A

RESEARCH PROJECT

ON

DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT BOTTOM EPIBENTHIC FAUNA IN IKO ESTUARY

BY

IBANGA, ABASIFREKE UDEME

Ak18/BGS/MAB/020

SUBMITTED TO

DEPARTMENT OF MARINE BIOLOGY,

FACULTY OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES,
AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY, IKOT AKPADEN, MKPAT ENIN L.G.A.

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

THE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE (B.SC.) IN MARINE BIOLOGY

FEBRUARY, 2023.

i
 DECLARATION

I, IBANGA, ABASIFRKE UDEME hereby declare that this project titled

„DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA’ is an original work

done by me with the supervision of MRS. MONICA UDEME DAN, submitted to the

Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University.

…………………………………...
IBANGA, ABASIFREKE UDEME
AK18/BGS/MAB/020

ii
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the content of this research work with the title
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA IN IKO
ESTUARY is the work carried out by IBANGA, ABASIFREKE UDEME
with matriculation number AK18/BGS/MAB/020 from the department of
Marine Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University
under the supervision of MRS.MONICA UDEME DAN. We have examined
this research work and found it acceptable for the award of Bachelor of Science
Degree (B.Sc.) in Marine Biology.

IBANGA, ABASIFREKE UDEME ______________________

Student Signature/Date

MRS. MONICA UDEME DAN ______________________

Supervisor Signature/Date

DR. INI-IBEHE NABUK ETIM ______________________

Head of Department Signature/Date

___________________ ______________________
External examiner Signature/Date

iii
 DEDICATION

This research project is dedicated to God Almighty for His mercy, grace and love for me.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to give the Almighty God my profound gratitude and

admiration for providing me the fortitude, the grace, and the inspiration to complete this

study project successfully. I would especially want to thank my kind department head, Dr.

Ini-Ibehe Nabuk, for his care and support, which gave me the motivation I needed to do this

task successfully. Thank you sir. My supervisor, Mrs. Monica Udeme Dan deserves special

gratitude for all of her instruction, support, and insight. He would always make time to talk

about analysis results despite her busy schedule. I would also like to express my deepest

gratitude and appreciation to my project coordinator, Dr, Aniefiok Inyang for his guidance

throughout the research of my project. I want to thank everyone who helped make this

research project successful, including the Marine Biology Unit, Akwa Ibom State University,

technologists, and lecturers. In addition, I would want to thank all of the Akwa Ibom State

University staff members who in some way helped make this study project successful. My

father, MR. UDEME IBANGA, deserves special thanks, and I ask that God the Father

provide him a bountiful blessing in the name of Jesus. I also want to thank all my friends,

who has helped me a lot, as well as my mother, and my siblings, who have all helped me in

some way or another to succeed academically.

v
 ABSTRACT

The distribution of soft bottom benthic Epibenthic fauna can be described as the abundance
of aquatic animals that live substrate or surface that is composed of sediment such as sand,
mud or silt. The distribution of soft bottom Epibenthic fauna were investigated at two
stations; Ayalekong and Utan-iko River Estuary, Eastern Obolo L.G.A, Akwa Ibom State.
The soft bottom Epibenthic fauna was gathered at two sampling sites in a day using an
identification guidebook. A total of 302 Epifaunal organisms consisting of 4 phyla and 11
families/species were recorded. Epibenthic population at the different stations revealed that
the study area was dominated by Gastropoda with the highest percentage, followed by
Arthropoda. Others included the Bivalvia, Mollusca and Polychaeta. The result shows that
species richness as revealed by the Margelef index was higher in station 1(Ayalekpong) than
station 2 (Utana-iko). The variation in taxa and number of individuals during the months of
sampling was not significantly different. Physio-chemical parameters, Temperature, Salinity,
Dissolved oxygen, pH and Electrical conductivity are likely to influence distribution of soft
bottom Epibenthic fauna community in Iko River Estuary.
Word Count: 181

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................. ii
CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. v
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ........................................................................................ 4
1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY ........................................................................................ 5
1.3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 6
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 7
2.1 SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES ...................................... 7
2.2 SPATIOTEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFT BOTTOM EPIBENTHIC
FAUNA .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF EPIBENTHOS ......................... 12
CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................................... 15
3.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 15
3.1.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 SAMPLING OF SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA AND IDENTIFICATION16
3.1.2 ORGANIC MATTER .................................................................................................... 17
3.2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................. 17
BIOLOGICAL INDICES ....................................................................................................... 17
MARGELEF INDEX (D): ...................................................................................................................... 17
SHANNON-WIENER INFORMATION INDEX/ABUNDANCE OF SPECIES (SHANNON
AND WEINER ......................................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER FOUR .............................................................................................................................................. 19
4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................... 19
4.1 PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS ...................................................................... 19
4.2 SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA OF AYALEKPONG AND UTAN-IKO ... 21
vii
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................................ 26
5.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 26
5.1 RECOMMENDATION: ................................................................................................ 26
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 27

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Physico-chemical parameters of surface water at Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko……………19

Table 2: 4 phyla and 11 families/species with total relative abundance of 148 and 154 at

two sampling point respectfully…………….…..………………..……………….……..21

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.1: Map of sampling area……………………..………………..………………..………………..…………16

Fig. 2: Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen and pH concentration in surface water at Ayalekpong and
Utan-Iko………………..………………….…………..………………..………………..………………20

Fig. 3: Electrical Conductivity in surface water at Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko…………………....……………20

Fig. 4: Species composition and relative abundance in soft bottom epi-benthic fauna of Ayalekpong and Utan-
Iko. ………………..………………..……………..………………..………………..………………..…..22

Fig 5: Percentage occurrence of phyla constituent of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna in Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko.
………………..………………..………………..………………..………………..………………..…….22

x
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Epibenthic fauna is an aquatic animal that live on or near the bottom of a body of

water, such as a lake, river, estuary or ocean. Soft bottom refers to a type of substrate, or

surface that is composed of sediments such as sand, mud or silt. Soft bottom epi-benthic

fauna are therefore aquatic animals that live on or within the interstices of soft

substrate/sediment (Jerónimo, 2007; Pan et al., 2009).

