Translator Disclaimer
28 June 2011 The functional significance of bioturbation and biodeposition on biogeochemical processes at the water–sediment interface in freshwater and marine ecosystems
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Benthic invertebrates have important ecosystem engineering functions (bioturbation and biodeposition) in freshwater and marine benthic systems. Bioturbation and biodeposition affect the metabolism of the water–sediment interface through modification of water–sediment fluxes or organic-matter enrichment of sediments by biodeposits. The functional significance of these processes depends strongly on the type of invertebrate activities (the functional traits of the invertebrates) and on the modulation of this activity by environmental conditions. The aim of my article is to propose a common framework for the role of bioturbation/biodeposition in benthic habitats of both marine and freshwater environments. In these ecosystems, hydrological exchanges between the water and sediments (interstitial flow rates) control the microbial activity inside sediments. The ability of ecosystem engineers to influence benthic microbial processes differs strongly between diffusion-dominated (low interstitial flow rates) and advection-dominated (high interstitial flow rates) habitats. Bioturbation/biodeposition may play a role in diffusion-dominated habitats where invertebrates can significantly modify water and particle fluxes at the water–sediment interface, whereas a slight influence of ecosystem engineers is expected in advection-dominated habitats where fluxes are predominantly controlled by hydrological processes. A future challenge will be to test this general framework in marine and freshwater habitats by quantifying the interactions between the functional traits of species and the water–sediment exchanges.

General Context

Water–sediment interfaces are dynamic zones that regulate the fluxes of organic matter, nutrients, and contaminants between the water column and sediments in marine and freshwater ecosystems (Palmer et al. 1997, Covich et al. 2004). At these interfaces, ecological processes are mediated through complex interactions between the abiotic characteristics of sedimentary habitats and the activities of resident organisms (Giller et al. 2004). Microorganisms are the key actors of biogeochemical processes in sedimentary habitats (Sundbäck et al. 2004, Battin et al. 2008), but the feeding and bioturbation actions of meio- and macroorganisms can have a marked effect on microbial activities in sediments (Kristensen et al. 1985, Aller 1994, Rosenberg 2001). Many examples have highlighted the key ecological role played by ecosystem engineers (Jones et al. 1994) in marine, lake, estuarine, and stream habitats (Rhoads 1974, Krantzberg 1985, Statzner et al. 2000, Meysman et al. 2006). As ecosystem engineers, organisms that redistribute particles and modify water fluxes at the water–sediment interface affect the availability of electron acceptors (e.g., dissolved O2), organic matter, and nutrients to sedimentary microorganisms (Kristensen 2000, Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg 2006). Bioturbation and biodeposition are 2 major engineering processes occurring at the water–sediment interface of freshwater and marine ecosystems.

Bioturbation and Biodeposition Processes

Bioturbation is related to several activities of benthic organisms, including sediment reworking caused by burrowing activities, construction of tubes and burrows, and irrigation of these biogenic structures (Gerino et al. 2003). Biodeposition is the settling of feces and pseudofeces produced by suspension-feeding animals (Haven and Morales-Alamo 1966) and by organisms that convert coarse particulate organic matter into fecal pellets (Joyce and Wotton 2008). My paper is focused on the implications of these 2 processes for understanding particle transport (sediment reworking, feces and pseudofeces deposition) and water exchanges (permeability change, bioirrigation) at the water–sediment interface. These 2 physical changes are major modulators of microbial activities and biogeochemical processes in marine and freshwater benthic habitats.

The potential for bioturbation/biodeposition to be critical processes in terrestrial and aquatic environments has been recognized since Darwin and his seminal work on earthworms and soil formation (Darwin 1881 in Meysman et al. 2006). In aquatic ecosystems, scientific research on these processes really began in the middle of the 20th century and was focused on lake (reviewed by Krantzberg 1985) and marine sediments (reviewed by Rhoads 1974). The role of bioturbation/biodeposition in stream and river sediments was studied later (e.g., Chatarpaul et al. 1979) and has received less attention than in lake and marine benthic systems (Boulton et al. 2010). Consequently, the coupling between bioturbation/biodeposition processes and biogeochemical processes has been quantified unequally among aquatic ecosystems. My goal was to use the literature to: 1) review the main effects of bioturbation/biodeposition on benthic microbial activities, 2) describe how these effects are linked to the functional traits (mode of bioturbation/biodeposition) of invertebrates, and 3) propose a conceptual framework linking the functional significance of bioturbation/biodeposition on biogeochemical processes with the physical structure of the benthic habitats.

