Advertisement
Research Article

Patterns of Spatial Variation of Assemblages Associated with Intertidal Rocky Shores: A Global Perspective

  • Juan José Cruz-Motta mail,

    juancruz@usb.ve

    Affiliations: Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela, Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Patricia Miloslavich,

    Affiliations: Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela, Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Gabriela Palomo,

    Affiliation: Laboratorio de Ecosistemas Costeros, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    X
  • Katrin Iken,

    Affiliation: School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America

    X
  • Brenda Konar,

    Affiliation: School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America

    X
  • Gerhard Pohle,

    Affiliation: The Huntsman Marine Science Centre, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada

    X
  • Tom Trott,

    Affiliation: Suffolk University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

    X
  • Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi,

    Affiliation: Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Pisa, Pisa, Tuscany, Italy

    X
  • César Herrera,

    Affiliation: Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Alejandra Hernández,

    Affiliation: Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Adriana Sardi,

    Affiliation: Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Andrea Bueno,

    Affiliation: Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Julio Castillo,

    Affiliation: Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Eduardo Klein,

    Affiliations: Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela, Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Edlin Guerra-Castro,

    Affiliation: Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Caracas, Miranda, Venezuela

    X
  • Judith Gobin,

    Affiliation: Department of Life Sciences, The University of The West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

    X
  • Diana Isabel Gómez,

    Affiliation: Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras “Jose Benito Vives De Andreis”, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia

    X
  • Rafael Riosmena-Rodríguez,

    Affiliation: Programa de Investigación en Botánica Marina, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur, La Paz, México

    X
  • Angela Mead,

    Affiliation: University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

    X
  • Gregorio Bigatti,

    Affiliation: Centro de Estudios Nacionales Patagónicos, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina

    X
  • Ann Knowlton,

    Affiliation: School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America

    X
  • Yoshihisa Shirayama

    Affiliation: Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, Shirahama, Wakayama, Japan

    X
  • Published: December 16, 2010
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014354
  • Featured in PLOS Collections

Abstract

Assemblages associated with intertidal rocky shores were examined for large scale distribution patterns with specific emphasis on identifying latitudinal trends of species richness and taxonomic distinctiveness. Seventy-two sites distributed around the globe were evaluated following the standardized sampling protocol of the Census of Marine Life NaGISA project (www.nagisa.coml.org). There were no clear patterns of standardized estimators of species richness along latitudinal gradients or among Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs); however, a strong latitudinal gradient in taxonomic composition (i.e., proportion of different taxonomic groups in a given sample) was observed. Environmental variables related to natural influences were strongly related to the distribution patterns of the assemblages on the LME scale, particularly photoperiod, sea surface temperature (SST) and rainfall. In contrast, no environmental variables directly associated with human influences (with the exception of the inorganic pollution index) were related to assemblage patterns among LMEs. Correlations of the natural assemblages with either latitudinal gradients or environmental variables were equally strong suggesting that neither neutral models nor models based solely on environmental variables sufficiently explain spatial variation of these assemblages at a global scale. Despite the data shortcomings in this study (e.g., unbalanced sample distribution), we show the importance of generating biological global databases for the use in large-scale diversity comparisons of rocky intertidal assemblages to stimulate continued sampling and analyses.

Introduction

The study of biological diversity or biodiversity has gained strong scientific interest in recent decades (13,029 and 31,691 references, respectively, in Web of Science in the last decade), due to the consequences that diversity loss might have on humanity [1]. Compelling evidence signals that our climate is changing [2] and is driving important shifts in the composition and structure of a diverse array of natural assemblages: terrestrial [3], marine [4][6], aquatic [7] and pathogens [8]. Given the close relationship between biodiversity and the ecosystem function [9][11], any diversity loss will be negatively reflected in the number and quality of services that a particular system might provide [12][14]. Consequently, it is of paramount importance to be able to detect these types of changes in natural ecosystems.

To detect changes in natural communities, and unequivocally relate them to anthropogenic impacts or climate disruptions, proper biological baseline data are of utmost importance. Very few long-term/large-scale data sets are currently available (but see [15] as an example), and comparison of other existing data is often hampered by differing methodologies. Consequently, standardized global monitoring programs need to be implemented to assess changes in biodiversity and relate those changes to possible causes. Out of this need, the Census of Marine Life (CoML) NaGISA project (Natural Geography in Shore Areas, [16]) was initiated in 2002 with the main objective of inventorying coastal biodiversity on a global scale. NaGISA's strength is the use of a standardized sampling protocol by a closely interconnected global network of scientists that can allow for comparisons at different spatial scales across the globe [17]. The NaGISA project focuses on assemblages associated with rocky shores and on those associated with soft-sediment seagrass beds. The present study focused on intertidal assemblages associated with rocky shores.