These animals can include invertebrates such as worms, clams, and crabs, as well as

small fish and other vertebrates (Armonies, 2008). They play important roles in the ecology

of their environments, serving as both predators and prey and helping to recycle nutrients and

maintain the health of the ecosystem. Estuaries are unique ecosystems that are characterized

by the mixing of fresh water from rivers and streams with salt water from the ocean. This

creates a unique environment that is influenced by both freshwater and marine conditions,

and it supports a diverse array of plant and animal life that have adapted to these conditions

(Meire et al., 2005). Estuaries are also known for their high productivity, due to the influx of

nutrients from the surrounding land as well as the mixing of different water masses. This

makes estuaries important habitats for many fish and invertebrate species, as well as

migratory birds and other animals. Estuaries also provide a wide range of ecosystem services,

such as water purification, shoreline stabilization, and carbon sequestration (Culter, 2009).

Most benthic invertebrates are quite small and can be clearly distinguished only with the aid

of magnification. They are classified into three major groups based on adult size. The

smallest are the meiobenthos, which pass through a 500-μm mesh, but are retained on a 63-

μm screen. Important taxa of meiobenthos include harpactacoid copepods, nematodes,

1
ostracods and Foraminifera. Macrobenthos are retained on a 500-μm mesh screen and are not

readily identifiable without magnification. Annelid worms, bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans,

tunicates, and insect larvae are commonly encountered macro-benthos in estuaries. The

largest size-based category, the mega benthos, can be identified without magnification

because individuals are typically multiple centimeters in size. This group includes animals

such as crabs, bivalves, gastropods, sponges, colonial entoprocts and hydrozoans. Benthic

organisms may progress through different categories as they grow. Many animals classified

as macro-benthos start off as meio-benthic juveniles and are known as “temporary meio-

benthos.” Beyond size, the mobility of an animal (motile versus sessile) and how it

associates with the sediment or hard substrate (in-faunal versus epi-benthic) are other

common ways benthic organisms are classified. Epibenthic animals live on or just above the

substrate. They may be firmly attached (sessile), relatively sedentary, or fully motile.

Animals such as barnacles, oysters, sponges, tunicates, entoprocts, gastropods, anthozoans,

mud crabs, and certain species of amphipods are common representatives of the Epibenthic

(Schaffner, 2012).

The biomass size spectrum of epi-benthic communities can provide valuable insight into the

ecological dynamics of these habitats. The size structure of a community can be influenced

by a variety of factors, including predation pressure, competition for resources, and

environmental conditions. Small organisms tend to have high turnover rates and high

reproductive output, which can result in high productivity relative to total biomass. These

organisms are also typically more sensitive to environmental changes, making them good

indicators of habitat stability. On the other hand, large organisms tend to have longer life-

spans and slower turnover rates. They may also have a more specialized diet and occupy a

specific niche within the community. These organisms may play important roles in shaping

the structure and functioning of the ecosystem through their physical impacts on sediment

2
and their interactions with other members of the community. Large organisms like urchins

and polychaetes can play important ecological roles by creating and maintaining burrows in

the sediment. Burrows can increase the physical and chemical heterogeneity of sediments,

and also provide important refuges for smaller organisms. These organisms also can also

have important impacts on the geochemistry of the sediments, through the formation,

maintenance and ventilation of burrows. The study of the biomass size spectrum is important

in understanding the ecosystem structure and function, the food web and the community

dynamics.

Estuaries are unique environments that support a diverse range of species and ecosystem

functions. The variability in salinity, water movement, and turbidity that is characteristic of

estuaries results in a gradient of different habitats, from freshwater to marine that supports a

wide range of organisms. One of the key ecosystem functions of estuaries is the

biogeochemical cycling of nutrients. Estuaries act as a "sink" for nutrients that are carried by

rivers from the surrounding watershed (Meire et al., 2005). These nutrients, such as nitrogen

and phosphorus, support a high level of primary productivity in the estuary, which in turn

supports a wide range of species, from microorganisms to fish and birds. Estuaries also serve

as important nursery grounds for many species of fish and crustaceans. The relatively calm

waters and high levels of productivity in estuaries provide ideal conditions for young fish and

crustaceans to grow and mature before moving out to the open ocean. Estuaries also provide

an important link between rivers and the sea for many species of fish, such as salmon and eel

that migrate between fresh and salt water during their lifecycle (Culter, 2009).

Estuaries are indeed very unique and diverse ecosystems. They are characterized by their

high productivity and biodiversity, and are home to a wide variety of plants and animals,

many of which are not found anywhere else. They also provide many important ecological

and economic services, such as water purification, shoreline stabilization, and fish and

3
shellfish production. The benthic organisms that live in estuaries are adapted to the unique

physical and chemical conditions found in these environments, such as the variation in

salinity and temperature caused by the mixing of freshwater and seawater. Many of these

organisms are filter feeders or deposit feeders, which allows them to take advantage of the

high productivity of the estuary. Some examples of benthic organisms found in estuaries

include oysters, mussels, clams, and barnacles, as well as polychaete worms, snails, and

various types of crustaceans.

Estuaries also provide important habitat for many fish species, including commercially

important species such as Atlantic croaker, striped bass, and blue crabs. These fish species

use estuaries as nurseries and feeding grounds, and their populations are closely tied to the

health of these ecosystems. The Estuaries in the tropics and sub-tropical region have their

characteristics from the adjoining mangrove forest tie to this region, which gives its potentials

as mentioned above.

However, estuaries are also among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth due to human

activities such as pollution, habitat destruction, and overfishing. Estuaries and the benthic

communities are also vulnerable to environmental changes, such as sea level rise, changes in

freshwater flows, and shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns. Therefore, it is

important to protect and conserve estuaries through conservation and management efforts

such as restoration projects and conservation laws.

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dredging, which is the process of removing sediment from the bottom of a body of water

using a dredge, can have a significant impact on epi-faunal organisms. This is because

dredging can physically disturb or remove the substrate, as well as change the flow patterns

and water quality of the area. As a result, epi-faunal organisms may be buried, smothered or

damaged by dredging equipment, or may be indirectly affected by changes in the

4
environment caused by dredging. For example, dredging can create turbidity and sediment

plumes which can affect the visibility and food availability for the organisms. Moreover,

dredging can also alter the chemical and physical conditions of the water and sediment,

which may impact the survival and reproduction of epi-faunal organisms.