General Influences of Bioturbation and Biodeposition Processes on Biogeochemical Processes at the Water–Sediment Interface

In marine, lake, and wetland habitats, bioturbation by invertebrates that build and irrigate biogenic structures (tubes, burrows) increases the area available for solute exchange and oxic/anoxic boundaries (Aller 1983, Forster and Graf 1995, Vopel et al. 2003, Lewandowski et al. 2007, D'Andrea and DeWitt 2009). Consequently, bioturbation may increase the aerobic respiration of sedimentary microorganisms by up to 250% (Kristensen 2000, Mermillod-Blondin et al. 2004, Karlson et al. 2005, Quintana et al. 2007) and can significantly influence the fluxes of nutrients (NO3, NH4+, PO43−, SO42−, Fe) and dissolved organic matter at the water–sediment interface (Caliman et al. 2007, Lewandowski et al. 2007). Bioturbation processes also significantly influence the fate of pollutants (metals, organic pollutants) and emission of greenhouse gases (N2O, CH4) at the water–sediment interface (Ciutat et al. 2005, Granberg et al. 2005, 2008, Lagauzère et al. 2009, Stief and Schramm 2010). The influence of biodeposition on sedimentary biogeochemical processes has been reported from environmental studies designed to determine the effect of mussel and oyster cultures on marine benthic habitats (e.g., Chamberlain et al. 2001, Callier et al. 2006). Most of these studies showed that organically rich feces and pseudofeces accumulate at the water–sediment interface and create reducing conditions in the sediment (Nizzoli et al. 2005, Lindqvist et al. 2009). This organic-matter enrichment stimulates O2 uptake by microorganisms at the sediment surface (Heilskov and Holmer 2001) and often increases the flux of nutrients at the water–sediment interface (Christensen et al. 2003, Gibbs et al. 2005, Giles and Pilditch 2006). However, the effect of biodeposition on benthic fauna is dependent on suspension-feeder densities. At high densities, high rates of biodeposition affect macrofaunal diversity by reducing O2 availability at the water–sediment interface (Commito and Boncavage 1989). At low densities, the organic-matter enrichment by biodeposits has a positive influence on macrofaunal diversity by providing an important resource for benthic species without producing unfavorable anaerobic conditions (Norkko et al. 2001). The benthic–pelagic coupling induced by biodeposition also influences pollutant dynamics because contaminated particles in free water are accumulated in fecal pellets and pseudofeces and deposited at the sediment surface (Cho et al. 2004, Schaller et al. 2010).

These patterns of the influences of bioturbation and biodeposition on biogeochemical functioning at the water–sediment interface mainly arose from studies performed in benthic habitats with fine sediment texture and low physical exchange of water between free and interstitial water like standing-water areas of lakes, ponds, and marine offshore areas where hydrological exchanges between free water and interstitial water are dominated by water diffusion. In contrast, the influence of bioturbation and biodeposition on biogeochemistry has been poorly studied in advection-dominated benthic habitats like areas of streams, rivers, and shallow estuaries, which are characterized by important hydrological exchanges between free water and interstitial water (Boulton et al. 2002). Despite the scarcity of studies performed in advection-dominated systems, Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg (2006) stressed that the physical features (advection-dominated vs diffusion-dominated systems) of the water–sediment interfaces interact with the species' bioturbation mode to drive microbial processes (O2 uptake, N cycling) in sediments. Thus, research on the engineering functions of benthic animals and their modulation by environmental factors must be integrated to understand the influence of bioturbation/biodeposition processes on the metabolism of benthic ecosystems (Bulling et al. 2008).