Intertidal rocky shores assemblages are appropriate to study changes driven by global-scale anthropogenic impacts and climate change effects due to their ecological characteristics and accessibility [18], [19]. Nevertheless, few studies have examined anthropogenic impacts on intertidal rocky shore assemblages at broad scales, (e.g., [20][23]). Most were limited to regional scales including the US west coast (e.g., [23]), United Kingdom [15], Portugal [24], Japan [21], and Mediterranean Sea [16]. Given that strong differences exist among regions in terms of anthropogenic and climate change impacts, e.g., different warming rates [25], [26] and human influence [27], a global-scale approach is warranted. Consequently, the main objective of this study was to quantitatively describe the distribution and diversity patterns of intertidal rocky shores assemblages at globally distributed sampling locations as a baseline that might be used in the future to detect changes, and to relate these changes to possible drivers of change.

Current paradigms of latitudinal diversity gradients postulate an increasing number of species increases from the pole to the equator [28]. Although recent meta-analysis suggests that this trend can be viewed as a generalized pattern in marine taxa [29], [30], there are exceptions for particular taxa and ecosystems, e.g., for macroalgae [31][33] and for soft-sediment shelf communities [34]. Consequently, the first objective of this study was to asses latitudinal trends in species richness of assemblages associated with intertidal rocky shores. Description of such large-scale trends alone does not, however, elucidate the potential mechanisms that might be responsible for the described patterns. Three different models may explain the spatial distribution patterns of natural assemblages at large scales. One model postulates that biological interactions at small spatial scales (e.g., meters) influence communities, and as such, under these so-called null models it is hypothesized that species composition is uniform over large areas (i.e., [35]). The second model postulates that larval dispersal and supply are the driving mechanisms; therefore, neutral models predict that species composition fluctuates in a random, autocorrelated way [36][38]. The third model postulates that abiotic factors structure communities, and these environmental models hypothesize that species distributions are related to environmental conditions [39], [40] and/or sources of human impact [41], [42]. Therefore, in an attempt to elucidate the relevance of these alternative models, the second objective of this study was to relate rocky intertidal assemblage structure with several environmental variables linked to anthropogenic or natural influences.

Materials and Methods

This study was carried out as part of the research conducted by the Laboratorio de Ecología Experimental, approved by and under the guidelines of the Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela.

Study sites

Surveys were done at 72 rocky intertidal sites (Fig. 1) distributed across the globe and were grouped into 13 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) as defined by [43] (Table 1). LMEs are large areas of ocean space (≈ 200,000 km2 or greater) in coastal waters where primary productivity is generally higher than in the open ocean. LME boundaries are based on bathymetry, hydrography, productivity regime and trophic relationships [43]. The LME concept was selected because it is a tool that has enabled ecosystem-based management in at least 16 international projects across the world [43]. Sites were sampled between June 2004 and January 2009 and included a variety of site-specific characteristics (Table 1). Given that different regions were not sampled at the same time, caution is warranted when comparing different sites and LMEs because estimates of temporal variation are lacking.

thumbnail

Figure 1. Global distribution of sampling sites within Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs).

1 = Gulf of Alaska, 2 = Gulf of California, 3 = Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 4 = Scotian Shelf, 5 = Caribbean Sea, 6 = Patagonian Shelf, 7 = South Brazilian Shelf, 8 = Celtic-Biscay Shelf, 9 = Mediterranean Sea, 10 = Benguela Current, 11 = Aghulas Current, 12 = South China Sea, 13 = Kuroshio Current.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.g001
thumbnail

Table 1. Description of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) indicating number of sites sampled per LME's and general characteristics.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.t001

Biological sampling

Data were collected following the standardized NaGISA protocol [44]. This study only used data from the mid-low intertidal zone to reduce the effects of the wide variation in tidal amplitude among globally distributed sites, ranging from about 30 cm in the Caribbean to 7+ m in the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Alaska. At each site, 5 to 10 randomly placed 1 m2 quadrats were sampled with nondestructive methods along 30 m transects positioned parallel to the waterline in the mid and/or low intertidal zone. Abundance of macroalgae and colonial fauna were estimated by percent cover and individuals (>2 cm) were counted. Most identification were made in the field on living organisms, although occasional problematic specimens were collected for reference and sent to specialists for identification. All organisms were identified to the lowest taxon possible, which in most cases was species. Percentage cover and counts were restricted to visible organisms living on the surface and not beneath rocks.