Large-scale environmental perturbations, such as storms and hydrodynamic processes, can

also impact epi-benthic organisms for example, storms can cause waves and currents that can

scour the seafloor, removing or disturbing epi-benthic organisms and their habitats. Similarly,

strong currents can erode the seafloor and change the flow patterns, which can affect the

distribution and survival of epi-benthic organisms. Furthermore, human activities such as

pollution and sedimentation can also influence the distribution and diversity of epi-faunal

organisms. Pollution can cause toxic conditions that can harm or kill epi-faunal organisms,

while sedimentation can cover or smother the organisms and their habitats. Thus,

understanding the impact of these activities is important for the management and

conservation of these habitats and the organisms that depend on them.

1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

Benthic organisms play an important role in the food web as they are a source of food for

many aquatic animals, including fish and birds. Additionally, they play an important role in

nutrient cycling and sediment stabilization in estuaries. As mentioned, epi-benthic organisms

are particularly important to study as they are an intermediate link in the food web and are

also subject to pollutants and toxic compounds. Anthropogenic activities, such as industrial

pollution and coastal development, can also have significant impacts on epi-benthic

communities. These activities can result in habitat loss, increased sedimentation, and the

introduction of pollutants, all of which can negatively impact the health and diversity of epi-

benthic communities. It is thus important to conduct research on these communities to

increase our understanding of their ecology and the impacts of human activities on them. This

5
information can then be used to develop conservation and management strategies to protect

these important ecosystems.

1.3. AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research work is to assess the distribution of soft bottom Epibenthic fauna in

Iko Estuary.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

(1) To determine the physicochemical parameters of Iko estuary

(2) To determine the benthic biodiversity, abundance and ecological structure in Iko

estuary.

(3) To co-relate the diversity, abundance and biomass distribution of the epi-benthic

community to environmental information such as temperature, salinity, dissolved

oxygen, precipitation and sediment type.

(4) To suggest mitigation practices to enhance productivity and sustainability of Epi-

benthic fauna in Iko estuary.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNAL COMMUNITIES

According to resent studies from (Khan et al., 2010), Epibenthic animals in Riverine

Estuary tend to fall into two categories according to their usual position within the benthic

boundary layer, that region located at the interface between the water column and the bottom

sediment These include: (a) large (>1 cm), highly motile macro invertebrates such as

shrimps and crabs; and, (b) small macro- (I cm to 0.500 mm), meio- (0.500 mm to 0.060

mm), micro-fauna (<0.060 mm) such as harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods, and

cumaceans, which are termed epi-benthic zooplankton because of their movement in and out

of the water column (Culter, 2009).

These epi-benthic organisms are found in all of the estuary's habitats which are tidally

inundated but tend to be concentrated in the lower tidal elevation (i.e. >0.0 m above MLLW)

of the tidal flats and along the demersal slope habitats between 0.0 m and -1.0 m elevations

(Belgrano et al., 2013). The low frequency of tidal inundation in estuarine marsh and swamp

habitats and the excessive bottom current velocities in the deeper, channel bottom habitats

probably limit the development and maintenance of epi-benthic zooplankton in these habitats,

but motile macro invertebrates are often common there (França et al., 2009).

Smaller, more planktonic forms were sampled from within the benthic boundary layer of

shallow (i.e. <1 m depth) habitats using a 0.10 m2 epi-benthic suction pump and in channel

bottom habitats using a 0.5-m opening-closing epi-benthic sled (Konar et al., 2014). The

suction pump was a fixed sampler which filtered 0.025 m3 of the water column over 0.1 m2

of the bottom substrate with little or no contamination from outside this sampling volume (Xu

et al., 2020). The epi-benthic sled filtered epi-fauna from within the benthic boundary layer

as it was towed over the bottom by a surface vessel. The more evasive macro-fauna had to be

7
sampled with nets--a 37-m beach seine for demersal slope habitats and a 4.9-m bottom trawl

for tidal flat and channel bottom habitats (Konar et al., 2014). Sampling procedures were

standardized and measurements taken which enabled estimation of the effort expended (i.e.,

area or volume sampled) for each sample, thus allowing estimation and comparison of epi-

faunal density (no. individuals m-2 or m-3) and standing crop (g wet weight mn2 or m-3) in

the different habitats. Harpacticoid (including principally Scottolana canadensis,

Microarthridion littorale, and Tachidius spp.), calanoid (Eurytemora affinis), and cyclopoid

copepods (Cyclops spp.), ostracods (Limnocythere sp.), cladocerans (Daphnia spp.) and

rotifers were the prominent components of the epi-benthic zooplankton assemblages. The

sand shrimp, Crangon franciscorum, and Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, constituted the

principal motile macro invertebrates. Mysids or "opossum shrimp," Neomysis mercedis, were

common to both groups and, as such, may have been under-represented in the collections due

to their evasion of the epi-benthic pump and sled and the relatively large mesh sizes of the

beach seine and bottom trawl (França et al., 2009).

The epi-fauna sampled within the estuary included components which were both indigenous

to the system (i.e., their population‟s reproductive wholly within the estuary) and exogenous

animals which were passively transported into the estuary from the Columbia River or the

open ocean (Crespo & Pardal, 2020). Epi-benthos, also known as epi-fauna, are a diverse

group of organisms that live on or near the surface of the substrate in aquatic environments.

They can be found in both marine and freshwater habitats, and their adaptations to the

specific conditions of their environment vary widely. Some examples of epi-benthos include

barnacles, mussels, and oysters, which are all sessile organisms that attach themselves to the

substrate using specialized structures like holdfasts or by secreting a sticky substance. These

organisms filter feed on plankton or detritus in the water column. Other examples of epi-

benthos include snails, crabs, and sea stars, which are motile organisms that move along the

8
substrate and feed on a variety of different food sources, such as algae, detritus, or other

smaller organisms. Epi-benthos are also often found in intertidal zones, where they must deal

with the challenges of exposure to air during low tides and the force of waves and currents.

