DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS AND TROPHIC STRUCTURE OF SOFT-

BOTTOM POLYCHAETE ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTH-WESTERN

MEDITERRANEAN SHALLOW-WATER BAY

Daniel Martin, Susana Pinedo and Rafael Sardá

Centre d'Estudis Avançats de Blanes (CSIC). Camí Sta. Bàrbara s/n.
17300 Blanes, Girona. Spain.

Running head: Soft-bottom polychaetes of a shallow-water bay

ABSTRACT

This study describes the spatial distribution and trophic structure of the polychaetes inhabiting the soft-bottoms
of Alfacs Bay, a semi-enclosed, shallow-water area (Ebro Delta, north-western Mediterranean). The
hydrographic regime is basically marine, with a combination of seawater renewal and continental runoff causing
permanent stratification. The Bay was affected by anthropogenic activities (viz. influx of irrigation waters, large-
scale aquaculture, and periodical dredging at the mouth). 41 samples were taken during summer (July 1987 and
September 1992). 101 polychaete species were identified, with an average density and biomass of 6370(650-
23700) ind.·m-2 and 7.52(0.87-66) DW g·m-2, respectively. Nine assemblages were identified: shelf (stressed,
confined, typical), boundary, deep central basin (inner, typical, seaward) and marine (typical, navigation
channel). The trophic structure was dominated by deposit-feeding polychaetes (mainly Pseudomastus deltaicus,
Heteromastus filiformis, Notomastus latericeus, Mastobranchus trinchesii, Euclymene oerstedii, Clymenura
clypeata, Streblospio shrubsolii, Monticellina heterochaeta and Ampharete acutifrons). An increase in the
ecological weight of carnivorous polychaetes (mostly Lumbrineris latreilli) from the shelf towards the marine
assemblages was also noticed. The analysis of the polychaete taxocoenosis provides key items to understand the
functioning of the semi-enclosed, shallow-water system under study.

Keywords: Distribution Patterns, Trophic Structure, Infaunal Polychaetes, Semi-enclosed Shallow-Water Bay,
North-Western Mediterranean.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Besides classical studies of environmental factors, a viable approach to the analysis of a given
ecosystem is to define the structural properties of the faunal assemblages that respond
differentially to the environmental constraints (Warwick 1986). There appears to be a certain
uniformity in the faunal composition of the littoral environments that are partially isolated
from coastal waters, which are known as "paralic" environments in the Mediterranean. The
main variable generating organization in paralic ecosystems was described as the time of
renewal of marine elements at any given point of the system, and was referred to as
"confinement" (i.e. with relation to the sea) (Guelorget & Perthuisot 1992). However, since it
is difficult to measure this intuitive concept, the proposed definition was based on benthic
zonation patterns, which appeared to be uniform within the paralic domain (Frisoni et al.
1984; Guelorget & Perthuisot 1992). It is generally accepted that the distribution of benthic
species reflects environmental gradients, especially those directly related with the sediment
such as grain size, pollution or organic matter gradients (Gray 1974; Pearson & Rosenberg
1978). Paralic environments are no exception, and thus both the taxonomic composition and
the distribution patterns of their fauna are often highly characteristic and specific of each site
(Gravina et al. 1989; Palacín et al. 1991; Guelorget & Perthuisot 1992).
The Ebro Delta includes some of the largest paralic systems in the north-western
Mediterranean. Particularly, two large semi-enclosed, shallow-water bays are located on its
northern (Fangar Bay) and southern (Alfacs Bay) shorelines. Although most of their
shorelines are protected areas, the Ebro Delta supports periodical anthropogenic perturbations,
extensive aquaculture of euryhaline fish and shellfish industries. In Alfacs Bay, the input of
the rice-field irrigation waters along its northern shoreline and the dredging of a navigation
channel towards a cement loading point at its opening also disturb its benthic zonation
pattern.
Alfacs Bay is the focus of increasing attention and research. Numerous studies on the
functioning of this environment have been carried out: geological origin (Maldonado 1977),
hydrography (Camp & Delgado 1987; Delgado & Camp 1987), phytoplankton (Delgado
1987), production modelling (Camp et al. 1985, 1991), sediment-water nutrient fluxes (Vidal
et al. 1989), benthic bacterial balance (Mallo 1989; Mallo et al. 1993), ecology and
systematics of microphytobenthos (Delgado 1989), ecology of macrophytobenthos (Pérez &
Camp 1986; Pérez 1989; Duarte & Sand-Jensen 1990), spatial distribution and seasonality of
meio- and macroinfauna (Palacín 1990; Palacín et al. 1991, 1992, 1993; Sardá et al. 1995).
Polychaete species were particularly abundant in Alfacs Bay, ranging from 32% to 90% (in
density) and from 40% to 93 % (in biomass) of the total benthic macroinfauna (Palacín et al.

2
1991). However, studies on this group are only partial: taxonomic descriptions (Capaccioni-
Azzati & San Martín 1989-90; Martin 1989; Martin & Giangrande 1991; Capaccioni-Azzati
& Martin 1992), faunal and coenotic analysis of the deepest areas of the Bay (Capaccioni-
Azzati et al. 1991), short-scale spatial distribution patterns and minimal-area estimates
(Martin et al. 1993) and population dynamics and secondary production of some key species
(Sardá & Martin 1993; Martin & Grémare 1996). Here we analyze the structure and
composition of soft-bottom polychaete assemblages in Alfacs Bay to provide a complete
mapping based on various biological descriptors. A special effort has been made to describe
the spatial distribution of polychaete assemblages and their relationships with environmental
variables.
In addition, soft-bottom infaunal distribution depends on trophic strategies and sediment
characteristics such as particle size and organic matter content (Sanders 1958; Bloom et al.
1972; Gray 1974; Whitlatch 1981; Snelgrove & Butman 1994; Pinedo et al. 1997). Thus, we
also used feeding guilds and a trophic index (Paiva 1993; Pinedo et al. 1997) to describe the
functional structure of the polychaete assemblages of Alfacs Bay and to analyze their
relationships with the environmental variables.

We thank Dr. C. Palacín for sharing fieldwork and scientific discussions on the functioning of the Bay and D.
J.M. Gili for his scientific support at the beginning of the study. This research was supported by the project
CICYT AC 16/84 and by a contract with the former "Direcció General de Ports de Catalunya".

