远低于热带浅水珊瑚礁的报告。碳酸盐生产速度缓慢,但生物侵蚀率相对较高(两者都是由北极水域低碳酸盐过饱和度状态推动的),再加上海底骨骼碳酸盐的高度保留,以及微钻孔形成的开放孔隙中没有方解石胶结物形成,表明极地碳酸盐的石化潜力很低,例如在Mosselbukta rhodolith床中形成的那些。
期刊介绍:
The field of geobiology explores the relationship between life and the Earth''s physical and chemical environment. Geobiology, launched in 2003, aims to provide a natural home for geobiological research, allowing the cross-fertilization of critical ideas, and promoting cooperation and advancement in this emerging field. We also aim to provide you with a forum for the rapid publication of your results in an international journal of high standing. We are particularly interested in papers crossing disciplines and containing both geological and biological elements, emphasizing the co-evolutionary interactions between life and its physical environment over geological time.
Geobiology invites submission of high-quality articles in the following areas:
Origins and evolution of life
Co-evolution of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere
The sedimentary rock record and geobiology of critical intervals
Paleobiology and evolutionary ecology
Biogeochemistry and global elemental cycles
Microbe-mineral interactions
Biomarkers
Molecular ecology and phylogenetics.