Adelaide Desalination Plant Final Benthic Fauna Monitoring Report 2009/2010

Beattie, K.J, Glavinic, A., Ramsdale, T.M., Dittmann, S. & Benkendorff, K

[This document contains the final report for the Adelaide Desalination Plant Benthic Fauna Monitoring Program undertaken by Flinders University in the 2009/2010 period.]

May be cited as:

Beattie, K.J., Glavinic, A., Ramsdale, T.M., Dittmann, S., and Benkendorff, K. (2010) Adelaide Desalination Plant Final Benthic Fauna Monitoring Report 2009/2010, Flinders University, Adelaide. Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1 The Desalination Plant ...... 2 1.2 Desalination Effects ...... 2 1.3 Benthic Fauna Monitoring ...... 3 1.4 Aims and Approach ...... 4 2. Methodology ...... 4 2.1 Sampling sites ...... 4 2.2 Site description ...... 4 2.3 Field Methodology...... 9 2.4 Laboratory Analyses ...... 10 2.5 Data Analyses ...... 11 3. Results ...... 12 3.1 Sediments ...... 12 3.2 Species number and diversity ...... 15 3.2.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling ...... 15 3.2.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling ...... 22 3.2.3 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling ...... 29 3.2.4 Miscelaneous Collections ...... 31 3.3 Abundance ...... 32 3.3.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling ...... 32 3.3.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling ...... 37 3.3.3 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling ...... 42 3.4 Community structure ...... 47 3.4.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling ...... 47 3.4.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling ...... 51 3.4.3 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling ...... 55 4. Discussion ...... 58 5. Conclusion ...... 60

References...... 61

Appendix I ...... 64 Appendix II ...... 71 Appendix III ...... 78 Appendix IV ...... 79 Appendix V ...... 80

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Benthic Fauna Monitoring for the Adelaide Desalination Plant Final Report July 2010

Executive Summary

The following report presents a baseline data set for the current state of the marine subtidal benthic environment of the Port Stanvac area, prior to construction of the desalination plant. Additionally, this report also presents baseline data sets for two control sites north and south of the construction zone, to allow the monitoring of impacts of the construction and operation of the desalination plant to the benthic environment and fauna by comparison to these non- impacted controls. Three sampling methods were used in both the construction and control zones to obtain a comprehensive environmental data set representing both sediment characteristics and the infaunal, epifaunal and meiofaunal communities. Sampling of both sediments and fauna has been completed twice prior to construction works beginning. Faunal communities within the Port Stanvac construction zone were found to be highly diverse and abundant, possibly representing a hotspot for benthic fauna relative to the remainder of the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. Macrofaunal communities within the construction zone were comparable to control sites to the north and south, making these sites suitable controls to monitor any possible impacts of the construction and operation of a desalination plant at Port Stanvac. The baseline data set provided here can be used to monitor future changes in the marine benthic habitat and fauna in the vicinity of the Port Stanvac desalination plant via comparisons to the initial state of the habitat prior to construction and to nearby non-impacted control sites.

1 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1. Introduction 1.1 The Desalination Plant

A desalination plant is currently under construction at Port Stanvac, with a capacity of 100 GL of drinking water per annum (SA Water 2008). The desalination plant will be based on reverse osmosis technology, using seawater sourced from Gulf St. Vincent and will discharge brine back to the local marine environment via outfall pipes. Brine will be discharged into a predominantly soft sediment environment and effects on the marine ecosystem, subject to site location, have been recorded in many desalination plants (e.g. Altayaran & Madany 1992; Malfeito et al. 2005; Fernández-Torquemada et al. 2005; Sadhwani et al. 2005; Raventos et al. 2006; Gacia et al. 2007; Ruso et al. 2007). Construction within the marine environment began in 2009 (installation of a rig and tunnelling for inlet and outlet pipes), between the first and second sampling events of this study, as outlined below. Operation of the plant is scheduled to commence during December 2010 and, at this point, brine will be discharged through numerous risers designed to dilute and disperse the brine within the water column (SA Water 2008).

1.2 Desalination Effects

The introduction of a desalination plant to Gulf St. Vincent poses many putative impacts for the benthic habitat, both during its construction and operational phases. For instance, the installation of intake and outlet riser pipes into the seafloor may cause disruption of sediments and changes in community structure of the benthic fauna in the immediate and surrounding area, as may the discharge of desalination effluent once the plant is operational (SA Water 2008). Construction of the plant represents a temporary pressure on the immediate environment, which may partially or fully recover following removal of this pressure (i.e. completion of construction works; SA Water 2008). The operational phase of the plant constitutes a longer term pressure due to the continued discharge of desalination effluent into the marine environment.

Desalination effluent contains both high salinity brine and a number of chemicals used to treat water during the desalination process (Hoepner 1999; Einav et al. 2002; Miri & Chouikhi 2005; SA Water 2008). The high salinity of the brine increases the density of the effluent, causing it to sink in normal seawater. If not adequately mixed on discharge, the effluent may form a hypersaline sink (i.e. a pocket of dense, salty seawater, also containing the desalination chemicals) above the sediment surface (Einav et al. 2002; Fernández-

2 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Torquemada et al. 2005; Younos 2005). If hypersaline sinks occur, benthic fauna may be particularly affected by effluent discharage, and long term changes in the marine benthic community structure may be observed. Benthic organisms, specifically those residing in soft sediment, have proven to be useful in the detection of any anomalous environmental change in the marine ecosystem (Bilyard 1987).

The Adelaide desalination plant will be discharging brine into the Gulf St. Vincent which is an inverse estuary with limited exchange with the open ocean. The estimated flushing time for Gulf St. Vincent is approximately 130 days for the area adjacent to the Adelaide Desalination Plant site (Kämpf 2009). Due to this long residence time for water in the Gulf St. Vincent, the effects from the Adelaide Desalination Plant discharge on the marine environment and benthic fauna could be aggravated.

The Adelaide Desalination Plant Project has the potential to damage the surrounding marine environment during both construction and operational phases. The company in charge of development and initial operation of the plant has been advised by the South Australian Water Corporation that the construction and operational phases of the desalination plant are not permitted to have any impact on the surrounding marine environment (SA Water 2008) and is legally bound to monitor environmental impacts of construction and operation of the desalination plant at Port Stanvac on the subtidal marine habitat. To determine if changes do occur, extensive information on the state of the area prior to construction of the plant is needed to form a baseline for monitoring. By establishing such a baseline, continued monitoring should be able to detect any potential future changes to the system.

1.3 Benthic Fauna Monitoring

A part of this monitoring program includes the description of macrofaunal infauna and epifauna, and also meiofauna communities living on or in the soft sediments in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, compared to North and South Control Zones. By sampling both impacted (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) and un-impacted control (North and South Control Zones) sites repeatedly before, during and after plant construction and operation, a replicated before-after-control-impact (beyond BACI) study design has been employed. Such designs are beneficial in assessment of environmental impacts on marine systems, in order to detect anthropogenic effects exceeding the natural variability in local communities (Underwood 1991; 1992; Morrisey et al. 1992).

3 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1.4 Aims and Approach

The investigation was conducted to establish a baseline dataset describing the subtidal macroinvertebrate infauna and epifauna, and meiofaunal communities in Gulf St. Vincent, which can be used for future reference when monitoring potential impacts associated with the operation of the Port Stanvac desalination plant. Three survey methodologies were applied to assess the spatial and temporal variability in the benthic communities and achieve a comprehensive assessment of motile and sessile benthic macro- and meiofauna; 1) suction sampling (infauna), 2) a small dredge (epifauna), and 3) a benthic box corer (meiofauna). The benthic community structure was assessed within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones. This report presents data from baseline studies conducted in 2009/10 prior to construction of the plant.

2. Methodology

2.1 Sampling sites

Sampling was carried out at three Zones off the Adelaide metropolitan coastline in Gulf St. Vincent. These Zones consisted of the Port Stanvac Construction Zone (35°06’ S, 138°28’ E), as well as a North Control Zone at Glenelg (34°59’ S, 138°27’ E) and a South Control Zone at Noarlunga (35°09’ S, 138°27’ E) (Figure 1). Organisms were collected and either processed and released under the collection exemption number 9902250 and the animal ethics permit number E298.

2.2 Site description

The Port Stanvac coastline, south-west of Adelaide, covers the area from O’Sullivan’s Beach boat ramp to Hallett Cove. The water depth in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone ranged from 12 - 18 m (Figure 1b) and the sediments were characterised by a highly variable composition of fine and coarse sand, shell grit, rock and sporadic macroalgae and seagrass beds (Posidonia sp.), which are characteristic of subtidal habitats within Gulf St. Vincent (Bryars et al. 2008; Edyvane 2008; Loo & Drabsch 2008; Loo et al. 2008; Turner and Collings 2008). The habitat heterogeneity created by patches of the aforementioned substrates and vegetation in an otherwise predominantly soft sediment supports a diverse community of benthic organisms with representatives from almost 20 different phyla identified in the region (Loo et al. 2008).

4 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

A North Control Zone, offshore from Glenelg (Figure 1a), and a South Control Zone, offshore from Noarlunga (Figure 1c), were chosen due to parameters such as water depth and sediment structure that were similar with the Port Stanvac Construction Zone.

The survey Zones were divided into 800 m long transects, with ten transects radiating from the proposed site of the effluent discharge pipe at Port Stanvac and five transects radiating from an arbitrarily selected point at each of the Control Zones (Figure 1; Table 1). Two methods of collection, dredge and suction sampling, were conducted along each transect from late May to June 2009 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Winter’ sampling event) and again from late November to December 2009 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Summer’ sampling event), while sediment core samples were obtained in the Summer sampling event and again in March 2010 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Autumn’ sampling event) (Table 2).

5 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010 a)

6 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Figure 1. Maps of a) North Control Zone, offshore from Glenelg area, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone, c) South Control Zone, offshore from Noarlunga, including transect positions.

Suction Samples Box Core Dredge Samples 100 m

800 m Transect Near Far 0 200 400 600 800

Figure 2. Schematic diagram displaying organisation of the three sampling methods along an 800 m long transect. ‘Near’ and ‘Far’ indicate the outer ends of the transect closest or furthest (respectively) to/from either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Diagram not to scale. Dredge width = 0.5m, hence zero to minimal overlap between methods is presumed.

7 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Table 1. Location and description of transect ends ‘Near’ and ‘Far’ from either outlet pipe at Port Stanvac Construction Zone, or the centre of the Control Zones at the North and South Control Zones.

Near Far Site Transect Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Depth (m) Substrate A 35°05.785’ 138°28.252’ 35°06.138’ 138°28.002’ 13 shell grit/seagrass B 35°05.774’ 138°28.154’ 35°06.135’ 138°27.902’ 15 shell grit/seagrass C 35°05.779’ 138°28.030’ 35°06.111’ 138°27.770’ 18 seagrass D 35°05.757’ 138°27.903’ 35°06.054’ 138°27.489’ 18 shell grit/seagrass Port Stanvac E 35°05.583’ 138°28.022’ 35°05.476’ 138°27.498’ 20 soft sediment F 35°05.429’ 138°28.055’ 35°05.014’ 138°28.009’ 20 soft sediment G 35°05.386’ 138°28.215’ 35°04.982’ 138°28.328’ 18 soft H 35°05.416’ 138°28.259’ 35°05.070’ 138°28.474’ 18 seagrass I 35°05.440’ 138°28.322’ 35°05.096’ 138°28.597’ 15 seagrass

J 35°05.485 138°28.462’ 35°05.144' 138°28.704' 13 shell grit A 34°59.952’ 138°27.163’ 34°59.603’ 138°27.411’ 16 seagrass North B 35°00.317’ 138°26.920’ 35°00.703’ 138°26.663’ 18 seagrass Control - C 35°00.052’ 138°26.832’ 34°59.866’ 138°26.384’ 16 soft Glenelg D 35°00.214’ 138°27.249’ 35°00.386’ 138°27.688’ 18 seagrass E 35°00.302’ 138°27.132’ 35°00.657’ 138°27.342’ 18 shell grit/seagrass

A 35°09.135’ 138°26.475’ 35°09.124’ 138°27.002’ 16 seagrass South B 35°09.145’ 138°26.212’ 35°09.170’ 138°25.685’ 18 shell grit/seagrass Control - C 35°09.250’ 138°26.382’ 35°09.680’ 138°26.370’ 16 shell grit/seagrass Noarlunga D 35°09.040’ 138°26.364’ 35°08.623’ 138°26.359’ 18 seagrass E 35°09.197’ 138°26.307’ 35°09.513’ 138°25.956’ 18 soft sediment

Table 2. Time table of sampling events in 2009/2010 including the date and method of sampling conducted. Asynchronicity in methodology timing due to availability of coring equipment.