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Alfacs Bay is a semi-enclosed, shallow-water area located at the southern shore of the Ebro
Delta, north-western Mediterranean, 40°33'-40°38'N; 0°32'-0°44'E (Fig. 1). The Bay measures
about 50 Km2 and contains about 200·106 m3 of seawater. It is isolated and protected from the
open sea by a narrow sand bar, with only a 3 Km wide mouth opening to the sea. The average
depth is 4 m, with a large shelf following the inner coastal profile (extending from about 0 to
2 m deep), a deep central area (3 to 6 m deep) and a narrow connecting slope (from 2 to 3 m
deep). Just at the opening of the Bay, depth increases slowly to 10 m, with maximum values
of 11 to 12.5 m along the navigation channel located off the cement loading point of Alcanar
(stations 34 to 39), which is maintained by dredging.
Fresh water runs into the Bay through a complex network of channels, mainly across rice
fields, which open along the northern coast (Fig. 1). From this shoreline, this less saline water
flows towards the mouth. About 7·104 – 1.7·106 m3 day-1 of fresh water is transported from
April to October. However, this volume is always less than 1% of the total capacity of the
Bay. Mediterranean seawater reaches Alfacs Bay from west (opening of the Bay) to east
(inner corner of the Bay). Thus, stratification permanently characterizes the hydrographic

3
conditions of the Bay (Camp & Delgado 1987). Especially during summer, a more saline and
dense marine water layer (i.e. 35 to 36‰) advances into the Bay, sliding near the bottom
beneath the less saline upper water layer (i.e. 20 to 35‰). Owing to this dominant
hydrographic regime of the Bay, the deeper zones of the Bay show a constantly marine
salinity. Along the shallow south-eastern shoreline, salinity reaches 37 to 38‰ due to
evaporation. During summer, the Bay shows a characteristic Redox pattern at the surface of
the sediment. Redox values range from –30 to –170 mV in most of the Bay, reaching positive
potentials (up to 20 mV) along the south-eastern shelf. The most negative Redox potential
(down to –350 mV) occurs in the northern shelf, around the openings of the outlet channels
(Mallo 1989; Mallo et al. 1993).
Another characteristic aspect of the Bay is the large area covered by macrophytes, the most
significant autotrophic components of the Bay (Pérez & Camp 1986; Pérez 1989; Duarte &
Sand-Jensen 1990). The most abundant species are the seagrasses Ruppia cirrhosa and
Cymodocea nodosa and the alga Caulerpa prolifera. R. cirrhosa occurs in dense beds along
the northern shelf, which are replaced by C. nodosa in deeper (3 to 4 m) or less stressed areas.
C. nodosa, the most abundant seagrass in the Bay, forms a continuous narrow belt along the
northern shore line (mean biomass from 32 to 267 DW g·m-2) and occurs in discontinuous
patches along the southern shelf (mean biomass from 60 to 118 DW g·m-2) (Pérez 1989). The
alga C. prolifera (often mixed with Halopitys incurvus) occurs at the central basin, from the
middle towards the opening of the Bay, reaching biomasses of about 50 DW g·m-2 (authors,
personal observations).
A total of 41 samples were collected during two field surveys (Fig. 1). The stations were
selected to describe the spatial distribution and trophic structure of the polychaete populations
inhabiting the Bay. All samples were obtained during summer using an inflatable boat.
Station positions were fixed by "LORAN", and supplemented by relative bearing. The inner
part of the Bay (i.e. stations 1 to 23) was sampled in July 1987 by hand or Scuba diving using
a plastic corer (200 cm2, 20 cm in depth). The outer part of the Bay (i.e. stations 24 to 41) was
sampled in September 1992 using a van Veen grab (600 cm2, 20 cm in depth). Between 1987
and 1992, the structure of the populations was not modified by environmental events other
than the recurrent processes described above. The samples were not replicated, as a sampling
size of 200 cm2 was previously estimated to be representative of density and diversity studies
in the area (Martin et al. 1993). To avoid size-dependent bias, the species richness of the inner
assemblages of the Bay was estimated by grouping three samples at random, which gave the
same surface area as the grab samples from the outer Bay (i.e. 600 cm2). Thus, results were
not subjected to statistical analysis, and the trends in species richness were simply described
in the corresponding section. Samples were sieved through a 0.5 mm screen and preserved in
a 10% formalin seawater solution. Parallel core samples or small sub-samples from the grab
were collected for organic-content and mechanical granulometric analyses.

4
 The polychaetes retained by the sieve were classified to the species level and counted.
Biomass was determined as dry weight (DW, 24 h at 70˚C). Diversity was estimated using the
Shannon index (Shannon 1948) based on both polychaete density and biomass. The species
frequency (F), either in the whole Bay or in a given assemblage, was estimated as:

F= (m / M) · 100,
where:

m = number of samples in which a species is present.

M = total number of samples.

Polychaetes were classified into five trophic groups: F, filter feeders; M, mixed (filter and
surface-deposit feeders); S, surface-deposit feeders; SS, subsurface-deposit feeders; C,
carnivores, herbivores and omnivores (adapted from (Fauchald & Jumars 1979; Dauvin &
Ibanez 1986)). Each species was classified into a single trophic group (table 1). The
ecological importance of each trophic group at each polychaete assemblage was evaluated
using the Trophic Importance Index (Ti) adapted from Paiva (1993) and Pinedo et al. (1997):

s
Ti = ∑ ln ni
i=1

s = number of species of the trophic group in the assemblage.

ln ni = natural logarithm of the (% biomass)+1 of the ith species in the assemblage.

Organic content of dry sediment was estimated as the loss of weight after ashing (60°C for
24h, then 500°C for 3h) (Greiser & Faubel 1988). Sediment was subjected to the standard
dry-sieving procedure (Wentworth 1972) for granulometric analysis. The percentage of silt-
clay (<63 µm) was used as a variable.
Contour maps for all abiotic and biotic variables were based on a bidimensional
interpolation (40 rows per 63 columns grid size) using Kriging as gridding method. Land
nodes were blanked using digitized series of co-ordinates representing the shoreline profile.
Polychaete assemblages were defined on the basis of cluster analysis using Czekanovski
metrics and the UPGMA aggregation algorithm. The cluster analyses were performed on both
percent-transformed density and biomass of species-per-sample matrix. However, although
the sorting and weight of samples and species within each cluster slightly varied, both
analyses give rise to identical sample clusters. Thus, only that based on biomass was
represented. Each sample cluster corresponded to a polychaete assemblage present in Alfacs
Bay, while the species clusters defined the most characteristic species of each assemblage or

5
group of assemblages. The relationships between sample and species clusters were analyzed
using a tabular version of the two-way coincidence test developed by Kikkawa (1968).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences in the
environmental and biological variables between assemblages. Two-way ANOVAs were used
to assess the effect of trophic group and polychaete assemblage on each biological variable.
Multiple comparisons test was carried out by Tukey Honest Significant Difference test
(Tukey HSD) (Zar 1984). Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships
between environmental variables (depth, % of fine sediments, organic matter content) and the
biological descriptors. The assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity, required for
parametric analysis (Zar 1984), (as tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Bartlett test,
respectively) were met by either raw (diversity), log-transformed (density, species richness)
or rank-transformed (depth, % of fine sediments, organic matter content, biomass, mean
individual biomass) data.

