How is Species Richness Affected by Seagrass?

By Monique Mendez and Beatrice Petelo

Abstract
The purpose of our study was to determine how seagrass affects species richness of underwater
organisms. We used Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) to collect data over time. ARMS is
a small device that can serve as a living environment for the organisms. Our experiment used all of the
ARMS that were placed in Mission Bay San Diego (Fiesta Island). We looked at the ARMS that were
placed near seagrass and the ARMS near bare patches. We also looked into which sections of the ARMS
units (top, middle, bottom) had the most organisms. We predicted that the ARMS placed by the seagrass
patches will have an increase of species richness compared to the ARMS that are by the bare patches
because the sea grasses serves as a suitable living environment for underwater organisms. We would like

to further investigate why particular organisms were more dominant in the bare patches more so
than the seagrass patches. We would like to further investigate why particular organisms were
more dominant in the bare patches more so than the seagrass patches.
Introduction
The Disappearing Marine Life Seagrass project will revolve mainly around our research of seagrass and
their recent population decrease over the past few years. The decline in seagrass population is caused by
urbanization, pollution, fishing, and rising temperatures (U.S. National Library of Medicine 2014). Unlike
what most would think, seagrass is not an actual grass, but rather a flower (Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary 2015). Like regular plants, seagrasses also produce oxygen. They have the ability to
clean the water that surrounds them and eliminate carbon dioxide from the environment. Seagrasses play
an important role in not only the aquatic ecosystem, but ours as well (Smithsonian 2016).
In this project, we will be using a certain tool called ARMS. ARMS stands for Autonomous Reef
Monitoring Structure. It is a small device that can collect data underwater over a long period of time
(Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 2016). The ARMS structure was designed with built-in plates to
attract organisms (Ocean Portal 2016). Once we have retrieved the ARMS from the San Diego Mission
Bay, we plan on using photography and 3D modelling softwares (CPCe) to identify and document the
organisms that we find on the plates. CPCe stands for Coral Point Count with Excel. It covers an image of
a selected plate from the ARMS structure and finds the total averages of each organism placed on the
plate (Nova Southerneastern University 2016). From there, we can gather more data about what
organisms interact with the seagrass and how they rely on one another.
Our experiment specifically will focus on the ARMS located by the seagrass and by the bare patches. We
will be taking a closer look at which organisms not only rely on the seagrass for shelter and food, but are
also dominant in various shelves within the ARMS. Throughout the project, we will continue to
investigate biomass, species richness, species diversity, and ultimately what is causing the decline of
seagrasses.

We believe that if the population of seagrasses continue to decline, we will lose organisms that a lot of
other organisms depend on, in other words, the food chain will mess up. Since seagrasses also help get rid
of carbon dioxide, we expect the levels of CO2 will increase. Seagrasses play an important role in our
ecosystem and their disappearance would be detrimental to the environment.

Method
In this experiment, our group will be focusing on which organisms dominate the top, middle and bottom
plates of the ARMS (Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structure) that are placed near the seagrass and by the
bare patches. We will be comparing the amount of organisms that dominate each ARM more through our
gathered data. We chose this as our independent variable because we wanted to study what organisms live
in a structure in a certain area and levels of ARMS. We believe that our research will be beneficial
throughout the study of this project as we think our investigation will prove that there will be high-levels
of species richness from looking at the ARMS.
Our dependent variables would include dominance of species in the ARMS unit by the bare patch and by
the seagrass and also phyla coverage in the top, bottom, and middle plates of the ARMS (species
richness). It shows you that seagrass has a vital role in the marine ecosystem therefore if the population of
seagrass were to decline, so would the organisms that depended on them. We will be examining either
ARMS X, Y, and Z (which are all located in the seagrass). We will be also examining either ARMS Q and
R (which are located in the bare patches). The way we will be examining the total amount of organisms
gathered within each plate will be through a computer software called CPCe. It is a software used to
determine the total percent coverage within an ARMS plate by just looking at drawing points on the
photo. Coverage points are then averaged and then put into an excel sheet.
A confounding variable that we are unable to control for is the fact that some organisms may swim away
or leave the ARMS before we retrieve and analyze the plates. Our sample size will be both ARMS, one
that is located in seagrass, one that is not. Our controlled variables would be the ARMS it is our constant
variable - it will remain persistent throughout our research as we continue.
We predict that there will be more organisms on the middle plates of the ARMS. We think that there will
be high-levels of species and richness diversity as a whole within the ARMS that are near seagrass as
opposed to the ARMS that are not located near seagrass. We believe that the richness and diversity will be
higher for the ARMS in the seagrass because the seagrass provides shelter and food for many organisms.
We also believe that there will be more organisms in the middle because there is a balance of light and
dimness, as well as the amount of seagrass (not near roots or tips).

Results
ARMS Units X, Y, and Z were placed in Mission Bay San Diego (Fiesta Island) near seagrass ARMS, and
Units Q and R were placed in a bare area.

