Taxonomic distinctness and diversity patterns of a polychaete (Annelida) community on the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico

Abstract

The spatial patterns of taxonomic diversity of annelid polychaete species from the continental shelf in the Southern Gulf of Mexico were examined in this study. We used taxonomic distinctness and its spatial variations to explore the diversity patterns and how they change between Southern Gulf of Mexico regions. In addition, using taxonomic distinctness as a dissimilarity measure and Ward’s Clustering, we characterized three distinct faunal assemblages. We also investigated patterns of richness, taxonomic distinctness, and distance decay of similarity between sampling stations as a ß-diversity measure. Finally, we examined the spatial relationships between polychaete assemblages and environmental variables to test the relative importance of spatial and environmental components in annelid polychaete community structure from the Southern Gulf of Mexico. We used a combination of eigenvector-based multivariate analyses (dbMEMs) and distance-based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) to quantify the relative importance of these explanatory variables on the spatial variations of taxonomic distinctness. The significance level of spatial and environmental components to the distribution of polychaete species showed that the combined effect of spatial processes and sediment characteristics explained a higher percentage of the variance than those parameters could alone.

1. Introduction

Explaining the causes of biodiversity variability at various scales and correlating these variations to changes in environmental conditions are two of ecology’s primary goals [1, 2]. To estimate how biodiversity may respond to climate change, it is essential to understand the patterns of species distribution and the ecological and evolutionary processes that lead to these patterns. Abiotic factors influence the borders of the species ranges based on their physiological preferences [3]. Numerous complex mechanisms have determined the distribution of species at diverse geographical and temporal scales [3].

Over the past few years, there has been a remarkable growth in research on marine biodiversity patterns, and understanding the spatial distribution of species in soft-bottom habitats is essential to comprehend how species interact with one another and with the environment [4] and how benthic communities and ecosystems function [5, 6]. Community ecology studies frequently address the connection between species composition and environmental factors [7–12]. Spatially structured environmental variation plays a vital role in species distribution [13]; consequently, discriminating spatial ecological structures in species composition, distribution, and diversity is a pivotal question in community ecology [14]. However, the spatial scale can also incorporate confounding factors thus, statistical models should include them as predictors or covariable parameters [15]. The local scale is generally considered the spatial autocorrelation created by community dynamics, while the regional scale corresponds to the scale of the environmental drivers [13].

The spatial component in community analysis has been incorporated using a variety of methodologies [16, 17]. For example, ordination analysis [18, 19] can partition the variance across different variables. This approach entails assessing environmental variables, creating a spatial coordinates matrix, and characterizing these elements’ individual and combined contributions to the community structure. Due to its ability to explain the regional and local dynamics that shape communities, variation partitioning has become a crucial exploratory tool [5, 20, 21]. Processes associated with sediment properties, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient content are among the drivers that structure the geographical distribution of biodiversity [12, 22, 23].

Annelid polychaetes are among the most diverse and characteristic groups of benthic macroinvertebrates [24, 25] and one of the richest concerning species numbers [26, 27]; it includes nearly 11,500 accepted nominal species and is often the dominant group in benthic macrofauna [28], representing up to 60% of the species and over 70% of the abundance, mainly in soft-bottom communities [24, 29]. They are ubiquitous in soft sediments and show significant spatial distribution patterns under the influence of environmental gradients [30]. Polychaetes can be used as “indicators” of different ecological conditions [31, 32], and they can be particularly informative in assessing the health of benthic environments. Therefore, the analysis of the diversity patterns of this fauna can be crucial in understanding the whole ecosystem functioning since the biological processes that determine these patterns can reflect those of the entire ecosystem [33–39]. On the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the polychaetes have been the focus of comprehensive research for decades as they represent a crucial group in abundance and diversity [40]. However, most of these studies only present taxonomic lists and are often fragmented or isolated, so information about their distribution patterns related to environmental factors is still scarce. A comprehensive polychaete database was therefore built using the results of several research projects examining the occurrence of this group in the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico.

Using distance-based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) and variation partitioning, this study aims to analyze the environmental factors that influence polychaete diversity at small and intermediate scales along the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. We assess the relative impact of spatial and environmental components on polychaete community structure and examine the spatial relationships between polychaete assemblages and environmental variables.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

The Gulf of Mexico is a marginal sea shared by three countries, Mexico, Cuba, and the United States of America. It is recognized as a large marine ecosystem [41], where activities with significant economic importance, such as fisheries, transportation, and gas and oil extraction are constantly increasing [41]. The Southern Gulf of Mexico (18° 30′22° 20′ N; 89° 41′–97° 4′ W), delimited by an imaginary line that goes from the port of Tampico in the State of Tamaulipas to Progreso in the State of Yucatan, covers approximately 46 000 km². Its southeastern portion (Fig 1, upper panel) is composed of two distinct regions: The Campeche Bank, an expansive shelf characterized by a gentle slope and uneven bottoms and sandbanks, coral reefs, and native biogenic and autogenic sediments along most of the Yucatan Peninsula’s coast, and the Bay of Campeche, which is a narrow shelf with its upper limit at 130 m depth and between 45 and 65 km wide (Fig 1) [42, 43]. Three seasons characterize the southern Gulf of Mexico, the dry season from March to May, the rainy season from June to October, and the winter storms season, locally called the “Nortes” season, from November to February [44]. The southern Gulf of Mexico has combined influences from river run-off to the west and winter storms (“Nortes”) [45, 46]. The study area has been classified according to the sediments’ carbonate content: the “terrigenous” region to the west with less than 25% and the “carbonate” region to the east and north, with more than 75% with a transitional carbonate-terrigenous region, between the first two, whose limits change throughout the year, with intermediate values [47–49]. The terrigenous sediments are predominantly silty with variable amounts of gravel, sand, and clay, while fragments of shells, corals, and algae mainly constitute the carbonate ones. The Southern Gulf of Mexico is a complex tropical domain with intense river discharges to the west from the Grijalva-Usumacinta River system; it modifies the temperature and salinity, inducing coastal frontogenetic processes, as well as being the primary source of terrigenous sediments [49, 50]. Discharges from the Grijalva-Usumacinta and San Pedro-San Pablo rivers, “Nortes”, summer rains, and intrusion of oceanic water from the Caribbean Sea are the physical driving processes on the continental shelf of the southern Gulf of Mexico [45, 50]. The Caribbean current drives the water circulation pattern in the spring and summer, with a south-southwest flow however, in the autumn and winter, the flow shifts to an east-northeast direction [51–53]. As the Caribbean Current flows northward through the Yucatan Channel, it is renamed the Yucatan Current. The Caribbean Tropical Surface Water (CTSW: T>28°C and S>36.4) and the Caribbean Subtropical Underwater (CSUW: 22.2<T<26°C and 36.4<S<36.7) influence the Campeche Bank since the Yucatan current flows into the Gulf, not only contributing significantly to the Loop Current, but another branch flows westward on the Yucatan continental shelf and Campeche Bank [54].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