Environmental data

Fourteen environmental variables were examined to determine the most important drivers for describing trends in species numbers and composition of assemblages associated with intertidal rocky shores. Variables were estimated for sampling site within each LME using different sources and were grouped into variables related to either “natural” or “anthropogenic” influences (Table 2). This classification separates those variables that are directly related with anthropogenic causes vs. those that are not directly related to them.

thumbnail

Table 2. List of environmental variables used in analysis.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.t002

Because of the coarse spatial resolution of the environmental data and the land-mask imposed to the models from which data were derived from, most variables were not predicted precisely for the shore sampling sites. When a site was no farther than 50 km from the model, a spline interpolation was used to the raster data to compute its value at the coordinate of the sampling site. Furthermore, LMEs were used as the scale of comparison in this study because of the potential inaccuracy of satellite-derived data from optical sea-surface properties (e.g., chlorophyll-a, primary productivity) on small spatial scales [45]. Environmental variables related to direct anthropogenic influences were collected at a 1 km resolution; however, the nearshore environment is highly variable and can be influenced by point sources. Combining site data by LMEs allowed to concentrate on large-scale variability, which has higher than the one found at smaller-scale, [Table S1, [46]].

Data analyses

Since different sampling efforts were used in different LMEs, the number of taxa at each LME was interpolated using saturation curves (i.e., UGE method [47] for 999 permutations) for a standard sampling size of 20 replicates (1 m2 quadrats) per LME [48]. The number of taxa at each site was estimated using the same method of saturation curve, but in this case for a standard sampling size of 5 replicates (1 m2 quadrats). These estimates predict how many species would have been found in each LME or site if 20 (LME) or 5 (site) quadrats were sampled. In LMEs or sites where less than 20 or 5, respectively, quadrats were sampled (e.g., Vietnam and Japan, Table 1) these estimates were not calculated. Pearson correlation analyses were done between the estimators of species richness per site and latitude in order to detect possible patterns of distribution across latitudinal gradients.

Biological data from each site were transformed to presence-absence data and a similarity matrix was constructed based on the taxonomic dissimilarity coefficient Theta defined by Clarke and Warwick [49] and Clarke et al. [50]. This coefficient is particularly suitable to compare samples across large geographical scales that do not share many species. Theta takes into consideration the taxonomic relationship of species found in each sample, and consequently, two samples with no species in common, can have a dissimilarity value <100 [50]. Based on this dissimilarity matrix, the distances among centroids of sampling sites [51] were visualized using Canonical Analysis of Principal Coordinates (CAP) ordinations [52] and considering LME groups as the predictor variable. Families contributing the most to these differences were detected using SIMPER analyses [53], [54]. Similarity matrices on the species and family levels were correlated at ρ = 0.78, indicating that the family level preserved taxonomic dissimilarity patterns.

Environmental variables were normalized to a common scale. Geographic coordinates were included in this matrix and considered in further analyses in order to detect possible effects of distances among sampling sites. Redundant variables were identified using multiple correlation analysis (i.e., draftsman plots) after square-root transformation of skewed variables and excluded from the analysis. It is important to note that whenever latitude or longitude were used, these variables conserved their sign. To select the combination of variables that best matched the biological distribution patterns, a similarity matrix of environmental variables based on Euclidean distances was linked to the taxonomic dissimilarities patterns (Theta matrix) among LMEs using the BEST [55] routine. All procedures described here were done using the PRIMER-e [54] and PERMANOVA add-on [51] software.

Results

A total of 801 taxa were identified from 1499 sample quadrats. The number of observed and standardized taxon richness varied among LMEs (Table 3). Based on standardized measures of richness (UGE), the highest values were found in the Caribbean Sea followed by the Agulhas and Benguela Current LMEs (Table 3). Most LMEs were dominated by algae. Exceptions were the Patagonian Shelf, which was dominated by mussel beds of Brachidontes rodriguezii and Perumytilus purpuratus, the South Brazil Shelf, which was dominated by the barnacle Chthamalus bisinuatus, and the site located in the Kuroshio Current, which was dominated by the sponge Halichondria japonica (Table 3). Encrusting coralline red algae dominated the Caribbean Sea, Agulhas Current, Benguela Current and Mediterranean Sea LMEs. The remaining LMEs were dominated by fucoid algae (Table 3). In terms of grazers, all sites in all LMEs were dominated by gastropods (mainly limpets), with the exception of the Caribbean Sea, where the main grazer was the sea urchin Echinometra lucunter (Table 3).

thumbnail

Table 3. General biological information for each LME.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.t003

No latitudinal patterns were found using UGE-standardized richness estimates as indicated by a low Pearson's correlation index (ρ = −0.12; Fig. 2). Variation in standardized richness among sampling sites within the same latitudinal range was similar to that observed across the latitudinal gradient. For example, in the Caribbean Seas (≈10° north) and the Gulf of Alaska (≈60° north), sites with low and high values of standardized richness estimates occurred.

thumbnail

Figure 2. Latitudinal variations for standardized richness estimates per site (n = 5).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.g002