RESULTS

Environmental variables

The distribution of both silt-clay (Pearson analysis, r = 0.5, p < 0.002) and organic matter
content in the sediment (Pearson analysis, r = 0.6, p < 0.0002) was positively correlated with
the bathymetry of the Bay (Fig. 2A, 2B). Minimum values (i.e., <0.06% for fine sediments
and <0.6% for the organic matter) occurred in the south-eastern shelf. Maximum values
occurred at the maximum depths (i.e. the middle of the Bay and the navigation channel) both
for fine sediments (> 90%) and organic matter (> 5.5%). There were only two relevant
differences in their respective distribution patterns. The highest percentage of fine sediments
was homogeneously distributed throughout the deeper bottoms of the Bay. The organic matter
content was higher at the inner deep bottoms, but also in the navigation channel. These zones
were separated by an area of organically poor sediments just at the opening of the Bay. A high
organic content was also observed at the central north shelf facing the outlet channels.

Characteristics of the polychaete taxocoenosis

A total of 101 species of polychaetes were found in the Bay (table 1), the most frequent being
Heteromastus filiformis (66%), Pseudomastus deltaicus (61%), Glycera unicornis (59%),
Lumbrineris latreilli (59%), Euclymene oerstedii (56%), and Monticellina heterochaeta
(56%).
The average density was 6370 ind. m-2. The northern shelf harboured both the maximum

6
(23700 ind.·m-2, north-eastern edge) and minimum (650 ind.·m-2, north central zone) densities
(Fig. 3B). The remaining of the Bay had intermediate values, the density increasing slightly
around the opening of the Bay. The dominant species in density were Pseudomastus deltaicus
(21%), Streblospio shrubsolii (17%), Heteromastus filiformis (6%) and Ampharete acutifrons
(5%).
The average biomass was 7.52 DW g·m-2, accounting for a mean individual size of 2 DW
mg·ind.-1. The spatial pattern of biomass showed a clear north-south gradient, with maximum
(66 DW g·m2) and minimum (0.87 DW g·m-2) values occurring in the southern and north
central shelf, respectively (Fig. 3C). The largest individuals (22 DW mg·ind.-1) occurred at the
southern shelf and the smallest (0.1 DW mg·ind.-1) at the north central shelf (Fig. 3D). The
main dominant species in biomass were Clymenura clypeata (32%), Pseudomastus deltaicus
(13%), Notomastus latericeus (6%) and Mastobranchus trinchesi (5%).
The average Shannon diversity (based on density data) was 2.69 bite·ind.-1. Maximum
(3.89 bite·ind.-1) and minimum (0.25 bite·ind.-1) values occurred in the slope and the north
shelf, respectively (Fig. 3E). The central zone of the Bay showed intermediate values, while
diversity was high at the southern shelf and the navigation channel. Using biomass, the
maximum (3.90 bite·ind.-1) and minimum (0.34 bite·ind.-1) diversity values occurred at the
navigation channel and the southern shelf, respectively (Fig. 3F), while the average was 2.29
bite·ind.-1. Diversity patterns based on density and biomass coincided in showing minimal
values at the northern shelf and maximal values at the opening of the Bay and the navigation
channel. However, biomass and density diversity patterns differed in that the former had
always low diversity values at the shallowest bottoms of the Bay (i.e. both at the north and
south shelf), this giving rise to a significant positive correlation between depth and biomass
diversity (Pearson analysis, r = 0.7, p < 0.00002).
All trophic groups showed different patterns of distribution in the Bay (Fig. 4). The
presence of group C was maximal following the northeast-southwest axis of the Bay, mainly
at the deepest bottoms. Group F occurred just before the opening of the Bay. Group M was
present along the northern shelf and in the navigation channel. Group S was present at the
northern shelf, with some large individuals occurring at the middle of the Bay and the slope.
Group SS showed the highest biomass along the southern shelf of the Bay. Positive
correlations were only found between groups C and M and depth (Pearson analysis, r = 0.4, p
< 0.006, r = 0.5, p < 0.0009), while group SS was negatively correlated with the organic
matter content (Pearson analysis, r = -0.3, p < 0.04).

Polychaete assemblages

From the results of the cluster analysis (cofenetic correlation of 0.9), 9 clusters of samples and
13 of species were identified (Fig. 5A, table 1). The resulting polychaete assemblages (i.e.

7
sample clusters) were named as follows: typical (STY), confined (SCO) and stressed (SST)
shelf assemblages; boundary assemblage (BOU); inner (CIN), typical (CTY) and seaward
(CSW) central basin assemblages; and typical (MTY) and navigation channel (MCH) marine
assemblages (Fig. 5B). Although many species were widely distributed throughout the whole
Bay, the following relationships between the assemblages described above and the species
clusters can be pointed out: group 1 at SST; group 2 at SCO; group 3 at STY; group 4 at
BOU; group 5 at CIN; group 6 at CTY; group 7 at CSW; group 8 at MTY; and group 9 at
MCH. The remaining four groups included species which were present at more than one
assemblage: group 10 at all shelf and boundary assemblages; group 11 mainly at STY and
BOU; group 12 at all assemblages except the shelf ones; and group 13 at CTY, CSW, MTY
and MCH (table 1).
All environmental variables analyzed showed significant differences between assemblages
(one way- ANOVA, depth: F = 64.2 and p < 0. 00001, percentage of fine sediments: F = 8.3
and p < 0.00002, organic matter content: F = 4.1 and p < 0.002) (Fig. 6). All assemblages
differed significantly from each other in depth (Tukey HSD, p < 0.001) except for BOU vs.
CIN, SST and SCO, CIN vs. CTY, CSW vs. the marine assemblages, and MTY vs. MCH.
Conversely, Tukey HSD showed that the significant differences in percentage of fine
sediments were due to the low values at the three shelf assemblages (SCO: p < 0.004, SST: p
< 0.02, STY: p < 0.0002), while those in organic matter content were only caused by the
extremely low values at STY (p < 0.001).
All biological descriptors of the polychaete assemblages showed significant differences
between assemblages, except the biomass (one-way ANOVA, density: F = 7.27 and p <
0.0001, density diversity: F = 7.44 and p < 0.0001, biomass diversity: F = 4.65 and p < 0.001,
mean individual biomass: F = 2.38 and p < 0.04) (Fig. 7). Although some significant
differences were caused by MCH (Tukey HSD, vs. CIN: p < 0.04, vs. CTY: p < 0.02), the
main responsible were the shelf assemblages (Table 2).
One or two trophic groups dominated the biomass distribution at each polychaete
assemblage, except at the SST (Fig. 8A). There was a significant combined effect of both
assemblages and trophic groups in biomass distribution (Two-way ANOVA, F = 1.93 and p <
0.005). The only significant difference occurred between the assemblages SST and MCH
(Tukey HSD, p < 0.04). The biomass distribution of each trophic group among the
assemblages was significantly different from one to another (p < 0.0002), except for groups M
vs. F and C vs. S.
The values of the ecological importance index of each trophic group showed the
predominance of two or three groups at each assemblage except for the SST (Fig. 8B). As a
general trend, deposit-feeding polychaetes dominated all the assemblages of the Bay and
carnivorous polychaetes increased their ecological relevance from the shelf towards the
marine assemblages. The only significant positive correlation between the trophic importance

8
index and the environmental parameters at each assemblage occurred between group C and
depth (Pearson analysis, r = 0.9, p < 0.002).