2.2. Data source

The polychaete database, constructed from extensive studies carried out on the continental shelf (<200 m depth) of the Southern Gulf of Mexico (18° 30′–22° 20′ N; 89° 41′–97° 4′ W) was the primary source of information: the samples were collected during six oceanographic expeditions, on board the R/V “Justo Sierra” (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), from 1988 to 1996, as part of two institutional projects “IMCA” and “DINAMO” [55]. The collected specimens from 61 stations were identified to species level and deposited in the “Colección Nacional de Anélidos Poliquetos” from the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (CNAP-ICML, UNAM; DFE.IN.061.0598). The database includes information on all identified polychaete species, the geographical position of the sampling stations (latitude and longitude), and environmental variables such as sediment composition, depth, temperature, and salinity where they were collected. In addition, the taxonomic information was carefully checked. We verified the validity of names and synonymies and omitted species whose taxonomic identification was doubtful. We used the more recent systematic reviews and the World Polychaeta Database [56] accessed through the World Register of Marine Species (WORMS) database. Data is available from Seanoe digital repository (https://doi.org/10.17882/98735)

2.3. Statistical analyses

The information in the database was linked to the corresponding supra-generic levels for every species; their relationships to genus, family, and class were included. We then calculated two indices to compare polychaete diversity between sampling stations: 1) the Average taxonomic distinctness (Δ⁺), and 2) the variation in taxonomic distinctness (Λ⁺), as defined by Warwick & Clarke (2001) and Clarke & Warwick (1998).

The Average taxonomic distinctness (Δ⁺) was calculated using the function:(1)where ω_ij is the taxonomic path length between species i and j, and S is the number of species).

While the variation in taxonomic distinctness (Λ+) was calculated as follows:(2)

The average taxonomic distinctness (Δ⁺) measures the average taxonomic distance between different species in an assemblage; the higher the values of Δ⁺, the more significant the average taxonomic difference between species in the assemblage. Conversely, Λ⁺ is the variation in branch lengths amongst all pairs of species and measures the distribution of branch lengths within a sample; the greater the variation in branch lengths, the greater the value of Λ⁺.

To assess the differences in taxonomic distinctness (Δ⁺) from expected Δ⁺ values determined from the species list of polychaetes from the Gulf of Mexico, we used a randomization approach (as suggested by Clarke & Warwick [57, 58] and by Warwick & Clarke [59]). A simulated distribution was created, leading to a theoretical mean (a horizontal line displaying the taxonomic distinctness for all polychaete species shown in the graph of Δ⁺ or Λ⁺ for all the sampling stations against richness in each station) and to a confidence funnel for each, Δ⁺, and Λ⁺, from random subsamples of the polychaete species as suggested by Bhat and Magurran [60]. The simulation creates numerous random subsets of species, each of size m, from the entire species list, computes the corresponding Δ⁺ and Λ⁺ values, and establishes a range in which 95% of these values are included. Values of Δ⁺ and Λ⁺ located within the 95% probability funnel indicate that species diversity in the corresponding areas falls within the expected range, allowing for diversity comparisons not impacted by sample size.

To evaluate the effects of geographical distance on taxonomic composition (Distance Decay), we calculated the distance in km between all pairs of sampling stations. Next, the relationship between pairwise faunal dissimilarity and spatial distance was assessed by fitting an exponential function describing the increase in faunal dissimilarity with spatial distance [61, 62]; the R package “betapart” (functions “decay.model” and “boot.coefs”) was used; as it adjusts a General Linear Model (GLM) with dissimilarity as the response variable, spatial distance as the predictor, log link, and Gaussian error. Finally, the intercept and slope parameters were bootstrapped (1000 replicates) [63, 64].

The indices were computed using the polychaete species’ taxonomic hierarchy based on the Linnaean classification using the Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research PRIMER-E [65, 66]. The resulting matrices were examined to derive dissimilarity patterns through Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis on the taxonomic dissimilarity matrix. The optimal number of clusters was determined using the average silhouette width and the diagnostic group criteria suggested by Borcard et al. [67]. The cluster analysis was run on the θ⁺ taxonomic dissimilarity index, a presence/absence “beta diversity” coefficient [65, 68]. The significant differences in the assemblage structure between the two studied regions were tested with a one-way analysis of similarity (ANOSIM).

