State of the Bay Report 2011-Final.pdf - Anchor Environmental
State of the Bay Report 2011-Final.pdf - Anchor Environmental
State of the Bay Report 2011-Final.pdf - Anchor Environmental
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>State</strong> <strong>of</strong> Saldanha <strong>Bay</strong> & Langebaan Lagoon <strong>2011</strong><br />
Intertidal invertebrates<br />
Mobile animals in <strong>the</strong> low shore included O. tigrina, which was common at sheltered to semiexposed<br />
sites and Parvulastra exigua, frequently encountered in rock depressions and pools. C.<br />
granatina and Burnupena spp. occurred at all low shores at relatively equal densities, whereas S.<br />
cochlear was restricted to wave swept shores where it lives in patches <strong>of</strong> dense aggregations.<br />
It is understandable that <strong>the</strong> vertical gradient <strong>of</strong> emersion up <strong>the</strong> shore creates a stress gradient that<br />
has important ecological effects, creating <strong>the</strong> clear zonation patterns observed on rocky intertidal<br />
shores. Among shores, however, <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> biotic communities is also affected by a horizontal<br />
gradient <strong>of</strong> exposure to wave action, from sheltered bays to exposed headlands. Viewing <strong>the</strong><br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various functional groups shows obvious differences among <strong>the</strong> shores with<br />
regard to exposure (Figure 8.12). Very sheltered shores had generally low biotic cover consisting<br />
primarily <strong>of</strong> grazers and trappers (i.e. <strong>the</strong> limpet Cymbula granatina), with minor cover <strong>of</strong> sessile<br />
filter feeders and encrusting algae. The sheltered Schaapen Islands sites were dominated by algae<br />
(encrusting and foliose algae) but with fur<strong>the</strong>r increase in wave force, filter feeders were clearly <strong>the</strong><br />
most important group. At Marcus Island, ephemeral algae were also abundant.<br />
Figure 8.12. Contribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> functional groups to <strong>the</strong> biotic cover (%) across <strong>the</strong> whole rocky shore at<br />
<strong>the</strong> eight study sites (sorted from left to right according to increasing wave exposure).<br />
Multivariate analysis (i.e. cluster analysis and multi-dimensional scaling) finally confirms <strong>the</strong><br />
clear separation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rocky shores with regard to wave exposure (Figure 8.13). At a 50% similarity<br />
level <strong>the</strong> sites group into three major groups: Group 1 contains <strong>the</strong> very sheltered shores Dive School<br />
and Jetty, Group 2 consists <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two sheltered Schaapen Island sites, whereas all o<strong>the</strong>r more<br />
exposed sites fall into Group 3. At a higher similarity level <strong>of</strong> 60%, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sites within <strong>the</strong> groups<br />
separate from each o<strong>the</strong>r, displaying a great within-site similarity. Only <strong>the</strong> three exposed sites<br />
Lynch Point, North <strong>Bay</strong> and Marcus Island still cluster toge<strong>the</strong>r (Group 3A), signifying that <strong>the</strong><br />
communities at <strong>the</strong>se shores are relatively similar, while <strong>the</strong> steep Iron Ore Terminal shores splits <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
178<br />
ANCHOR<br />
e n v i r o n m en t a l