DISCUSSION

Littoral environments that are partially isolated from coastal waters (such as deltas, estuaries,
coastal lagoons, semi-enclosed bays or fjords) might be considered as simple boundaries
between marine and continental ecosystems. However, growing evidence suggests that they
have specific dynamics, clearly differing from those of the two ecosystems within which they
are located. In fact, these environments, i.e. the paralic systems of Guelorget and Perthuisot
(1992), seem to be characterized by gradients, irrespective of the type of variable analyzed
(viz. hydrological, sedimentological). However, benthic zonation often appears to be
independent of the environmental gradients defined on the basis of a single descriptor such as
salinity or, more recently, confinement. In some cases, the most relevant environmental
variables are more highly correlated to each other than to the variables describing the benthic
zonation so that it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to sort out a principal factor
(Lardicci et al. 1993).
The lack of consistency in mono-factorial approaches to explain distribution patterns
clearly emerged from the analysis of the polychaete taxocoenosis of Alfacs Bay. Only the
Shannon diversity based in biomass and depth showed a significant relationship. Sediment
characteristics were homogeneous along the central axis of the Bay, while polychaete
diversity increased seaward. Thus, it could be tentatively assumed that the polychaete
assemblages seemed to follow the typical organization expected for a confinement-controlled
system. However, this interpretation ignores two main points. First, the highest increase in
biomass diversity along this axis occurred owing to the channel assemblage (which is a
modified facies of the typical marine assemblage). Second, the main changes in density,
biomass and, excluding the navigation channel, in diversity, occurred in the shelf of the Bay.
For example, stations 9 and 13, which are more or less at the same distance from the sea, were
very different (i.e. 650 ind.·m-2, 1 DW g·m-2 and 3 species and 3400 ind.·m-2, 66 DW g·m-2 and
16 species, respectively). Conversely, stations 2 (inside the Bay) and 16 (close to the opening)
were similar (i.e. 3600 ind.·m-2, 14 DW g·m-2 and 16 species and 4250 ind.·m-2, 9 DW g·m-2
and 16 species, respectively). On the other hand, a typical succession such as that proposed by
Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) for an organic enrichment gradient occurred in the north shelf
from the centre to both the east (towards the inner corner of the Bay) and the west (towards
the open sea). Thus, in these assemblages, the organization of polychaetes may not be simply
explained by confinement.
Previous studies on the functioning of Alfacs Bay identified some of the main sources of
variability, which may influence the structure and distribution of benthic fauna. Macrofaunal

9
assemblages were affected by the presence of macrophytes that favoured the stability of
sediments and were a source of oxygen, energy and food (i.e. directly through herbivorism or
indirectly as a source of detritic material) (Pérez & Camp 1986; Martin 1992). The seasonal
freshwater inflow carrying terrigenous materials into the Bay (rather than the hydrodynamic
regime) seemed to regulate the distribution of the bottom surface sediment and, thus, the
distribution of meio- and macrofaunal assemblages that showed a north (origin of the input) to
south (lacking the input) orientation (Palacín et al. 1991). Owing to the permanent
stratification of the water column in the Bay (Camp & Delgado 1987), the low salinities that
are expected to be associated with the freshwater inflow have no direct influence on the
bottom fauna, except in the immediate vicinity of the outlet channels (Palacín et al. 1991).
The distance to the point of communication with the sea (often considered as a synonymy of
confinement) was suggested as the main factor affecting the polychaetes inhabiting the
deepest bottoms of the Bay, whose assemblages seemed to show a south-west (Bay opening)
to north-east orientation (Capaccioni-Azzati et al. 1991). However, our approach points out
that the distribution pattern of polychaetes in Alfacs Bay can only be explained by a
combination of all the above mentioned factors, together with others such as the man-induced
disturbance caused by the periodical dredging of the navigation channel at the opening of the
Bay.
From a hydrographic point of view, the whole Alfacs Bay is basically marine. However,
the northern shelf of the Bay was strongly influenced by the terrestrial inputs, this giving rise
to a polychaete assemblage (i.e. SST) that showed the lowest values for all biological
descriptors. The unpredictable and aperiodic mixing of continental and marine water masses
gives rise to the other assemblage at the northern shelf (i.e. SCO) that may be considered a
physically-controlled assemblage (sensu Sanders 1969). As often reported for other areas (viz.
Sanders 1958; Pearson & Rosenberg 1978; Nicolaidou & Papadopoulou 1989), opportunistic
species (mainly surface deposit feeders, such as Streblospio shrubsolii, and subsurface deposit
feeders, such as Capitella cf capitata) are dominant, showing high densities, small sizes, and
low species richness (Martin & Grémare 1996; Sardá & Martin 1993). In contrast, the
southern shelf was favoured by the productivity generated in the whole Bay by the continental
runoff. The inputs themselves hardly reached the area while the salinity was buffered by the
evaporation (Camp & Delgado 1987). Their bottoms have deep oxygenated sandy sediments
(Mallo et al. 1993) and the seagrass beds exert a beneficial influence (e.g. food source,
sediment stabilization, retention of particulate matter from the water column) (Pérez & Camp
1986; Pérez 1989; Duarte & Sand-Jensen 1990). These result locally in a high environmental
stability and a high diversity of microhabitats giving rise to a structurally and functionally
complex assemblage (i.e. STY) that may be considered biologically accommodated (sensu
Sanders 1969). Marine waters always occupied the deeper central basin (Camp & Delgado
1987) which, in turn, was also affected by the deposition of materials carried into the Bay by
the continental runoff. The gradual but ongoing sedimentation originated in the northern

10
shoreline allows these bottoms to be populated by biologically accommodated assemblages,
which were adapted to the high organic matter and silt-clay content. Besides a hypothetical
difference in confinement, the environmental conditions throughout the central basin are
homogeneous. We suggest that the difference between the two main polychaete assemblages
present in the central basin (i.e. CIN and CTY) may be caused by the presence of Caulerpa
prolifera in the latter. The third assemblage (i.e. CSW) was considered a transition to the
marine assemblage (i.e. MTY). Finally, the sudden increase in depth maintained by periodical
dredging forced the navigation channel to act as a decantation basin (sensu Salen-Picard
1985), where silt-clay sediments accumulate. The polychaete assemblage there differs from
that of the surrounding bottoms in the presence of species (see group 9 in Table 1) which are
commonly found at greater depths in coastal areas.
The combination of concurrent processes (protection by sand bar, seawater renewal,
continental run off, sedimentation, evaporation, presence of macrophytes, dredging) in Alfacs
Bay gives rise to a highly productive system (Camp et al. 1991; Palacín et al. 1991). This
system supports a high biomass of polychaetes, mainly represented by deposit feeders, whose
populations reached high secondary production rates (about 16 DW g·m-2·y-1 for Streblospio
shrubsolii and up to 37 DW g·m-2·y-1 for Capitella cf capitata) (Sardá & Martin 1993; Martin
& Grémare 1996). It has been hypothesized that deltas, estuaries and lagoons are often
stressed by the large variations of environmental factors so that there is a decline in species
number (Barnes 1974) and the resulting benthic zonation is often simple (López-Jamar 1981;
Frisoni et al. 1984; Carrada et al. 1987; Morri et al. 1988; Nicolaidou et al. 1988; Elliott &
Taylor 1989; Quintino et al. 1989). In Alfacs Bay, however, the environmental variability
results in a high level of spatial heterogeneity that is reflected in the presence, on a very small
spatial scale, of 101 polychaete species defining 9 clearly different assemblages. We suggest
that both the use of appropriately designed sampling strategies and a species level taxonomic
approach may reveal complex faunal distribution patterns.
We feel that the absence of significant correlations between most environmental variables
and the biological descriptors of the polychaete taxocoenosis reveals more about the
functioning of the system than the few found. Thus, we conclude that the distribution pattern
and trophic-functional organization of polychaetes in Alfacs Bay resulted from a complex
network of interactions between different environmental factors. However, as often occurs in
coastal lagoons (Bianchi & Morri 1985; Gravina et al. 1988; Lardicci et al. 1993) and in the
open sea (Pocklington & Wells 1992), the analysis of the polychaete taxocoenosis provides
key items to understand the functioning of the system under study.