In addition, we calculated the environmental distance between each pair of stations with Euclidean distances based on all environmental variables measured. We used each sampling station’s sediment composition, depth, temperature, and salinity as environmental variables. Distance-based Moran’s eigenvector maps (dbMEMs), redundancy analysis (dbRDA), and variation partitioning were used to quantify the effect of spatial structure and biotic and abiotic variables on community dissimilarity (taxonomic distinctness). Before the dbRDA analysis, forward selection procedures were conducted to select the most significant spatial and environmental variables; only the dbMEMs corresponding to positive autocorrelation as spatial variables were used in the analyses [69]. Distance-based Moran eigenvector maps (dbMEMs) for the matrix of the sites’ geographical coordinates were used to describe the dataset’s spatial structure. The initial dbMEMs model the large-scale spatial correlation, while the last dbMEMs correspond to fine-scale spatial correlations, which may capture variation at the sampling site scale. All non-significant (p>0.05) variables were eliminated from further analyses. Afterward, we performed a variation partitioning analysis to assess the relative contribution of the significant spatial and environmental variables in explaining the community dissimilarity [70]. The variation was partitioned into four fractions: (a) influence of environmental variables alone (sediment composition, depth, temperature, and salinity); (b) influence of spatial distance; (c) influence of spatially correlated variables (distance-based Moran eigenvector maps; dbMEMs); and (d) unexplained variation. The variation partitioning analysis included only the variables selected by this procedure. The significance of each fraction was tested by Monte Carlo permutation tests. In addition, the relative contribution of each significant spatial and environmental variable in determining community dissimilarity was assessed by partial dbRDA to partial out the effect of each significant environmental/spatial variable. All analyses were run in R-4.0.3 with the “vegan” and other built-in packages [71, 72]

3. Results

3.1. Taxonomic distinctness and distance decay

One hundred and seventy-three species from 40 families were recorded from the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. The eastern continental shelf region (Campeche Bank) had the highest number of species (164). In contrast, 125 species were collected in the western region of the study area (Bay of Campeche).

The estimated Δ⁺ values resulting from the polychaete species list in each of the 61 sampling stations from the Southern Gulf of Mexico showed that most of the calculated Δ⁺ values were close to the expected simulated mode of the funnel (Fig 2). According to these Δ⁺ values, most of the stations were as diverse as expected since they were located inside the funnel. However, a few sampling stations (21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 72, 73, 75, and 124), mainly located on the terrigenous shelf in the southernmost Gulf of Mexico, displayed lower diversity than expected.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Simulated distribution of a) average taxonomic distinctness (Δ⁺) and b) variation in taxonomic distinctness Λ⁺ (theoretical mean, horizontal, dashed line) for random subsets of species from the complete species list of 173 polychaete species from the Southern Gulf of Mexico and the 95% confidence limits (the funnel).

The variation in taxonomic distinctness (Λ⁺) showed that most stations were placed inside the funnel, close to the expected values. However, a few stations fell above the simulated funnel’s upper limit, indicating higher-than-expected Λ⁺ values (Fig 2).

The exponential fit between the calculated value of θ⁺ taxonomic dissimilarity index as a function of the distance between all pairs of sampling stations showed an exponential relationship between compositional dissimilarity and distance. The distance among stations exhibited high variability, but most differed at less than 200 km. The dissimilarity between the polychaete taxonomic composition from all stations exponentially increased with increasing geographical distance (Fig 3).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The blue line represents the exponential function describing the increase in dissimilarity (a.intercept = 26.56; b.slope = 0.001).

3.2. Cluster analysis

Ward’s Clustering, using the θ⁺ taxonomic dissimilarity index relating to the polychaete composition of the 61 sampling stations, showed three main faunal assemblages with high taxonomic dissimilarity (>0.75) between them (Fig 4). The ANOSIM analysis confirmed that differences between the three polychaete assemblages were significant (R_{ANOSIM(C1-C2)} = 0.374, p = 0.001; R_{ANOSIM(C1-C3)} = 0.45, p = 0.001; R_{ANOSIM(C2-C3)} = 0.508, p = 0.001). The “Terrigenous assemblage” (Cluster 1 in red) was integrated by stations located in the southernmost region of the terrigenous shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. Interestingly, sites 114, 126, and 140, associated with Cluster 1, are geographically located on the Carbonate Shelf. The “Transitional” assemblage (Cluster 2 in green) grouped the stations from the central part of the study area in front of Laguna de Términos, considered a sedimentary transitional region. Finally, the “Carbonated” assemblage (Cluster 3 in blue) included stations located on the carbonate shelf on the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

3.3. Distance-Based Redundancy Analysis (dbRDA)

The distance-based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) showed that the first axis explained 43.56% of the total variation, and the second explained 24.08% (Fig 5). The first axis represented a large-scale (with a high correlation with dbMEM1) sedimentary and thermal gradient characterized by increasing sand content and temperature. The “Carbonate” assemblage (blue) in the eastern region was associated with warm water and sandy sediments. Stations belonging to the “Terrigenous” assemblage (red) in the western study area are associated with a medium-scale (dbMEM7) salinity gradient. The “Transitional” assemblage (green) in front of Laguna de Términos was related to salinity variability and increasing mud content in the sediment (Fig 5). All the environmental variables seem to be spatially structured. The unexplained variation may be linked to describers not used in the present study or simply due to random factors.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

3.4. Variation partitioning

The set of environmental (X1) and spatial variables (dbMEM1, X3) explains 5% of the variation in taxonomic dissimilarity across the study area. The environmental variables alone (X1 in the partitioning results) explain almost 10% of the variation, of which 5% is not spatially structured. This fraction represents species-environment relationships associated with local environmental conditions. Medium-scale spatial processes (dbMEM7, X4) explained 3.4% of the taxonomic variability. Finally, the linear spatial structure (x and y coordinates; X2) contributions were less significant (1.5%) (Fig 6).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

4. Discussion

In the Southern Gulf of Mexico, intensive extraction of oil and other hydrocarbons has been carried out since the 1970s; thus, the ability to assess this industry’s naturally polluting and associated anthropic impacts is important [45, 47]. Therefore, understanding the distributional patterns of the polychaetes species present can help us understand the ecological processes occurring in the benthic ecosystems and how these organisms could be used as indicators of different ecological conditions at a larger scale [12, 31].

In the Southern Gulf of Mexico, polychaete taxonomic distinctness changed across the longitudinal gradient, increasing from west to east, linked to a decline in species richness towards the terrigenous shelf in the west. The low taxonomic distinctness observed in terrigenous environments could be related to its more homogenous conditions, allowing the coexistence of taxonomically close species. In contrast, in the carbonated environment, the habitats are more varied, with highly heterogenous bottoms having different grain sizes, enabling the occurrence of taxonomically distinct species with different ecological preferences. Sediment composition is one of the main factors influencing the settling and distribution of benthic species. Sediment type and grain size variations determine organic matter content, dissolved gases, and nutrient concentrations [73–78]. The mixed sandy-mud bottoms dominate the Campeche Bank, favoring higher densities and species richness. This contrasts with the terrigenous sediments from the western Gulf, which negatively affect the benthic communities’ diversity. Our analyses allowed us to distinguish the occurrence of three distinct polychaete species assemblages with the sedimentary distribution in the southern Gulf: one located in the western region on the terrigenous shelf, another associated with the carbonate shelf to the east, and an intermediate zone, in front of Laguna de Términos.

