1. The effects of substrate types on species diversity Michelle Johnson, Amanda Jeanson, Marshall Elsemore, & Aneri Garg

2. Outline ●Background ●Hypothesis ●Methods ●Results ●Discussion ●Conclusion

3. Study Site

4. Physical and Biological Stress ●Wave exposure ●* Tidal height * ●Competition ●Predation

5. Substrate Cover Substrate TypeProportion on large islands and mainland of Quoddy Region (%) Bedrock35.2 Coarse Sediment55.1 Mud9.2 Salt Marsh0.5

6. Substrate Impact - Sand ●Sand/Mud: o Heavily modified by tides, wind, storm surges o Less vegetation o Low-medium diversity o Burrowing organisms

7. Substrate Impact - Cobbles ●Cobbles: o Colliding rock and debris from wave action o Diversity dependent on local features & positioning o Low species diversity

8. Substrate Impact - Rock ●Bedrock: o Development of tide pools and crevices o Promote high diversity o Mediate thermal stress

9. Hypothesis ●Difference in diversity between all 3 substrate types ●Highest diversity on rocky substrate H 0 :There is no difference in diversity between all 3 substrate types

10. Materials 100m measuring tape 1m square quadrat Ziploc bags for species collection Camera

11. Methods 2 transects were set up at separate locations based on differences in: Vegetation cover Wave action Substrate size Ten quadrats were placed along each transect.

12. Methods Cont’d Each organism found was collected, while taking note if the specimen found was present on the surface of the substrate or underneath the flora cover. G. oceanicus and B. balanus were unable to be collected due to difficulties in handling their large numbers.

13. Different Substrate Types ●Large Rocks ●Cobbles ●Sand

14. Analysis ●Species richness ●Species diversity o Shannon-Wiener Index o Simpson`s Index ●Cochran`s Q Test o Nominal data *Scuds and barnacles removed from the analysis

15. Results

16. Continued Results Table 1: Species diversity for different substrate BouldersCobblesSand Species Richness821 Shannon-Weiner Index0.6570.2760 Simpson`s Index3.51.81

17. Statistics ●Cochran`s Q Test o X 2 = 0.503 o X 2 crit(.05, 8) = 14.067, and p <.05 o Reject the null hypothesis  A difference in diversity between substrate

18. Accepting our Hypotheses Results supported our hypotheses: Diversity on the three substrates differed and that with the highest species diversity was indeed found on the large rock substrate (aka boulders)

19. Implications with past Literature High Diversity within Large Rocks Bertness (2006) Muscle bed protection from physical factors Diversity: crabs, limpets Seed (1996) Species evenness allows few abundant species Leads to increased diversity Peterson (1991) Availability of rock space controls diversity levels and not prey availability Our experiment suggests: Prey availability competition leads to lower levels of diversity than competition for space

20. Implications with past Literature Low Diversity within Sand/Rock Donovan and Tyrell (2005) Ease in modification of this substrate from high winds, waves and storms lower diversity in this substrate Species that live in this substrate tend to be burrowing species. Burrow for protection

21. Limitations One sampling site: Physical factors skew data Equipment: Inability to count all species in Quadrats Tide Movement: Inconsistent tide levels in the two sampling sites.

22. Conclusion This experiment looked to: show a difference in diversity based on the type of substrate sampled. Our results showed: A difference in diversity between the three substrates investigated in this experiment. Increased diversity on large rock substrates (boulders). **The results supported work found in past literature and supported diversity theories mentioned. This Experiment Demonstrated: Substrate type seems to have an effect on species diversity (although many other factors also play a role).