REFERENCES

Barnes, R.S.K., 1974. Estuarine biology.- Edward Arnold Ltd., London. 77 pp.

11
Bianchi, C.N. & C. Morri, 1985. I policheti come descrittori della struttura trofica degli ecosistemi marini.-
Oebalia 11: 203–214.
Bloom, S.A., J.L. Simon & V.D. Hunter, 1972. Animal-sediment relations and community analysis of a Florida
estuary.- Marine Biology 15: 43–56.
Camp, J. & M. Delgado, 1987. Hidrografía de las bahías del Delta del Ebro.- Investigación Pesquera. Barcelona
51: 351–369.
Camp, J., O. Delgado, M. Delgado, M. Pérez & M. Vidal, 1985. Algunes idees sobre el model de producció a les
badies del Delta de l' Ebre.- Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Biologia 37: 65–68.
Camp, J., J. Romero, M. Pérez, M. Vidal, M. Delgado & A. Martínez, 1991. Production-consumption budget in
an estuarine bay: How anoxia is prevented in a forced system.- Oecologia Aquatica 10: 145–152.
Capaccioni-Azzati, R. & D. Martin, 1992. Pseudomastus deltaicus gen. et. sp. n. (Polychaeta, Capitellidae) from
a shallow water bay in the northwestern Mediterranean sea.- Zoologica Scripta 21: 247–250.
Capaccioni-Azzati, R. & G. San Martín, 1989-90. Pionosyllis anophthalma n. sp., a new Syllidae (Polychaeta)
from the Spanish Mediterranean coasts.- Oebalia 16: 41–48.
Capaccioni-Azzati, R., S. Villora-Moreno, A.M. García-Carrascosa & F.J. Torres-Gávila, 1991. Distributional
patterns of Polychaeta in the Alfaques Inlet (Ebro river Delta; western Mediterranean): faunistic and
coenotic analysis of an estuarine system.- Bulletin of Marine Science 48: 369–375.
Carrada, G.C., V.U. Ceccherelli & I. Ferrari, 1987. Les lagunes Italiennes.- Bulletin d'Ecologie 18: 149–158.
Dauvin, J.C. & F. Ibanez, 1986. Variations à long-terme (1977-1985) du peuplement des sables fins de la Pierre
Noire (Baie de Morlaix, Manche Occidentale): analyse statistique de l'évolution structurale.- Hydrobiologia
142: 171–186.
Delgado, M., 1987. Fitoplancton de las bahías del Delta del Ebro.- Investigación Pesquera. Barcelona 51: 517–
548.
Delgado, M., 1989. Abundance and distribution of microphytobenthos in the Bays of Ebro Delta (Spain).-
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29: 183–194.
Delgado, M. & J. Camp, 1987. Abundancia y distribución de nutrientes inorgánicos disueltos en las bahías del
delta del Ebro.- Investigación Pesquera. Barcelona 51: 427–441.
Duarte, C.M. & K. Sand-Jensen, 1990. Seagrass colonization: patch function and patch growth in Cymodocea
nodosa.- Marine Ecology Progress Series 65: 193–200.
Elliott, M. & J.C. Taylor, 1989. The production ecology of the subtidal benthos of the Forth Estuary, Scotland.-
Scientia Marina 53: 531–541.
Fauchald, K. & P.A. Jumars, 1979. The diet of worms: A study of polychaete feeding guilds.- Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review 17: 193–284.
Frisoni, G., O. Guelorget & J.P. Perthuisot, 1984. Diagnose écologique apliquée a la mise en valeur biologique
des lagunes côtieres méditerranéenes: Approche méthodologique.- GFCM Studies and Reviews / Études et
Revues du CGPM 61: 39–95.
Gravina, M.F., G.D. Ardizzone & A. Giangrande, 1988. Selecting factors in polychaete communities of Central
Mediterranean coastal lagoons.- Internationale Revue der gesammten Hydrobiologie 73: 465–476.
Gravina, M.F., G.D. Ardizzone, F. Scaletta & C. Chimenz, 1989. Descriptive analysis and classification of
benthic communities in some Mediterranean coastal lagoons (Central Italy).- P.S.Z.N. I: Marine Ecology
10: 141–166.
Gray, J.S., 1974. Animal-sediment relationships.- Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 12:
223–261.
Guelorget, O. & J.P. Perthuisot, 1992. Paralic Ecosystems.- Vie et Milieu 42: 215–251.
Kikkawa, J., 1968. Ecological association of bird species and habitats in Eastern Australia: Similarity analysis.-
Journal of Animal Ecology 37: 143–165.