In the Bay of Campeche, the circulation is dominated by the mesoscale cyclonic eddy, which develops in the eastern bay and moves westward, enhancing small-scale anticyclonic and cyclonic eddies [79]. In the study area, a coastal current moves, southward or south-westward, along the east coast mainly; approximately at 93°50W longitude, it converges with an eastward current along the coast to form a northward current along the shelf break [79]. The sediment distribution in the southern Gulf of Mexico (Bay of Campeche) is mainly driven by wind-induced currents and mesoscale cyclonic eddies [79]. Coarse sediments are located near the coast in the convergence region and the core of the anticyclonic eddy. In turn, fine sediments are situated off the shelf coast and in areas where the weakest currents are recorded [79]. Carbonates dominate sediments on the eastern side of the Bay of Campeche since no river discharges exist or any other systems that could contribute terrigenous sediments, whereas, in the southernmost part of the bay, where major rivers are located, the bottom sediments are mainly of terrigenous origin [79].

The composition and structure of benthic assemblages can be influenced by numerous physical and biological factors [80, 81] that define their zonation along environmental gradients [82]. In the study area, sediment variations were essential in structuring the polychaete assemblages. In addition, bathymetric fluctuations usually promote changes in other depth-dependent physical variables [77, 83–85]. Particularly in the Southern Gulf, the distance between the sampling stations and their geographical proximity directly affected the faunal differences since the dissimilarity in polychaete species composition was a function of the distance separating them. Graco-Roza et al [86] have proposed that taxonomic distance decay is a useful tool for many aspects of biogeographical research because it reflects dispersal-related factors in addition to species responses to spatially structured environmental variables. Distance decay curves at regional or local scales are primarily shaped by the organisms’ biological characteristics (niche requirements, dispersal ability) and environmental interactions [87]. Nearby locations should typically have highly different species compositions when a species has a narrow geographic range, and power-law or negative exponential functions can be used to approximate distance-decay curves. However, close-by biological communities may be very similar when species have large spatial ranges relative to the study extent. This leads to a low or zero rate of change in community composition at the closest distances, while the actual decrease in community similarity would start at intermediate distances [87]. Several studies have shown that sediment composition can be crucial in controlling benthic communities in marine environments [12, 80, 88]. Granados-Barba (2001) and Quiroz-Martínez et al. [12, 89] also showed that, in the southern Gulf, the polychaete species richness increased with depth.

In this sense, our results, based on distance-based Redundancy analysis, showed that sediment type (and the dbMEMs) were the primary factor, rather than depth, to determine the polychaete faunal structure in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. For example, the syllids, usually small and highly motile, constituted the most diverse polychaete family and were mainly found in carbonated bottoms, where coarse sands mixed with coral and shell rubble dominate. However, the syllids become uncommon in mud and sandy-mud terrigenous sediments. In the soft bottoms of the eastern Campeche Bay, syllids species richness generally followed a decreasing gradient from carbonate to terrigenous sediments (east to west) [90]. In addition, dbMEMs spatial processes explained a higher proportion of the variance in polychaete community structure than the environmental variables. Although polychaete larvae can disperse long distances, adult dispersal is often restricted and occurs over local/small spatial scales, mainly in intertidal areas and during local disturbance events [5]. Our results suggest that species composition was spatially correlated at shorter distances and that dispersal limitation and species response to spatially structured environmental gradients might be involved in determining polychaete distribution patterns.

The observed changes in sediment type affecting the establishment and development of benthic organisms can be associated with the water-sediment interphase dynamics that modify the organisms’ excavation processes and limit the number of species that can settle [91]. According to Santibañez-Aguascalientes et al. [92], the carbonate bottoms to the east comprise medium and fine calcarenites and oxides that provide suitable habitats for benthic communities [49, 90, 93]. In turn, the terrigenous bottoms are influenced by fluvial discharges dragging mud and sand sediments and harbor a high diversity of polychaete species adapted to turbid bottoms and terrigenous material [80, 94].

Characterizing distinct groups of invertebrates can be a complex process since, along biological gradients, a gradual transition between different assemblages frequently occurs [77, 83]. In the present study, the separation of species groups based on multivariate analysis and taxonomic distinctness allowed us to distinguish three large polychaete assemblages; this indicates a gradual change in the composition of the polychaete fauna along the longitudinal gradient. The use of taxonomic distinctness (which includes the taxonomic relationships between species in an assemblage) and Ward’s Clustering allowed for a more detailed characterization of the polychaete fauna from the Southern Gulf of Mexico. The present results update and refine, adding a third assemblage, the results previously described by Quiroz-Martínez et al. [12]. Furthermore, polychaete assemblages distributed in the transitional region were different from the other sedimentary environments; this could be related to the high environmental variability of the transitional area, characterized by the transition from terrigenous to carbonated sediments, modulated by the Grijalva-Usumacinta plume and the oil extraction activities that affect the benthic fauna by reducing species diversity and richness [79, 95, 96]. Ecological research in the Southern Gulf of Mexico shows that “Nortes” and summer rains provoking high river run-off are the most important physical processes influencing large-scale benthic community structure across the carbonate and terrigenous shelves [45, 47, 90, 97–99].