A constrained ordination (CAP) of sampling sites using LMEs as predictor factor effectively showed that sites based on assemblage information were strongly grouped by LME (Fig. 3). Sites within the Caribbean Sea LME showed the most conspicuous separation along the first axis, indicating very different taxonomic composition of species assemblages. In addition, sites were distributed mainly according to CAP2 (δ2 = 97.5%). This distribution along the second axis followed a close association with their relative latitudinal position. South African LME sites were plotted at the bottom of the ordination whereas those of the Scotian shelf LME were located at the top of the ordination (Fig. 3). In between, and from north to south, sites in the Gulf of Maine Northeast US Shelf and Celtic Shelf LMEs grouped together, and the Gulf of Alaska sites formed a tight cluster. Sites in the Mediterranean were ordered together with sites that were longitudinally very distant (i.e., sites of the Kuroshi Current LME), but located at relatively similar latitudes, around 38° to 41° north (Fig. 3). These results clearly show that the taxonomic composition of assemblages associated with intertidal rocky shores gradually changed in relation to latitude, which contrasts the lack of a relationship between standardized estimators of richness and latitude.

thumbnail

Figure 3. CAP on biological data.

Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) plots generated from taxonomic dissimilarity coefficients (theta) of the biological data matrix, using LMEs as predictor factor. Green triangle = Gulf of Alaska, Yellow square = Agulhas Current, Red square = Mediterranean Sea, Blue triangle = Celtic-Biscay Shelf, Green diamond = Gulf of California, Blue diamond = Northeast US Continental Shelf, Inverted blue triangle = Caribbean Sea, Blue circle = Benguela Current, Green square = South China Sea, Green circle = Kuroshio Current, Blue square = Patagonian Shelf, Empty blue circle = Scotian Shelf.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.g003

The latitudinal trend in taxonomic composition was largely due to the presence of prominent taxonomic groups in the LMEs as indicated by SIMPER analysis (Table 4). The Gulf of Alaska sites differed from others LMEs by the presence of various families of Phaeophyta, Rhodophyta and Chlorophyta (Table 4). Encrusting forms of algal families (i.e., mainly Corallinaceae and Rhodomelaceae) were more important in the South-African (Agulhas and Benguela Current), Caribbean Sea and Mediterranean Sea LMEs than elsewhere. These LMEs with abundant encrusting algae, were dominated by different grazers, i.e., sea urchins in the Caribbean, patellid gastropods in the Mediterranean Sea, and both patellid and siphonarian gastropods in the South-African LMEs. Fucoids were more important on the Northeast US Shelf, Celtic-Biscay Shelf and Scotian Shelf compared to other LMEs. Barnacles distinguished the Gulf of California and South China Sea LMEs from the rest. (Table 4).

thumbnail

Table 4. LME's Similarity Percentage (SIMPER) explaining taxa contributing most to differences among LME.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.t004

A constrained ordination (CAP) of sites based on the environmental variables showed clear differences among sites located in different LMEs (Fig. 4). In the environmental ordination (Fig. 4), an important split over the second axis (δ2 = 99.5%) was not well related to any particular variable. Scores of the first axis (δ1 = 99.0%) were strongly and negatively correlated with SST (ρ = 0.68), indicating that sampling sites were ordered from left to right with decreasing SST (Fig. 4).

thumbnail

Figure 4. CAP on environmental data.

Canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) generated from Euclidian distances of the environmental matrix using LMEs as predictor factors. Green triangle = Gulf of Alaska, Yellow square = Agulhas Current, Red square = Mediterranean Sea, Blue triangle = Celtic-Biscay Shelf, Green diamond = Gulf of California, Blue diamond = Northeast US Continental Shelf, Inverted blue triangle = Caribbean Sea, Blue circle = Benguela Current, Green square = South China Sea, Green circle = Kuroshio Current, Blue square = Patagonian Shelf, Empty blue circle = Scotian Shelf.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.g004

Correlation of the matrices of environmental variables with the biological, by means of a BIOENV routine, indicated that the variables that best explained patterns of spatial distribution of LMEs, based on their biological information (ρ = 61.1%) were: photoperiod, rain fall anomalies, SST, chlorophyll-a anomalies and the index of inorganic pollution (Table 5).

thumbnail

Table 5. Bio-ENV results showing the environmental variable combinations that best match the biotic similarity matrices using the weighted Spearman rank correlation (ρw).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.t005

Discussion

The overall intertidal rocky shore assemblage descriptions provided here correspond well with documented species lists for some LME's (e.g. Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and the South African Agulhas and Benguela Current), despite the often small sampling effort in our study. For the Caribbean, for example, similar assemblage description, based on dominant species, was obtained from more detailed studies with more effort [56]-[59]. This consistency is retained when spatial relationships were considered between the more southern Caribbean descriptions from this study (Fig. 1) with an intensive study of the British Virgin Island [56] in the northern Caribbean. Similarly, the general descriptions for Gulf of Alaska and the South African Agulhas and Benguela Currents LME assemblages matched published records based on more comprehensive sampling [60][66]. For some LMEs (e.g., Mediterranean Sea), three sites still produced a general description similar to what has been reported, especially in the northern Mediterranean Sea [25], [67], [68]. Hence, despite the low replication number per site, overall regional patterns in intertidal community structure seemed to be reasonable well captured in our study. While we emphasize that our available data were limited, they still seem to provide a useful database for this first-cut analysis of global patterns.