Ecosystem Engineering Functions: the Functional Group Approach

The bioturbation/biodeposition functions of benthic invertebrates vary strongly according to their biological traits (mode of feeding, mode of locomotion, ingestion–digestion mechanisms, ecophysiology; Pearson 2001, Hughes et al. 2005). Functional groups (functional group  =  a group of species having similar effects on major ecosystem processes; Chapin et al. 1992) have been widely developed (e.g., Pearson 2001) and used to simplify the description of community roles in ecosystems. For instance, benthic species in river ecosystems often are classified into functional feeding groups according to their roles in organic-matter processing (Cummins 1974, Cummins and Klug 1979). With respect to bioturbation processes, invertebrates belong to distinct functional groups according to their mechanical activities that modify sediment properties and influence biogeochemical processes (Gerino et al. 2003). Five functional groups of bioturbators have been defined in soft-bottom sediments (François et al. 1997, 2002): 1) biodiffusors are organisms whose activities on the surface result in random sediment mixing; 2) upward conveyors and 3) downward conveyors are organisms whose feeding activities (ingestion and egestion) move sediment vertically upward or downward, respectively; 4) regenerators are digging organisms that relocate sediment and generate open burrows that fill with surface particles when abandoned; and 5) gallery-diffusors are organisms that build extensive galleries of burrows that are irrigated by biotic activities. This functional group approach considers 4 functional traits (sediment mixing rate, burrowing depth, biogenic structure produced, and bioirrigation rate of tubes and burrows) that are the most relevant to assess the influence of bioturbators on biogeochemical processes (aerobic microbial activity, nutrient fluxes) in marine and freshwater diffusion-dominated sediments (Banta et al. 1999, Michaud et al. 2005, Caliman et al. 2007). For instance, animals that produce and irrigate deep burrows and galleries (gallery-diffusers), such as the polychaete Nereis sp. in marine sediments or the oligochaete Tubifex tubifex in wetland sediments, stimulate aerobic microbial activities and N fluxes at the water–sediment interface (Svensson et al. 2001, Michaud et al. 2005, Mermillod-Blondin and Lemoine 2010). In contrast, animals, such as bivalves, that mix sediments without creating biogenic structures have a lower influence on fluxes and microbial activities occurring in sediments (Pelegri and Blackburn 1995a, Michaud et al. 2006). Mermillod-Blondin et al. (2002) demonstrated that the bioturbation modes of freshwater invertebrates determine their influence on biogeochemical processes in advection-dominated sediments. Gallery-diffusers (tubificid worms) stimulated microbial activities in sediments, whereas biodiffusors (Asellus aquaticus) did not (Mermillod-Blondin et al. 2002). Therefore, a common classification of bioturbation groups based on quantification of functional traits can be developed in diffusion-dominated and advection-dominated habitats of marine and freshwater environments.

To my knowledge, no functional-group classification has been developed to characterize the role of different suspension-feeders on benthic biogeochemical processes through feces and pseudofeces production. The mode of biodeposition is comparable for all suspension-feeder species, but the biodeposition rate (quantity of feces and pseudofeces produced) may differ strongly among species and groups of species (Rhoads 1974, Zhou et al. 2006). Moreover, the effects of biodeposition on benthic processes are related to the quality of organic matter and the quantity of biodeposits, which are influenced by the rate of fecal pellet production and the quality of the ingested particles (Hughes et al. 2005, Gergs et al. 2009). By considering suspension-feeding efficiency and biodeposition rate of benthic species, one could develop a functional-group classification for the biodeposition process similar to the classification developed for bioturbation. Thus, the effect of benthic invertebrates on microbial processes at the water–sediment interface could be associated with 5 major functional traits that summarize the intensity of bioturbation/biodeposition process exhibited by a species at the water–sediment interface (see functional traits indicated in Fig. 1). However, such a functional approach cannot be used without considering the variability of environmental factors, such as hydrodynamics (Chamberlain et al. 2001, Biles et al. 2003), food resources (Hansen and Kristensen 1998, Spooner and Vaughn 2006, Lauringson et al. 2007), temperature (Ouellette et al. 2004, Przeslawski et al. 2009), and contaminants (Mulsow et al. 2002, Lagauzère et al. 2009). All modulate bioturbation/biodeposition processes in aquatic ecosystems. The degree of hydrological exchanges occurring at the water–sediment interface appears to be the main factor influencing the potential contribution of bioturbation/biodeposition on biogeochemical processes in marine and freshwater benthic habitats (Boulton et al. 2002, Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg 2006). I propose to develop a qualitative scheme of the role of bioturbation/biodeposition on microbial processes in benthic environments based on the hydrological characterization of the habitats rather than on their membership in marine or freshwater ecosystems.