Finally, connectivity is another process that could explain the results presented in this study. Connectivity is an essential process in any marine ecosystem because it influences, among other things, the colonization of habitats, the maintenance of environmental services, and the persistence and survival of marine benthic populations [100]. According to Treml et al. [101], there are 4-stage processes that explain the connectivity between populations; it includes the dispersion, transport, and movement of the organisms, which is strongly determined by the advection potential, which in turn is related to the magnitude of the currents. This could explain the three distinct faunal assemblages observed in this study, considering that the Southern Gulf of Mexico is highly dynamic, with the confluence of mesoscale physical processes and intense coastal currents, which could have influenced the polychaete patterns of distribution presented in this study. For example, the connectivity between coral reef systems from the Gulf of Mexico has already been demonstrated using biological data [102–106]. In addition, Salas-Monreal et al. [52] elucidated the different pathways that connect the Western Gulf of Mexico reef systems using monthly geostrophic velocities, sea surface temperature, and chlorophyll-a values. They found high connectivity between the reef systems that bring substrates, suspended matter, and organisms from the Campeche Reef System (CRS) in the Campeche Bank to the Veracruz Reef System (VRS) in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico. According to them, the geostrophic current velocities suggested various paths connecting the various coral reef habitats, with two open ocean pathways in addition to the traditional coastal alongshore path, which is constrained to the continental shelf, with the first linking the Campeche Reef System with the Veracruz System. The water circulation pattern is driven by the Caribbean current during the spring and summer, with south to southwestern direction; however, during the autumn-winter seasons, the flow reverts to the east to a north-eastern direction [51, 52]. Various studies on connectivity in the southern Gulf of Mexico indicate a low east-west flow from the Campeche Bank to the Veracruz reefs; connectivity is stronger going west to east [107]. However, ocean currents in this region are complex, with eddies and seasonal shifts in direction within the inner shelf, showing fluxes from east to west during summer and west to east during winter [52]. The pattern of taxonomic distribution observed in this study suggests connectivity between the reef systems given the similarity between the sampling stations grouped under Cluster one (Red), particularly sampling stations (114, 126, and 140) which are located on the Carbonate shelf near the reef systems studied by Salas-Monreal et al. [52].

In this study, the environment was characterized by spatial processes (dbMEMs), temperature, depth, salinity, and sediment variability; however, other variables, such as concentration of organic matter or nutrients, influence the distribution of polychaetes; this could explain the low values of variance explained on the variation partitioning analysis. Therefore, further studies should explore which variables may produce higher percentages of variance explained by environmental structuring.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to all the participants (students, researchers, and crew) of the research expeditions “IMCA” and “DINAMO”, carried out on board the R/V “Justo Sierra” (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) during which the biological material used in this study was collected. We also thank all the students of the Laboratorio de Ecología y Biodiversidad de Invertebrados Marinos of the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (ICML), UNAM, for their valuable assistance in the processing of samples. We are grateful to Jorge Castro for improving the figures. We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions greatly improved our manuscript.

Citation: Quiroz-Martínez B, Hernández-Alcántara P, Salas de León DA, Solís-Weiss V, Monreal Gómez MA, Álvarez Sánchez LF (2024) Taxonomic distinctness and diversity patterns of a polychaete (Annelida) community on the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303250. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303250

About the Authors:

Benjamín Quiroz-Martínez

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Unidad Académica de Ecología y Biodiversidad Acuática, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9791-7031

Pablo Hernández-Alcántara

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Unidad Académica de Ecología y Biodiversidad Acuática, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

David Alberto Salas de León

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Unidad Académica de Ecología y Biodiversidad Acuática, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

Vivianne Solís-Weiss

Roles: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Puerto Morelos, Quintana Roo, México

María Adela Monreal Gómez

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Unidad Académica de Ecología y Biodiversidad Acuática, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

León Felipe Álvarez Sánchez

Roles: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Unidad de Informática Marina, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-5242

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

References

1. Economo EP, Keitt TH. Species diversity in neutral communities: a network approach. Ecol Lett. 2008;11: 52–62.

2. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Iken K, Konar B, Cruz-Motta J, Knowlton A, Pohle G, et al. Spatial Relationships between Polychaete Assemblages and Environmental Variables over Broad Geographical Scales. PLoS One. 2010;5: 1–10. pmid:20886075

3. Chase JM, Leibold MA. Ecological Niches. University of Chicago Press; 2003.

4. Dauvin JC, Bellan-Santini D. Biodiversity and the biogeographic relationships of the Amphipoda: Gammaridea on the French coastline. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2004;84: 621–628.

5. Checon HH, Amaral ACZ. Taxonomic sufficiency and the influence of rare species on variation partitioning analysis of a polychaete community. Marine Ecology. 2017;38: e12384. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12384

6. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR. Analyzing Beta Diversity: Partitioning the Spatial Variation of Community Composition Data. Ecol Monogr. 2005;75: 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0549

7. Thrush SF, Hewitt JE, Cummings VJ, Norkko A, Chiantore M. β-Diversity and Species Accumulation in Antarctic Coastal Benthos: Influence of Habitat, Distance and Productivity on Ecological Connectivity. PLoS One. 2010;5: e11899. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011899

8. Giangrande A, Gravina MF. Brackish-water polychaetes, good descriptors of environmental changes in space and time. Transit Water Bull. 2015; 42–55.

9. Semprucci F, Facca C, Ferrigno F, Balsamo M, Sfriso A, Sandulli R. Biotic and abiotic factors affecting seasonal and spatial distribution of meiofauna and macrophytobenthos in transitional coastal waters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2019;219: 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.02.008

10. Alves AT, Petsch DK, Barros F. Drivers of benthic metacommunity structure along tropical estuaries. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 1739. pmid:32015384

11. Mikac B, Licciano M, Jaklin A, Iveša L, Giangrande A, Musco L. Diversity and Distribution Patterns of Hard Bottom Polychaete Assemblages in the North Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean). Diversity. 2020.

12. Quiroz-Martínez B, Hernández-Alcántara P, Salas-de-León DA, Solís-Weiss V. Polychaete (Annelida) Diversity Patterns in Southern Gulf of Mexico: The Influence of Spatial Structure and Environmental Variables. Diversity. 2021.