The proposed cline in species diversity from low to high latitudes for most terrestrial and some marine groups [69][72] is less consistent in the marine environment [73][75] or non-existent [31]. This study did not find a clear pattern in relation to latitude, especially in estimated species richness, a result that contrasts findings for algae [33] and intertidal echinoderms [76] from other NaGISA-based analyses. Macroalgae [33] and small intertidal echinoderms [76] had highest taxon richness in high northern latitudes. In contrast, large intertidal echinoderms diversity and abundance peaked in the Caribbean region [76]. It seems that different taxa may be structured differently along latitude. The complete assemblage may then not display any specific latitudinal trend as different gradients of the individual taxonomic components are averaged.

Alternatively, the lack of latitudinal patterns found in this study might be due to low sample size in some LMEs. Small sample sizes are likely to omit rare species in a given assemblage, which would result in underestimations of species richness for those particular LMEs.

In this study, despite the fact that no latitudinal gradient was found in terms of the univariate estimator of taxon richness, a clear latitudinal pattern was found for the multivariate aspect of taxonomic composition of intertidal rocky shores assemblages (Fig. 3). Similarity patterns among sampling sites were closely related to latitude but not with longitude. For example, sampling sites of the Kuroshio Current and South China Sea were grouped with sites in the Mediterranean Sea, which were all situated at similar latitudes (38°–40°N) yet on distinctly different longitudes. While it has been suggested before that in rocky shore environments, latitudinal patterns can be detected regionally while local patterns might be obscured by smaller-scale environmental variables or biological interactions [22], [77], the idea that latitudinal differences may be conserved across large longitudinal distances is novel and warrants further testing.

Differences in taxonomic composition among LMEs demonstrated that spatial distribution patterns of these assemblages were not homogeneous over large spatial scales. Consequently, null models, predicting uniform assemblage patterns over large spatial scales, could be discarded [78]. This leaves two alternative models: environmental models, where taxonomic composition is related to environmental variables (anthropogenic and/or natural, Table 2), and neutral models where taxonomic composition depends on geography (e.g., [37], [38]).

Through correlation analyses (i.e. BIOENV), six environmental variables were identified as potential drivers of spatial distribution patterns of intertidal rocky assemblages. Of those, five are considered “natural” variables, and only one (inorganic pollution index) was directly related to anthropogenic influences. There was no evidence to unequivocally separate environmental models and neutral models to explain taxonomic composition, because assemblages were highly correlated with latitude (Fig. 3; neutral model) as well as with SST and chlorophyll-a (environmental models). Noting that SST in this study was not strongly correlated with latitude (ρ = 0.38), it can be proposed that SST must play a key role in the observed global distribution patterns of these assemblages, as has been proposed on regional scales [16], [61], [75], [79]. The repercussions are of great importance since future changes in SST from climate change or global warming [17], [19] may alter the structure of these assemblages and, consequently, their functioning [80]. Another important environmental variable related to the patterns of spatial distribution of the natural assemblages was photoperiod, which might have a strong influence on the primary producers of these assemblages. Unfortunately, photoperiod is a function of latitude; consequently, an unequivocal separation between neutral and environmental models cannot be done. The direct effects of anthropogenic impacts such as pollution [81], food harvesting [82], eutrophication [83] and introduced species [84] on marine communities have been studied at regional and local scales. However, not many studies have attempted to associate intertidal rocky shore assemblage structure at a global scale with anthropogenic variables, although a global pervasive effects of human has been predicted for these environments (e.g., [83]). The lack of relationship of rocky intertidal assemblages with variables related to direct anthropogenic influences in this study might be due to the resiliency of some rocky shore organisms to contaminants such as high concentrations of heavy metals [85], [86] and oil spills [87]. Alternatively, the absence of significant correlations with variables related to direct anthropogenic influences could result from the level of accuracy and/or precision of the models used to estimate the different indexes (e.g., fisheries, invasive species, nutrients, etc.) since all variables were taken from one source [45]. For example, the model used to estimate impacts of the fisheries at a global scale has received criticism [88].

Correlative analysis does not establish cause and effect. However, the identification of correlated drivers can give us some insight into which variables may be most influential. Actual cause-consequences relationships between environmental (anthropogenic or natural) drivers and rocky shore assemblages at global scales are further complicated due to the inherent complexity of spatial and temporal variation in which these assemblages naturally fluctuate [89]. Furthermore, due to our current logistic limitations to do manipulative experiments at regional or global scales, the best and perhaps only way to understand the underlying processes that affect coastal bio-geographic distribution patterns is through large-scale and continuous monitoring programs. Therefore, it is imperative to continue global-scale programs to detect and characterize these changes over continued time series. Unfortunately, monitoring programs are traditionally seen as “Science's Cinderella” [90] and, consequently, do not receive the needed attention [91]. Despite the caveats of the data used in this study, we have shown the importance of generating global databases of biological information to gain a better understanding of the structure and functioning of rocky shore assemblages.