Date Suction Dredge Core Season Range Sampling Sampling Sampling 31/05/09 - Winter 10/06/09    20/11/09 - Summer 18/12/09    10/03/10 - Autumn 15/03/10   

8 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

2.3 Field Methodology

Suction Sampling

Samples containing larger infauna were obtained using a suction sampler constructed at Flinders University, South Australia. The suction sampler operates through the addition of compressed air into the base of a submerged vertical tube (10 cm diameter). This creates a vacuum and draws a sediment sample upwards to be deposited in the catchment bag (Brown et al. 1987). Samples were taken using controlled air pressure (200 psi) for a duration of 1 minute, which equated to an average sample size of approximately 0.25 L, or 0.28 m2 of sediment (range 0 – 2L). Along each transect at all Zones, fifteen replicate samples were taken, three at each 200 m interval along the length of an 800 m transect (Figure 2), equating to 300 samples in total. The mean of the three replicates was used for abundance analysis. GPS co-ordinates were recorded for each position along the transect and the water depth was recorded.

Dredge Sampling

Dredge sampling was conducted to assess the epifauna using a hand held dredge (0.5 x 0.3 x 0.8 m, 1 cm2 mesh size), deployed from the rear of the research vessel and towed for 100 m at a speed of 1 knot. A sample was taken from each end of the transect (0 to 100 m, 700 to 800 m, Figure 2) resulting in a total of 40 samples across the three Zones. Macrofauna obtained was extracted from the catchment cage and transported to the Flinders University laboratory for species identification and abundance counts.

Core Sampling

Sediment core samples were obtained to assess both meiofaunal communities and sediment size structure. A box corer (Wildco®, model: 191-A12, internal dimensions: 0.15 x 0.15 x 0.23 m, total weight: 30 kg) was deployed and retrieved using an electric drum winch, which maintained a constant speed of descent and ascent to optimise operation of the corer’s release mechanism. The methodology used enabled a successful closure rate of between 55 and 92%; with the variation in success highly dependent on weather conditions. Due to time constraints 6 core attempts per Site were conducted. Three replicate core samples were taken at each of the five transect intervals (used in suction sampling) and two subsamples were taken from each core (max. 71 ml each), one each for meiofauna and sediment grain size analysis.

9 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

2.4 Laboratory Analyses

Macrofauna Sorting and Identification

Macrofauna from suction and dredge samples was separated from sediment using a 500µm mesh sieve and preserved in 10% formalin (Winter sampling) or 70% ethanol solution (Summer sampling) in the field immediately following collection. Prior to sorting individuals samples, ethanol was rinsed off to prevent any ethanol inhalation. All macrofauna was extracted from the sediment and identified using a stereomicroscope. All macrofauna were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, often species, but predominantly family level (Appendices I & II), which should be sufficient to detect changes to the community (Dethier and Schoch, 2006). Individuals were enumerated and transferred into 70% ethanol for storage and later lodgement at the South Australian Museum.

Meiofauna Sorting and Identification

Meiofauna samples were initially frozen (at -20°C) prior to processing. Meiofauna were extracted from sediments using the ludoxTM flotation method (Somerfield and Warwick, 1996). This process removes meiofauna from sediments by repeated decantations in fresh water through a pair of sieves, the first to remove the macrofauna (500µm mesh), and a second, finer sieve (53µm mesh) to separate the meiofauna and smaller, unicellular organisms (these are not considered to be animals). The material retained on the finer sieve contains both meiofauna and fine sediments and detritus. Flotation in ludoxTM (Somerfield and Warwick, 1996) is used to separate the meiofauna from other detritus. The extracted meiofauna are then evaporated to pure glycerol and mounted onto slides for identification, counting and storage. Meiofauna were identified to family level where possible using Higgins and Thiel (1988).

Sediment Grain Size Analysis

Sediment samples were initially frozen (at -20°C) prior to processing. Grain-size distribution statistics were obtained using laser diffraction granulometry (Malvern Instruments Mastersizer with Hydro 2000 attachment). Prior to processing, samples were dried (at 80°C for 24 hours) to constant weight and total dry weight obtained in grams. Samples were then pre-screened to remove particles greater than 1 mm, an operational requirement because larger particles can damage pipes in the machine. The fraction retained on the 1 mm sieve was weighed and recombined into the grain-size distribution data after the remaining sample was processed by the Mastersizer. A standard operating procedure was used across all

10 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

samples (pump speed 3500 rpm; target obscuration 7-10%; data obtained were the average of 5 replicate measurements of grain-size distribution for each subsample). Data were then extracted from the Malvern software in quarter phi intervals, allowing the fraction greater than 1 mm to be reincorporated into the total distribution and the resulting data were analysed for grain-size distribution statistics using GRADISTAT (Blott & Pye 2001).

2.5 Data Analyses

Macrofauna - Infauna and Epifauna

Species numbers, species diversity and relative abundances were determined for each site using data obtained from the suction and dredge, for infauna and epifauna, respectively.

The total number of species and total abundance of macrofauna data derived from each method were analysed using a series of three factor PERMANOVAs on Euclidean distance resemblance matrices to identify any significant differences between Zones (fixed factor, 3 levels = Port Stanvac Construction Zone, North Control Zone and South Control Zone), Seasons (fixed factor, 2 levels = Winter and Summer) and Distance (fixed factor, Dredge: 2 levels = Inner and Outer; Suction: 5 levels = 0m, 200m, 400m, 600m and 800m). By conducting PERMANOVAs on single variable Euclidean distance resemblance matrices the analysis becomes equivalent to a univariate ANOVA, with the advantage of avoiding the assumption of normality by using multivariate permutation techniques (Anderson et al. 2008).

Three different indices (Shannon-Wiener index, Pielou’s evenness and Simpson’s index) were used to determine the diversity and evenness of macrofaunal (both infauna and epifauna) species composition at all sites. These indices were calculated based on the total number of individuals (N) from the number of each taxa (ni). The Shannon-Wiener index (H’) identifies greater species diversity as index values increase. Pielou’s index is a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed among the different taxonomic groups, where a larger number indicates higher evenness. The Simpson’s index is a measure of ecological diversity with diversity increasing as the value approaches one (Clarke and Warwick 2001).

Multivariate analyses of macroinvertebrate community composition were undertaken to determine similarities between Seasons and Distances and among Zones for both infauna and epifauna. A series of PERMANOVAs were conducted as for species number and abundance (i.e. 3 factor with Seasons, Distances and Zones) but on multivariate data (i.e. abundances of each species). The data were square root transformed prior to analysis to decrease the

11 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

influence of dominant species on the analysis, and a dummy variable of one added with Bray- Curtis similarities were used to eliminate the effects of joint absence of taxa. PCO plots were produced in order to provide a visual pattern of invertebrate community structure. Difference in invertebrate composition and variability among Zones and between Seasons and Distances were examined using PERMANOVA and PERMDISP. SIMPER was used to identify species with high contributions to similarities among samples from each Zone (i.e. species that characterised communities from each Zone).

Meiofauna

Differences in the abundance and community composition of meiofauna were analysed using a three factor PERMANOVA as described for macrofauna. Dummy variables were not needed when creating resemblance matrices for meiofaunal data. Difference in invertebrate composition and variability among Zones and between Seasons and Distances were examined using PERMANOVA and PERMDISP. SIMPER was used to identify species with high contributions to similarities among samples from each Zone (i.e. species that characterised communities from each Zone).

All analyses were performed using PRIMER v.6 (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research) with PERMANOVA + add on.

3. Results

3.1 Sediments

Sediments in all three Zones for both Seasons ranged from medium to coarse sands and were moderate or poorly sorted (Blott & Pye 2001; Table 3). Sediments across all three Zones and both Seasons contained mostly sands (grain size range = 63-1000μm), with very small fractions (less than 5% in all cases) of finer sediments (grain size less than 63μm; Table 3).

Sediments from each Zone and both Seasons contained a large proportion of coarse sands, with median grain sizes always larger than mean grain sizes (Table 3).

There were no trends or patterns in sediment grain-size statistics based on distance from the centre of each Zone in either Season (Table 3).

Table 3: Sediment grain size distribution statistics for all three Zones by distance from the centre of the Zone separately for a) Summer and b) Autumn sampling occasions. Classification terms for grain size and sorting coefficients were obtained from Blott and Pye (2001).

a) Summer

Grain size distribution statistics and c lassifications Fractions (%) Zone Distance Median ( μm) Mean (μm) Classification Sor ting Classification Gravel Sand Mud 0 801.651 664.863 Coarse sand 1.678 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.80 0.2 200 689.431 552.286 Coarse sand 2.978 Poorly sorted 0.00 93.60 6.4 North 400 645.141 553.348 Coarse sand 1.654 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.90 0.1 600 483.801 428.324 Medium sand 1.885 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.90 0.1 800 441.085 362.151 Medium sand 2.866 Poorly sorted 0.00 97.10 2.9 0 627.363 546.338 Coarse sand 1.844 Moderately sorted 0.00 98.80 1.2 200 679.761 545.343 Coarse sand 1.922 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.40 0.6

Port Stanvac 400 558.462 490.324 Medium sand 1.948 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.10 0.9 600 574.036 491.543 Medium sand 2.147 Poorly sorted 0.00 96.70 3.3 13 800 529.931 457.420 Medium sand 1.808 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.20 0.8 0 527.823 512.912 Coarse sand 1.635 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.80 0.2 200 423.120 409.670 Medium sand 1.715 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.80 0.2 South 400 448.467 428.063 Medium sand 1.772 Moderately sorted 0.00 99.70 0.3 600 676.732 549.660 Coarse sand 2.328 Poorly sorted 0.00 98.20 1.8 800 810.124 673.379 Coarse sand 1.938 Moderately sorted 0.00 98.50 1.5

b) Autumn

Grain size distribution statistics and c lassifications Fractions (%) Zone Distance Median ( μm) Mean (μm) Classification Sor ting Classification Gravel Sand Mud 0 909.663 682.726 Coarse sand 1.806 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.6 0.4 200 651.279 563.292 Coarse sand 1.921 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.6 0.4 North 400 771.571 619.446 Coarse sand 1.799 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.8 0.2 600 638.436 549.626 Coarse sand 1.768 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.9 0.1 800 543.057 478.982 Medium sand 1.865 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.8 0.2 0 767.987 651.777 Coarse sand 1.823 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.7 0.3 200 564.147 484.494 Medium sand 1.978 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.3 0.7 Port Stanvac 400 575.492 478.467 Medium sand 2.058 Poorly sorted 0.0 99.4 0.6

600 654.682 559.985 Coarse sand 1.724 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.6 0.4

800 505.938 396.926 Medium sand 1.898 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.4 0.6 14 0 794.975 665.845 Coarse sand 1.589 Moderately well sorted 0.0 99.8 0.2 200 457.774 411.013 Medium sand 1.958 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.2 0.8 South 400 605.300 522.782 Coarse sand 1.798 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.6 0.4 600 503.817 480.507 Medium sand 1.857 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.7 0.3 800 662.360 579.117 Coarse sand 1.758 Moderately sorted 0.0 99.6 0.4

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.2 Species Numbers and Diversity

3.2.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling

Species Numbers

The total number of species collected using suction sampling across the three Zones was 139 and 159, for Winter and Summer respectively (Appendix I). The number of species was highest within the North Control Zone (transect A) during the Winter Season. During the Summer Season, species numbers were highest within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone (between 45 and 59 species present and 10 additional sites containing greater than 30 species). In all of these instances, the dominant phylum was Arthropoda (Figure 3). Arthropoda and Mollusca had the greatest contribution to the overall species number in the majority of sites, within all Zones (65 and 32% of sites respectively), with Mollusca being more influential in Winter (dominant phylum in 63% of sites) and Arthropoda being more influential in Summer (dominant phylum in 98% of sites).

When separated by Distances, mean numbers of species show no distinction associated with distance from either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zones (Figure 4). This observation is supported by the results of the multivariate analysis with Distance never being a significant factor or part of a significant interaction (Table 4). Some significant but inconsistent differences among Zones between Seasons are observed (Table 4), with an increase in Summer for the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and a decrease in Summer for the North and South Control Zones (Figure 4).

The general patterns observed in the mean number of species within each Zones indicates that the North Control Zone and the Port Stanvac Construction Zones are the most speciose of the Winter and Summer Seasons respectively (Figure 5h). Annelida, Mollusca and Arthropoda appear to be the main drivers behind these trends (Figures 5b and 5d). Between the three zones the mean number of species was significantly lower in the South Control Zone than the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Echinodermata and was also lower in the South than the North Control Zone for Annelida, Arthropoda and all phyla combined (Figure 5).

70 a) Annelida Mollusca

60 Arthropoda Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South 70 b)

Number of Species per Sample 50

40 16

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 3: Species numbers of infauna collected using the suction sampler identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; a) Winter and b) Summer. Samples were collected at five 200 m intervals along 10 (A-J) transects at Port Stanvac and along 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones. Replicates (n = 3) pooled for each site.