These organisms have developed a variety of adaptations to survive in this dynamic

environment. For example, some species have adapted to be able to survive out of the water

for extended periods of time by sealing themselves off or burying themselves in the substrate,

while others have developed specialized structures such as suction cups to help them stay

attached to the substrate during waves or currents. Overall, epi-benthos are an important part

of aquatic ecosystems, as they provide important ecosystem services such as filtering water

and providing food for other animals.

The epi-benthic communities are usually more diversified than endo-benthic communities.

Nevertheless, it is estimated that they occupy only 10% of the total benthic zone (Gage

2001). Besides bivalves and gastropods, they include several taxa among crustaceans,

Echinodermata, anemones, corals, porifera, nemertea, and polychaete (Reiss et al. 2010;

Williams et al. 2010; Kędra et al. 2017). This group has less potential for sediment

remobilization than endo-benthos; nevertheless their impact must not be neglected, at least in

the first centimeter of the sediment. Hyper-benthos usually refers to organisms that swim and

live in close relation with the bottom, but not necessarily in permanent contact with it. They

are usually fish; nevertheless cephalopods and crustaceans are also included. Both epi-

benthos and hyper-benthos are highly susceptible to trawl fisheries pressure and similar

perturbations of the aquatic floor (Williams et al.2010).

9
2.2 SPATIOTEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFT BOTTOM

EPIBENTHIC FAUNA

Estuaries are incredibly important ecosystems that provide a wide range of ecological

services. They are formed where freshwater from rivers and streams meet the saltwater of the

ocean, creating a unique mix of fresh and salt water. This mix of water creates a diverse

environment that supports a wide variety of plants and animals. One of the most important

ecological services provided by estuaries is nutrient cycling. Estuaries act as a sink for

nutrients that are carried into the system by rivers and streams. These nutrients, such as

nitrogen and phosphorus, are used by the wide variety of plants and animals that live in

estuaries. This in turn supports the entire food web, from small plants and plankton to larger

fish and birds.

Estuaries also play a crucial role in food production. Many commercial and subsistence

fisheries are dependent on estuaries for spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for a variety

of fish and shellfish species. Along with commercial fishing, there are other forms of

aquaculture that takes place, these includes clam farming and oyster farming.

Estuaries also provide important habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals, many of

which are threatened or endangered species. For example, many species of migratory birds

rely on estuaries for feeding and nesting during different stages of their migration.

Additionally, many species of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks that are important to both

commercial and recreational fisheries use estuaries as nursery or breeding grounds. Finally,

estuaries also play an important role in biologic control. The diverse community of plants and

animals in estuaries, along with the physical conditions of the environment, act as a buffer

against harmful algal blooms, disease outbreaks, and other disturbances. However, Estuaries

are also highly vulnerable to human activities and climate change impacts. Pollution,

overfishing, and habitat destruction are all major threats to estuaries. Additionally, rising sea

10
levels and increased frequency and intensity of storms associated with climate change are

also affecting the functioning of estuaries and the services they provide.

The average global value of annual ecosystem services related to estuaries were estimated in

US$ 22.832,00/ha/year (Constanza et al., 1997), enforcing the importance of their

conservation. It is of great concern that estuarine areas are vulnerable to disturbances such as

variations in salinity, high organic matter input and anoxic sediment (Rosa; Bemvenuti,

2006), which can be associated to anthropic impacts.

Epi-faunal studies by means of continuously dredging could change ecological

characterization of the community (Mutlu & Ergev, 2008). This may be the case for the

macro benthic community inhabiting the shallow sandy bottoms of the area considered in this

study. Frequent small-scale disturbances, such as dredging operations, may thus be masked

by large-scale environmental perturbations, such as storms, and prevailing hydrodynamic

processes may be among the key factors determining the extent to which an area will be

resilient to fishing disturbance (Morello et al. 2006). The community structure the

continuously fished area was dominated by small, opportunistic, short-lived species while the

community structure of the recently non-fished area was dominated by more fragile and non-

living sessile organisms in dredged and non-dredged fishing areas (Eleftheriou and Robertson

1992, Simboura et al. 1998, Smith et al. 2000, Sarda et al. 2000, Gusso et al. 2001, Chicharo

et al. 2002, Kamenos et al. 2003).According to recent studies, reviews showed that the

Cilician shelf particularly large area of Levantine Sea had not been considered with regard of

the soft-bottom megafauna. (Mutlu & Ergev, 2008) conducted the first seasonal macro-

benthic epi-faunal community study in the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, even in Turkish

waters, particularly during post period of Conomurex persicus‟ introduction (succession

recently occurred in Argolikos Bahhy and Crete, Greece, Zenetos et al. 2002) and examines

11
spatio-temporal distribution of the community in the investigated area, with regard to

environmental characteristics.

2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF EPIBENTHOS

Benthic communities refer to the diverse group of organisms that live on or in the

sediments at the bottom of a body of water, including oceans, lakes, and rivers. These

communities are incredibly diverse and can include organisms such as crustaceans, mollusks,

worms, and various types of fish. Benthic communities are highly variable in both space and

time due to a number of different factors. Habitat patchiness, which refers to the uneven

distribution of suitable habitats, can lead to variation in the composition of benthic

communities across different areas. Seasonal variation can also play a role, as certain

organisms may be more active or abundant during certain times of the year. Human activities

can also greatly affect benthic communities, for example pollution, dredging, and overfishing

can all have negative impacts on benthic organisms and their habitats. Understanding the

dynamics of benthic communities and the factors that shape them is important for

conservation and management of these important ecosystems (Gray 1981).

In addition, they are often subject to anthropogenic activities, and analyses of changes in soft-

bottom benthic macro-faunal community structure have been widely used for detecting and

monitoring the biological effects of human activities in marine environments (Agard et al.

1993, Clarke and Warwick 1994). Benthic communities integrate the effects of both natural

processes and anthropogenic activities, and long-term monitoring can help to determine

which of the above processes is responsible for changes observed in benthic communities.

