Rossi F, Forster R M, Montserrat F, Ponti M, Terlizzi A, Ysebaert T, Middelburg J J
1Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, POB 140 4400, AC Yerseke, The Netherlands.
2Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffollk NR33 OHT UK.
Mar Biol. 2007;151(6):2077-2090. doi: 10.1007/s00227-007-0641-0. Epub 2007 Feb 22.
The effect of physical disturbance in the form of trampling on the benthic environment of an intertidal mudflat was investigated. Intense trampling was created as unintended side-effect by benthic ecologists during field experiments in spring and summer 2005, when a mid-shore area of 25 × 25 m was visited twice per month by on average five researchers for a period of 8 months. At the putatively-impacted location () (25 × 25 m) and two nearby control locations () (25 × 25 m each), three sites (4 × 4 m) were randomly selected and at each site, three plots (50 × 50 cm) were sampled after 18 and 40 days from the end of the disturbance. Multivariate and univariate asymmetrical analyses tested for changes in the macrofaunal assemblage, biomass of microphytobenthos and various sediment properties (grain-size, water content, NH and NO concentrations in the pore water) between the two control locations () and the putatively-impacted location (). There were no detectable changes in the sediment properties and microphytobenthos biomass, but variability at small scale was observed. Microphytobenthos and NH were correlated at to the number of footprints, as estimated by the percentage cover of physical depressions. This indicated that trampling could have an impact at small scales, but more investigation is needed. Trampling, instead, clearly modified the abundance and population dynamics of the clam (L.) and the cockle (L.). There was a negative impact on adults of both species, probably because footsteps directly killed or buried the animals, provoking asphyxia. Conversely, trampling indirectly enhanced recruitment rate of . , while small-sized . did not react to the trampling. It was likely that small animals could recover more quickly because trampling occurred during the growing season and there was a continuous supply of larvae and juveniles. In addition, trampling might have weakened negative adult-juvenile interactions between adult cockles and juvenile . , thus facilitating the recruitment. Our findings indicated that human trampling is a relevant source of disturbance for the conservation and management of mudflats. During the growing season recovery can be fast, but in the long-term it might lead towards the dominance of to the cost of , thereby affecting ecosystem functioning.
研究了践踏这种形式的物理干扰对潮间带泥滩底栖环境的影响。2005年春夏进行野外实验时,底栖生态学家造成了强烈践踏这一意外副作用,当时一个25×25米的中岸区域平均每月有5名研究人员到访两次,持续了8个月。在假定受影响的地点(25×25米)和两个附近的对照地点(每个25×25米),随机选择了三个4×4米的样地,在干扰结束后的18天和40天,对每个样地的三个50×50厘米的小区进行采样。多变量和单变量非对称分析测试了两个对照地点和假定受影响地点之间大型底栖动物群落、微型底栖植物生物量以及各种沉积物特性(粒度、含水量、孔隙水中的NH和NO浓度)的变化。沉积物特性和微型底栖植物生物量没有可检测到的变化,但观察到了小尺度的变异性。微型底栖植物和NH与脚印数量在 上相关,脚印数量通过物理凹陷的覆盖百分比来估计。这表明践踏可能在小尺度上产生影响,但还需要更多研究。相反,践踏明显改变了蛤(L.)和鸟蛤(L.)的丰度和种群动态。对这两个物种的成年个体都有负面影响,可能是因为脚步直接杀死或掩埋了动物,导致窒息。相反,践踏间接提高了 的补充率,而小型的 对践踏没有反应。很可能小动物恢复得更快,因为践踏发生在生长季节,并且有幼虫和幼体的持续供应。此外,践踏可能削弱了成年鸟蛤和幼年 之间的成年 - 幼年负面相互作用,从而促进了补充。我们的研究结果表明,人类践踏是泥滩保护和管理的一个相关干扰源。在生长季节恢复可能很快,但从长期来看,它可能导致 占主导地位,而以 为代价,从而影响生态系统功能。