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

45 a) Winter 40 Summer 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 45 b) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number of Species per Sample 0 0 200 400 600 800 45 c) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 4. Species numbers of infauna collected using the suction sampler across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of species presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

17 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

14 14 a) Bryozoa b) Annelida Winter 12 12 Summer 10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 14 1418 c) Mollusca d) Arthropoda 12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 14 14 e) Echinodermata f) Chordata 12 12

10 10 Numberof Species per Sample 8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 14 g) Other 40 h) All Phyla Combined 12 35 30 10 25 8 20 6 15 4 10 2 5 0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

Figure 5. Species numbers of infauna collected using the suction sampler across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of species presented per phyla: a) Bryozoa, b) Annelida, c) Mollusca, d) Arthropoda, e) Echinodermata, f) Chordata, g) other phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Brachiopoda, Nematoda, Nemertea, Sipuncula, Platyhelminthes and Echiura) and h) all phyla combined (N.B. different scale used on y-axis for ‘h’ only). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

Table 4. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of species numbers for infauna (suction sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; and b) pair-wise tests for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a)

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 6.650 0.002 - - 0.114 0.979 - - 0.698 0.688 - - - - Summer 29.319 0.000 - - 0.378 0.823 - - 0.262 0.976 - - - - Overall 20.049 0.000 0.446 0.506 0.286 0.884 24.940 0.000 0.266 0.974 0.311 0.869 0.520 0.832

Pair-wise Test 19 North, Port Port Stanvac, Source Stanvac North, South South Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 2.423 0.019 3.674 0.000 1.674 0.099 Summer 5.637 0.000 0.875 0.390 5.380 0.000 Overall 3.541 0.001 3.084 0.003 5.521 0.001

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Species Diversity

The diversity indices calculated from suction sampling data indicated that all transects in all Zones had high diversity during both Seasons (Figure 6). An even distribution between species was recorded in all transects according to Pielou’s index, which had values greater than 0.9 (Appendix III). The dominant taxon overall was Amphipoda (Gammaridae), followed by Amblypneustes ovum (Echinoidea) (North Control Zone in Winter) and Caprellidae (South Control Zone in Summer).

20 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1.2 a) Winter Summer 1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

Indices North Port Stanvac South

3.5 b)

Diversity 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 6. Mean diversity of infauna per transect based on (a) Simpson’s index and (b) Shannon-Wiener’s index across three Zones (North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone), based on suction sampling data. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

21 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.2.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling

Species Numbers

The total number of macrofauna species recorded using the dredge methodology was 163 and 93, in the Winter and Summer Seasons respectively (Appendix II). Species numbers of the epifauna in Winter was greatest (>30) in the near and far sites of the North Control Zone transects D and E, and the Port Stanvac Construction Zone transects D(far), F(far) and I(near) (Figure 7a). In Summer, species numbers were relatively low with only two sites having more than 20 species, one site in both the Port Stanvac Construction Zone (I far) and South Control Zone (C near) (Figure 7b). These changes occurred in all phyla; however during the Winter Season, Mollusca was the most speciose phyla in 37.5% of sites, followed by Chordata at 20% of sites (Figure 7a); while in Summer Arthropoda were the most speciose phyla in 57.5% of sites (Figure 7b).

No significant differences occurred in species numbers with Distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (Table 5). Species numbers were similar with distance from the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zones as well as between Seasons were displayed when the number of epifauna species were grouped by distance (Figure 8). There were some significant temporal differences in species numbers among Zones (i.e. significant Zone and Season interaction; Table 5).

The overall mean number of species in the three Zones decreased from the North Control to South Control Zones in Winter but was the opposite in Summer, however large variation within the Zones was present (Figure 9h). This variation was observed in Mollusca (Figure 9d) and to a lesser extent in Arthropoda, Echinodermata and Chordata (Figures 9e, 9f and 9g); however it was not apparent in Porifera, Bryozoa and Annelida (Figures 9a, 9b and 9c).

22 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1 a) Annelida Mollusca

0.9 Arthropoda Other 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 2 far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South 1 b) 0.9 0.8 0.7 Number of Species per m 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 7. Species numbers of epifauna collected using the dredge, per phyla identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; a) Winter and b) Summer. Samples were collected along two 100 m lengths at the near (0 to 100 m) and far (700 to 800 m) extremities of 10 (A- J) transects at Port Stanvac Construction Zone and 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones.

23 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

0.8 a) Winter 0.7 Summer 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Near Far 0.8 b) 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

Number of Species per m² 0.1

0 Near Far 0.8 c) 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Near Far Figure 8. Species numbers of epifauna collected using the dredge across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of species presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

24 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

0.25 0.25 a) Porifera b) Bryozoa Winter 0.2 0.2 Summer

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

0.25 0.25 d) Mollusca c) Annelida 0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1 2 0.05 0.05

0 0

0.25 0.25 e) Arthropoda f) Echinodermata 0.2 0.2

Number of Species per m 0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

0.25 0.25 g) Chordata i) Other 0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 0.8 0.7 h) All Phyla Combined 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 North Port Stanvac South

Figure 9. Species numbers of epifauna collected using the dredge across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone per phyla: a) Porifera, b) Bryozoa, c) Annelida, d) Mollusca, e) Arthropoda, f) Echinodermata, g) Chordata, h) other phyla (Cnidaria, Brachiopoda, Nematoda, Nemertea, Sipuncula, Platyhelminthes and Echiura) and i) all phyla combined (N.B. different scale used on y-axis for ‘i’ only). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

Table 5. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of species numbers for epifauna (dredge sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; and b) pair-wise tests for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a)

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 1.866 0.162 - - 0.977 0.327 - - 0.682 0.507 - - - - Summer 4.648 0.017 - - 1.974 0.172 - - 0.649 0.542 - - - - Overall 0.300 0.734 7.299 0.009 0.151 0.698 4.217 0.020 0.337 0.723 2.085 0.152 1.019 0.364

Pair-wise Test

Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South 26 Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Winter 0.946 0.354 1.909 0.078 1.345 0.190 Summer 0.809 0.447 3.275 0.006 2.321 0.028 Overall 0.611 0.540 0.717 0.486 0.175 0.864

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Species Diversity

The diversity indices calculated from dredge data indicated that all transects in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and the North and South Control Zones had high diversity, where Shannon-Wiener index was close to or exceeded the value of one (Figure 10b), and an uneven distribution according to Pielou’s index which had values greater than 0.8 (Appendix IV). Simpson’s index values in all Zones were high, indicating high diversity, with the exception of Port Stanvac Construction Zone transects G (Winter) and D (Summer) with values ≤ 0.5, indicating dominance of a single species (Figure 10a). The Cerapus was the most abundant species overall, followed by Amphipoda (Gammaridae) (North Control Zone in Summer and Port Stanvac Construction Zone in both Seasons), Costaticella solida (Bryozoa) (North Control Zone in Winter) and Botrylloides schlosseri (Ascidiacea) (South Control Zone in Winter).

27 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1.4 a) Winter

1.2 Summer

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E Indices North Port Stanvac South 4.0 b)

Diversity 3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 10. Mean diversity of epifauna per transect based on (a) Simpson’s index and (b) Shannon-Wiener’s index across three Zones (North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone), based on dredge data. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

28 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.2.3 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling

In total, 64,760 meiofaunal organisms were collected and identified representing 18 taxa across 200 separate samples analysed to date (100 each for both the Summer and Autumn sampling occasions). Due to a six-month delay in obtaining the core sampler and the time required to count and identify meiofaunal organisms on slides, it was not possible to process all of the slides in the given timeframe, so initially only one of each of the three replicate slides were processed. Remaining samples will be processed and the data included in future reports.

The number of meiofauna taxa was similar among all three Zones and there were no apparent differences between the two Seasons (Figure 11). The number of meiofaunal taxa was also similar across Distances sampled along each transect for each Zone (Figure 11).

These results indicate that the number of meiofaunal taxa is comparable between the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones. These data also indicate that there are no pre-existing gradients for the number of taxa along the transects from the inner to the outer areas of each Zone. Importantly, this means that initially there is no gradient in the number of taxa at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone from the sampling sites closer to the proposed discharge point compared to sampling sites further away.

29 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

12 a) Summer

10 Autumn

0 0 200 400 600 800

12 b) 10

4 Number of Taxa Number of Taxa per ml

0 0 200 400 600 800 12 c)

0 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 11. Taxa numbers of meiofauna collected across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Summer and Autumn. Mean number of taxa presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

30 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.2.4 Miscellaneous Collections

While every effort was taken to ensure the release of any cephalopod or vertebrate species caught, a few individuals were retained as incidental bycatch (Appendices I & II). Organisms that were caught and returned included unidentified bony fishes from various Zones (Actinopterygii), a Gurnard (Triglidae – North Control Zone), a leather jacket (Monacanthidae – North Control Site), pipefish (Syngnathinae – North Control Zone) and a sea horse (Hippocampinae – North Control Zone). Three vertebrate organisms were also accidentally retained, two fish in the larval stage (Actinopterygii) and a Weedy Sea Dragon Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, all within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Within the cephalopods, only three individuals were accidentally retained, a Southern Keeled Octopus Octopus berrima, and two juvenile Giant Cuttlefish Sepia apama, all within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Other notable species found within the study include Neotrigonia sp. (South Control Zone), a large colony of Cerapus (1732 individuals, South Control Zone), Equichlamys bifrons (Queen Scallop, all Zones) and Costinacerias muricata (Eleven-armed Sea Star, all Zones).

31 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.3 Abundance

3.3.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling

Abundance values were determined using the total number of individuals per sample to provide the total abundance for each site.

In total, 10,253 infaunal organisms were collected using the suction sampler across both Seasons. Abundances varied between Seasons with a lesser number of organisms observed in the Winter Season, with a maximum abundance of 30 organisms in the North Control Zone, site A 600 (Figure 12a). This was less than in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone in Summer, where five sites had greater than 120 organisms and an additional 17 sites more than 30 organisms (Figure 12b). In all of these instances, the most abundant phylum was Arthropoda (Figure 12). Arthropoda and Mollusca were most abundant in the majority of sites (65 and 23% respectively), with Mollusca representing more individuals in Winter (dominant phylum in 43% of sites) while more organisms in Summer belonged to Arthropoda (dominant phylum in 94% of sites) (Figure 12).

There were significant differences among Zones (Z as a significant factor; Table 6) that were inconsistent between the two Seasons and some variation in these differences among Seasons (significant SxD interaction; Table 6; Figure 13). There were no differences among samples based on distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (Table 6). There was no pre-existing patterns for infaunal abundance at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone from the sampling sites closer to the proposed discharge point compared to sampling sites further away (Figure 13).

Overall, Port Stanvac Construction Zone had the greatest mean number of organisms in both Seasons (Figure 14h), which was largely due to Arthropoda (Figures 14g and 14h). Mollusca were significantly more abundant in Winter, whereas Annelida, Anthropoda and all phyla combined had greater mean abundances (Figure 14). Port Stanvac Construction Zone had greater mean abundances than both the North and the South Control Zones for Bryozoa, Annelida, other worm phyla (Nematoda, Nemertea, Sipuncula, Platyhelminthes and Echiura), Mollusca, Arthropoda, Chordata and all phyla combined (Figure 14).

600 a) Annelida Mollusca 500 Arthropoda Other

400

300

200

100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 400 600 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 600 800 200 400 600 200 400 800

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

600 b)

500

400

Number of Organsisms Number of Organsisms (Individuals per Sample) 300 33

200

100

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 12. Abundance of infauna collected using the suction sampler, per phyla identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; a) Winter and b) Summer. Samples were collected at five 200 m intervals (sites) along 10 (A-J) transects at Port Stanvac and along 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones. Replicates (n = 3) pooled for each site.

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

350 a) Winter 300 Summer 250

200

150

100

0 0 200 400 600 800

350 b) 300

250

200

150

100

0 0 200 400 600 800 350 Number of Organsisms Number of Organsisms (Individuals per Sample) c) 300

250

200

150

100

0 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 13. Abundance of infauna collected using the suction sampler across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of organisms presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

34 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

18 18 16 a) Bryozoa 16 b) Annelida 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 18 18 16 c) Mollusca 16 d) Echinodermata 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 18 18 16 e) Chordata 16 f) Other 14 14 12 12 of Organisms (Individuals per sample) of (Individuals Organisms 10 10 8 8 6 6 Number 4 4 2 2 0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 250 250 g) Arthropoda h) All Phyla Combined 200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

Figure 14. Mean abundance of infauna collected using the suction sampler across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of organisms presented per phyla: a) Bryozoa, b) Annelida, c) Mollusca, d) Echinodermata, e) Chordata, f) other phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Brachiopoda, Nemertea, Sipuncula, Platyhelminthes and Echiura), g) Arthropoda and h) all phyla combined (N.B. different scale used on y-axis for ‘g’ and ‘h’ only). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

Table 6. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of total abundance for infauna (suction sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; and b) pair-wise tests for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a)

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 4.972 0.010 - - 0.242 0.914 - - 0.661 0.724 - - - - Summer 9.049 0.000 - - 0.421 0.803 - - 0.221 0.988 - - - - Overall 8.284 0.000 8.211 0.003 0.508 0.739 9.501 0.000 0.201 0.990 0.320 0.868 0.275 0.973

36 Pair-wise Test North, Port Port Stanvac, Source Stanvac North, South South Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 1.882 0.060 3.268 0.002 1.705 0.091 Summer 3.541 0.001 1.454 0.161 2.648 0.010 Overall 3.111 0.002 0.140 0.897 2.894 0.004

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.3.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling

Abundance values were determined through the conversion of the raw values to the number of organisms per square metre, which were then summed to provide the total abundance for each site. In total, 6,153 epifaunal organisms were collected using the dredge across both Seasons. Abundances varied between Seasons and were lower within Winter. This Season had a maximum abundance of 4.76 individuals per square metre in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, (Site A near, Figure 15a). The South Control Zone in Summer had a maximum abundance of 46.2 individuals per square metre at site C near (Figure 15b). In both of these cases, the most abundant phylum was Arthropoda (Figure 15). Arthropoda and Mollusca were most abundant in the majority of sites (41.3 and 17.5% respectively), with Mollusca representing more individuals in Winter (dominant phylum in 30% of sites) while more organisms from Arthropoda were present in Summer (dominant phylum in 41.3% of sites) (Figure 15). Very high comparative values between all sites for Arthropoda were attributed to the collection of a large colony of Cerapus, containing more than 1700 individuals.