Fig. 1

The interactions between hydrological properties of the habitats and the engineering activities (bioturbation and biodeposition) of invertebrates dictate the biogeochemical processes at the water–sediment interface. X indicates that the influences of benthic invertebrates on hydrological exchanges and sediment properties are highly linked with the functional traits of the organisms.

i0887-3593-30-3-770-f01.tif

Patterns of Hydrological Exchanges Modulate the Significance of Bioturbation/Biodeposition Processes in Benthic Habitats

The biogeochemical processes occurring at the water–sediment interface in standing- and running-water ecosystems are driven mainly by hydrological exchanges between surface and interstitial layers (Forster et al. 1999, Fellows et al. 2001, Boulton et al. 2010). The magnitude of hydrological exchanges dictates the availability of dissolved O2, nutrients, and organic C for microorganisms (reviewed by Brunke and Gonser 1997). In a comparison between advection-dominated and diffusion-dominated systems, Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg (2006) showed that microbial respiration at the water–sediment interface in microcosms was 2× higher in a hyporheic system with a permanent water infiltration than in a system characterized by diffusion-dominated conditions. Benthic systems range from low to high hydrological exchanges in relation to hydrodynamics and sedimentary structure (Palmer et al. 1997), so the ability of ecosystem engineers to influence microbial processes will depend on the benthic habitat studied. Boulton et al. (2002) hypothesized that invertebrates can act as “direct vectors” of water and materials in lentic systems (diffusion-dominated habitats), whereas they act only as “modulators” of water fluxes in lotic systems (advection-dominated habitats). This conceptual view suggests a greater influence of bioturbation in diffusion-dominated than in advection-dominated systems (Hakenkamp and Palmer 2000). This prediction was confirmed by bioturbation studies reported from both marine and freshwater benthic habitats. In high hydrological exchange zones like the hyporheic zone of streams, the modification of microbial respiration by invertebrate bioturbation ranges between −20 and +50% (Pusch and Schwoerbel 1994, Marshall and Hall 2004, Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg 2006). The degree of respiration change depends on the bioturbation traits of the species tested (sediment mixing rate, burrowing depth, production of U-shaped tubes or galleries of burrows; Mermillod-Blondin et al. 2002). These results were linked to the low ability of bioturbators to influence sediment permeability and interstitial flow rates (Boulton et al. 2002). In contrast, bioturbation by U-shaped tube burrower and gallery-diffusor invertebrates may increase microbial respiration at the water–sediment interface of diffusion-dominated systems by up to 250% (Pelegri and Blackburn 1995b, Svensson and Leonardson 1996, Karlson et al. 2005, Mermillod-Blondin et al. 2008). In these systems, production and irrigation of deep burrows (gallery-diffusion) may increase the flux of water in sediments by up to 2000% (Rasmussen et al. 1998). These results illustrate clearly that the potential contribution of bioturbation to benthic microbial processes varies across the spectrum of hydrological conditions. Therefore, I propose a conceptual model that takes into account the hydrological properties of benthic habitats and the functional traits of invertebrates to allow a better prediction of bioturbation/biodeposition effects on sediment biogeochemistry (Fig. 1). In advection-dominated habitats, hydrological exchanges between surface and interstitial water are little affected by invertebrate bioturbation, and the contribution of bioturbators to microbial processes is reduced. In diffusion-dominated habitats, the opposite is observed because the physical hydrological exchanges are low and can be dramatically affected by bioturbators, depending on their bioturbation functional traits (Fig. 1; Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg 2006).

In the scheme presented in Fig. 1, use of the hydraulic exchanges at the water–sediment interface to evaluate the significance of bioturbation can be applied to the different habitats of a river (riffles, pools, erosion zones, sedimentation zones). For example, when hydrological exchanges at the water–sediment interface are impaired by fine sediment deposition (Schälchli 1992, Wood and Armitage 1997), hydrological exchanges in sediments will be low and deep burrowing by the tubificid worm Tubifex tubifex could efficiently restore hydrological exchanges and aerobic biogeochemical processes in sediments (Nogaro and Mermillod-Blondin 2009). Thus, the significance of bioturbation on sedimentary microbial processes is dependent on the hydrological-exchange context.

This modulation of engineering function by hydrological exchanges at the water–sediment interface has been poorly studied in the process of biodeposition. Nevertheless, the effects of biodeposition are strongly influenced by hydraulic conditions that determine the zones of biodeposition in aquatic ecosystems. For example, the fecal pellets produced by suspension-feeding invertebrates living in high-flow conditions (e.g., blackflies in streams) are flushed away from the site of production and deposited in zones of low flow (Malmqvist et al. 2001, Wotton and Malmqvist 2001, Wharton et al. 2006). Similarly, the influence of shellfish farming on marine sediments is influenced by hydrodynamics that modulate the sedimentation rate of biodeposited material (Callier et al. 2006). Therefore, the significance of biodeposition intensity, as with bioturbation traits (Fig. 1), is likely to be highest in zones of low-energy hydrological conditions associated with diffusion-dominated microhabitats (where deposition occurs).