12
Lardicci, C., M. Abbiati, R. Crema, C. Morri, C.N. Bianchi & A. Castelli, 1993. The distribution of polychaetes
along environmental gradients: An example from the Orbetello Lagoon, Italy.- P.S.Z.N. I: Marine Ecology
14: 35–52.
López-Jamar, E., 1981. Spatial distribution of the infaunal benthic communities of the Ria de Muros, North-
West of Spain.- Marine Biology 63: 29–37.
Maldonado, A., 1977. Introducción geológica al Delta del Ebro.- Treballs de la Institució Catalana de Història
Natural. Barcelona. 8: 7–45.
Mallo, S., 1989. Estudio de la variación espacio-temporal de la desnitrificación bacteriana en sedimentos
marinos litorales y su contribución al balance de nitrógeno de los sitemas.- Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de
Barcelona. 218 pp.
Mallo, S., F. Vallespinós, S. Ferrer & D. Vaqué, 1993. Microbial activities in estuarine sediments (Ebro Delta,
Spain) influenced by organic matter influx.- Scientia Marina 57: 31.
Martin, D., 1989. Revisión de las especies de Owenidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) de la península Ibérica.- Scientia
Marina 53: 47–52.
Martin, D., 1992. Macroinfauna de una bahía Mediterránea. Estudio de los niveles de organización de las
poblaciones de Anélidos Poliquetos.- Publicacions de l'Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. 456 pp.
Martin, D. & A. Giangrande, 1991. Novafabricia bilobata sp. nov. (Polychaeta, Sabellidae, Fabriciinae) from the
Mediterranean Sea.- Ophelia 33: 113–120.
Martin, D. & A. Grémare, 1996. Secondary production of Capitella sp. (Polychaeta: Capitellidae) inhabiting
different organically enriched environments.- Scientia Marina 61: 99–109.
Martin, D., E. Ballesteros, J.M. Gili & C. Palacín, 1993. Small-scale structure of infaunal polychaete
communities in an estuarine environment: Methodological approach.- Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
36: 47–58.
Morri, C., M. Abbate, C.N. Bianchi, V. Damiani & S. Sgorbini, 1988. Résultats préliminaires d'un étude
hydrobilogique sur l'estuaire du fleuve Magra (Ligurie, Italia). II - Zonation benthique.- Rapports de la
Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer Méditerranéene 31: 65.
Nicolaidou, A. & K.N. Papadopoulou, 1989. Factors affecting the distribution and diversity of polychaetes in
Ambrakikos Bay, Greece.- P.S.Z.N. I: Marine Ecology 10: 193–204.
Nicolaidou, A., F. Bourgoutzani, A. Zenetos, O. Guelorget & J.P. Perthuisot, 1988. Distribution of molluscs and
polychaetes in coastal lagoons of Greece.- Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26: 337–350.
Paiva, P.C., 1993. Trophic structure of a shelf polychaete taxocoenosis in southern Brazil.- Cahiers de Biologie
Marine 35: 39–55.
Palacín, C., 1990. Estudio ecológico de la meiofauna bentónica de la bahía de Els Alfacs (Delta del Ebre).
Ecología y sistemática de las poblaciones de nematodos.- Doctoral Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona. 406
pp.
Palacín, C., D. Martin & J.M. Gili, 1991. Features of spatial distribution of benthic infauna in a Mediterranean
shallow-water bay.- Marine Biology 110: 315–321.
Palacín, C., J.M. Gili & D. Martin, 1992. Evidence for coincidence of meiofauna spatial heterogeneity with
eutrophication processes in a shallow-water Mediterranean bay.- Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35:
1–16.
Palacín, C., J.M. Gili & D. Martin, 1993. Morphological variation in nematode communities in relation to
eutrophication processes in a shallow-water Mediterranean bay.- In: Aldrich, J.C. (ed.) Quantified
Phenotypic Responses in Morphology and Physiology, pp. 239–246. JAPAGA, Asford.
Pearson, T.H. & R. Rosenberg, 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution in
marine environment.- Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 16: 229–311.
Pérez, M., 1989. Fanerógamas marinas en sistemas estuáricos: Producción, factores limitantes y algunos
aspectos del ciclo de nutrientes.- Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Barcelona. 200 pp.

13
Pérez, M. & J. Camp, 1986. Distribución espacial y biomasa de las praderas de fanerógamas marinas de las
bahías del Delta del Ebro.- Investigación Pesquera. Barcelona 50: 519–530.
Pinedo, S., R. Sardá & D. Martin, 1997. Comparative study of the trophic structure of the soft bottom
assemblages in the Bay of Blanes (Western Mediterranean Sea).- Bulletin of Marine Science 60: 529–543.
Pocklington, P. & P.G. Wells, 1992. Polychaetes. Key taxa for marine environmental quality monitoring.-
Marine Pollution Bulletin 24: 593–598.
Quintino, V., A.M. Rodrigues & F. Gentil, 1989. Assessment of macrozoobenthos communities in the lagoon of
Obidos, Western Coast of Portugal.- Scientia Marina 53: 645–654.
Salen-Picard, C., 1985. Indicateus biologiques et sedimentation en milieu circalittoral méditerranéen.- Rapports
de la Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer Méditerranéene 29: 211–212.
Sanders, H.L., 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. I. Animal-sediment relationships.- Limnology and
Oceanography 3: 245–258.
Sanders, H.L., 1969. Benthic marine diversity and the stability-time hypothesis.- Brookhaven symposia in
biology 22: 71–80.
Sardá, R. & D. Martin, 1993. Populations of Streblospio (Polychaeta, Spionidae) in temperate zones:
demography and production.- Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 73:
769–784.
Sardá, R., D. Martin, S. Pinedo, A. Dueso & M.J. Cardell, 1995. Seasonal dynamics of shallow-water benthic
communities in the Western Mediterranean.- In: Nicolaidou, A. (ed.) The biology and ecology of shallow
coastal waters, pp. 191–198. Olssen & Olssen, Fredensborg.
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.- Belgium Systems and Technical Furnishing
27: 379–423,623–656.
Snelgrove, P.V.R. & C.A. Butman, 1994. Animal-Sediment relationships revisited: Cause versus effect.-
Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 32: 111–177.
Vidal, M., J. Romero & J. Camp, 1989. Sediment-water nutrient fluxes: Preliminary results of in situ
measurements in Alfaques Bay, Ebro river Delta.- Scientia Marina 53: 505–511.
Warwick, R.M., 1986. A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities.-
Marine Biology 92: 557–562.
Wentworth, W., 1972. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments.- Journal of Geology 30: 377–392.
Zar, J.H., 1984. Biostatistical Analysis.- Prentice Hall International, New Jersey. 718 pp.

14
Table 1. Two-way coincidence analysis showing the relationships between sample and species clusters based on
polychaete density in Alfacs Bay. SPC: Species groups identified in the cluster analysis; TROF: Trophic groups
(codes as in Fig. 4); DEN: mean polychaete density (ind. m-2); BIO: mean polychaete biomass (DW g m-2); the
asterisk indicates a biomass lower than 0.001 DW g m-2.

SHELF BOUNDARY CENTRAL MARINE

STRESSED CONFINED TYPICAL INNER TYPICAL SEAWARD TYPICAL CHANNEL
SPC SPECIES TROF DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO EN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO
Scolelepis tridentata (Southern, 1914) S
1 Spirorbis marioni Caullery & Mesnil, 1897 F
17 0,086
17
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lumbrineris coccinea (Renier, 1804) C 34 0,003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata (Claparède, 1870) M 17 0,003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Capitella capitata (Fabricius, 1780) SS

2 Nereis (Hediste) diversicolor (O.F. Müller, 1776) M
84
50
0,022
0,119
1434
67
0,105
0,158
65
-
0,003
-
17
-
0,003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Malacoceros fuliginosus (Claparède, 1870) S - - 934 0,103 - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 0,070
Streblospio shrubsolii (Buchanan, 1890) S - - 14384 2,337 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Paraonis fulgens (Levinsen, 1883) S
3 Scolaricia typica Eisig, 1914 S
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
693
236
0,072
0,245
-
-
-
-
-
34
-
0,015
-
-
-
-
45
-
0,047
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Glycera capitata Örsted, 1843 C - - - - 8 0,003 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Glycera trydactila Schmarda, 1861 C - - - - 15 0,103 17 0,100 - - - - - - - - - -
Scolelepis squamata (O.F. Müller, 1876) S - - - - 22 0,025 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ehlersia ferruginea Langerhans, 1881 C - - - - 8 0,001 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amphiglena mediterranea (Leydig, 1851) F
4 Parapionosyllis labronica Cognetti, 1965 C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
15
0,002
0,001
84
17
0,004

