当前位置: X-MOL 学术Biol. Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Interocean patterns in shallow water sponge assemblage structure and function
Biological Reviews ( IF 11.0 ) Pub Date : 2020-08-19 , DOI: 10.1111/brv.12637
James J Bell 1 , Emily McGrath 1, 2 , Nora M Kandler 1 , Joseph Marlow 1, 3 , Sandeep S Beepat 1 , Ramadian Bachtiar 1 , Megan R Shaffer 1 , Charlotte Mortimer 1 , Valerio Micaroni 1 , Valeria Mobilia 1 , Alberto Rovellini 1 , Benjamin Harris 1 , Elizabeth Farnham 4 , Francesca Strano 1 , José Luis Carballo 5
Affiliation  

Sponges are a major component of benthic ecosystems across the world and fulfil a number of important functional roles. However, despite their importance, there have been few attempts to compare sponge assemblage structure and ecological functions across large spatial scales. In this review, we examine commonalities and differences between shallow water (<100 m) sponges at bioregional (15 bioregions) and macroregional (tropical, Mediterranean, temperate, and polar) scales, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of sponge ecology. Patterns of sponge abundance (based on density and area occupied) were highly variable, with an average benthic cover between ~1 and 30%. Sponges were generally found to occupy more space (percentage cover) in the Mediterranean and polar macroregions, compared to temperate and tropical macroregions, although sponge densities (sponges m–2) were highest in temperate bioregions. Mean species richness standardised by sampling area was similar across all bioregions, except for a few locations that supported very high small‐scale biodiversity concentrations. Encrusting growth forms were generally the dominant sponge morphology, with the exception of the Tropical West Atlantic, where upright forms dominated. Annelids and Arthropods were the most commonly reported macrofauna associated with sponges across bioregions. With respect to reproduction, there were no patterns in gametic development (hermaphroditism versus gonochorism), although temperate, tropical, and polar macroregions had an increasingly higher percentage of viviparous species, respectively, with viviparity being the sole gamete development mechanism reported for polar sponges to date. Seasonal reproductive timing was the most common in all bioregions, but continuous timing was more common in the Mediterranean and tropical bioregions compared to polar and temperate bioregions. We found little variation across bioregions in larval size, and the dominant larval type across the globe was parenchymella. No pattens among bioregions were found in the limited information available for standardised respiration and pumping rates. Many organisms were found to predate sponges, with the abundance of sponge predators being higher in tropical systems. While there is some evidence to support a higher overall proportion of phototrophic species in the Tropical Austalian bioregion compared to the Western Atlantic, both also have large numbers of heterotrophic species. Sponges are important spatial competitors across all bioregions, most commonly being reported to interact with anthozoans and algae. Even though the available information was limited for many bioregions, our analyses demonstrate some differences in sponge traits and functions among bioregions, and among macroregions. However, we also identified similarities in sponge assemblage structure and function at global scales, likely reflecting a combination of regional‐ and local‐scale biological and physical processes affecting sponge assemblages, along with common ancestry. Finally, we used our analyses to highlight geographic bias in past sponge research, and identify gaps in our understanding of sponge ecology globally. By so doing, we identified key areas for future research on sponge ecology. We hope that our study will help sponge researchers to consider bioregion‐specific features of sponge assemblages and key sponge‐mediated ecological processes from a global perspective.

中文翻译:

浅水海绵组合结构和功能的海洋间模式

海绵是世界各地底栖生态系统的主要组成部分,发挥着许多重要的功能作用。然而,尽管它们很重要,但很少有人尝试在大空间尺度上比较海绵组合结构和生态功能。在这篇综述中,我们研究了生物区域(15 个生物区域)和宏观区域(热带、地中海、温带和极地)尺度的浅水(<100 m)海绵之间的共性和差异,以更全面地了解海绵生态学。海绵丰度的模式(基于密度和占用面积)变化很大,平均底栖覆盖率在 1% 到 30% 之间。与温带和热带宏观区域相比,通常发现海绵在地中海和极地宏观区域占据更多空间(覆盖百分比),尽管温带生物区的海绵密度(海绵 m-2)最高。除了少数支持非常高的小规模生物多样性浓度的地点外,所有生物区域的平均物种丰富度按采样区域标准化是相似的。结壳生长形式通常是主要的海绵形态,但热带西大西洋除外,直立形式占主导地位。环节动物和节肢动物是最常报道的与跨生物区域的海绵相关的大型动物群。在繁殖方面,配子发育没有模式(雌雄同体与雌雄同体),尽管温带、热带和极地宏观区域分别具有越来越高的胎生物种百分比,胎生是极地海绵报道的唯一配子发育机制日期。季节性繁殖时间在所有生物区中最常见,但与极地和温带生物区相比,地中海和热带生物区的连续性繁殖更常见。我们发现不同生物区域的幼虫大小几乎没有变化,全球主要的幼虫类型是薄壁组织。在可用于标准化呼吸和泵送速率的有限信息中,未发现生物区域之间的模式。许多生物被发现早于海绵,热带系统中海绵捕食者的数量更高。虽然有一些证据表明与西大西洋相比,热带澳大利亚生物区中光养物种的总体比例更高,但两者也都有大量的异养物种。海绵是所有生物区域的重要空间竞争者,最常见的是与珊瑚虫和藻类相互作用。尽管许多生物区域的可用信息有限,但我们的分析表明,生物区域和宏观区域之间的海绵特征和功能存在一些差异。然而,我们还在全球范围内确定了海绵组合结构和功能的相似性,这可能反映了影响海绵组合的区域和局部尺度的生物和物理过程以及共同祖先的组合。最后,我们使用我们的分析来突出过去海绵研究中的地理偏差,并找出我们对全球海绵生态学理解的差距。通过这样做,我们确定了未来海绵生态研究的关键领域。
更新日期:2020-08-19
down
wechat
bug