Supporting Information

Table S1.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014354.s001

(0.03 MB DOC)

Acknowledgments

We greatly appreciate the invaluable help of all volunteers who assisted the different sampling teams around the world. We also wish to thank the Census of Marine Life and its administrative staff who made the implementation of a global network possible. We are grateful to Dr. Brian Helmuth and an anonymous reviewer who greatly contributed, through their comments, to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JJCM PM KI BK LBC. Performed the experiments: JJCM GP KI BK GP TT LBC CH AH AS AB JG DIG GB YS. Analyzed the data: JJCM GP KI BK LBC CH AH AS AB JC EK EGC ALK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JJCM PM GP KI BK JG DIG. Wrote the paper: JJCM GP KI BK TT. Provided data: JC EK RR-R AM.

References

  1. 1. Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 191 p.
  2. 2. Gooding RA, Harley CDG, Tang E (2009) Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 9316–9321.
  3. 3. Hughes L (2000) Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 56–61.
  4. 4. Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, et al. (1999) Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579–583.
  5. 5. Barry JP, Baxter CH, Sagarin RD, Gilman SE (1995) Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science 267: 672–675.
  6. 6. Roemmich D, McGowan J (1995) Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California Current. Science 267: 1324–1326.
  7. 7. Sagarin RD, Barry JP, Gilman SE, Baxter CH (1999) Climate-related change in an intertidal community over short and long time scales. Ecol Monogr 69: 465–490.
  8. 8. Adrian R, O'Reilly CM, Zagarese H, Baines SB, Hessen DO, et al. (2009) Lakes as sentinels of climate change. Limnol Oceanogr 54: 2283–2297.
  9. 9. Chapin FS, Sala OE, Burke IC, Grime JP, Hooper DU, et al. (1998) Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity - Experimental evidence and a research agenda for the future. Bioscience 48: 45–52.
  10. 10. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, et al. (2001) Ecology - Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.
  11. 11. Gessner MO, Inchausti P, Persson L, Raffaelli DG, Giller PS (2004) Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: insights from aquatic systems. Oikos 104: 419–422.
  12. 12. O'Connor NE, Crowe TP (2005) Biodiversity loss and ecosystem functioning: Distinguishing between number and identity of species. Ecology 86: 1783–1796.
  13. 13. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, et al. (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9: 1146–1156.
  14. 14. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, et al. (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443: 989–992.
  15. 15. Genner MJ, Sims DW, Southward AJ, Budd GC, Masterson P, et al. (2009) Body size-dependent responses of a marine fish assemblage to climate change and fishing over a century-long scale. Glob Change Biol 16: 517–527.
  16. 16. Blanchette CA, Miner CM, Raimondi PT, Lohse D, Heady KEK, et al. (2008) Biogeographical patterns of rocky intertidal communities along the Pacific coast of North America. J Biogeogr 35: 1593–1607.
  17. 17. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: Synthesis Report. A contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 398 p.
  18. 18. Hoegh-Guldberg O (1999) Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs. Mar Freshw Res 50: 839–866.
  19. 19. Helmuth B, Harley CDG, Halpin PM, O'Donnell M, Hofmann GE, et al. (2002) Climate change and latitudinal patterns of intertidal thermal stress. Science 298: 1015–1017.
  20. 20. Walther GR (2000) Climatic forcing on the dispersal of exotic species. Phytocoenologia 30: 409–430.
  21. 21. Robles C, Desharnais R (2002) History and current development of a paradigm of predation in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology 83: 1521–1536.
  22. 22. Okuda T, Noda T, Yamamoto T, Ito N, Nakaoka M (2004) Latitudinal gradient of species diversity: multi-scale variability in rocky intertidal sessile assemblages along the Northwestern Pacific coast. Popul Ecol 46: 159–170.
  23. 23. Rivadeneira MM, Fernandez M (2005) Shifts in southern endpoints of distribution in rocky intertidal species along the south-eastern Pacific coast. J Biogeogr 32: 203–209.
  24. 24. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ, Stephens JS (1997) Changes in an assemblage of temperate reef fishes associated with a climate shift. Ecol Appl 7: 1299–1310.
  25. 25. Fraschetti S, Terlizzi A, Benedetti-Cecchi L (2005) Patterns of distribution of marine assemblages from rocky shores: evidence of relevant scales of variation. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 296: 13–29.
  26. 26. Levitus S, Antonov JI, Boyer TP, Stephens C (2000) Warming of the world ocean. Science 287: 2225–2229.
  27. 27. Gille ST (2002) Warming of the Southern Ocean since the 1950s. Science 295: 1275–1277.
  28. 28. Pianka ER (1966) Latitudinal gradients in species diversity - a review of concepts. Am Nat 100: 33–46.