Among other things, such monitoring has revealed the introduction of alien invasive species

(Currie and Parry 1999), the long-term effects of sewage outfalls (Hilbig and Blake 2000)

and even the combined effects of anthropogenic activities and climate change (Bourcier

1996).

12
Due to their geographical features, estuaries worldwide have historically shown to favor

human settlement and great urban centres tend to develop in those areas. As a downside of

urbanization, population growth and economic development of coastal areas have been

menacing the ecological integrity of many estuaries around the globe. We can outline port

facilities and dredging operations as some of the main anthropic activities that may inflict

damage to estuaries (Kennish, 2002). The development of many coastal regions depends on

the quality and capacity of its ports to keep with international standards. Because of the

shallowness of most estuaries, there is the necessity of permanent dredging of the river bed

leading access to the port facilities, in order to make a clear and safe way for large ships. The

community structure the continuously fished area was dominated by small, opportunistic,

short-lived species while the community structure of the recently non-fished area was

dominated by more fragile and non-living sessile organisms in dredged and non-dredged

fishing areas (Mutlu & Ergev, 2008). On the other hand, it is known that dredging not only

removes sediment, but considerably alters the macro-faunal assembly inhabiting dredged

areas (Strickney; Perlmutter, 1975; Newell et al., 2004; Cooper et al., 2011) and disposal sites

(Bolan; Rees, 2003; Vivan et al., 2009).

Dredging can modify soft bottom habitats, compromising ecosystem biodiversity and

functionality (Skilleter et al., 2006) and the impacts associated to dredging include alterations

in the structure and composition of benthic assembly, favoring the dominance of

opportunistic organisms. The impacts related to dredging and recovery times of the macro-

fauna are highly variable (Harvey et al., 1998) and resilience times can last from a few

months (Cruz-Mota; Collins, 2004) to more than a decade after the disturbances (Fraser et al.,

2006). Nowadays, most of the literature concerning the impacts of soft-bottom dredging is

focused on maintenance dredging and disposal sites. Less attention is been given to impacts

inflicted by capital dredging at dredged sites (Ware et al., 2010). The soft-bottom macro-

13
fauna is fundamental for maintaining aquatic ecosystems, as they play an important role in

sediment stability, organic matter cycling and turbidity control, besides being an important

source of food for larger organisms, many of which are of considerable economic value

(Thrush; Dayton, 2002). For example, the gastropod Heleobia australis (D'Órbigny, 1835) is

one of the main food sources of estuarine fish commercially exploited in southern Brazil. The

tanaid Monokalliapseudes schubarti (GUTU 2006) is abundant in subtropical estuaries, and is

consumed by many species of birds and fish (Freitas-Júnior et al., 2013). Polychaetes are also

abundant in subtropical estuaries, acting as an important part of the trophic web (Pagliosa;

Barbosa, 2006; Santi; Tavares, 2009). Salinity in estuaries can vary widely depending on

factors such as tidal fluctuations, freshwater inputs, and evaporation. This variability can

make it challenging for organisms that live in estuaries to maintain osmotic balance and ion

regulation.

Invertebrates that live in estuaries have a variety of mechanisms to cope with these changes

in salinity. Some organisms, such as oysters and clams, have adapted to live in a specific

range of salinities and are not as tolerant of large changes in salinity. Other organisms, such

as some crustaceans, can tolerate a wide range of salinities by adjusting their internal osmotic

and ionic balance (Holland et al., 2004). Although some benthic organisms have a wider

range of salinity tolerance than others, few species of benthic invertebrates are capable of

maintaining physiological function over the full salinity range observed in an estuary, even

when local populations become acclimated. Rapid changes in salinity are especially

problematic and pulses of fresher water, due to major spring freshets and hurricanes, can act

as disturbances to the benthic community (Boeschand Rosenberg, 1981; Dauer et al., 2000).

14
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 STUDY AREA

This research was carried out at Iko estuary in Iko town, Eastern Obolo L.G.A., Niger

Delta, Nigeria. Coastal water of Eastern Obolo drains into Atlantic Ocean and is connected to

Qua Iboe River estuary at the east and Imo River estuary at the west (Inyang and Effiong

2016). (Fig. 3.1). Iko River is located in the Eastern part of the Niger Delta between 4033′ N

– 4050′ N; 7045′ E – 7055′ E and about 650m above sea level in the tropical mangrove forest

belt east of the Niger Delta, (Fig. 3.1). The tidal regime here is semidiurnal and has a range of

about 0.8m at neap tides and 2.20 m during spring tides with little fresh water input joined by

numerous tributaries (NEDECO 1961), The mean annual daily evaporation of the area is 4.6

mm per day (Edet and Ntekim, 1996), the hydrology of Eastern Obolo is affected by tides,

although seasonal influences which are related to the climatic regime, are evident. Eastern

Obolo is directly influenced by processes in the Atlantic coastal waters (Ekpe et al., 1995).

Extensive tidal flats and marshes define the areas adjacent to the channels. This area

experience two seasons, the dry (October to May) and wet (April to October) with an annual

rainfall averaging about 2500 mm (AKUTEC 2005). The mean annual daily evaporation of

the area is 4.6 mm per day (Edet and Ntekim, 1996), The hydrology of Iko Estuary is affected

by tides, although seasonal influences which are related to the climatic regime, are evident.

Iko Estuary is directly influenced by processes in the Atlantic coastal waters (Ekpe et al,

1995). Iko River estuary which is significant in the provision of suitable breeding sites for the

diverse aquatic resources that abound in the area, good fishing ground for artisan fishermen

as well as petroleum exploration and production activities (Ime et al., 2008).

15
 Fig. 3.1 map of sampling area

The physicochemical parameters such as salinity, temperature was measured at in-situ

throughout the period of tidal measurement.

3.1.1 SAMPLING OF SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA AND

IDENTIFICATION

The soft bottom epi-benthic fauna was sampled at two sampling stations at low tide,

samples were collected on the mud flats and other exposed areas using a 0.25 m 2 quadrat and

sieved through 1 mm sieves for resident macro-fauna (Ita et al., 2010), along 10 meters

transact (Sasekumar, 1974). All visible animals within the quadrat (at each location) were

collected, combined together to form a composite sample and preserved with 10% formalin

for ex-situ analyses at the department of Marine Biology Laboratory. The soft bottom epi-

benthic fauna was identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level using appropriate

taxonomic keys (Edmunds, 1978; Deekae, 1987; Badejo, 1998; Powell, unpublished data)

and counted. Density was calculated as in (Malaquias and Sprung, 2005).