There were no significant differences based on distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (Table 7; Figure 16), with only some inconsistent differences among Zones between the two sampling Seasons (Table 7). Only the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and the South Control Zone were significantly different during the Summer sampling occasion, a difference which was not observed during the Winter occasion.

Overall, in Winter the Port Stanvac Construction Zone had a greater mean abundance of organisms than all other Seasons and Zones (Figure 17i), which was attributed to the high abundance of Arthropoda (Figure 17g). This greater mean abundance in Winter was observed within Porifera, Bryozoa, Annelida, Echinodermata and Chordata (Table 7; Figure 17). The opposite was observed in Arthropoda with a greater mean abundance in Summer (Table 7; Figure 17). The South Control Zone had a lower mean abundance than the Port Stanvac Construction Zone for Mollusca. However in all the phyla combined, the South Control Zone had a greater mean abundance than the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Within Arthropoda and Chordata, the South Control Zone had a greater mean abundance than both the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and the North Control Zone (Figure 17).

37 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

10 a) Annelida Mollusca 9 8 Arthropoda Other 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near

a b c d e a b c d e f g h I j a b c d e

North Port Stanvac South 1046 b) 9 8 7

Number of Organsisms Number of Organsisms per m² 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near

a b c d e a b c d e f g h I j a b c d e North Port Stanvac h Southh Figure 15. Abundance of epifauna collected using the dredge, per phyla identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; a) Winter and b) Summer. Samples were collected along two 100 m lengths at the near (0 to 100 m) and far (700 to 800 m) ends of 10 (A-J) transects at Port Stanvac (b) and 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones.

38 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

14 a) Winter 12 Summer

0 Near Far 14 b) 12

2 Number of Organsisms Number of Organsisms per m² 0 Near Far 1431 c)

0 Near Far Figure 16. Abundance of epifauna collected using the dredge across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of organisms presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

39 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

1 1 a) Porifera b) Bryozoa Winter 0.8 0.8 Summer 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

1 1 c) Annelida d) Mollusca 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

2 0.2 0.2

per m 0 0

1 1 e) Echinodermata f) Chordata 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 Number of Organisms 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

208 1 v g) Arthropoda 7 h) Other 0.8 6 5 0.6 4 3 0.4 2 0.2 1 0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South 8335 i) All Phyla Combined 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 North Port Stanvac South Figure 17. Mean abundance of epifauna collected using the dredge across three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Winter and Summer. Mean number of organisms per phyla: a) Porifera, b) Bryozoa, c) Annelida, d) Mollusca, e) Echinodermata f) Chordata, g) Arthropoda, h) other phyla (Cnidaria, Brachiopoda, Nematoda, Nemertea, Sipuncula, Platyhelminthes and Echiura) and i) all phyla combined (N.B. different scales used on y-axis for ‘g’ and ‘i’ only). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation. 40

Table 7. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of total abundance for epifauna (dredge sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; and b) pair-wise tests for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter).

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Winter 0.566 0.587 - - 0.396 0.543 - - 0.203 0.826 - - - - Summer 3.043 0.020 - - 1.879 0.184 - - 1.792 0.163 - - - - Overall 2.547 0.055 2.001 0.159 1.555 0.237 3.403 0.013 1.684 0.194 2.120 0.141 1.812 0.154

Pair-wise Test North, Port Port Stanvac, Source Stanvac North, South South Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo-

F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm)

Winter 0.047 0.961 0.949 0.370 1.046 0.323 41 Summer 0.947 0.426 1.436 0.108 1.998 0.023 Overall 0.573 0.582 1.331 0.173 1.829 0.053

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.3.4 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling

Nematode worms (Nematoda) were the numerically dominant taxa for all Zones and both Seasons, followed by copepod crustaceans (Copepoda; Appendix V). In general, meiofaunal abundance was greater at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone than at either the North or South Control Zone (Figure 18), a pattern that was driven by nematode numerical dominance (Figure 19). There were no apparent differences in abundances for each Zone between the two Seasons (Figure 19 and 20), except a general reduction in meiofaunal abundance at the North Control Zone in Autumn, which was significant (Table 8).

The abundance of meiofauna was similar across Distances sampled along each transect for each Zone (Figure 20), with no significant differences in abundance among Distances for any Zone or Season (Table 8).

These results indicate that for the times of sampling (i.e. Summer and Autumn), meiofaunal abundance was much higher within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone than either the North or South Control Zones. More importantly, these data indicate that there are no pre-existing gradients for abundance from the inner to the outer areas of each Zone. This means that initially there is no gradient in abundance at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone from the sampling sites closer to the proposed discharge point compared to sampling sites further away.

120 a) Copepoda Nematoda

100 Other

0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

120 b)

Number of Organisms Number of Organisms per ml 100

40 43

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 18. Abundance of meiofauna identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; a) Summer and b) Autumn. Samples were collected at five 200 m intervals along 10 (A-J) transects at Port Stanvac and along 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones. Asterisk denotes absence of a sample.

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

35 35 a) Nematoda b) Copepoda Summer 30 30 Autumn 25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac d) All taxa combined 35 c) Other 35 d) All Phyla Combined 30 30

25 25 Number of Organisms per ml Number of Organisms 20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

Figure 19. Abundance of meiofauna collected across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone per taxa: a) Nematoda, b) Copepoda, c) other taxa (see Appendix V) and d) all taxa combined. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

44 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

60 a) Summer

50 Autumn

0 0 200 400 600 800

60 b)

Number of Organsisms Number of Organsisms (Individuals per ml) 0 0 200 400 600 800 60 c)

0 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 20. Abundance of meiofauna collected across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the two sampling Seasons; Summer and Autumn. Mean number of organisms presented per distance from the either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

Table 8. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of total abundance for meiofauna (core sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; and b) pair-wise tests for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a)

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Summer 1.839 0.164 - - 1.105 0.359 - - 1.128 0.351 - - - - Autumn 21.121 0.000 - - 0.397 0.803 - - 0.574 0.798 - - - - Overall 15.373 0.000 0.565 0.458 0.728 0.572 0.323 0.038 0.725 0.667 0.928 0.449 1.084 0.379

Pair-wise Test North, Port Port Stanvac, 46 Source Stanvac North, South South Pseudo- Pseudo- Pseudo- F P(perm) F P(perm) F P(perm) Summer 1.732 0.089 1.142 0.261 0.224 0.829 Autumn 5.805 0.000 4.294 0.000 0.004 0.997 Overall 4.942 0.000 3.526 0.000 0.167 0.867

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.4 Community structure

3.4.1 Infauna – Suction Sampling

Infaunal communities in all three Zones were characterised by relatively high abundances of Gammarid amphipods and the spider crab, Hymenosomatidae sp., as determined by SIMPER analysis.

Principle coordinate (PCO) plots of the infauna suction samples indicated that there was no consistent grouping for any of the three Zones with a large amount of variation within Zones (Figure 21a). When classified according to Season, distinct clustering was observed with very little overlap between the two Seasons (Figure 21b).

When investigating Seasons independently, the Winter community composition displayed a high level of overlap between Zones with little clustering (Figure 22a). The Summer community differed from the Winter community in that high levels of clustering were observed with overlap between sites only occurring within the North and South Control Zones, while the Port Stanvac Construction Zone was completely segregated (Figure 22b).

There were no significant differences in infaunal community structure based on distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (i.e. Distance was never a significant factor or part of a significant interaction; Table 9a). There were significant differences among the three Zones for both Seasons which were inconsistent because there were also significant differences among Zones between the two Seasons (i.e. significant Season x Zone effect; Table 9). PERMDISP showed some significant differences in variability among infaunal communities among Zones (Table 9c). Infaunal communities in the North Control Zone were consistently less variable than those in the Port Stanvac Control Zone, most likely owing to the lower abundances recorded in the former.

47 Infauna l Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010 a) 40

) n o i 20 t a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 9 . 1 1 (

O -20 C P

-40 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (17.5% of total variation)

b) 40 ) n o i 20 t a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 9 . 1 1 (

O -20 C P

-40 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (17.5% of total variation)

Figure 21. PCO plots of square root transformed abundances (mean per site) of suction sampled infauna communities comparing: a) the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac Construction Zone (▼) and South Control Zone ( ), and b) the Winter ( ) and Summer ( ) Seasons.

48 Infauna l Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

a) 60

40 ) n o i t a i r a v

l 20 a t o t

f o

% 5 . 0

1 0 (

2 O C P

-20

-40 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (13.7% of total variation) b) 40

)

n 20 o i t a i r a v

l a

t 0 o t

f o

% 3 . -20 0 1 (

2 O C

P -40

-60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 PCO1 (29.9% of total variation) Figure 22. PCO plots of square root transformed abundances (mean per site) of suction sampled infauna communities comparing the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac Construction Zone (▼) and South Control Zone ( ) in a) Winter and b) Summer. 49

Table 9. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of community structure for infauna (suction sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; b) pair-wise tests and c) PERMDISP analysis for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a)

Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Winter 3.576 0.000 - - 0.652 0.995 - - 0.770 0.987 - - - - Summer 13.108 0.000 - - 0.743 0.933 - - 0.691 0.996 - - - - Overall 7.464 0.000 21.614 0.000 0.760 0.960 7.381 0.000 0.757 0.994 0.618 0.999 0.719 0.999 b)

Pair-wise Test Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South

Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm)

Winter 2.213 0.000 1.906 0.000 1.518 0.002 50 Summer 4.066 0.000 2.070 0.000 3.778 0.000 Overall 3.124 0.000 1.990 0.000 2.702 0.000 c)

PERMDISP Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South

t P(perm) t P(perm) t P(perm) Winter 3.715 0.002 4.498 0.000 1.209 0.294 Summer 2.866 0.001 1.223 0.255 3.860 0.000 Overall 6.061 0.000 1.323 0.266 3.421 0.002

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.4.2 Epifauna – Dredge Sampling

Epifaunal communities in all three Zones were characterised by relatively high abundances of Gammarid amphipods and the presence of the bryozoan, Costaticella solida, as determined by SIMPER analysis.

Principle coordinate plots of the dredge samples displayed a high level of overlap between Zones, with a large amount of variation within Zones (Figure 23a). However, a PERMANOVA and subsequent pair-wise tests revealed that the community composition was significantly different between all Zones (Table 10). When sites were categorised according to Season, a more distinct grouping was apparent, with only a small amount of overlap between the two Seasons (Figure 23b). PERMANOVA validated the distinct grouping for each Zone and significant differences between communities for each Season (Table 10).

There were no significant differences based on Distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (Table 10).

When analysing the Seasons in isolation, it is apparent in Winter that there is a distinction between the South Control and the Port Stanvac Construction Zones with very little overlap between the two (Figure 24a). The North Control Zone shared similarities with both the South Control and the Port Stanvac Construction Zones with some overlap observed (Figure 24a). In the Summer community, the South Control Zone was again partially segregated from the Port Stanvac Construction Zone however, to a lesser degree than in Winter (Figure 24b). As in the Winter community (Figure 24a), the North Control Zone shared some similarities with both of the other Zones, however displayed much greater similarity to the Port Stanvac Construction Zone community (Figure 24b).

51 Infauna l Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

a) 40

) n o i 20 t a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 5 . 1 1 (

O -20 C P

-40 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (14.3% of total variation)

b) 40 ) n o i 20 t a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 5 . 1 1 (

O -20 C P

-40 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (14.3% of total variation)

Figure 23. PCO plots of square root transformed abundances (mean per site) of dredge sampled epifauna communities comparing: a) the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac Construction Zone (▼) and South Control Zone ( ), and b) the Winter ( ) and Summer ( ) Seasons.