  29. 29. Hillebrand H (2004) On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am Nat 163: 192–211.
  30. 30. Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, Lotze HK, Ricard D, et al. (2010) Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa Nature 466: 1098–1101.
  31. 31. Bolton JJ (1994) Global seaweed diversity - patterns and anomalies. Bot Marina 37: 241–245.
  32. 32. Santelices B, Marquet P (1998) Seaweeds, latitudinal diversity patterns, and Rapoport's Rule. Diversity Distrib 4: 71–75.
  33. 33. Konar B, Iken K, Cruz-Motta JJ, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Knowlton A, et al. (2010) Global patterns of macroalgal diversity and biomass in rocky nearshore environments. PLoS One 5: e13195.
  34. 34. Kendall MA, Aschan M (1993) Latitudinal gradients in the structure of macrobenthic communities - a comparison of Arctic, temperate and tropical sites. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 172: 157–169.
  35. 35. Pitman NCA, Terborgh J, Silman MR, Nuez P (1999) Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80: 2651–2661.
  36. 36. Bell G (2001) Ecology - Neutral macroecology. Science 293: 2413–2418.
  37. 37. Hubbell S (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. New Jersey: Princeton University. 448 p.
  38. 38. He F (2005) Deriving a neutral model of species abundance from fundamental mechanisms of population dynamics. Funct Ecol 19: 187–193.
  39. 39. Buckley LB, Jetz W (2008) Linking global turnover of species and environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 17836–17841.
  40. 40. Gaston KJ, Davies RG, Orme CDL, Olson VA, Thomas GH, et al. (2007) Spatial turnover in the global avifauna. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 274: 1567–1574.
  41. 41. Sala E, Knowlton N (2006) Global marine biodiversity trends. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31: 93–122.
  42. 42. Mora C (2008) A clear human footprint in the coral reefs of the Caribbean. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 275: 767–773.
  43. 43. Sherman K, Aquarone M, Adams S (2007) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-208. Global Applications of the Large Marine Ecosystem Concept 2007-2010. Woods Hole: US Department of Commerce. 71 p.
  44. 44. Rigby P, Iken K, Shirayama Y (2007) Sampling biodiversity in coastal communities. NaGISA protocols for seagrass and macroalgal habitats. Japan: Kyoto University Press. 145 p.
  45. 45. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, et al. (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.
  46. 46. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Iken K, Konar B, Cruz-Motta J, Knowlton A, et al. (2010) Spatial relationships between Polychaete assemblages and environmental variables over broad geographical scales. PLoS One 5: e12946.
  47. 47. Ugland KI, Gray JS, Ellingsen KE (2003) The species-accumulation curve and estimation of species richness. J Anim Ecol 72: 888–897.
  48. 48. Krebs C (1999) Ecological Methodology. California: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. 620 p.
  49. 49. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1998) Quantifying structural redundancy in ecological communities. Oecologia 113: 278–289.
  50. 50. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray-Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330: 55–80.
  51. 51. Anderson M, Gorley R, Clarke K (2008) PERMANOVA for PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd. 214 p.
  52. 52. Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84: 511–525.
  53. 53. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117–143.
  54. 54. Clarke K, Warwick R (2001) Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd. 172 p.
  55. 55. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Gorley RN (2008) Testing of null hypotheses in exploratory community analyses: similarity profiles and biota-environment linkage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366: 56–69.
  56. 56. Good TP (2004) Distribution and abundance patterns in Caribbean rocky intertidal zones. Bull Mar Sci 74: 459–468.
  57. 57. Nuñez SG, Lopez NH, Garcia CB, Navas GR (1999) Bimonthly characterization and behavior of the sessile community associated with the rocky littoral of Bocachica, Tierra Bomba Island, Colombian Caribbean. Ceinc Mar 25: 629–646.
  58. 58. Lopez MM, Solano OD (2005) Population state of Echinometra lucunter (Echinoida: Echinometridae) and its accompanying fauna on Caribbean rocky littoral from Colombia. Rev Biol Trop 53: 291–297.
  59. 59. Cruz-Motta JJ (2007) Spatial analysis of intertidal tropical assemblages associated with rocky shores in Venezuela. Cienc Mar 33: 133–148.
  60. 60. Lindstrom SC, Houghton JP, Lees DC (1999) Intertidal macroalgal community structure in southwestern Prince William Sound, Alaska. Bot Marina 42: 265–280.
  61. 61. Zacharias MA, Roff JC (2001) Explanations of patterns of intertidal diversity at regional scales. J Biogeogr 28: 471–483.