13. Dray S, Pélissier R, Couteron P, Fortin M-J, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR, et al. Community ecology in the age of multivariate multiscale spatial analysis. Ecol Monogr. 2012;82: 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1183.1

14. Legendre P. Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? Ecology. 1993;74: 1659–1673. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939924

15. Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR. Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol Modell. 2006;196: 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.015

16. Keitt TH, Bjørnstad ON, Dixon PM, Citron-Pousty S. Accounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism-environment interactions. Ecography. 2002;25: 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250509.x

17. Dormann C F., McPherson J M., Araújo M B., Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography. 2007;30: 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x

18. Legendre P. Numerical ecology. second Eng. ES BV, editor. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV.; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10595–0

19. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P. Partialling out the Spatial Component of Ecological Variation. Ecology. 1992;73: 1045–1055.

20. Gilbert B, Bennett JR. Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up? Journal of Applied Ecology. 2010;47: 1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01861.x

21. Heino J, Grönroos M, Soininen J, Virtanen R, Muotka T. Context dependency and metacommunity structuring in boreal headwater streams. Oikos. 2012;121: 537–544. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41429322

22. Schnurr S, Osborn KJ, Malyutina M, Jennings R, Brix S, Driskell A, et al. Hidden diversity in two species complexes of munnopsid isopods (Crustacea) at the transition between the northernmost North Atlantic and the Nordic Seas. Marine Biodiversity. 2018;48: 813–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-018-0877-6

23. Levin LA, Etter RJ, Rex MA, Gooday AJ, Smith CR, Pineda J, et al. Environmental Influences on Regional Deep-Sea Species Diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2001;32: 51–93.

24. Knox G. The role of polychaetes in benthic soft-bottom communities. In: Reish DJ, Fauchald K, editors. Essays on Polychaetous Annelids in memory of Dr Olga Hartman. Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California; 1977. pp. 547–604.

25. Hutchings PA. Biodiversity and functioning of polychaete in benthic sediments. Biodivers Conserv. 1998;7: 1133–1145.

26. Arvanitidis C, Bellan G, Drakopoulos P, Valavanis V, Dounas C, Koukouras A, et al. Seascape biodiversity patterns along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: lessons from the biogeography of benthic polychaetes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002;244: 139–152.

27. Capa M, Hutchings P. Annelid Diversity: Historical Overview and Future Perspectives. Diversity (Basel). 2021;13: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13030129

28. Pamungkas J, Glasby CJ, Read GB, Wilson SP, Costello MJ. Progress and perspectives in the discovery of polychaete worms (Annelida) of the world. Helgol Mar Res. 2019;73: 4.

29. Dogan A, Çinar ME, Onen M, Ergen Z, Katagan T. Seasonal dynamic of soft-bottom zoobenthic communities in polluted and unpolluted areas of Izmir Bay (Aegean Sea). Senckenbergiana Maritima. 2005;35: 133–145.

30. Gopal A, Abdul Jaleel KU, Parameswaran U V, Sanjeevan VN, Saramma A V, Vijayan A, et al. Distinctive Community Patterns With Exceptional Diversity of Polychaetes Around a Tectonically Active Archipelago in the Tropical Indian Ocean. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00710

31. Gambi MC, Giangrande A. Distribution of soft-bottom polychaetes in two coastal areas of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy): Structural Analysis. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 1986;23: 847–862.

32. Quiroz-Martínez B, Schmitt FG, Dauvin JC. Statistical analysis of polychaete population density: dynamics of dominant species and scaling properties in relative abundance fluctuations. Nonlinear Process Geophys. 2012;9: 45–52. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-19-45-2012

33. Mackie ASY, Parmiter C, Tong LKY. Distribution and diversity of Polychaeta in the southern Irish Sea. Bull Mar Sci. 1997;60: 467–481.

34. Glasby CJ, Read G. Polychaete worms: a diverse yet poorly known group. Water and Atmosphere. 1998;6: 7–9.

35. Olsgard F, Somerfield PJ. Surrogates in marine benthic investigations—which taxonimic unit to target? Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery. 2000;7: 25–42.

36. Belan TA. Marine environmental quality assessment using polychaete taxocene characteristics in Vancouver harbour. Mar Environ Res. 2003;57: 89–101.

37. Ergen Z, Çinar ME, Dagli E, Kurt G. Seasonal dynamics of Soft-Bottom Polychaetes in Izmir Bay (Aegean Sea, Eastern Mediterranean). Sci Mar. 2006;70S3: 197–207.

38. Mutlu E, Çinar ME, Ergev MB. Distribution of soft-bottom polychaetes of the Levantine coast of Turkey, eastern Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Marine Systems. 2010;79: 23–35. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VF5-4WKK1JF-1/2/fadfa45e5f53b60018ed2ddf6b243895

39. Giangrande A, Licciano M, Musco L. Polychaetes as environmental indicators revisited. Mar Pollut Bull. 2005;50: 1153–1162. pmid:16197965

40. Fauchald K, Granados-Barba A, Solís-Weiss V. Polychaeta (Annelida) of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Origin, Waters, and Biota. 2009;1: 751–788.

41. Dorr BS, Hanson-Dorr KC, Assadi-Porter FM, Selen ES, Healy KA, Horak KE. Effects of Repeated Sublethal External Exposure to Deep Water Horizon Oil on the Avian Metabolome. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 371. pmid:30674908

42. Antoine J. Structure of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Rezak R, Henry VJ, editors. Contributions on the geological and geophysical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico. Houston: Texas A&M University; 1972. pp. 1–34.

43. Martin RG, Bouma AH. Physiography of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Bouma AH, Moore GT, Coleman JM, editors. Framework, Fades, and Oil-Trapping Characteristics of the Upper Continental Margin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists; 1978. pp. 3–19.

44. López-Cabello Z, Coria-Monter E, Monreal-Gómez MA, Salas-de-León DA, Durán-Campos E, Gracia A. The holoplanktonic mollusks (Pteropoda and Pterotrachoidea) in surface waters of the Campeche Canyon (southern Gulf of Mexico) during a winter storm (“Nortes”) season. Check List. 2022;18: 1321–1331.