16
3.1.2 ORGANIC MATTER

About 10g sediments of sample from each station was weighed, dried and homogenized, and

placed on a pre-weighed labelled aluminum foil. The samples were cUGIombusted at 360 °C for

5 hours in an oven. Samples were then kept in a desiccator to cool while dry. The samples were

then weighed to at least one decimal point (Erftemeijer and Koch, 2001). The percentage of

organic matter was calculated using the following formula;

% organic matter = (initial weight (g) – final weight (g))/ 100

3.2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

3.2.1 BIOLOGICAL INDICES

Community structure analysis were determined by four indices;

 MARGELEF INDEX (D):

This is a diversity of species richness, which does not take into account dominant diversity,

but is largely dependent on the species richness, that is, the more the species present in a

sample the greater the diversity, Margelef (1957).

Where:

d = Diversity Index/species richness

S = Number of Species

N = Number of Individuals

ln = Natural logarithm

17
 SHANNON-WIENER INFORMATION INDEX/ABUNDANCE OF SPECIES

(SHANNON AND WEINER (1949)

Where:

H = Shannon-Wiener Information Index/abundance of species

Σ= Summation

fi = Observed proportion of individuals that belong to the ith species

log = Natural logarithm.

 SPECIES EQUITABILITY OR EVENNESS (J) JACCARD.

This is a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed among the species present in a

sample. It ranges between 0 and 1, the maximum value. One represents a situation where

individuals are spread evenly among the species present Jaccard, (1912). It was calculated as

follows:

Where:

j = Equitability measure

H = Shannon-Wiener Information Index

S = Number of species in the sample.

18
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS

The physico-chemical parameters of surface water at Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko,

Eastern Obolo LGA., is given in the table 4.1 and figure 4.1a and b below. The following

physicochemical parameters were analysed from the subsampled water sample for the

following parameters; temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH and electrical conductivity.

Table 4.1: Physico-chemical parameters of surface water at Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko

Parameters’ Sampling Ayalekpong Utan-Iko Mean SD

Locations

32 31 31.5 ±3.97
Temperature
(oC) 31.5
Salinity 24 27
(O/OO) 25.5 25.5 ±3.57
Dissolved 3.5 2.6
Oxygen
(mg/L) 3.05 3.05 ±1.23
pH 8.1 7.2 7.65 7.65 ±1.96
Electrical
Conductivity
(µs/cm) 1315.2 1014.2 1164.7 1164.7 ±24.13

19
 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Temperature. Salinity. DO pH
Ayalekpong 32 24 3.5 8.1
Utana Iko 31 27 2.6 7.2

Ayalekpong Utana Iko

Fig. 2: Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen and pH concentration in surface water at Ayalekpong and

Utan-Iko

Electrical Conductivity

1400
1200
Concentration

1000
800
600
400
200
0
Ayalekpong Utana-Iko
Electrical Conductivity 1315.2 1014.2
Sampling Location

Fig. 3: Electrical Conductivity in surface water at Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko

20
 4.2 SOFT BOTTOM EPI-BENTHIC FAUNA OF AYALEKPONG AND UTAN-

IKO

The soft bottom epi-benthic fauna of Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko is represented in table 4.2

below, consisting of about 4 phyla and 11 families/species with total relative abundance of

148 and 154 at two sampling point respectfully.

Table 2: Showing the 4 phyla and 11 families/species with total relative abundance of 148

and 154 at two sampling point respectfully

S/N HIGHER SPECIES AYALEKPONG UTANA-IKO

RANKING
1 Arthropoda
Panopeus africanus 8 13
Uca tangeri 45 67
2 Gastropoda
Potamididae Tympanotonus fuscatus 40 20
3 Mollusca
Littorinidae Littorina angulifera 3 8
Thais califera 4 9
Bivalvia Tagelus adansonii 3 7

Arcidae Arca subglobosa 10 8

Solenidae Solen guineensi 15 8
Veneridae Tivela tripla 3 5
4 Annelida
Nereididae Clibanarius africanus (Dana,
11 5
1852)
Polychaeta
Platynereis sp 6 4
Total Relative Abundance 148 154
Margelef index/species
richness(d) 2.00 1.99
Shannon-Wiener
Index/abundance (H) 2.18 2.19
Species Equitability or Evenness
(j) 2.09 2.11

21
 80
70
Relative Abundance

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Cliban
Tymp
Panop Littori Tagel arius
Uca anoto Thais Arca Solen Platyn
eus na us Tivela africa
tanger nus califer subglo guine ereis
africa anguli adans tripla nus
i fuscat a bosa ensi sp
nus fera onii (Dana,
us
1852)
AYALEKPONG 8 45 40 3 4 3 10 15 3 11 6
Utana-Iko 13 67 20 8 9 7 8 8 5 5 4
Species Abundance

AYALEKPONG Utana-Iko

Fig. 4: Species composition and relative abundance in soft bottom epi-benthic fauna of Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko.

Polychaeta
7%
Bivalvia
10%
Arthropoda
34%
Mollusca
8% Arthropoda
Gastropoda
Mollusca
Bivalvia
Polychaeta

Gastropoda
41%

Fig 5: Percentage occurrence of phyla constituent of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna in Ayalekpong and Utan-Iko.

22
PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Temperature: Temperature plays an important role for controlling the physico-chemical and

biological parameters of water and considered as one among the most important factors in the

aquatic environment (Singh and Mathur 2005). This mean temperature in surface water in Iko

river estuary ranges from 31°C to 320C where the highest temperature was recorded at

Ayalekpong, which could be due to high solar radiation, boating activity, clear atmosphere

and high atmospheric temperature (Swarnalatha and Narasingrao 1998). The lowest

temperature of 31°C was observed in utana-iko which could be as a result of reducing solar

radiation with respect to cloud cover and rain fall (Bohra and Bhargava 1977). Temperature

regulate soft bottom epi-benthic by affecting their metabolic rates. Metabolic rate is the rate

at which an organism converts food into energy for growth and maintenance. As the

temperature increases, the metabolic rate of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna also increases,

which can lead to higher rate of growth, reproduction, and activity.