Conclusions

My paper presents a general qualitative framework linking the significance of bioturbation/biodeposition processes to the hydrological characteristics of the water–sediment interfaces. This approach focuses on the local characteristics of the water–sediment interfaces and the functional traits of benthic invertebrates. My hope is that the approach will be used in both marine and freshwater sciences. However, this marine–freshwater bridge must be tested on a wide range of habitats ranging from deep-sea bottom to stream riffles. If characterization of hydrological exchanges occurring at the water–sediment interface can be done easily through tracer experiments, one major challenge in future studies will be to quantify the functional traits of the benthic species (right panel of Fig. 1) and their influences on ecological processes. Moreover, these functional traits may be modulated by environmental conditions. For example, Nogaro et al. (2009) and Michaud et al. (2010) clearly showed that the biogenic structures produced by benthic animals and their contributions to water fluxes at the water–sediment interface can be strongly influenced by the organic-matter content of the sediment. Thus, assessing the role of benthic ecosystem engineers in marine and freshwater ecosystems will require determining the complex relationships between the physical habitat, the microbial compartment, and the activities of the benthic fauna. A combination of experimental and modeling work is probably the most promising method to quantify the importance of ecosystem engineers on the biogeochemical functioning of aquatic ecosystems.

Acknowledgments

I thank Roger S. Wotton for his invitation to present this paper in this J-NABS BRIDGES cluster and for the time spent reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript. This paper was also improved by discussions and comments from Pierre Marmonier, Géraldine Nogaro, Rutger Rosenberg, Arnaud Foulquier, Laurent Simon, Bernard Kaufmann, and Simon Navel. I thank the ANR Biodiversity programme (ANR-06-BDIV-007) InBioProcess 2007–2010 for the financial support.

Literature Cited

1.

R. C. Aller 1983. The importance of the diffusive permeability of animal burrow linings in determining marine sediment chemistry. Journal of Marine Research 41:299–322. Google Scholar

2.

R. C. Aller 1994. Bioturbation and remineralization of sedimentary organic matter: effects of redox oscillation. Chemical Geology 114:331–345. Google Scholar

3.

G. T. Banta, M. Holmer, M. H. Jensen, and E. Kristensen . 1999. Effects of two polychaete worms, Nereis diversicolor and Arenicola marina, on aerobic and anaerobic decomposition in a sandy marine sediment. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 19:189–204. Google Scholar

4.

T. J. Battin, L. A. Kaplan, S. Findlay, C. S. Hopkinson, E. Martí, A. I. Packman, J. D. Newbold, and F. Sabater . 2008. Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks. Nature Geoscience 1:95–100. Google Scholar

5.

C. L. Biles, M. Solan, I. Isaksson, D. M. Paterson, C. Emes, and D. G. Raffaelli . 2003. Flow modifies the effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: an in situ study of estuarine sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285/286:165–177. Google Scholar

6.

A. J. Boulton, T. Datry, T. Kasahara, M. Mutz, and J. A. Stanford . 2010. Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: stream–groundwater interactions of running waters and their floodplains. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:26–40. Google Scholar

7.

A. J. Boulton, C. C. Hakenkamp, M. A. Palmer, and D. Strayer . 2002. Freshwater meiofauna and surface water-sediment linkages: a conceptual framework for cross-system comparisons. Pages 241–259. in S. D. Rundle, A. L. Robertson, and J. M. Schmid-Araya. . Freshwater meiofauna: biology and ecology. Backhuys Publishers. Leiden, The Netherlands. Google Scholar

8.

M. Brunke and T. Gonser . 1997. The ecological significance of exchange processes between rivers and groundwater. Freshwater Biology 37:1–33. Google Scholar

9.

M. T. Bulling, M. Solan, K. E. Dyson, G. Hernandez-Millian, P. Luque, G. J. Pierce, D. Raffaelli, D. M. Paterson, and P. C. L. White . 2008. Species effects on ecosystem processes are modified by faunal responses to habitat composition. Oecologia (Berlin) 158:511–520. Google Scholar

10.

A. Caliman, J. J. F. Leal, F. A. Esteves, L. S. Carneiro, R. L. Bozelli, and V. F. Farjalla . 2007. Functional bioturbator diversity enhances benthic–pelagic processes and properties in experimental microcosms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:450–459. Google Scholar

11.

M. D. Callier, A. M. Weise, C. W. McKindsey, and G. Desrosiers . 2006. Sedimentation rates in a suspended mussel farm (Great-Entry Lagoon, Canada): biodeposit production and dispersion. Marine Ecology Progress Series 322:129–141. Google Scholar

12.