45. Hernández-Arana HA, Warwick RM, Attrill MJ, Rowden AA, Gold-Bouchot G. Assessing the impact of oil-related activities on benthic macroinfauna assemblages of the Campeche shelf, southern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;289: 89–107. Available: https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v289/p89-107/

46. Fuentes-Yaco C, de León DAS, Monreal-Gómez MA, Vera-Herrera F.Environmental forcing in a tropical estuarine ecosystem: the Palizada River in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Freshw Res. 2001;52: 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF00077

47. Hernández-Arana HA, Rowden AA, Attrill MJ, Warwick RM, Gold-Bouchot G. Large-scale environmental influences on the benthic macroinfauna of the southern Gulf of Mexico. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2003;58: 825–841.

48. Ortiz-Zamora G, Huerta-Díaz MA, Salas-de-León DA, Monreal-Gómez MA. Degrees of pyritization in the Gulf of Mexico in sediments influenced by the Coatzacoalcos and the Grijalva-Usumacinta rivers. Cienc Mar. 2002;28: 369–379.

49. Carranza-Edwards A, Rosales-Hoz L, Monreal-Gómez MA. Suspended sediments in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Geol. 1993;112: 257–259.

50. Monreal-Gómez MA, Salas-de-León DA, Padilla-Pilotze AR, Alatorre-Mendieta MA. Hydrography and estimation of density currents in the southern part of the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. Cienc Mar. 1992;18: 115–133.

51. Boicourt WC, Wiseman WJ Jr., Valle-Levinson A, Atkinson LP Continental shelf of the southeastern United States and the Gulf of Mexico: In the shadow of the western boundary current. In: Robinson AR, Brink KH, editors. The sea The Global Coastal Ocean Regional studies and syntheses. Hoboken, NJ.: John Wiley; 1998. pp. 135–182.

52. Salas-Monreal D, Marin-Hernandez M, Salas-Perez J de J, Salas-de-Leon DA, Monreal-Gomez MA, Perez-España H. Coral reef connectivity within the Western Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Marine Systems. 2018;179: 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2017.12.001

53. Hernandez Arana HA, Attrill MJ, Hartley R, Gold Bouchot G. Transitional carbonate-terrigenous shelf sub-environments inferred from textural characteristics of surficial sediments in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. Cont Shelf Res. 2005;25: 1836–1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2005.06.007

54. Aldeco-Ramírez J, Monreal-Gómez MA, Signoret M, Salas-de-León DA, Hernández-Becerril DU. Occurrence of a subsurface anticyclonic eddy, fronts, and Trichodesmium spp. Cienc Mar. 2009;35: 333–344. https://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v35i4.1551

55. Solís-Weiss V, Hernández-Alcántara P, Granados-Barba A, Ochoa-Rivera A, Palomar-Morales I. Atlas de Anélidos Poliquetos de la Plataforma Continental del sur del Golfo de México. CONABIO; 1995.

56. Read G, Fauchald K. World Polychaeta Database. 2021.

57. Clarke KR, Warwick RM. A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;216: 265–278.

58. Clarke KR, Warwick RM. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1998;35: 523–531.

59. Warwick RM, Clarke A. Practical measures of marine biodiversity based on relatedness of species. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review. 2001;39: 207–231.

60. Bhat A, Magurran AE. Taxonomic distinctness in a linear system: a test using a tropical freshwater fish assemblage. Ecography. 2006;29: 104–110.

61. Nekola JC, White PS. The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J Biogeogr. 1999;26: 867–878.

62. Nekola JC, McGill BJ. Scale dependency in the functional form of the distance decay relationship. Ecography. 2014;37: 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00407.x

63. Baselga A, Orme CDL, Villéger S. betapart: Partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components. 2013. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=betapart

64. Gómez-Rodríguez C, Baselga A. Variation among European beetle taxa in patterns of distance decay of similarity suggests a major role of dispersal processes. Ecography. 2018;41: 1825–1834. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03693

65. Clarke K, Gorley RN, Somerfield PJ, Warwick RM. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth: PRIMER-E; 2014.

66. Clarke KR, Gorley RN. Primer v7: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, editor. 2015; 300.

67. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P. Numerical Ecology with R. 2nd Edition. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71404-2

68. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG. On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2006;330: 55–80.

69. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology. 2008;89: 2623–2632. pmid:18831183

70. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D. Variation Partitioning of Species Data Matrices: Estimation and Comparison of Fractions. Ecology. 2006;87: 2614–2625. pmid:17089669

71. Oksanen J, Guillaume Blanchet G, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2020. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan

72. R Development Core Team R. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Team RDC, editor. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7

73. Granados Barba A. Los poliquetos benticos de la región petrolera del suroeste del Golfo de México: Estructura comunitaria e impacto ambiental. 2001.

74. Gray JS. Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. 1974;12: 223–262.

75. Magni P, Tagliapietra D, Lardicci C, Balthis L, Castelli A, Como S, et al. Animal-sediment relationships: Evaluating the ‘Pearson–Rosenberg paradigm’ in Mediterranean coastal lagoons. Mar Pollut Bull. 2009;58: 478–486. pmid:19162282

76. Magni P, Micheletti S, Casu D, Floris A, De Falco G, Castelli A. Macrofaunal community structure and distribution in a muddy coastal lagoon. Chemistry and Ecology. 2004;20: 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540310001629161

77. Gray JS. The ecology of Marine Sediments. An introduction to the structure and function of benthic communities. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press; 1981.

78. Magni P, De Falco G, Como S, Casu D, Floris A, Petrov AN, et al. Distribution and ecological relevance of fine sediments in organic-enriched lagoons: The case study of the Cabras lagoon (Sardinia, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull. 2008;56: 549–564. pmid:18234238

79. Salas-de-León DA, Monreal-Gómez MA, Díaz-Flores MA, Salas-Monreal D, Velasco-Mendoza H, Riverón-Enzástiga ML, et al. Role of Near-Bottom Currents in the Distribution of Sediments within the Southern Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico. J Coast Res. 2008;24: 1487–1494. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40065132

80. Hernández-Alcántara P, Cortés-Solano JD, Solís-Weiss V. Polychaete diversity in lagoons and estuaries of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. In: Özhan E, editor. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environmen. Rhodes, Greece; 2011.

