Molluscan live and dead assemblages in an anthropogenically stressed shallow-shelf: Levantine margin of Israel

Ecological quality assessment in the Eastern Mediterranean combining live and dead molluscan assemblages

“…The changes were also supported by multivariate analysis of species abundance that showed mismatch between the live and dead assemblages (Table 5 and Fig. 8 in Leshno et al, 2015). Bentix proved more sensitive than AMBI in distinguishing the ecological quality of the live and the dead assemblages (Table 4).…”

“…There was a decrease in abundance of suspension feeding bivalves such as A. gibbosa, P. rudis and Acanthocardia paucicostata in the death assemblage, while the abundances of the deposit feeding bivalves N. pella and N. nitidosa and mixed feeder A. longicallus increased in the live assemblage (Leshno et al, 2015). The bivalves of the death assemblage were strongly dominated by suspension feeders (75%), while the live assemblage from the polluted station showed a decrease in suspension feeders and an increase in deposit feeders (Leshno et al, 2015). The change in feeding habits is attributed to the increase in the live abundance of N. pella (Table 3), that had a low positive correlation to TOC levels at the polluted station (Figs.…”

“…In the year of sampling, anoxic conditions failed to develop due to the early onset and unusual frequency of storms and strong current regimes. The live assemblages failed to track the seasonal changes in EcoQS at the polluted station (Leshno et al, 2015). The three indices originally also failed to show a significant difference between the polluted and control stations.…”

“…In this study, 26 families of bivalves and 20 families of gastropods were identified from the polluted and control stations (full species listing in Table 1 of Leshno et al, 2015). The molluscan fauna was strongly dominated by bivalves, most prominently by the cosmopolitan myoid, Corbula gibba.…”

Increasing the salience of marine live–dead data in the Anthropocene

“…During the short tenure of CPB, live–dead comparisons—considered here, generally, to be quantitative analyses of differences and similarities between an assemblage of living individuals and the corresponding time-averaged assemblage of biological remains accumulated through turnover of individuals in the local community—have been, arguably, the most commonly applied approach in studies of human impacts on marine ecosystems (e.g., Kidwell 2002; Lockwood and Chastant 2006; Weber and Zuschin 2013; Casey et al 2014; Korpanty and Kelley 2014; Albano et al 2015; Leshno et al 2015; Dietl and Smith 2017; Martinelli et al 2017; Wingard 2017). Building on earlier efforts (e.g., Davis 1923; Johnson 1965; Warme 1969), Kidwell (2001, 2007) demonstrated that communities preserved in time-averaged death assemblages can reasonably be expected to match their associated living assemblages when evaluated with abundance-based metrics (e.g., taxonomic similarity, rank-order abundance) unless human actions (e.g., eutrophication, dredging) have impacted the community.…”