Patterns and trends of macrobenthic abundance, biomass and production in the deep Arctic Ocean

Figures & data

Fig. 1  Sample stations in 1991, 1997 and 2012, with the number of stations shown in parentheses, and median September sea-ice extent in 2013 and the 1981–2011 median sea-ice extent.

Table 1 Overview of stations sampled with RV Polarstern used for this study. More detailed station information (coordinates, date, water depth) is provided in Supplementary Table S1.

Expedition	Year	Gear	Region	Reference
ARK-VIII/3	1991	Giant box corer (0.25 m^−2)	North Svalbard, Yermak Plateau, Nansen and Amundsen basins, Gakkel and Lomonosov ridges, Morris Jesup Rise	Kröncke 1994, 1998
ARK-XIII/2	1997	Giant box corer (0.25 m^−2)	Fram Strait. Yermack Plateau	This study
ARK-XXVII/2	2012	Giant box corer (0.25 m^−2)	Fram Strait / NW Spitsbergen	Soltwedel 2013
ARK-XXVII/3_BL	2012	Bottom lander chambers (3×0.04 m^−2)	Nansen Basin. Amundsen Basin	This study
ARK-XXVII/3_MG	2012	Multigrab (9×0.024 m^−2)	Nansen Basin. Amundsen Basin	This study

Table 2 Number of sample stations, depth range, number of species and major taxonomical groups and the mean, minimum and maximum parameters abundance (individuals m⁻²), biomass (mg C m⁻²) and production (mg C m⁻² y⁻¹).

					Abundance (Ind m^−2)			Biomass (mg C m^−2)			Production (mg C m^−2 y^−1)
Region	Stations	Depth (m)	Species	Major groups	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max
NW Spitsbergen	12	2340–5420	26	8	552	171	976	60	13	148	70	12	182
Fram Strait	4	2530–4130	16	7	326	117	792	49	5	98	39	9	69
Yermak Plateau	19	520–2930	177	12	1053	88	4136	410	5	2009	385	9	2534
Nansen Basin	15	2950–4050	32	9	110	6	800	321	<1	3026	138	<1	1585
Gakkel Ridge	5	1790–4430	2	2	10	0	50	2	0	8	2	0	12
Amundsen Basin	20	3790–4480	36	7	61	0	346	39	0	492	25	0	247
Lomonosov Ridge	10	1020–3840	27	8	203	75	450	65	25	126	73	42	130
Makarov Basin	2	4000–4010	4	3	75	50	100	23	10	35	29	8	51
Morris Jesup Rise	5	1070–3820	19	8	410	100	1450	49	3	230	46	4	205

Fig. 2  Macrobenthic abundance (ind. m⁻²) and estimated production (mg C m⁻² y⁻¹). For bathymetry, see Fig. 1.

Fig. 3  Comparison of (a) macrobenthic abundance, (b) biomass and (c) production between depth zones (upper slope, lower slope, basin), sea-ice zones (ice-free, marginal ice zone [MIZ], ice-covered) and latitudinal bands (78–80°, 80–82°, 82–84°, 84–86°, 86–88°, 88–90°N) in a box-plot (minimum, maximum and mean). Letters above bars indicate significant differences between groups as identified by ANOVA (depth zone) and ANCOVA with depth as co-variable (sea-ice zone, latitude) and (Student's t) post hoc test on differences between means. Plots are based on transformed (Box–Cox) data to meet ANOVA/ANCOVA preconditions; the y axis shows the corresponding non-transformed raw data (making the scale non-linear).

Fig. 4  Relative abundance of major groups Annelida, Arthropoda, Porifera, Mollusca, Cnidaria and Echinodermata. The group “Others” combines Bryozoa, Cephalorhyncha, Chordata, Entoprocta, Nematoda, Nemertea and Sipuncula.

Table 3 Differences in macrofaunal abundance, biomass and estimated production between regions (see Table 2, Figs. 1, 2), latitudinal bands (78–80°, 80–82°, 82–84°, 84–86°, 86–88°, 88–90°N) and areas differing in sea-ice concentration (ice-free <10%, marginal ice zone, ice-covered >80%) as identified by one-way ANCOVA with water depth as covariate. Differences between depth ranges (upper slope <1500 m, lower slope 1500–3000 m, basin >3000 m) were tested with ANOVAs.

	F	p
ANCOVA
Region
Abundance	9.9903	<0.0001
Biomass	5.0686	0.0001
Production	5.3198	<0.0001
Latitude
Abundance	12.463	<0.0001
Biomass	5.531	0.0002
Production	5.9492	<0.0001
Sea-ice concentration
Abundance	10.5161	<0.0001
Biomass	3.1089	0.0496
Production	4.2491	0.0173
ANOVA
Depth
Abundance	41.5304	<0.0001
Biomass	19.5467	<0.0001
Production	25.8839	<0.0001

Fig. 5  Relative biomass of major groups Annelida, Arthropoda, Porifera, Mollusca, Cnidaria and Echinodermata. The group “Others” combines Bryozoa, Cephalorhyncha, Chordata, Entoprocta, Nematoda, Nemertea and Sipuncula.

Fig. 6  Relative production of major groups Annelida, Arthropoda, Porifera, Mollusca, Cnidaria and Echinodermata. The group “Others” combines Bryozoa, Cephalorhyncha, Chordata, Entoprocta, Nematoda, Nemertea and Sipuncula.

Fig. 7  Macrofauna feeding types (%) based on production data per region.