52 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

a) 40

) n o i

t 20 a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 3 . 2 1 (

O -20 C P

-40 -40 -20 0 20 40 PCO1 (15.7% of total variation)

b) 40

) n

o 20 i t a i r a v

l a t o t

o 0

% 7 . 3 1 (

2 O

C -20 P

-40 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 PCO1 (18.3% of total variation)

Figure 24. PCO plots of square root transformed abundances (mean per site) of suction sampled epifauna communities comparing the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac Construction Zone (▼) and South Control Zone ( ) in a) Winter and b) Summer.

Table 10. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of community structure for epifauna (dredge sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; b) pair-wise tests and c) PERMDISP analysis for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a) Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Winter 2.169 0.000 - - 0.857 0.651 - - 0.709 0.941 - - - - Summer 2.445 0.000 - - 0.795 0.702 - - 0.882 0.662 - - - - Overall 2.021 0.000 7.659 0.000 0.753 0.816 2.555 0.000 0.749 0.911 0.908 0.589 0.818 0.816 b) Pair-wise Test Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South

Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) 54 Winter 1.345 0.013 1.380 0.022 1.652 0.001 Summer 1.316 0.042 1.663 0.003 1.721 0.001 Overall 1.265 0.033 1.442 0.005 1.558 0.001 c) PERMDISP Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South t P(perm) t P(perm) t P(perm) Winter 2.437 0.008 2.352 0.002 5.527 0.000 Summer 1.193 0.316 0.007 0.953 1.235 0.299 Overall 0.207 0.859 1.081 0.313 0.844 0.455

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

3.4.3 Meiofauna – Box Core Sampling

Meiofaunal communities at each Zone were characterised by the same taxa, with numerical dominence of Nematode worms and Copepods, followed by Ostracods, Foraminiferans and Tardigrads. Average community dissimilarity (as determined by SIMPER analysis) between the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones was low (37.2 and 35.7, respectively), and comparible to dissimilarity between the two Control Zones (average dissimilarity = 31.9).

Significant differences in meiofaunal community structure (i.e. abundance and species composition) were detected via PERMANOVA among Zones, with additional significant temporal variation between the two Seasons (Table 11a). Pair-wise tests revealed that meiofaunal communities at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone were significantly different to those of both the North and South Control Zones, while communities in both Control Zones were not significantly different (Table 11b). These results are most likely due to the greater abundances of meiofauna within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone relative to both the North and South Control Zones. PCO plots showed no separation of meiofaunal community structure among Zones for either Season (Figure 25). PERMDISP results of comparisons between the significant factor of Zone for each Season (Table 11b) reflected results of the PERMANOVA pair-wise tests, indicating that differences in meiofaunal community structure among Zones are due to different variability among samples for each Zone, with differences between the two Seasons (i.e. significant trends were not consistent between the two Seasons). Overall, meiofaunal communities at the Port Stanvac Construction Zone were significantly more variable than either the North or South Control Zones (Table 11b), and more variable than the North Control Zone in Summer and the South Control Zone in Autumn (Table 11b).

Importantly, these results indicate that there are no consistent significant differences in community structure based on distance from the centre of the sampling area, and for Port Stanvac, no differences based on proximity to the proposed discharge point.

55 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Figure 25: PCO plots of square-root transformed abundances of meiofauna communities comparing the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac Construction Zone (▼) and South Control Zone ( ) for a) Summer and b) Autumn Seasons.

Table 11. a) PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of community structure for epifauna (dredge sampler) among Zones, Seasons and Distances; b) pair-wise tests and c) PERMDISP analysis for differences between Zones with significant values in main test. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. N.B. (-) indicates irrelevant factor (Season not applicable for tests within each of Summer and Winter). a) Main Test Source Zone (Z) Season (S) Distance (D) Z x S Z x D S x D Z x S x D Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Summer 1.877 0.043 - - 0.550 0.952 - - 0.474 0.999 - - - - Autumn 4.241 0.000 - - 1.203 0.250 - - 1.011 0.444 - - - - Overall 3.997 0.000 4.194 0.004 1.008 0.433 1.966 0.041 0.895 0.638 0.690 0.836 0.560 0.989 b)

Pair-wise Test Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South

Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Pseudo-F P(perm) Summer 1.443 0.064 1.264 0.151 1.354 0.096 Autumn 2.421 0.001 1.475 0.069 1.906 0.012 57 Overall 2.149 0.001 1.281 0.134 2.131 0.002 c)

PERMDISP Source North, Port Stanvac North, South Port Stanvac, South

t P(perm) t P(perm) t P(perm) Summer 3.479 0.000 1.918 0.006 2.016 0.008 Autumn 0.652 0.541 2.578 0.003 3.831 0.002 Overall 2.488 0.002 1.412 0.207 3.981 0.000

Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

4. Discussion

Summary of key results

Sediments consisted of coarse sands in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, and in both the North and South Control, with similar grain size distribution statistics (i.e. median and mean grain size, sorting and percent fraction) found across Zones and Distances from the centre of the sampling areas. There was higher abundance and species richness of meiofaunal and macrofaunal communities (both infaunal and epifaunal), within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone relative to both the North and South Control Zones; however, community structure was similar among Zones and benthic faunal communities from the three Zones were all characterised by the same species. All benthic faunal communities show a high degree of both spatial and temporal variation, with significant zone and season differences across all groups. This temporal variation (i.e. differences between the two sampling occasions) highlights the need to continue with two sampling occasion per year. Spatial variation among the three Zones can be attributed to the relatively high diversity and abundance of organisms within the Port Stanvac marine exclusion, compared to the remainder of the Adelaide metropolitan coastline.

Importantly, there were no pre-existing differences in sediments or any of the benthic faunal communities sampled (meiofauna, infauna and epifauna), based on distance from the location of the desalination effluent discharge pipe at Port Stanvac.

Current state of Port Stanvac Construction Zone

The Port Stanvac Construction Zone is generally perceived as a particularly degraded marine habitat relative to the remainder of the Adelaide metropolitan coastline due to the Port Stanvac Oil Refinery. When the refinery was in operation, this site was subject to heavy shipping traffic and a number of oil spills (Edyvane 1999; EPA 2003). Conversely, the data presented in this report suggests that the Port Stanvac Construction Zone represents an area of relatively high species diversity and abundance compared to similar subtidal benthic habitats along the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. The Port Stanvac area has historically been a marine exclusion zone, with fences on the shore preventing access to the ocean from the land, and a “no-go” area surrounding the refinery jetty and pontoons blocking boat access. The Port Stanvac area appears to represent a hotspot for subtidal marine benthic faunal communities along the Adelaide coastline, with approximately 50 species found in samples from the Construction Zone that were

58 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010 not recorded at either the North or South Control. Additionally, species of either fisheries or conservation interest were recorded in samples from the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, including the Queens scallop (Equichlamys bifrons), the giant cuttlefish (Sepia apama) and the weedy seadragon (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus).

Adequacy of reference sites

Control sites in ecological monitoring programmes act to identify any divergence from the type of community, habitat or environment in an area subjected to some kind of putative impact (in this case, the construction and operation of a desalination plant) from that which we would expect under ‘normal’ conditions (Downes et al. 2002). Control sites should be as similar as possible to the impacted location (i.e. be subject to the same pressures), so as to isolate the effect of the disturbance on the environment (Downes et al. 2002).

In the current study, both North and South Control Zones were selected based on similarity to the Port Stanvac Construction Zone in terms of water depth and substrate type (i.e. soft sediment benthic habitat). Additionally, sediment analysis in this report has shown that the Control Zones have similar sediments to those of the Construction Zone. All three Zones are along the Adelaide metropolitan coastline, and as such are all subject to similar human pressures related to proximity to a large city (i.e. waste water and sewerage discharge, recreational and commercial boating and fishing, etc.). Faunal communities (including infauna, epifauna and meiofaunal groups) have also been shown in this report to be similar among the Control and Construction Zones, and characterised by the same species.

Need for multiple sampling methods

The three sampling methods that were used across the three zones: suction, dredge and box coring, were effective in targeting the different components of the soft sediment communities. The suction sampler was designed for the sampling of infauna within diverse types of substrata (Brown et al. 1987). An advantage of this sampling method was the successful recovery of undamaged organisms and neighbouring sediment during pumping. The downside of the suction method is that it does not result in quantitative data; however samples from this method contained a portion of the community that was not acquired from any other method. The dredge method was successful in skimming over the surface of the bottom and was useful for collecting more scarce members of the epifauna, such as crustaceans and echinoderms associated with the sea floor (Eleftheriou & Moore 2005). In comparison to the other two methods, the box coring had the advantage of providing a consistent core size, which allows for quantitative assessment 59 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010 of the benthic fauna. While the success rate in collecting a sample using the box corer varied, the quantitative nature of the data was very useful for analysis.

5. Conclusions

The subtidal benthic faunal communities of the Port Stanvac Construction Zone are highly diverse and abundance, and the area may represent a hotspot for these types of communities along the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. There are currently no gradients for sediments or faunal characteristics within Zones, with no patterns related to proximity to the location of the desalination effluent discharge pipe in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone.

The data sets represented in this report provide a comprehensive baseline for the subtidal benthic fauna for the Port Stanvac Construction Zone prior to construction of the desalination plant, as well as two Control Zones, fulfilling the requirement of a complete annual before construction dataset.

60 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

References

Altayaran, A. and Madany, I. (1992) ‘Impact of a desalination plant to the physical and chemical properties of seawater, Bahrain’, Water Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 435 – 441.

Anderson M.J., Gorley R.N. and Clarke K.R. (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Benkendorff, K. Fairweather, P. and Dittmann, S. (2008) Chapter 10. Intertidal shores: life on the edge. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 121 – 131.

Blott, S.J. & Pye, K. (2001) ‘GRADISTAT: A grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments’ Earth Surface Processes and Landforms vol. 26, pp. 1237 – 1248.

Bilyard, G.R. (1987) ‘The value of benthic infauna in marine pollution monitoring studies’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 581 – 585.

Brown, A.V., Schram, M.D., and Brussock, P.P. (1987) ‘A vacuum benthos sampler suitable for diverse habitats’, Hydrobiologia, vol. 153, pp. 241 – 247.

Bryars, S., Wear, R. and Collings, G. (2008) Chapter 11. Seagrasses of Gulf St Vincent and Investigator Strait. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 132 – 147.

Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (2001) Change in Marine Communities – An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Dethier, M.N. and Schoch, G.C. (2006) ‘Taxonomic sufficiency in distinguishing natural spatial patterns on an estuarine shoreline’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 306, pp. 41 – 49.

Downes, B.J., Barmuta, L.A., Fairweather, P.G., Faith, D.P., Keough, Lake, P.S., Mapstone, B. & Quinn, G.P. (2002). Monitoring ecological impacts: concepts and practice in flowing waters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Edyvane, K.S. (1999) ‘Coastal and marine wetlands in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia: understanding their loss and degradation’, Wetlands Ecology and Manangement, vol. 7, pp. 83 – 104.

Edyvane. K.S. (2008) Chapter 19. Macroalgal biogeography and assemblages of Gulf St Vincent. In Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 248 – 263.

61 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Einav, R., Harussi, K. And Perry, D. (2002) ‘The footprint of the desalination process on the environment’, Desalination, vol. 152, pp. 141 – 154.

Eleftheriou, A. and Moore, D.C. (2005) Chapter 5: Macrofauna techniques. In: Eleftheriou, A. and McIntire, A. (Eds.) Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 160 – 195.

Environment Protection Authority (2003) State of the Environment Report for South Australia 2003, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide, South Australia.

Fernández-Torquemada, Y., Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L. and González-Correa, J.M. (2005) ‘Preliminary results of the monitoring of the brine discharge produced by the SWRO desalination plant of Alicante (SE Spain)’, Desalination, vol. 182, pp. 395 – 402.

Gacia, E., Invers, O., Manzanera, M., Ballesteros, E. and Romero, J. (2007) ‘Impact of brine from a desalination plant on a shallow seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadow’, Estaurine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 72, pp. 579 – 590.

Gray, J.S. (2002) ‘Species richness of marine soft sediments’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 244, pp. 285 – 297.

Higgins, R.P. & Thiel, H. (1988) Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Hoepner, T. (1999) ‘A procedure for environmental impact assessments (EIA) for seawater desalination plants’, Desalination, vol. 124, pp. 1 – 12.

Kämpf. J., Brokensha, C. and Bolton, T. (2009) ‘Hindcasts of the fate of desalination brine in large inverse estuaries: Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia’, Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 2, pp. 325 – 333.

Loo, M.G.K. and Drabsch, S.L. (2008) Chapter 16. Subtidal soft sediments of Gulf St Vincent. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 204 – 223.

Loo, M.G.K., Mantila, L., Segade M-E., Wiltshire, K., and Sharma, S. (2008) Adelaide Desalination Project, Macroinfauna/Meiofauna Characterisation Study. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2008/000823-1

Malfeito, J, Díaz-Caneja, J., Fariñas, M., Fernández-Torquemada, Y., González-Correa, J., Carratalá-Giménez, A. and Sánchez-Lizaso, J. (2005) ‘Brine discharge from the Javea desalination plant’ Desalination, vol. 185, pp. 87 – 94.

Malloy, K.J., Wade, D., Janicki, A., Grabe, S.A. and Nijbroek, R. (2007) ‘Development of a benthic index to assess sediment quality in the Tampa Bay Estuary’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 54, pp. 22 – 31.

62 Infaunal Monitoring Final Report 2009 / 2010

Miri, R . & Chouikhi, A. (2005) ‘Ecotoxicological marine impacts from seawater desalination plants’, Desalination, vol. 182, pp. 403 – 410.

Morrisey, D.J., Howitt, L., Underwood, A.J. and Stark, J.S. (1992) ‘Spatial variation in soft- sediment benthos’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 81, pp. 197 – 204.

Raventos, N., Macpherson, E. and García-Rubiés, A. (2006) ‘Effect of brine discharge from a desalination plant on macrobenthic communities in the NW Mediterranean’, Marine Environmental Research, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1 – 14.

Ruso, Y., Carratero, J., Casalduero, F. and Lizaso, J. (2007) Spatial and temporal changes in infaunal communities inhabiting soft-bottoms affected by brine discharge’, Marine Environmental Research, vol. 64, pp. 492 – 503.

SA Water (2008) Proposed Adelaide Desalination Plant Environmental Impact Statement. SA Water, Government of South Australia.

Sadhwani, J., Veza, J. and Santana, C. (2005) ‘Case studies on environmental impact of seawater desalination’, Desalination, vol 185, pp. 1 – 8.

Somerfield, P.J. & Warwick, R.M. (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowerstoft, UK.

Turner, D.J., Collings, G. (2008) Subtidal macroalgal communities of Gulf St Vincent. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 264 – 278.

Underwood, A.J. (1991) ‘Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for detecting human impacts on temporal variation in natural populations’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 42, pp. 569 – 587.

Underwood, A.J. (1992) ‘Beyond BACI: The detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real but variable world’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 161, pp. 145 – 178.

Younos, T. (2005) ‘Environmental issues of desalination’, Universities Council on Water Resources, Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, vol. 132, pp. 11 – 18.

Appendix I 64

Appendix I. Species present in suction samples. North = North Control Zone, Port Stanvac = Port Stanvac Construction Zone, South = South Control Zone. Values indicate the number of sites with species present.

Winter Summer Port Port North South North South Phylum Class Subclass Family Species Stanvac Stanvac Porifera Demospongiae Axinellidae Cymbastela sp. - - - 1 - - Callyspongiidae Callyspongia sp. 1 1 1 - - - Chondropsidae Chondropsidae - - - - 1 - Dysideidae Euryspongia sp. 1 - 1 - - - Mycalidae Mycale sp. - - - - 1 - Stellettidae Stelletta sp. - - - 1 - - Sycettidae Sycon sp. - - - - 3 - Cnidaria Anthozoa Hexacorallina Zoanthidae Zoanthidae - 1 - - - - Cnidaria - - - - 3 - Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Bugulidae Bugula robusta - - 1 2 5 - Candidae Caberea helicina 2 - 1 1 4 - Menipea roborata - 2 1 1 - - Canda filifera - - - - 3 - Catenicellidae Costaticella solida 5 18 8 3 27 10 Phidoloporidae Reteporella sp. 7 17 10 8 3 - Schizoporellidae Stylopoma schizostoma - - - - 7 - Stenolaemata Crisiidae Mesonea radians 5 2 1 - 5 - Horneridae Hornera ramosa 3 1 - - 14 1 Brachiopoda Rhynchonellata Terebratellidae Megellania flavascens - 9 4 - 5 - Nematoda Nematoda 3 - - - 2 - Nemertea Nemertea - - - - 8 -

Sipuncula Phascolosomatidea Phascolosomatidae Phascolosomatidae - 7 - 1 1 - Sipuncula - - - - 7 - Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Cestoplanidae Cestoplanidae - 1 - - - - Leptoplanidae Notoplana australis - 6 - - - - Echiura Echiuroidea Ikedidae Ikeda sp. - 4 - - - - Annelida Clitellata Oligochaeta Oligochaeta - - - - 1 - Polychaeta Aciculata Amphinomidae Amphinomidae - 2 - 4 10 2 Dorvilleidae Dorvilleidae - - - - 8 - Eunicidae Eunicidae 2 3 - - 5 - Glyceridae Glyceridae 1 3 2 - 3 - Hesionidae Hesionidae 2 8 2 1 2 - Lumbrineridae Lumbrineridae 4 4 - - 12 - Lysaretidae Lysaretidae - 2 1 - 2 - Nereididae Nereididae 6 3 1 - 22 - Oenonidae Notopsilus sp. 5 2 1 - 1 - Phyllodocidae Phyllodocidae 7 7 4 - 27 - Eulalia sp. 5 22 1 - - - Pilargidae Pilargidae - - - - 1 - Pisionidae Pisionidae - - - - 1 - Polynoidae Polynoidae - - 3 - - - Sigalionidae Sigalionidae 3 4 2 - 3 - Syllidae Syllidae 8 3 6 2 9 1 Canalipalpata Ampharetidae Ampharetidae - - - - 6 - Cirratulidae Cirratulidae 1 2 3 - 7 - Flabelligeridae Flabelligeridae 6 1 - 2 1 - Pectinariidae Pectinaria antipoda - - - - 4 - Sabellidae Sabellidae 3 8 3 - 17 1 Serpulidae Serpulidae - - - - 2 - Terebellidae Terebellidae - 1 - - 2 -

Trochochaetidae Trochochaetidae - - - - 3 - Scolecida Arenicolidae Arenicolidae 4 2 - 1 2 - Capitellidae Capitellidae 4 6 1 3 21 1 Maldanidae Maldanidae 3 2 - - 2 - Opheliidae Opheliidae - 2 - - - - Orbiniidae Orbiniidae - 1 - - 4 - Mollusca Aplacophora Aplacophora - - - - 12 - Polyplacophora Neoloricata Acanthochitonidae Acanthochitonidae - - - - 1 - Chitonidae Rhyssoplax exoptanda - - - - 1 - Ischnochitonidae Ischinochiton elongatus 3 2 - - 4 3 Ischinochiton variegatus 4 11 4 - 5 - Ischinochiton wilsoni 1 8 - - 2 - Leptochitonidae Leptochiton liratus - - - - 5 - Bivalvia Heterodonta Cardiidae Fulvia teniuicostata 2 - - 2 - - Gastrochaenidae Gastrochaena cuneiformis - - - - 1 - Gastrochaena tasmanica - - - - 3 - Lucinidae Callucina lacteola - 2 - - 1 - Mactridae Mactra sp. 8 2 1 - 9 - Mesodermataidae Paphies cuneata - - - 2 - - Pholadidae Barnea obturamentum 3 3 3 - 4 - Tellinidae Tellina albinulla 3 3 2 - 1 2 Tellina deltoidalis 4 4 3 - 1 1 Veneridae Bassina disjecta - - 2 - - - Calista kingli 17 11 5 3 1 4 Dosinia sp. 1 - 2 - 9 1 Periglypta puerpera 1 - - - - - Tapes literatus 3 1 - - 3 - Venerupis galactites 8 19 4 - 16 - Veneridae sp. - - - - 9 -

Protobranchia Nuculanidae Nuculana crassa 2 5 4 - 3 3 Pteriomorphia Glycymerididae Glycymeris radians 4 1 1 - - - Limidae Limaria orientalis 8 12 1 1 2 - Limatula strangei 6 3 - - 4 - Mytilidae Musculus nanus 8 20 7 - 14 - Pectinidae Equichlamys bifrons 2 2 1 - 2 - Pectinidae sp. - - - - 3 - Pteriidae Electroma georgiana - - 1 - - - Scaphopoda Scaphopoda sp. - - - - 2 - Cephalopoda Coleoidea Sepiidae Sepia apama - 2 - - - - Gastropoda Caenogastropoda Buccinidae Cominella eburnea 1 9 2 - - - Fusinus australis - 1 1 - - - Nassarius pyrehus 5 14 5 - 3 - Buccinidae sp. - - - - 1 - Calyptraeidae Calyptraea calyptraeaformis 3 8 1 - 2 - Columbellidae Columbellidae sp. 1 4 - - - 2 Mitrella australis 4 8 - - - 1 Epitoniidae Epitoniidae sp. 1 7 2 - - - Hipponicidae Hipponix australis - 3 - - - - Muricidae Pterinotus transformis - 1 - - - - Naticidae Natica sp. 2 1 2 - 1 - Polinices conicus 4 8 1 - 2 - Heterobranchia Aeolidida (Infraorder) Aeolidida sp. - - - - 1 - Aglajidae Aglajidae sp. - 1 - - 1 - Burlidae Bulla guoyii - 1 - - - - Haminoeidae Hamineidae sp. - 3 1 - - - Nudibranchia (Order) Nudibranchia sp. - - - - 1 - Oxynoidae Oxynoe viridis - 1 - - - - Philiniade Philine angasi - 2 1 1 3 1

Patellogastropoda Lottidae Diodora lincolnensis - 4 - - - - Notoacmea flammea 3 4 - - - - Patelloida alticostata 1 7 - - - - Patellidae Patellidae sp. - - - - 1 - Vestigastropoda Phasianellidae Phasianella ventricosa 4 9 3 - 1 - Trochidae Clanculus maugeri - 2 - - - - Ethalia sp. 2 - 2 - - - Notogibbula lehmanni 7 24 10 - 7 - Stomatella impertusa - 2 - - - 1 Thalotia conica 5 2 1 - - - Trochidae sp. - 1 - - - - Arthropoda Pycnogonida Ammothidae Pycnothea flynii - 1 - 3 11 - Callipallinidae Pseudopallene chevron 3 1 2 3 5 2 Callipallinidae Parapallene famelica - 2 1 2 5 - Nymphonidae Nymphon aequidigitatum - 9 1 - 18 1 Ostracoda Ostracoda Ostracoda sp. 7 2 2 4 30 9 Maxillopoda Copepoda Calanoida (Order) Calanoida sp. - - - - 8 - Cyclopodia (Order) Cyclopodia sp. - - - - 1 - Thecostraca Calanticidae Smilium peronii - - - - 1 - Malacostraca Eumalacostraca Alpheidae Alpheidae sp. 1 2 - - 3 - Anaspidacea Anaspidacea sp. 5 1 1 - 17 - Arcturidae Arcturidae sp.1 - - - - 29 - Arcturidae sp.2 - - - - 5 - Aristeidae Aristeidae sp. 1 - 1 - 2 - Armadillidae Buddelundia inaequalis - 4 1 1 - - Brachyura (Infraorder) Zoea Larvae sp. - - - - 4 - Caprellidae Caprellidae sp. 2 1 3 10 38 21 Corophiidae Corophiidae sp. - 2 - - - - Cumacea Cumacea sp.1 1 3 3 1 33 -

Cumacea sp.2 4 2 2 - 20 - Decapoda (Order) Larvae sp. - - - - 3 - Diogenidae Diogenidae sp. - 4 6 1 4 1 Dromiidae Dromiidae sp. 1 - - - - - Eumalacostraca (Subclass) Larvae sp. - - - - 1 - Galatheidae Galatheidae sp. 4 1 1 1 3 - Gammaridae Gammaridae sp.1 22 35 14 23 45 25 Gammaridae sp.2 15 7 3 23 36 21 Gammaridae sp.3 1 - 1 6 16 7 Hippolytidae Saron sp. 3 - - 1 1 - Hymenosomatidae Hymenosomatidae sp. 17 18 8 9 37 19 Idoteidae Idoteidae sp. - 2 - 4 - 2 Ischyroceridae Cerapus sp. 4 1 4 2 11 1 Leucosiidae Crytocnemus vincentianus 1 1 1 - 3 1 Ebalia intermedia 3 3 2 2 16 1 Lysianassidae Waldeckia sp. - 3 2 - 1 - Majidae Majidae sp. 1 1 - 8 1 1 Melitidae Ceradocus sp. 13 8 8 - 40 - Mysidae Mysidae sp. - - - - 25 - Paguridae Paguridae sp. 3 4 - 1 12 2 Palaemonidae Palaemonidae sp. 7 1 - 10 26 9 Pontogeneiidae Pontogeneiidae sp. - - - - 1 - Serolidae Heteroserolis longicaudata - - - 1 5 1 Serolina bakeri 3 2 1 - 5 - Sphaeromatidae Sphaeromatidae sp. 1 - 3 1 13 3 Tanaidacea Tanaidacea sp. 13 8 3 - 24 1 Phyllocardia Nebaliidae Nebalia sp. 3 - - - 10 - Nebaliidae sp. 1 1 2 - 31 - Echinodermata Ophiuroidea Amphiuridae Amphiura constricta - 1 - - - -

Ophiocentrus pilosa - - - - 1 1 Ophiacanthidae Ophiacantha brachygnatha 6 12 3 - 7 - Ophiactidae Ophiactis tricolor 1 - - - - - Ophiocomidae Ophiocoma dentata - - - - 1 - Ophiodermatidae Ophioconis opacum 10 17 9 4 1 11 Ophiolepididae Ophioceres bispinosus - 1 - - - - Ophionereididae Ophionereis schayeri 3 7 - 4 - 1 Ophionereis semoni - - - - 1 - Ophiotrichidae Ophiothrix caespitosa - - - - 2 - Ophiuridae Ophiura kinbergi - - - - 30 - Ophiocrossota multispina 1 1 2 1 - - Asteroidea Asteriidae Allostichaster polyplax - - - - 2 - Costinacerias muricata 1 2 - - - 1 Echinoidea Cidaridae Goniocidaris impressa - - - - 1 - Euechinoidea Temnopleuridae Amblypneustes elevatus 1 - - - 3 4 Amblypneustes ovum 19 19 8 - - - Toxopneustidae Toxopneustidae sp. - - - - 1 - Holothuroidea Holothuriidae Holothuriidae sp. 1 - 1 - 6 - Chordata Ascidiacea Euherdmaniidae Euherdmania translucida - - - - 1 - Holozoidae Sycozoa pulchra 4 3 2 - 23 - Pyuridae Herdmania fimbriae - 1 - - 2 - Pyura gibbosa - 3 - - 2 1 Pyura praeputialis 3 8 4 - 2 - Pyuridae sp. - - - - 4 - Styelidae Styela plicata 1 2 2 - 6 - Styelidae sp. - - - - 1 - Actinopterygii Actinopterygii larvae sp. - - - - 1 - Gobiidae Gobiidae larvae sp. - - - - 1 -

Appendix II 71

Appendix II. Species present in dredge samples. North = North Control Zone, Port Stanvac = Port Stanvac Construction Zone, South = South Control Zone. Values indicate the number of sites with species present.