81. Warwick RM. Species Size Distributions in Marine Benthic Communities. Oecologia. 1984;61: 32–41. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4217200 pmid:28311382

82. Bergen M, Weisberg S, Smith R, Cadien D, Dalkey A, Montagne D, et al. Relationship between depth, sediment, latitude and the structure of benthic infaunal assemblages on the mainland shelf of southern California. Mar Biol. 2001;138: 637–647.

83. Van Hoey G, Degraer S, Vincx M. Macrobenthic community structure of soft-bottom sediments at the Belgian Continental Shelf. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2004;59: 599–613.

84. Probert PK, Read GB, Grove SL, Rowden AA. Macrobenthic polychaete assemblages of the continental shelf and upper slope off the west coast of the South Island, New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res. 2001;35: 971–984.

85. Carvalho S, Cunha MR, Pereira F, Pousão-Ferreira P, Santos MN, Gaspar MB. The effect of depth and sediment type on the spatial distribution of shallow soft-bottom amphipods along the southern Portuguese coast. Helgol Mar Res. 2012;66: 489–501.

86. Graco-Roza C, Aarnio S, Abrego N, Acosta ATR, Alahuhta J, Altman J, et al. Distance decay 2.0 –A global synthesis of taxonomic and functional turnover in ecological communities. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2022;31: 1399–1421. pmid:35915625

87. Martín-Devasa R, Martínez-Santalla S, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Crujeiras RM, Baselga A. Species range size shapes distance-decay in community similarity. Divers Distrib. 2022;28: 1348–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13550

88. Snelgrove PVR, Butman CA. Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An annual review. 1994;32: 111–77.

89. Quiroz-Martínez B, Hernández-Alcántara P, Salas-de León DA, Solís-Weiss V, Monreal-Gómez MA. Depth-range distribution and diversity patterns of a polychaete (Annelida) community in the continental shelf of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2022;265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107739

90. Granados Barba A, Solís-Weiss V, Tovar-Hernández MA, Ochoa-Rivera V. Distribution and diversity of the Syllidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) from Mexican Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Hydrobiologia. 2003;496: 337–345.

91. Díaz-Castañeda V, Harris LH. Biodiversity and structure of the polychaete fauna from soft bottoms of Bahia Todos Santos, Baja California, Mexico. Deep-Sea Research II. 2004;51: 827–847.

92. Santibañez-Aguascalientes NA, Borja Á, Montero-Muñoz JL, Herrera-Dorantes MT, Ardisson P-L. Setting reference conditions to assess the ecological status of the sublittoral and bathyal benthic communities of the southern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol Indic. 2020;111: 105964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105964

93. Cuevas Madrid H, Rosales Hoz L, Márquez García AZ, Carranza Edwards A. Environmental assessment of a mangrove protected area in the southeast Gulf of Mexico through sediment core analysis. Environ Earth Sci. 2018;77: 73.

94. Santibañez-Aguascalientes NA, Borja Á, Kuk-Dzul JG, Montero-Muñoz JL, Ardisson P-L. Assessing benthic ecological status under impoverished faunal situations: A case study from the southern Gulf of Mexico. Ecol Indic. 2018;91: 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.048

95. Santibañez-Aguascalientes NA, Borja Á, Ardisson P-L. Sustainability situations for the southern Gulf of Mexico seafloor, based on environmental, benthic, and socioeconomic indicators. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;787: 147726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147726

96. Santibañez-Aguascalientes NA, Borja Á, Ardisson P-L. Assessing the large-scale and long-term changes in the southern Gulf of Mexico benthic ecological status under natural and human-induced disturbances. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2023;283: 108282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2023.108282

97. Yáñez-Arancibia A, Sánchez-Gil P. Environment behavior of Campeche Sound ecological system, off Terminos Lagoon, Mexico; preliminary results. Anales del Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología UNAM. 1983;10: 117–136.

98. Soto LA, Escobar-Briones E. Coupling mechanisms related to benthic production in the SW Gulf of Mexico. Biology and ecology of shallow coastal waters Proc 28th European marine biology symposium, Iraklio, Crete, 1993. 1995; 233–242. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0029548631&partnerID=40&md5=7c20451ad1c2b7b3a14d46f0adc1899a

99. Cornell H V, Karlson RH. Coral species richness: ecological versus biogeographical influences. Coral Reefs. 2000;19: 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050224

100. Gerber LR, Mancha-Cisneros MDM, O’Connor MI, Selig ER. Climate change impacts on connectivity in the ocean: Implications for conservation. Ecosphere. 2014;5: art33.

101. Treml EA, Ford JR, Black KP, Swearer SE. Identifying the key biophysical drivers, connectivity outcomes, and metapopulation consequences of larval dispersal in the sea. Mov Ecol. 2015;3: 17. pmid:26180636

102. Johnston MW, Akins JL. The non-native royal damsel (Neopomacentrus cyanomos) in the southern Gulf of Mexico: An invasion risk? Mar Biol. 2016;163: 12.

103. Ortiz-Lozano L, Pérez-España H, Granados-Barba A, González-Gándara C, Gutiérrez-Velázquez A, Martos J. The Reef Corridor of the Southwest Gulf of Mexico: Challenges for its management and conservation. Ocean Coast Manag. 2013;86: 22–32.

104. Mumby PJ, Hastings A. The impact of ecosystem connectivity on coral reef resilience. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2007;45: 854–862.

105. Carricart-Ganivet JP. Sea surface temperature and the growth of the West Atlantic reef-building coral Montastraea annularis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2004;302: 249–260.

106. Murphy SJ, Hurlburt HE, O’Brien JJ. The connectivity of eddy variability in the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean. J Geophys Res Oceans. 1999;104: 1431–1453.

107. Sanvicente-Añorve L, Zavala-Hidalgo J, Allende-Arandía ME, Hermoso-Salazar M. Connectivity patterns among coral reef systems in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;498: 27–41. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10631