Table 4 Mean community production (P) and productivity (P/B) values found in literature, ordered after increasing water depth. When originally given in other units, data were converted to carbon using conversion factors from the database of Brey (2012, database version 4, www.thomas-brey.de/science/virtualhandbook).

Region	Latitude	Water depth (m)	P (g C m^−2 y^−1)	P/B	Authors
Wadden Sea tidal flat, Germany	54°N	1	8–234	0.4–1.8	1987
North-east coast, Great Britain	54°N	15	1.97–4.25	0.9–1.7	1983
Laizhou Bay and Bohai Sea, China	37–39°N	20–25	2.25–3.47	0.9–1.2	Hua et al. 2010
New York Bight, USA	40°N	25	8.3	1.4	1985
Phangnga Bay, Thailand	8°N	30–50	1.6	5	1980
Bay of Fundy, Canada	45°N	0–70	9–18	–	1986
North Sea	51–57°N	0–100	0.6–>20	0.7–2.5	1991
Sørfjord, Norway	69°N	18–128	4.74	0.4	2006
Continental Shelf, Great Britain	50°N	10–137	0.4–3.8	1.2–1.9	Bolam et al. 2010
Barents Sea Bank (Infauna)	75–76°N	40–150	0.2–5.3	–	Kedra et al. 2013
Southern Plateau, New Zealand	50°S	750	0.25	1	2003
Global study	77°S–69°N	0–930	<0.01–1869	<0.1–36.7	2005
Magellan Region, Chile	48–56°S	8–1140	0.4–1.1	0.2–0.3	1999
Weddell Sea, Antarctica	69–78°S	200–2900	0.12–4.83	0.2–0.6	1998
Rockall Trough, north-east Atlantic	54°N	2900	0.122	0.5	1991
Arctic Deep Sea, marginal ice zone	80–82°N	500–3500	<0.01–2.5	0.5–1.8	This study
Arctic Deep Sea, north	82–90°N	500–5400	<0.01–0.6	0.1–2.2	This study

Kröncke I. Macrobenthos composition, abundance and biomass in the Arctic Ocean along a transect between Svalbard and the Makarov Basin. Polar Biology. 1994; 14: 519–529.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kröncke I. Macrofauna communities in the Amudsen Basin, at the Morris Jesup Rise and at the Yermak Plateau (Eurasian Arctic Ocean). Polar Biology. 1998; 19: 383–392.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soltwedel T. The expedition of the research vessel “Polarstern” to the Arctic in 2012 (ARK-XXVII/2). Berichte zur Polar- und Meeresforschung 658. 2013; Bremerhaven: Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research.

 Google Scholar

Brey T. A multi-parameter artificial neural network model to estimate macrobenthic invertebrate productivity and production. Limnology and Oceanography—Methods. 2012; 10: 581–589.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Asmus H. Secondary production of an intertidal mussel bed community related to storage and turnover compartments. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1987; 39: 251–266.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rees H.L. Pollution investigations off the north-east coast of England: community structure, growth and production of benthic macrofauna. Marine Environmental Research. 1983; 9: 61–110.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hua E., Zhou H., Zhang Z., Yu Z. Estimates of autumntime benthic secondary production in Laizhou Bay and adjacent Bohai Sea waters. Journal of Ocean University of China. 2010; 9: 279–285.

 Google Scholar

Steimle F.W. Biomass and estimated productivity of the benthic macrofauna in the New York bight: a stressed coastal area. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 1985; 21: 539–554.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petersen G.H., Curtis M.A. Differences in energy flow through major components of Subarctic, temperate and tropical marine shelf ecosystems. Dana. 1980; 1: 53–64.

 Google Scholar

Wildish D.J., Peer D.L., Greenberg D.A. Benthic macrofaunal production in the Bay of Fundy and the possible effects of a tidal power barrage at Economy Point-Cape Tenny. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1986; 43: 2410–2417.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duineveld G.C.A., Künitzer A., Niermann U., De Wilde P.A.W.J., Gray J.S. The macrobenthos of the North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research. 1991; 28: 53–65.

 Google Scholar

Nilsen M., Pedersen T., Nilssen E.M. Macrobenthic biomass, productivity (P/B) and production in a high-latitude ecosystem, north Norway. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2006; 321: 67–77.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bolam S.G., Barrio-Frojan C.R.S., Eggleton J.D. Macrofaunal production along the UK continental shelf. Journal of Sea Research. 2010; 64: 166–179.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kedra M., Renaud P.E., Andrade H., Goszczko I., Ambrose W.G. Jr. Benthic community structure, diversity, and productivity in the shallow Barents Sea bank (Svalbard Bank). Marine Biology. 2013; 160: 805–819.

 Google Scholar

Bradford-Grieve J.M., Probert P.K., Nodder S.D., Thompson D., Hall J., Hanchet S., Boyd P., Zeldis J., Baker A.N., Best H.A., Broekhuizen N., Childerhouse S., Clark M., Hadfield M., Safi K., Wilkinson I. Pilot trophic model for Subantarctic water over the Southern Plateau, New Zealand: a low biomass, high transfer efficiency system. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2003; 289: 223–262.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cusson M., Bourget E. Global patterns of macroinvertebrate production in marine benthic habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2005; 297: 1–14.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thatje S., Mutschke E. Distribution of abundance, biomass, production and productivity of macrozoobenthos in the sub-Antarctic Magellan Province (South America). Polar Biology. 1999; 22: 31–37.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brey T., Gerdes D. High Antarctic macrobenthic community production. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1998; 231: 191–200.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gage J.D. Biological rates in the deep sea: a perspective from studies on processes in the benthic boundary layer. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences. 1991; 5: 49–100.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar