Carbonate Production by Two New Zealand Serpulids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Carbonate production by two New Zealand serpulids Skeletal allometry, mineralogy, growth and calcification of Galeolaria hystrix and Spirobranchus cariniferus (Polychaeta: Serpulidae), southern New Zealand Marc Andri Riedi A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand February 2012 Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it Albert Einstein Abstract This study investigates the skeletal allometry, mineralogy, growth and calcification of two New Zealand serpulids, Galeolaria hystrix and Spirobranchus cariniferus. Tube allometry (length, diameter, wall thickness, carbonate weight) was studied for G. hystrix from Otago Harbour, Doubtful Sound and Big Glory Bay, Stewart Island and S. cariniferus from Otago Harbour and Doubtful Sound. The tubes length-to-weight and diameter-to-weight relationships are shown to have highest correlation coefficients (at least 0.92), allowing calculation of the carbonate weight of serpulid tubes simply by analysing photographs without the need of collecting and killing the animals. Both G. hystrix and S. cariniferus tubes in New Zealand are made of high-Mg calcite (9.5 & 10.8 wt% MgCO3 respectively) with little (max. of 2 wt% for G. hystrix and 12 wt% for S. cariniferus) or no aragonite. Differences in tube mineralogy among environments suggest an environmental control superimposing the more important genetic control of serpulid mineral precipitation. Opercula of both serpulids show different mineralogy from the tubes, being completely high-Mg calcite (~15 wt% MgCO3) for G. hystrix and almost completely aragonite for S. cariniferus. Perhaps the serpulids secrete these more durable opercula to contend with the high-energy environment in the intertidal (S. cariniferus) and to withstand attacks from predators (G. hystrix). Tube mineralogy was not found to fluctuate seasonally along the tubes’ length and therefore cannot be used to calculate tube growth or age of serpulids. Mean annual tube growth at Harington Point, Otago Harbour in 2011 is 4.1 cm (range: 2.0- 6.7 cm, n = 28) for G. hystrix and 1.7 cm (range: 0.4-3.4 cm, n = 24) for S. cariniferus. Tube growth is slower in winter compared to summer and slows with serpulid age. G. hystrix tubes reach lengths of ~6 cm one year post-settlement, while tubes of S. cariniferus are only about ~3 cm long after one year. In Otago Harbour both serpulids are believed to live as v long as about 10-12 years, during which G. hystrix produces a tube of ~21 cm and S. cariniferus a tube of ~11 cm in length. Mean annual calcification rates are 1.5 g/year for G. hystrix and 0.3 g/year for S. cariniferus individuals in Otago Harbour. G. hystrix aggregations in the subtidal in Big Glory Bay contain 4500-8500 living worms/m2, deposit 2 up to 6.75-12.75 kg CaCO3/m /year, take 9-50 years to form and could involve up to 31 generations of worms. S. cariniferus aggregations in the intertidal at Banks Peninsula, Canterbury contain 30,000-40,000 living worms/m2, deposit up to 9.0-12.0 kg 2 CaCO3/m /year, take at least 26 years to form and could involve ~15 generations of worms. Serpulid aggregations in New Zealand are important temperate reefs, the counterpart of tropical coral reefs. Protection of these habitat-forming biodiversity hotspots is strongly recommended. vi Acknowledgements First I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Abigail M. Smith for her encouragement, support and excellent supervision during the whole process of this study. She was willing to answer any questions I had at any time and thanks to her expertise, constructive comments and ideas this study was greatly improved. By showing great interest in my work she inspired me further into the area of marine carbonate production and sedimentology. I would also like to thank her for proofreading the draft of this thesis. I also wish to thank the staff of the Portobello Marine Laboratory for their patience and support during my entire laboratory and field work. Sincere thanks go to René van Baalen and Paul Meredith for their assistance in the field as boat skippers, Dave Wilson for his technical support and Albert Zhou for his help with the Calcein-marking of the serpulid tubes and the sample preparation for mineralogical analyses. I am also deeply grateful to Beverly Dickson and Dr Katrin Berkenbusch for their advice concerning the planning of field trips and laboratory work. Both always had an open office door to field my questions and listen to my concerns. Thanks also go to Bill Dickson and Phil Heseltine for skippering the research vessel Polaris II in Big Glory Bay and for their surface support while SCUBA diving. I am also grateful to the friendly staff of the Marine Science Department. Chris Fitzpatrick and Lynn Paterson always solved my administrative problems within minutes. Thanks also go to Daryl Coup for solving all computer-related issues and providing me with the statistical software necessary for this work. vii Special thanks go to Matthew Baird, Dr Katrin Berkenbusch, Christine Davis, Rory Kyle, Gearoid O’Sullivan, Danilo Pecorino, Anja Studer and David Wilson for joining me on my monthly field trips as dive buddies. SCUBA diving in the cold waters of southern New Zealand, especially during winter, can be exhausting. Without their assistance this work would not have been possible. Many regards to Damian Walls for assisting me with the use of the X-ray diffractometer in the Geology Department and especially for his patience in explaining me the software running the XRD. I want to acknowledge Brian Niven from the Mathematics and Statistics Department for his help with statistical analyses using JMP. I am also very appreciative of Danilo Pecorino who explained me the theories of growth curve modelling. Last but not least I want to thank my parents for their encouragement and financial support during the course of my whole master’s degree. Without their aid I would never have been able to study Marine Science in New Zealand. viii Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vii Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1. General Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Context and Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Serpulids ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study Sites ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Aims and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2. Skeletal Allometry ............................................................................................... 15 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Sample Collection .................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Tube Length ............................................................................................................. 19 2.2.3 Tube Diameter .......................................................................................................... 20 2.2.4 Tube Wall Thickness ............................................................................................... 21 2.2.5 Tube Weight ............................................................................................................. 22 2.2.6 Accuracy, Precision, Resolution .............................................................................. 23 2.2.7 Error due to Strong Tube Attachment and Missing Posterior Tube Ending ............ 24 2.2.8 Total Error ................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.9 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................. 27 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................. 28 2.3.1 Tube Aperture .......................................................................................................... 30 2.3.2 Tube Length ............................................................................................................. 31 2.3.3 Tube Diameter .......................................................................................................... 32 2.3.4 Tube Wall Thickness ..............................................................................................