Distribution of microphytobenthic biomass in Martel Inlet, King George Island (Antarctica)

The spatial and temporal variation of microphytobenthic biomass in the nearshore zone of Martel Inlet (King George Island, Antarctica) was estimated at several sites and depths (10-60 m), during three summer periods (1996/1997, 1997/1998, 2004/2005). The mean values were inversely related to the bathymetric gradient: higher ones at 10-20 m depth (136.2 +/- A 112.5 mg Chl a m(-2), 261.7 +/- A 455.9 mg Phaeo m(-2)), intermediate at 20-30 m (55.6 +/- A 39.5 mg Chl a m(-2), 108.8 +/- A 73.0 mg Phaeo m(-2)) and lower ones at 40-60 m (22.7 +/- A 23.7 mg Chl a m(-2), 58.3 +/- A 38.9 mg Phaeo m(-2)). There was also a reduction in the Chl a/Phaeo ratio with depth, from 3.2 +/- A 3.2 (10-20 m) to 0.7 +/- A 1.0 (40-60 m), showing a higher contribution of senescent phytoplankton and/or macroalgae debris at the deeper sites and the limited light flux reaching the bottom. Horizontal differences found in the biomass throughout the inlet could not be clearly related to hydrodynamics or proximity to glaciers, but with sediment characteristics. An inter-summer variation was observed: the first summer presented the highest microphytobenthic biomass apparently related to more hydrodynamic conditions, which causes the deposition of allochthonous material.

Abundance of biofilm on intertidal rocky shores: Can trampling by humans be a negative influence?

Trampling by human visitors to rocky shores is a known stressor on macroorganisms. However, the effects of trampling on rocky intertidal biofilm, a complex association of microorganisms of ecological importance in coastal communities, have not been quantified. We evaluated the impact of trampling frequency and intensity on total biomass of epilithic microalgae on intertidal rocky shores in the southeast of Brazil. There was a trend of increase in the variability of biomass of biofilm in function of intensity of trampling, but no significant effects emerged among trampling treatments. The low influence of trampling on biofilm might be a result of the small dimensions of the organisms coupled with their natural resilience and roughness of the substrate; the former preventing the removal of biofilm layers by shoes and facilitating their quick recovery. Our results provide insights for management and conservation of coastal ecosystems revealing a weaker impact of trampling on biofilm than that reported on macroorganisms. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.