Figure 1: Phyla Coverage ARMS X, Y, and Z

(Seagrass Patch)

Figure 2: Phyla Coverage ARMS Q and R (Bare

Patch)

Figure 1 shows the average percentage of the top

three phyla covering the ARMS units X-Z. These
units were placed in Mission Bay San Diego
near a seagrass patch. They were covered by:
1. Unknown Brown Slime - 5.2%
2. Crassostrea C. Gigas (Mollusca)
- 7.7%
3. Microporella ciliata (Bryozoa) 6.1%
4. Unknown - 18.6%
5. Empty - 62.3%

Figure 2 shows the average percentage of the top

three phyla covering the ARMS Q and R units.
These units were placed in Mission Bay San Diego
near a bare patch. They were covered by:
1. Unknown Annelid - 10.9%
2. Crassostrea C. Gigas (Mollusca) 10.7%
3. Microporella ciliata (Bryozoa) 6.1%
4. Other - 24.7%
5. Empty - 47.6%

The graph shows a portion of the biodiversity of

organisms within the ARMS because of the
phyla that was present.

The graph shows a portion of the biodiversity of

organisms within the ARMS because of the phyla
that was present.

Figure 3: ARMS Unit Y (Seagrass), Plate 2, Top

Figure 4: ARMS Unit Q (Bare), Plate 3, Top

Figure 3 shows one of the plates from ARMS Y.

This is the top of plate 2. As seen in the figure,
there are plenty of shelled organism. These are
called Crassostrea C. Gigas, commonly known as
mollusks. Mollusks were one of the dominant
species that were present in the ARMS units X-Z.

Figure 4 shows another one of our plates from

ARMS unit Q. This is the top of plate 3, and as
you can see, there are some unidentified annelids,
or worms. Annelids had the highest average of
presence throughout ARMS Q and R.

Figure 5: Average Percent Coverage of Organisms in ARMS X-Z (Seagrass) Levels versus ARMS Q
and R (Bare) Levels

Figure 5 shows the comparison of ARMS X-Z and ARMS Q and R levels. The blue bars represent the
coverage of ARMS Q and R (Bare), and the red bars represent the coverage of ARMS X-Z (Seagrass).

Figure 6: ARMS Z (Seagrass), Plate 8, Top

Figure 7: ARMS R (Bare), Plate 8, Top

Conclusion
Our research results show that organisms are more drawn to bare patch plates more so than seagrass
plates. What is most notable is how there was a total of 62.3% emptiness on average for ARMS X through
Z while ARMS R and Q only had a total of 47.6% emptiness on average (Figure 1 and 2). When adding
up the top three total dominant organisms averages, the seagrass patch had only a total of 19% while the
bare patch had the greater total of 27.7% (Figure 1 and 2).
Looking at Figure 3 and 4, we suspected that there would be more organisms on average total within the
seagrass plates due to more mollusks and seemingly more sea life attached onto the plates. However,
when looking at Figures 6 and 7, there seems be hardly marine life on ARMS R compared to ARMS Z.
When looking at Figure 5, results show us how the decline of organism life from top plates to bottom
plates, comparing the ARMS placed by the seagrass and the ARMS placed near the bare patch.
For top plates, there is a 12.69% difference in coverage, middle plates have a 15.41% difference in
coverage, while the bottom plates have a 19.29% difference in total coverage (Figure 5). We see the
percent coverage of organisms slowly increasing again for the ARMS placed by the seagrass within the
bottom plates. We believe this is because seagrass provides an environment for many of the organisms in
the bay and it have been because there were already many organisms planted within at the bottom to
begin with. Another assumption we have is that there many be many organisms that live or attach
themselves to the roots to of the seagrass.

Discussion
Our results matter on a wider scale because we, as people, can partake in this movement of protecting the
seagrass. Humans impact seagrass through physical disturbance, pollution, and boat trafficking. Those
were just a few examples of how seagrass meadows are harmfully affected and by us, for that matter. An
issue to still take into consideration is be boat trafficking and the waste given off by boats. Currently, this
is factor is said to be influencing the Mediterranean and soon Eastern Pacific seagrasses. Of course, there
are factors we cannot control such as global warming or deforestation, as these variables that may
continuously grow and only develop into a greater environmental conflict.
If we were to do this experiment again, rather than focusing and comparing on only two plates, we would
like to focus on one organism that seems to dominate both plates and try to understand why there is an
equal amount of coverage of that organism. For instance, when looking at Figure 1 and Figure 2 again,
they both did have an equal percentage of Microporella cillata with 6.1% total. If possible, we would
want to investigate further as to why there is so much coverage of this type of bryozoa.

Sources Cited:
"Monitoring in the Western Pacific Region Shows Evidence of Seagrass Decline in Line with Global
Trends." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30 June
2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
"Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) Overview." NOAA PIFSC -. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept.
2016.
Waters, Hannah. "Seagrass and Seagrass Beds." Ocean Portal. N.p., 2016. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
"Seagrass Are Flowering Plants That Grow Entirely Underwater." What Is Seagrass? N.p., 18 Mar. 2015.
Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
"CPCe Software." (CPCe) Coral Point Count with Excel Extensions Research Software | NSU Halmos
College of Natural Sciences and Oceanography. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.