Winter Summer Port Port North South North South Phylum Class Subclass Family Species Stanvac Stanvac Porifera Calcarea Calcaronea Sycettidae Sycon sp. 1 2 - - - 1 Demospongiae Ancorinidae Ecionemia sp. 2 - 2 - - - Callyspongiidae Callyspongia sp. 3 1 4 - 2 - Chalinidae Chalinula sp. 1 - - - - - Chondrillidae Chondrilla sp. 1 1 - - - - Darwinellidae Darwinella sp. 1 1 - 2 - - Dendrilla rosea - 1 - - - - Desmacellidae Desmacella sp. 1 - - - - - Dysideidae Dysidea sp. - 1 - - - - Euryspongia sp. 2 - 2 - - - Irciniidae Ircinia sp. 1 - - - - - Microcionidae Clathria sp. 2 - - - - - Mycalidae Mycale sp. - 2 - - - - Phloeodictyidae Oceanapia sp. 1 - - - - - Spongiidae Coscinoderma pesleonis 1 - - - - - Stellettidae Stelletta sp. 2 - 1 - - - Sycettidae Sycon sp. ------Thorectidae Thorecta sp. 2 1 - - 1 - Porifera Sp. - - - - - 1 Cnidaria Anthozoa Hexacorallina Actiniidae Actiniidae sp. 2 7 - - - - Isophelliidae Isophellidae sp. - 1 - - - -

Scolymia australis - 1 - - - - Rhizangiidae Rhizangiidae sp. - 1 - 1 1 - Bryozoa Gymnolaemata Candidae Canda filifera 1 4 - - - - Menipea roborata - 1 - - - - Catenicellidae Costaticella solida 6 6 8 1 10 4 Phidoloporidae Iodictyum phoeniceum 3 - - 1 1 - Reteporellina sp. - 2 - 2 - 3 Retoporella granulata 4 - 1 2 - - Stenolaemata Crisiidae Mesonea radians 2 1 - - - 2 Brachiopoda Rhynchonellata Terebratellidae Megellania flavascens 4 2 - - 1 - Nematoda Nematoda Nematoda sp. 1 - - - - - Sipuncula Phascolosomatidea Phascolosomatidae Phascolosoma annulatum 2 1 1 - - - Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Leptoplanidae Notoplana australis - 2 - - - - Echiura Echiuroidea Ikedidae Ikeda sp. 1 - - - - - Annelida Clitellata Hirudinea Piscicolidae Pontobdella sp. - 1 - - - - Polychaeta Aciculata Eunicidae Eunice laticeps - 4 - - 2 2 Eunicidae sp. - 4 - 3 1 - Hesionidae Hesionidae sp. 1 3 - - - - Lumbrineridae Lumbrineridae sp. - 3 1 - - 1 Nereidae Nereidae sp. 1 5 1 - 1 - Oenonidae Notopsilus sp. 3 3 4 - - 1 Oenone sp. 3 1 - - 1 1 Phyllodocidae Eulalia sp. 1 5 - 1 1 - Phyllodocidae sp. - - 2 - - 1 Pilargidae Pilargidae sp. 1 2 - - - - Pisionidae Pisionidae sp. - - - - - 1 Polynoidae Polynoidae sp. 2 2 - - 2 1 Sigalionidae Sigalionidae sp. 1 2 - 1 - -

Syllidae Syllidae sp. 1 4 - 1 1 - Canalipalpata Cirratulidae Cirratulidae sp. 1 1 - - - 1 Flabelligeridae Flabelligeridae sp. 1 3 - - 1 - Terebellidae Terebellidae sp. 4 - 1 - 1 - Scolecida Capitellidae Capitellidae sp. - 1 1 2 3 1 Mollusca Polyplacophora Neoloricata Acanthochitonidae Acauthochitona bednalli - 6 - - - - Chitonidae Rhyssoplax exoptanda - 1 - - - - Ischnochitonidae Ischinochiton carious - 2 - - 2 - Ischinochiton elongatus - 3 - - 2 - Ischinochiton torri 1 - - 1 - - Ischinochiton variegatus 1 5 1 - 2 - Ischinochiton wilsoni - 3 - 2 4 - Stenochiton pilsbryanus - 1 - - - - Leptochitonidae Leptochiton liratus - 1 - - 2 1 Bivalvia Heterodonta Cardiidae Acrosterigma cygnorum - 1 - - - - Cardita crassicosta - 1 - - - - Chamidae Chama ruderalis 2 - - - - - Corbulidae Corbula stolata 2 2 - - 2 - Mactridae Lutraria rhynchaena - 1 - - - - Pholadidae Barnea obturamentum - 4 - - 2 1 Tellinidae Tellina victoriae 1 1 1 - - - Veneridae Placamen placidum 2 1 1 1 1 2 Tawera logopus 1 2 - - - - Palaeoheterodonta Trigoniidae Neotrigonia bednalli - - - - - 1 Neotrigonia margaritacea - - 1 - - - Pteriomorphia Anomiidae Pododesmus zelandiaus 1 1 - - - - Arcidae Barbatia pistachia 2 3 - - - - Glycymerididae Glycymeris radians 1 2 1 1 1 -

Limidae Lima vulgaris 1 - - 2 - - Limaria orientalis 1 3 - - 2 - Limatula strangei - 2 - 1 - - Mytilidae Musculista senhousia - 1 - - 1 - Musculus nanus 4 8 2 2 6 7 Ostreidae Ostrea angasi 1 3 - - - - Saccostrea glomerata 1 - - - - - Pectinidae Equichlamys bifrons 4 3 - 4 3 2 Pecten fumatus - 4 - - - - Semipallium aktinos 1 - - 1 - - Pteriidae Electroma georgiana 1 1 - - - 1 Gastropoda Caenogastropoda Batillariidae Zeacumantus diemenensis - 1 - - - - Calyptraeidae Calyptraea calyptraeaformis 3 2 - - 2 1 Maoricrypta immersa - - - 1 - 1 Columbellidae Mitrella lincolnensis - 1 2 - - - Fasciolariinae Fusinus australis 2 2 - - - 2 Hipponicidae Hipponix australis 3 2 - - - - Turritellidae Gazameda iredalei 3 - - - - - Heterobranchia Aplysiidae Aplysia parvula - 1 - - - - Philiniade Philine angasi 2 7 - 1 1 1 Patellogastropoda Lottidae Notoacmea flammea 1 2 - - 1 - Patelloida alticostata 1 1 - - - - Patelloida mimula - 1 - - - - Vestigastropoda Fissurellidae Emarginula sp. - 1 - - - - Haliotidae Haliotis scalaris 1 2 - - - - Phasianellidae Phasianella australis 1 2 - 1 - - Phasianella ventricosa 1 4 - - - - Trochidae Clanculus limbatus - 2 - - - - Notogibbula lehmanni 2 1 1 - 1 1

Thalotia clorostoma - 1 - - - - Thalotia conica 6 3 1 - - - Trochidae sp. - 1 - - - - Turbinidae Astralium squamiferum 3 - - - - - Turbo torquatus 2 1 - - - -

Cephalopoda Coleoidea Octopodidae Octopus berrima - 1 - - - - Arthropoda Pycnogonida Ammothidae Ammothea sp. - 1 2 2 1 2 Callipallinidae Pseudopallene chevron 1 2 1 - 1 1 Ostracoda Ostracoda sp. - - - - 1 2 Maxillopoda Thecostraca Calanticidae Calanticidae sp. 2 2 - - 1 - Smilium peronii - 3 - - 2 - Malacostraca Eumalacostraca Aegidae Aega serripes - 1 - 1 - - Alpheidae Alpheus astrinx - - - - 1 - Alpheus richardsoni - 1 - - - - Ampithoidae Amphitoe flindersi 2 - - - - - Ochlesis eridunda 1 1 - - - - Arcturidae Arcturidae sp.1 - 1 1 - 2 4 Arcturidae sp.2 - - - - - 1 Caprellidae Caprella sp. - 2 1 4 4 9 Chirostylidae Galathea australiensis 4 - - - - 1 Diogenidae Diogenidae sp. 1 - - - 8 2 Gammaridae Gammaridae sp.1 - 7 2 7 15 9 Gammaridae sp.2 - 3 - 6 7 8 Goneplacidae Litocheira bispinosa 1 1 - - - - Hymenosomatidae Hymenosomatidae sp. - 2 1 1 2 3 Idoteidae Euidotea sp. 1 1 - - - - Ischyroceridae Cerapus sp. - - - 1 1 4 Leucosiidae Ebalia intermedia 2 - - - 2 - Lysianassidae Waldeckia sp. - 2 - - - -

Majidae Naxia aurita - - 1 - 1 1 Melitidae Ceradocus sp. 1 1 2 - - 2 Mysidae Mysidae sp. - - - - - 1 Penaeidae Metapenaeopsis lindae - 2 1 - 2 - Penaeus latisulcatus - 1 - - - - Podoceridae Podocerus sp. 1 - - - 2 - Porcellanidae Petrocheles australiensis ------Portunidae Liocarcinus corrugatus 1 - - 1 -

Nectocarcinus integrifrons 1 3 - - - 1 Sphaeromatidae Cerceis trispinosa 1 2 1 - 1 - Cymodoce sp. 2 1 1 - 1 2 Cymodopsis crassa - 4 - - - - Neosphaeroma sp. 1 - - - - - Paracilicaea sp. - - 1 - - - Sphaeroma quoyana 1 3 - - - - Strahlaxiidae Strahlaxius waroona ------Tanaidacea Tanaidacea sp. 1 - - - 1 2 Xanthidae Actaea calculosa - 1 - - - - Phyllocardia Nebaliidae Nebaliidae sp. - - - - - 1 Echinodermata Crinoidea Articulata Comasteridae Comatulella brachiolata 4 - - - - - Ophiocomidae Ophiocomina australis - 1 - - - - Ophiodermatidae Ophioconis opacum - - 1 - - - Ophionereididae Ophionereis schayeri - - - - 6 1 Ophiotrichidae Ophiothrix caespitosa 3 2 4 1 1 1 Ophiuridae Ophiocrossota multispina 2 1 - - 2 3 Ophiura kinbergi - 1 - - - - Asteroidea Asteriidae Allostichaster polyplax - - - - - 1 Astropecten sp. - - 1 - 1 - Costinacerias muricata - 1 - - - -

Uniophora granifera - 1 - - - - Echinoidea Cidaridae Goniocidaris tubaria 2 3 1 - - - Euechinoidea Temnopleuridae Amblypneustes ovum 1 3 2 - - - Amblypneustes pallidus 4 1 - - -

Holothuroidea Stichopodidae Stichopus ludwigi 1 6 2 - - - Holothuroidea sp. - - - - - 1 Chordata Ascidiacea Didemnidae Didemnum lissoclinum ------Holozoidae Sycozoa pulchra - 1 - - - 2 Pyuridae Herdmania fimbriae - 1 - - - - Pyura abradata 1 2 - - 1 - Pyura gibbosa 1 3 4 - 4 3 Pyura praeputialis 1 5 1 1 4 5 Styelidae Botrylloides perspicuus 2 - - - - - Botrylloides schlosseri 3 - 5 - - - Polycarpa viridis 4 2 1 - - - Symplegma brackenhielmi - 1 - - - - Actinopterygii Syngnathidae Phyllopteryx taeniolatus - - - - 1 -