However if the temperature is too high, it can exceed the optimal range for an organism‟s

metabolic processes and lead to stress, reduced growth and even death. Temperature also

affects the distribution and abundance of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna. Some species have

narrow thermal tolerance ranges and are only found in specific temperature ranges, while

others can tolerate a wide range of temperatures. Changes in temperature due to climate

change or natural variability can therefore have significant impacts on the composition and

diversity of Epibenthic communities.

Temperature increase can cause changes in the distribution and behaviour of organisms. For

example when temperature increases, some species further upstream or into deeper water to

avoid the warmer temperatures.

When temperature decreases, some species may become less active. Extreme temperature

drops can cause mortality in some species.

23
Salinity: Salinity is a critical factor that influences the distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic

fauna in estuaries. Salinity was found to be at the range of 24 to 27 0/00 all through the

stations. Salinity level is typical lowest in the upper reaches of the river and increases as you

move towards the mouth of the estuary (Mutlu and Ergev 2001). As salinity changes, the

distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna can also shift, For example, in the upper reaches

of the estuary where freshwater dominates, the soft bottom epi-benthic communities may be

dominated by freshwater species such as bivalves, snails, and worms. As you move further

downstream towards the mouth of the estuary, the salinity increases and marine species such

as crabs, shrimp and molluscs become more prevalent.

The dissolved oxygen (DO): Dissolved oxygen indicates the healthy nature of a water body

ranges between 3.5 and 2.6 mg/l which could consequently be that the river estuaries may

have been highly contaminated by biodegradable wastes washed in by storm water and

anthropogenic activities in the area. This could easily be washed into the water increasing

biological activities and the Chemical Oxygen Demand, the interactions of these rivers with

the Atlantic Ocean at the estuary. Studies have shown that low dissolved oxygen levels can

limit the distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna in estuaries (Orth et al., 2002). when

oxygen are low, the metabolic rate of this organisms decreases, which can lead to decreased

growth, reproduction, and survival. Low oxygen level can cause changes in sediment

chemistry, such as the release of toxic sulfides, which can also negatively impact the

distribution of these organisms (Breitburg et al., 2005).

High dissolved oxygen levels can enhance the distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna in

estuaries by increasing their metabolic rates, reducing stress, and improving sediment

chemistry.

24
pH: The pH of estuaries can vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including

freshwater input, tidal flushing, and the presence of human activities such as agriculture or

industry.

The distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna is strongly influenced by pH, with the

greatest diversity and abundance of fauna occurring at pH values between 8.1 and 7.2.

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY: Electric conductivity is an important physical

parameter that can affects the distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna in estuaries. Soft

bottom epi-benthic fauna such as worms, clams, mollusks, and periwinkles, are particularly

sensitive to changes in electric conductivity because they are adapted to specific ranges of

salinity. Higher levels of electric conductivity can indicate higher levels of salinity, which

can limit the distribution of these species to areas where salinity is within their preferred

range.

Areas with higher electric conductivity had a greater abundance of species that are adapted to

higher salinities, while areas with lower electric conductivity had a greater abundance of

species that are adapted to lower salinities. Electric conductivity was a key factor in the

distribution of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna (Dias et al. 2017).

25
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION

All the benthic Epi-fauna recorded were pollution-tolerant and clean species, with

Gastropoda being the most abundant in both station 1 and 2. It could be concluded that Iko

River Estuary water is under stress due to the disruption of abiotic and biotic factors.

Physico-chemical parameters, such as Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved oxygen, pH, and

Electrical Conductivity are factors that are likely to influence distribution of soft bottom

Epibenthic fauna community in Iko River Estuary.

5.1 RECOMMENDATION:

I recommend that further studies of soft bottom epi-benthic fauna should be conducted along

Iko River Estuary. This will further elucidate more information on the need to improve

understanding on how the changes in Salinity, Temperature, pH, O2 concentration and food

supply will influence the ecosystem, distribution and functioning of soft bottom epi-benthic

fauna communities in Iko River Estuary.

26
 REFERENCES

Belgrano, A., Batten, S. D., & Reid, P. C. (2013). Pelagic Ecosystems. In Encyclopedia of
Biodiversity (pp. 683-691). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-384719-5.00178-7

Bolan, S. G.; Rees, H. L. (2003) Minimizing impacts of maintenance dredged material

disposal in the coastal environment: a habitat approach. Environ. Manage., v. 32, n.
2, p. 171-188.

Chicharo, L., A.Chicharo, M. Gaspar, F. Alves & J. Regala.2002. Ecological characterization

of dredged and non-dredged bivalve fishing areas off south Portugal. J. Mar. Biol.
Assoc. UK 82: 41-50.

Costanza, R.; D'arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.;
Naeem, K.; O'neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P.; Van Der Belt, M.
(1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, v.
387, p. 253-260.

Cooper, K. M.; Curtis, M.; Wan Hussim, W. M. R.; Barrio Froján, C. R. S.; Defew, E. C.;
Nye, V.; Paterson, D. M. (2011)Implications of dredging induced changes in
sediment particle size composition for the structure and function of marine benthic
macrofaunal communities. Marine Pollution. Bull., v. 62, n. 10, p. 2087-2094.

Cruz-Motta, J. J.; Collins, J. (2004) Impacts of dredged material disposal on a tropical soft-
bottom benthic assemblage. Mar. Pollut.. Bull., v. 48, n. 3-4, p. 270-280.

Crespo, D., & Pardal, M. . (2020). Ecological and Economic Importance of Benthic
Communities. In Life Below Water (pp. 1-11). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
71064-8_5-1.

Culter, J. K. (2009). BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SPECIES RICHNESS AND

BIODIVERSITY. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 1169.

Eleftheriou, A. & Robertson M.R. (1992). The effects of experimental scallop dredging on
the fauna and physical environment of a shallow sandy community. Neth. J. Sea Res.
30: 289-299.