*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphytrite variabilis (Risso, 1826) S - - - - - - 17 0,760 - - - - - - - - - -
Chaetozone caputesocis (Saint-Joseph, 1894) S - - - - - - 17 0,005 - - - - - - - - - -
Eumida parva Saint-Joseph, 1888 C - - - - - - 17 0,003 - - - - - - - - - -
Sabellaria alcocki Gravier, 1906 F - - - - - - 17 0,053 - - - - - - - - - -
Caulleriella bioculata (Keferstein, 1862) S - - - - - - 34 0,002 - - - - - - - - - -
Ophiodromus pallidus (Claparède, 1864) C - - - - - - 34 0,008 - - 9 0,001 - - - - - -
Aphelochaeta marioni (Saint-Joseph, 1894) S - - - - - - 34 0,007 - - 14 0,005 22 0,002 11 0,057 88 0,020
Chaetozone setosa Malmgren, 1867 S - - - - - - 67 0,007 - - - - - - - - - -
Prionospio fallax Södeström, 1920 S - - - - 36 0,006 67 0,003 - - 6 0,001 - - - - - -
Magelona equilamellae Harmelin, 1964 S - - - - 15 0,043 100 0,372 17 0,010 20 0,012 - - 56 0,106 17 0,015
Nematonereis unicornis (Grube, 1840) C - - - - 8 0,007 67 0,356 - - - - - - - - - -
Pettiboneia urciensis Campoy & San Martín, 1980 C - - - - - - 117 0,004 - - - - - - - - - -
Pionosyllis anophthalma Capaccioni & San Martín, C - - - - - - 67 0,012 - - - - - - - - - -
1990
Peresiella clymenoides Harmelin, 1968 SS - - - - - - 17 0,009 - - - - - - - - - -
Poecilochaetus serpens Allen,1904 S
5 Eunice vittata (Delle Chiaje, 1828) C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
84
17
0,063
0,005
30
2
0,030
0,003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lanice conchilega (Pallas, 1766) S - - - - - - - - 17 1,216 - - - - - - - -
Myxicola aesthetica (Claparède, 1870) S - - - - - - - - 17 4,457 - - - - - - - -
Prionospio cf multibranchiata Berkeley, 1927 S - - - - - - - - 17 0,002 - - - - - - - -
Eteone picta Quatrefages, 1865 C
6 Potamilla torelli Malmgren, 1865 F
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
5
0,002
0,001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ephesiella abyssorum (Hansen, 1878) SS - - - - - - - - - - 55 0,009 - - - - 4 0,002
Pista cristata (O.F. Müller, 1776) S - - - - - - - - - - 12 0,263 - - - - - -
Schistomeringos rudolphi (Delle Chiaje, 1828) C - - - - - - - - - - 12 0,003 - - - - - -
Sabella spallanzanii (Gmelin, 1791) F - - - - - - - - - - 5 0,572 - - - - - -
Syllis gracilis Grube, 1840 C - - - - - - - - - - 6 0,001 - - - - - -
Spiophanes bombyx (Claparède, 1870) S - - - - - - - - - - 2 0,001 - - - - - -
Exogone naidina Örsted, 1845 C
7 Novafabricia bilobata Martin & Giangrande, 1991 S
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
-
0,001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
22
*
0,001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sigambra tentaculata (Treadwell, 1941) C - - - - - - - - - - 12 0,003 22 0,002 - - - -
Diopatra neapolitana Delle Chiaje, 1841 C - - - - - - - - - - 5 0,021 6 0,007 - - - -
Eunice harassii Aldoin & Milne-Edwards, 1834 C - - - - - - - - - - 2 0,011 6 0,025 - - - -
Sabella pavonina Savigny, 1822 F - - - - - - - - - - 9 0,092 6 0,013 - - - -
Spiochaetopterus typicus Sars, 1856 M - - - - - - - - - - 2
* 6 0,008 - - - -
Ancystargis hamata (Hartman, 1969) C
8 Levinsenia gracilis (Tauber, 1879) S
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
0,001
-
-
-
-
11
11
0,014
0,004
-
-
-
-

15
 SHELF CENTRAL MARINE
Table 1. Cont. STRESSED CONFINED TYPICAL
BOUNDARY

INNER TYPICAL SEAWARD TYPICAL CHANNEL

SPC SPECIES TROF DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO EN BIO DEN BIO DEN BIO
Malmgreniella lunulata (Delle Chiaje, 1841) C
9 Polydora cf caeca (Örsted, 1843) M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
0,002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
0,008
0,004
Glyphohesione klatti Friedrich, 1950 C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 0,005
Ophiodromus flexuosus (Delle Chiaje, 1822) C - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 0,006 - - 4 0,001
Magelona alleni Wilson, 1958 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 0,007
Scoletoma impatiens (Claparède, 1868) C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 0,068
Terebellides stroemi M. Sars, 1835 S - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 0,012 - - 63 0,074
Phyllodoce mucosa (Örsted, 1843) C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 0,024
Aponuphis bilineata (Baird, 1870) C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 0,008
Eteone foliosa Quatrefages, 1865 C - - - - - - - - - - 2 0,001 - - - - 4 0,014
Mediomastus fragilis Rasmussen, 1973 SS
10 Neanthes caudata (Delle Chiaje, 1828) C
-
317
-
0,611
234
317
0,440
0,140
372
408
0,202
0,109
317
100
0,063
0,019
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Spio decoratus Bobretzky, 1871 S 117 0,020 184 0,039 165 0,017 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cirrophorus furcatus (Hartman, 1957) S
11 Hydroides elegans (Haswell, 1883) F
-
34
-
0,014
50
-
0,004
-
300
229
0,019 1867
0,008 534
0,126
0,027
84
17
0,006
0,001
16
202
0,004
0,053
200
-
0,032
-
22
6
0,006
0,003
17
71
0,005
0,002
Clymenura clypeata (Sain-Joseph, 1894) SS - - - - 36 13,77 250 0,170 50 0,064 17 0,021 45 0,017 - - 46 0,035
Euclymene collaris (Claparède, 1868) SS - - 84 0,123 22 0,139 217 0,155 - - 5 0,004 - - - - - -
Notomastus latericeus M. Sars, 1851 SS - - - - 29 0,876 684 3,537 - - - - 22 0,032 - - 4 0,048
Paradoneis armata Glémarec, 1956 S - - - - 50 0,008 517 0,070 34 0,003 - - 44 0,025 - - - -
Exogone verugera (Claparède, 1868) C - - - - 129 0,006 67 0,002 - - - - - - - - - -
Mastobranchus trinchesii Eisig, 1887 SS - - - - 258 2,181 84 0,308 - - - - - - - - - -
Pseudomastus deltaicus Capaccioni-Azzati & SS
12 Martin, 1992
Galathowenia oculata (Zaks, 1923) S
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-