Appendix III Appendix III. Diversity indices derived from suction sampling data. S = mean number of taxa; N = mean number of individuals. All values include standard deviation (SD). Shannon- Season Site Transect S N Pielou's J Wiener Simpson's

A 7.8 (2.28) 24 (14.20) 0.88 (0.07) 1.8 (0.27) 0.8 (0.07) B 6.4 (3.05) 15.8 (10.06) 0.89 (0.05) 1.6 (0.47) 0.8 (0.06) North C 5.6 (2.41) 14.8 (6.72) 0.84 (0.13) 1.4 (0.48) 0.8 (0.20) D 6.4 (2.30) 19 (10.77) 0.80 (0.08) 1.4 (0.39) 0.7 (0.11) E 7 (1.00) 33.4 (20.60) 0.80 (0.07) 1.5 (0.15) 0.8 (0.08) A 9.4 (4.62) 27.2 (26.96) 0.88 (0.06) 1.8 (0.38) 0.9 (0.05) B 9.2 (5.40) 22.2 (20.92) 0.88 (0.07) 1.7 (0.96) 0.9 (0.05) C 6.4 (4.83) 12.2 (13.14) 0.95 (0.07) 1.5 (0.76) 0.9 (0.07) D 16.8 (2.17) 57 (23.96) 0.84 (0.03) 2.4 (0.12) 0.9 (0.02) Port E 25.6 (8.38) 143.8 (128.95) 0.82 (0.05) 2.6 (0.19) 0.9 (0.01) Winter Stanvac F 32.2 (11.19) 190.8 (143.04) 0.81 (0.08) 2.8 (0.40) 0.9 (0.05) G 42 (12.73) 342.4 (194.56) 0.73 (0.10) 2.7 (0.23) 0.9 (0.07) H 23 (5.52) 97.4 (72.73) 0.71 (0.11) 2.2 (0.37) 0.8 (0.09) I 36.8 (7.19) 174.6 (41.82) 0.81 (0.03) 2.9 (0.12) 0.9 (0.02) J 22.2 (4.97) 101.6 (78.99) 0.78 (0.09) 2.4 (0.18) 0.9 (0.05) A 5.2 (0.84) 15 (7.31) 0.91 (0.03) 1.5 (0.16) 0.8 (0.03) B 8.8 (2.59) 30.8 (30.38) 0.88 (0.07) 1.9 (0.31) 0.9 (0.08) South C 5.6 (3.29) 49 (85.35) 0.83 (0.20) 1.2 (0.53) 0.8 (0.20) D 8.4 (3.29) 81.2 (114.72) 0.77 (0.19) 1.5 (0.32) 0.7 (0.16) E 8.4 (1.14) 32 (21.26) 0.87 (0.09) 1.8 (0.11) 0.9 (0.07) A 25.4 (6.88) 65.6 (17.73) 0.85 (0.05) 2.7 (0.35) 0.9 (0.06) B 19.2 (2.17) 43 (9.57) 0.89 (0.02) 2.6 (0.12) 0.9 (0.01) North C 12.8 (5.89) 20.6 (15.42) 0.95 (0.03) 2.3 (0.35) 1.0 (0.02) D 10 (3.94) 20.6 (9.66) 0.91 (0.04) 2.0 (0.41) 0.9 (0.06) E 15.4 (3.97) 37.2 (13.26) 0.87 (0.05) 2.3 (0.16) 0.9 (0.03) A 6.8 (2.77) 13.2 (7.19) 0.95 (0.03) 1.8 (0.35) 0.9 (0.08) B 10.8 (8.17) 25.8 (20.24) 0.88 (0.03) 1.9 (0.56) 0.8 (0.05) C 11.2 (1.79) 19.6 (3.65) 0.92 (0.06) 2.2 (0.25) 0.9 (0.06) D 16.4 (7.02) 42.4 (27.37) 0.81 (0.14) 2.2 (0.76) 0.8 (0.21) Port E 10.8 (4.44) 17.2 (7.79) 0.95 (0.06) 2.2 (0.43) 0.9 (0.07) Summer Stanvac F 6.8 (2.28) 11.8 (5.50) 0.92 (0.04) 1.7 (0.36) 0.9 (0.07) G 13.8 (8.17) 27.8 (18.27) 0.92 (0.02) 2.3 (0.51) 0.9 (0.03) H 17.2 (6.76) 43.6 (16.56) 0.87 (0.12) 2.4 (0.50) 0.9 (0.11) I 15 (5.00) 56.2 (26.81) 0.85 (0.03) 2.2 (0.26) 0.9 (0.03) J 10.4 (3.13) 22.4 (8.14) 0.90 (0.07) 2.0 (0.37) 0.9 (0.06)

A 7.2 (4.21) 16.6 (13.37) 0.84 (0.19) 1.4 (0.90) 0.8 (0.22) B 7.8 (3.77) 11.6 (8.38) 0.97 (0.03) 1.8 (0.68) 1.0 (0.05) South C 13.8 (3.03) 30.8 (18.05) 0.91 (0.04) 2.4 (0.24) 0.9 (0.03) D 12.4 (6.19) 27.6 (19.76) 0.90 (0.05) 2.2 (0.40) 0.9 (0.06) E 6.4 (5.68) 12.8 (15.32) 0.90 (0.06) 1.4 (0.91) 0.9 (0.07)

Appendix IV Appendix IV. Diversity indices derived from dredge sampling data. S = mean number of taxa; N = mean number of individuals. All values include standard deviation (SD). ‘n/a’ is indicative of one site in a transect not containing any species.

Season Site Transect S N d Pielou's J Shannon-Wiener Simpson's

A 4.5 (2.12) 7.20 (3.74) 1.75 (0.61) 0.96 (0.05) 1.4 (0.41) 0.9 (0.02) B 5 (1.41) 5.78 (2.52) 2.32 (0.22) 0.99 (0.01) 1.6 (0.27) 1.0 (0.03) North C 14.5 (2.12) 17.41 (2.73) 4.72 (0.48) 0.99 (0.00) 2.6 (0.13) 1.0 (0.00) D 33.5 (7.78) 53.09 (13.62) 8.17 (1.43) 0.95 (0.02) 3.3 (0.16) 1.0 (0.00) E 32.5 (2.12) 51.32 (10.76) 8.02 (0.11) 0.98 (0.00) 3.4 (0.06) 1.0 (0.00) A 10 (1.41) 21.29 (9.09) 2.99 (0.03) 0.84 (0.16) 1.9 (0.26) 0.8 (0.15) B 2.5 (3.54) 4.00 (5.66) 1.92 n/a 0.97 n/a 0.8 (1.11) 0.9 n/a C 6 (0.00) 8.75 (0.22) 2.30 (0.03) 0.96 (0.00) 1.7 (0.00) 0.9 (0.00) D 19.5 (23.33) 32.21 (38.09) 4.89 (5.22) 0.96 (0.02) 2.2 (1.64) 0.9 (0.13) Port E 11.5 (6.36) 16.99 (11.33) 3.70 (1.36) 0.97 (0.03) 2.3 (0.50) 1.0 (0.00) Winter Stanvac F 20.5 (23.33) 35.21 (40.46) 5.13 (5.00) 0.97 (0.01) 2.4 (1.53) 0.9 (0.09) G 10 (12.73) 18.57 (24.26) 2.52 (3.56) 0.93 n/a 1.4 (1.94) 0.5 (0.67) H 14 (11.31) 22.98 (18.45) 4.02 (2.60) 0.97 (0.01) 2.4 (0.86) 0.9 (0.04) I 20 (9.90) 31.41 (15.08) 5.46 (2.12) 0.97 (0.00) 2.8 (0.50) 1.0 (0.02) J 21 (2.83) 28.82 (2.07) 5.95 (0.71) 0.98 (0.00) 3.0 (0.14) 1.0 (0.00) A 2 (2.83) 2.57 (3.64) 1.83 n/a 0.98 n/a 0.7 (0.96) 0.9 n/a B 11.5 (4.95) 17.25 (6.71) 3.65 (1.24) 0.93 (0.02) 2.2 (0.47) 0.9 (0.05) South C 8.5 (2.12) 14.57 (1.99) 2.79 (0.65) 0.92 (0.00) 2.0 (0.23) 0.9 (0.02) D 14.5 (7.78) 28.88 (18.64) 3.99 (1.54) 0.93 (0.02) 2.4 (0.57) 0.9 (0.04) E 2.5 (3.54) 3.23 (4.57) 2.14 n/a 0.98 n/a 0.8 (1.11) 0.9 n/a A 4.5 (3.54) 4.87 (4.05) 2.19 (1.05) 0.99 (0.01) 1.3 (0.87) 1.0 (0.02)

B 7 (2.83) 11.78 (4.15) 2.41 (0.81) 0.96 (0.01) 1.8 (0.38) 0.9 (0.03)

North C 8.5 (3.54) 14.71 (0.22) 2.79 (1.30) 0.92 (0.06) 1.9 (0.51) 0.9 (0.10)

D 4.5 (2.12) 6.61 (2.78) 1.81 (0.73) 0.94 (0.01) 1.4 (0.44) 0.8 (0.06)

E 5 (4.24) 6.43 (4.27) 1.97 (1.63) 0.97 (0.01) 1.3 (0.94) 0.8 (0.19)

A 8 (5.66) 10.43 (7.34) 2.91 (1.55) 0.99 (0.01) 1.9 (0.76) 0.9 (0.04)

B 5 (4.24) 6.40 (5.18) 2.01 (1.44) 0.96 (0.02) 1.3 (0.97) 0.8 (0.16)

C 6 (2.83) 7.56 (2.83) 2.42 (0.96) 0.99 (0.00) 1.7 (0.49) 0.9 (0.05)

D 4 (4.24) 6.62 (7.36) 1.21 (1.72) 0.93 n/a 0.9 (1.27) 0.4 (0.62)

Port E 4 (2.83) 7.18 (1.55) 1.46 (1.28) 0.91 (0.07) 1.2 (0.80) 0.7 (0.31) Summer Stanvac F 6 (4.24) 10.81 (5.11) 2.01 (1.40) 0.84 (0.18) 1.5 (0.95) 0.7 (0.30)

G 6.5 (0.71) 12.37 (3.40) 2.20 (0.04) 0.89 (0.06) 1.7 (0.01) 0.8 (0.06)

H 7 (4.24) 13.94 (9.97) 2.26 (0.99) 0.92 (0.01) 1.7 (0.62) 0.9 (0.08)

I 13.5 (10.61) 32.80 (25.73) 3.48 (2.28) 0.90 (0.01) 2.2 (0.81) 0.9 (0.08)

J 11 (8.49) 15.77 (13.47) 3.57 (1.96) 0.99 (0.01) 2.2 (0.84) 1.0 (0.02)

A 13 (0.00) 26.88 (16.71) 3.85 (0.81) 0.94 (0.05) 2.4 (0.12) 0.9 (0.05)

B 12 (8.49) 28.71 (26.99) 3.30 (1.55) 0.88 (0.09) 2.0 (0.47) 0.9 (0.03)

South C 15 (5.66) 69.87 (52.16) 3.36 (0.70) 0.80 (0.12) 2.1 (0.01) 0.8 (0.05)

D 9 (4.24) 21.49 (10.78) 2.58 (0.96) 0.86 (0.07) 1.9 (0.57) 0.8 (0.12)

E 8.5 (4.95) 17.07 (11.98) 2.63 (1.09) 0.94 (0.05) 1.9 (0.47) 0.9 (0.01) 79

Appendix V Appendix V. Total abundances (per ml of sediment) of major meiofauna taxa across Zones. ‘Other’ includes the abundance of all remaining (rarer) taxa combined (Rotifera, Amphipoda, Sarcomastigophora, Cumacea, Cnidaria, Sipuncula, Bivalvia, Tanaidacea and Gastropoda). Note sample sizes differ among Zones (total = 25 samples for both North and South Control Zones but 50 for the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, per Season).

Zone North Control Zone South Control Zone Port Stanvac Construction Zone Season Summer Autumn Total Summer Autumn Total Summer Autumn Total Nematoda 3753 1595 5348 7160 4035 11195 14289 15020 29309 Copepoda 1357 711 2068 2218 1768 3986 3079 2081 5160 Tardigrada 230 34 264 300 103 403 278 281 559 Turbe llaria 105 15 120 49 57 106 643 509 1152 For aminifera 230 134 364 287 130 417 555 211 766 80 Ostracoda 254 115 369 493 235 728 534 236 770 Halacaroidea 39 22 61 34 23 57 64 29 93 Isopoda 37 45 82 67 72 139 44 92 136 Polychaeta 5 23 28 20 31 51 14 76 90 Other 59 25 84 46 31 77 134 43 177 Total 6069 2723 8792 10745 6517 17262 19634 18599 38233