27
França, S., Vinagre, C., Pardal, M. A., & Cabral, H. N. (2009). Spatial and temporal patterns
of benthic invertebrates in the Tagus estuary, Portugal: comparison between subtidal
and an intertidal mudflat. Scientia Marina, 73(2), 307-318.
https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2009.73n2307

Fraser, C.; Hutchings, P.; Williamson, J.( 2006) Long-term changes in polychaete
assemblages of Botany Bay (NSW, Australia) following a dredging event. Mar.
Pollut. Bull., v. 52, n. 9, p. 997-1010.

Gusso, C.C., M.F. Gravina & F.R. Maggiore. (2001). Temporal variations in soft bottom
benthic communities in central Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy). Archo Oceanogr. Limnol. 22:
175-182.

Harvey, M.; Gauthier, D.; Munro, J.(2008) Temporal changes in the composition and
abundance of the macro-benthic invertebrate communities at dredged material
disposal sites in the Anse a Beaufils Bais des Chaleurs, Eastern Canada. Mar.
Pollut. Bull., v. 36, n. 1, p. 41-55.

Kamenos, N.A., P.G. Moore & J.M. Hall-Spencer. (2003).Substratum heterogeneity of

dredged vs. un- dredged maerl grounds. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 83: 411-413.

Kennish, M. J. (2002).Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries.

Environ. Conserv. v. 29, n. 1, p. 78-107.

Khan, A., Manokaran, S., Lyla, S., & Nazeer, Z. (2010). Biodiversity of epibenthic
community in the inshore waters of southeast coast of India. Biologia, 65(4), 704-713.
https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-010-0073-z

Xu, K., Wang, R., Guo, W., Yu, Z., Sun, R., & Liu, J. (2020). Factors affecting community
structures of benthic macroinvertebrates and microorganisms in Yellow River Delta
wetlands: Seasons, habitats, and interactions of organisms. Ecohydrology &
Hydrobiology, 20(4), 570-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.04.002

Konar, B., Ravelo, A., Grebmeier, J., & Trefry, J. H. (2014). Size frequency distributions of
key epibenthic organisms in the eastern Chukchi Sea and their correlations with
environmental parameters. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 102, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.07.015

28
Morello, E.B., C. Froglia, R. James, A. Atkinson & P.G.Moore. (2006). Medium-term
impacts of hydraulic clam dredgers on a macrobenthic community of the Adriatic Sea
(Italy). Mar. Biol. 149: 401-413.

Mutlu, E., & Ergev, M. B. (2008). Spatio-temporal distribution of soft-bottom epibenthic

fauna on the Cilician shelf (Turkey), Mediterranean Sea. Rev Biol Trop, 56(4),
1919-1946. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v56i4.5770

Newell, R. C.; Seiderer, L. J.; Simpson, N. M.; Robinson, J. E.( 2004) Impacts of marine
aggregate dredging on benthic macrofauna off the south coast of the United
Kingdom. J. Coast. Res., v. 20, n. 1, p. 115-125.

Rosa, L. C.; Bemvenuti, C. E.( 2006.)Temporal variability of the estuarine macrofauna of

the Patos Lagoon, Brazil. Rev. Biol. Mar. Oceanogr., v. 41, n. 1, p. 1-9.

Santi, L.; Tavares, M.( 2009) Polychaete assemblage of an impacted estuary, Guanabara
Bay, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr., v. 57, n. 4, p. 287-303.

Sarda, R., S. Pinedo, A. Gremare & S. Taboada. (2000). Changes in the dynamics of shallow
sandy-bottom assemblages due to sand extraction in the Catalan Western
Mediterranean Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57:1446-1453.

Schaffner, D. J. G. a. L. C. (2012). Benthos of the York River. Virginia Institute of Marine

Science.

Simboura, N., A. Zenetos, M.A. Pancucci-Papadopoulou, M. Thessalaou-Legaki & S.

Papaspyrou.(1998). A baseline study on benthic species distribution in two
neighbouring gulfs, with and without access to bottom trawling. Mar. Ecol. P.S.Z.N.I.
19: 293-309.

Smith, C.J., K.N. Papadopoulos & S. Delberto.(2000). Impact of otter trawling on an eastern
Mediterranean commercial trawl fishing ground. ICES J. Mar. Sci.57: 1340-1351

Skilleter, G. A.; Pryor, A.; Miller, S.; Cameron, B.(2006) Detecting the effects of physical
disturbance on benthic assemblages in a subtropical estuary: a beyond BACI
approach. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., v. 338, n. 2, p. 271-287.

Strickney, R. R.; Perlmuter, D.( 1975) Impact of intracoastal waterway maintenance

dredging on a mud bottom benthos community. Biol. Conserv., v. 7, n. 3, p. 211-225.

29
Thrush, S. F.; Dayton, P. K.(2002) Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and
dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst., v. 33, p.
449-473.

Vivan, J. M.; Di Domenico,( 2009) M.; Almeida, T. C. M. Effects of dredged material

disposal on the benthic macrofauna near Itajaí Harbour (Santa Catarina, South
Brazil). Ecol. Eng., v. 35, n. 10, p. 1435-1443.

Ware, S.; Bolam, S. G.; Rees, H. L.(2010) Impact and recovery associated with the
deposition of capital dredgings at UK disposal sites: lessons for future licensing and
monitoring. Mar Pollut Bull., v. 60, n. 1, p. 79-90.

Zenetos, A., I. Siokou-Frangou, O. Gotsis-Skretas & S. Groom. (2002). The Mediterranean

Sea-blue oxygen rich, nutrient-poor waters. In: Europe‟s biodiversity -
biogeographical regions and seas, Seas around Europe. (Downloaded: 27 April,
2006, http://reports. eea.eu.int/report_2002_0524_154909/en).

Xu, K., Wang, R., Guo, W., Yu, Z., Sun, R., & Liu, J. (2020). Factors affecting community
structures of benthic macroinvertebrates and microorganisms in Yellow River Delta
wetlands: Seasons, habitats, and interactions of organisms. Ecohydrology &
Hydrobiology, 20(4), 570-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.04.002

30