272
-

0,044
667

600
2,404

0,080
600

17
0,528 3371 2,002 2039 1,331

0,002 59 0,002 1450 0,006

961

78
0,706

<0,00
100

113
0,196

0,002
Monticellina heterochaeta Laubier, 1961 S 17 0,002 - - - - 84 0,010 34 0,005 462 0,047 1028 0,083 45 0,005
1 129 0,013
Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje, 1842 M - - - - 15 0,003 67 0,096 - - 41 0,280 695 0,026 267 0,007 50 0,024
Ampharete acutifrons (Grube, 1860) SS - - - - - - - - 17 0,002 234 0,033 645 0,160 1583 0,752 1021 0,266
Melinna palmata Grube, 1870 SS - - - - - - - - 34 0,123 269 0,164 517 0,315 233 0,186 54 0,075
Lumbrineris latreilli (Aldouin & M. Edwards, 1834) C 67 0,427 - - - - 17 0,092 67 0,490 99 0,270 411 0,490 339 0,363 954 0,994
Aricidea assimilis Tebble, 1959 S - - - - - - 17 0,009 17 0,005 35 0,002 356 0,054 22 0,005 854 0,178
Euclymene oerstedii (Claparède, 1863) SS - - - - 22 0,060 400 0,516 150 0,625 105 0,149 272 0,410 217 0,197 71 0,084
Chone duneri Malmgren, 1867 M - - - - - - 17 0,012 - - 51 0,008 200 0,025 1461 0,209 521 0,109
Aricidea fragilis mediterranea Laubier & Ramos, S - - - - - - - - 167 0,036 305 0,034 139 0,014 317 0,090 1317 0,138
1974
Heteromastus filiformis (Claparède, 1864) SS 267 0,394 384 0,369 79 0,095 834 0,473 667 0,488 130 0,053 111 0,005 39 0,021 1583 0,547
Laonice cirrata (M. Sars, 1851) S
13 Phylo foetida adjimensis (Fauvel, 1925) SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36
-
0,579
-
17
-
0,005
-
34
-
0,028
-
16
-
0,062
67
11
0,007
0,030
33
16
0,005
0,025
129
83
0,022
1,211
Scoletoma emandibulata mabiti (Ramos, 1976) C - - - - - - - - 17 0,011 32 0,050 45 0,027 100 0,041 71 0,118
Nephthys hombergii Savigny, 1818 C - - - - - - - - - - 3 0,012 50 0,093 61 0,050 42 0,166
Glycera unicornis Savigny, 1818 C - - 17 0,026 8 0,005 17 0,001 34 0,512 74 0,532 34 0,114 16 0,297 33 0,291
Micronephthys maryae San Martín, 1982 C - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 0,016 - - 33 0,046
Syllis cornuta Rathke, 1843 C - - - - - - - - - - 13 0,004 - - 45 0,001 29 0,005
Pectinaria (Lagis) koreni Malmgren, 1866 SS - - - - - - - - - - 6 0,001 22 0,002 11 0,025 25 0,003
Gyptis rosea (Malm, 1874) C - - - - - - - - - - 6 0,003 67 0,013 - - 9 0,003
Websterinereis glauca (Claparède, 1870) C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 0,248 9 0,129
Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) C - - - - - - - - 17 0,014 24 0,022 39 0,051 - - 4 0,090
Notomastus aberans Day, 1957 SS - - - - - - - - 117 0,180 44 0,058 22 0,017 72 0,161 4 0,005
Aonides oxycephala (M. Sars, 1862) S - - - - - - 34 0,093 - - 102 0,042 95 0,085 28 0,006 4 0,006
Drilonereis filum (Claparède, 1868) C - - - - 22 0,359 - - - - 12 0,025 28 0,029 6 0,056 4 0,081
Armandia cirrhosa Philippi, 1865 SS - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 0,007 - - - -
Cirriformia tentaculata (Montagu, 1808) S - - - - - - - - - - 12 0,025 6 0,018 6 0,059 4 0,006

16
Table 2. Results of the Tukey HSD multiple comparisons post-hock test for the biological descriptors of the shelf
assemblages vs. all the polychaete assemblages of Alfacs Bay. Assemblage codes as in Fig. 5.

ABUNDANCE BOU CIN CTR CTY MCH MTY SCO SST

SCO P< 0.002 P= 0.03
SST P< 0.005 P< 0.002 P< 0.004 P< 0.003 P< 0.02 P< 0.0002
STY P< 0.002
ABUNDANCE DIVERSITY
SCO P< 0.0009 P= 0.01 P< 0.001 P< 0.0006 P< 0.03
SST P< 0.006 P< 0.007 P< 0.004
STY P< 0.002 P< 0.02
BIOMASS DIVERSITY
SCO P< 0.02
SST P< 0.02
STY P= 0.008
MEAN INDIVIDUAL BIOMASS
STY P< 0.05

17
Fig. 1. Study area showing the 41 sampling stations and the bathymetry of Alfacs Bay.
Fig. 2. Distribution pattern of sediments in Alfacs Bay. A. Silt-clay content (% in weight). B. Organic matter
content (% in weight).
Fig. 3. Biological descriptors of the polychaete taxocoenosis in Alfacs Bay. A. Density (ind.·m-2). B. Biomass
(DW g·m-2). C. Mean individual biomass (DW g·ind.-1). D. Shannon diversity based on density (bite·ind.-1). E.
Shannon diversity based on biomass (bite·ind.-1).
Fig. 4. Distribution pattern of density and biomass of trophic groups in Alfacs Bay. C. Carnivorous. F. Filter
feeders. M. Mixed filter and deposit feeders. S. Surface deposit feeders. SS. Subsurface deposit feeders.
Fig. 5. Results of the cluster analysis based on polychaete density. A. Classification dendrogram based on the
Czekanovski distance index. B. Scheme of sample clusters spatial distribution in Alfacs Bay. STY: typical shelf;
SCO confined shelf; SST: stressed shelf; BOU: slope boundary assemblage; CIN: inner central basin; CTY:
typical central basin; CSW: seaward central basin; MTY: typical marine bottom; MCH: navigation channel.
Fig. 6. Summary of the environmental characteristics for the polychaete assemblages identified in Alfacs Bay.
Vertical bars are standard deviations. Assemblage codes as in Fig. 5.
Fig. 7. Biological descriptors of the polychaete assemblages identified in Alfacs Bay. Shannon diversity was
estimated on the basis of density (D) and biomass (B). Vertical bars are standard deviations. Assemblage codes
as in Fig. 5.
Fig. 8. Distribution of trophic groups among the polychaete assemblages identified in Alfacs Bay. A. Average
biomass. B. Trophic importance index. Vertical bars are standard deviations. Trophic group codes as in Fig. 4.
Assemblage codes as in Fig. 5.