  62. 62. Ingolfsson A (2005) Community structure and zonation patterns of rocky shores at high latitudes: an interocean comparison. J Biogeogr 32: 169–182.
  63. 63. Konar B, Iken K, Edwards M (2009) Depth-stratified community zonation patterns on Gulf of Alaska rocky shores. Mar Ecol-Evol Persp 30: 63–73.
  64. 64. Bustamante RH, Branch GM, Eekhout S, Robertson B, Zoutendyk P, et al. (1995) Gradients of intertidal primary productivity around the coast of South-Africa and their relationships with consumer biomass. Oecologia 102: 189–201.
  65. 65. Bolton JJ, Stegenga H (2002) Seaweed species diversity in South Africa. South Afr J Mar Sci-Suid-Afr Tydsk Seewetens 24: 9–18.
  66. 66. Sink KJ, Branch GM, Harris JM (2005) Biogeographic patterns in rocky intertidal communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 27: 81–96.
  67. 67. Benedetti-Cecchi L (2001) Variability in abundance of algae and invertebrates at different spatial scales on rocky sea shores. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 215: 79–92.
  68. 68. Menconi M, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cinelli F (1999) Spatial and temporal variability in the distribution of algae and invertebrates on rocky shores in the northwest Mediterranean. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 233: 1–23.
  69. 69. Willig MR, Kaufman DM, Stevens RD (2003) Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34: 273–309.
  70. 70. Gaston KJ (2000) Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405: 220–227.
  71. 71. Kerr J (2001) Global biodiversity patterns: from description to understanding. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 424–425.
  72. 72. Macpherson E (2002) Large-scale species-richness gradients in the Atlantic Ocean. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 269: 1715–1720.
  73. 73. Clarke A (1992) Is there a latitudinal diversity cline in the sea? Trends Ecol Evol 7: 286–287.
  74. 74. Roy K, Jablonski D, Valentine JW (2000) Dissecting latitudinal diversity gradients: functional groups and clades of marine bivalves. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 267: 293–299.
  75. 75. Broitman BR, Navarrete SA, Smith F, Gaines SD (2001) Geographic variation of southeastern Pacific intertidal communities. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 224: 21–34.
  76. 76. Iken K, Konar B, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cruz-Motta JJ, Knowlton A, et al. (2010) Large-scale spatial distribution patterns in echinoderms in nearshore rocky habitats. PLoS ONE In this volume: in press.
  77. 77. Rivadeneira MM, Fernandez M, Navarrete SA (2002) Latitudinal trends of species diversity in rocky intertidal herbivore assemblages: spatial scale and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 245: 123–131.
  78. 78. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: Partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75: 435–450.
  79. 79. Sagarin RD, Gaines SD (2002) Geographical abundance distributions of coastal invertebrates: using one-dimensional ranges to test biogeographic hypotheses. J Biogeogr 29: 985–997.
  80. 80. Hawkins SJ, Moore PJ, Burrows MT, Poloczanska E, Mieszkowska N, et al. (2008) Complex interactions in a rapidly changing world: responses of rocky shore communities to recent climate change. Clim Res 37: 123–133.
  81. 81. Clark R, Frid C, Atrill M (1997) Marine Pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 161 p.
  82. 82. Castilla JC (2000) Roles of experimental marine ecology in coastal management and conservation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250: 3–21.
  83. 83. Thompson RC, Crowe TP, Hawkins SJ (2002) Rocky intertidal communities: past environmental changes, present status and predictions for the next 25 years. Environ Conserv 29: 168–191.
  84. 84. Reise K, Gollasch S, Wolff WJ (1998) Introduced marine species of the North Sea coasts. Helgol Meeresunters 52: 219–234.
  85. 85. Barreiro R, Real C, Carballeira A (1993) Heavy-metal accumulation by Fucus ceranoides in a small estuary in North-West Spain. Mar Environ Res 36: 39–61.
  86. 86. Castilla JC (1996) Copper mine tailing disposal in northern Chile rocky shores: Enteromorpha compressa (Chlorophyta) as a sentinel species. Environ Monit Assess 40: 171–184.
  87. 87. Southward AJ, Southward EC (1978) Recolonization of rocky shores in Cornwall after use of toxic dispersants to clean up t Torrey Canyon spill. J Fish Res Board Can 35: 682–706.
  88. 88. Heath MR (2008) Comment on “A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems”. Science 321: 2.
  89. 89. Underwood AJ (2000) Experimental ecology of rocky intertidal habitats: what are we learning? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250: 51–76.
  90. 90. Nisbet E (2007) Earth monitoring: Cinderella science. Nature 450: 789–790.
  91. 91. Fisher JAD, Frank KT, Leggett WC (2010) Dynamic macroecology on ecological time-scales. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19: 1–15.
  92. 92. Meeus J (1991) Astronomical Algorithms. Richmond: Willmann-Bell, Incorporated. 411 p.