J. Chamberlain, T. F. Fernandes, P. Read, T. D. Nickell, and I. M. Davies . 2001. Impacts of biodeposits from suspended mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) culture on the surrounding surficial sediments. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:411–416. Google Scholar

13.

F. S. Chapin, E-D. Schulze, and H. A. Mooney . 1992. Biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:107–108. Google Scholar

14.

L. Chatarpaul, J. B. Robinson, and N. K. Kaushik . 1979. Role of tubificid worms on the nitrogen transformations in stream sediment. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:673–678. Google Scholar

15.

Y. C. Cho, R. C. Frohnhoefer, and G. Y. Rhee . 2004. Bioconcentration and redeposition of polychlorinated biphenyls by zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Hudson River. Water Research 38:769–777. Google Scholar

16.

P. B. Christensen, R. N. Glud, T. Dalsgaard, and P. Gillespie . 2003. Impacts of longline mussel farming on oxygen and nitrogen dynamics and biological communities of coastal sediments. Aquaculture 218:567–588. Google Scholar

17.

A. Ciutat, M. Gerino, N. Mesmer-Dudons, P. Anschutz, and A. Boudou . 2005. Cadmium bioaccumulation in Tubificidae from the overlying water source and effects on bioturbation. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 60:237–246. Google Scholar

18.

J. A. Commito and E. M. Boncavage . 1989. Suspension-feeders and coexisting infauna: an enhancement counterexample. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 125:33–42. Google Scholar

19.

A. P. Covich, M. C. Austen, F. Bärlocher, E. Chauvet, B. J. Cardinale, C. L. Biles, P. Inchausti, O. Dangles, M. Solan, M. O. Gessner, B. Statzner, and B. Moss . 2004. The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems. BioScience 54:767–775. Google Scholar

20.

K. W. Cummins 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience 24:631–641. Google Scholar

21.

K. W. Cummins and M. J. Klug . 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10:147–172. Google Scholar

22.

F. D'Andrea and T. H. DeWitt . 2009. Geochemical ecosystem engineering by the mud shrimp Upogebia pugettensis (Crustacea: Thalassinidae) in Yaquina Bay, Oregon: density-dependent effects on organic matter remineralization and nutrient cycling. Limnology and Oceanography 54:1911–1932. Google Scholar

23.

C. Darwin 1881. The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms with observation of their habits. John Murray. London, UK. Google Scholar

24.

C. S. Fellows, H. M. Valett, and C. N. Dahm . 2001. Whole-stream metabolism in two montane streams: contribution of the hyporheic zone. Limnology and Oceanography 46:523–531. Google Scholar

25.

S. Forster, R. N. Glud, J. K. Gundersen, and M. Huettel . 1999. In situ study of bromide tracer and oxygen flux in coastal sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49:813–827. Google Scholar

26.

S. Forster and G. Graf . 1995. Impact of irrigation on oxygen flux into the sediment: intermittent pumping by Callianassa subterranea and piston-pumping by Lanice conchilega. Marine Biology 123:335–346. Google Scholar

27.

F. François, M. Gerino, G. Stora, J-P. Durbec, and J-C. Poggiale . 2002. A functional approach to sediment reworking by gallery-forming macrobenthic organisms: modelling and application with the polychaete Nereis diversicolor. Marine Ecology Progress Series 229:127–136. Google Scholar

28.

F. François, J-C. Poggiale, J-P. Durbec, and G. Stora . 1997. A new approach for the modelling of sediment reworking induced by a macrobenthic community. Acta Biotheoretica 45:295–319. Google Scholar

29.

R. Gergs, K. Rinke, and K-O. Rothhaupt . 2009. Zebra mussels mediate benthic-pelagic coupling by biodeposition and changing detrital stoichiometry. Freshwater Biology 54:1379–1391. Google Scholar

30.

M. Gerino, G. Stora, F. François-Carcaillet, F. Gilbert, J-C. Poggiale, F. Mermillod-Blondin, G. Desrosiers, and P. Vervier . 2003. Macro-invertebrate functional groups in freshwater and marine sediments: a common mechanistic classification. Vie et Milieu 53:221–232. Google Scholar

31.

M. Gibbs, G. Funnell, S. Pickmere, A. Norkko, and J. Hewitt . 2005. Benthic nutrient fluxes along an estuarine gradient: influence of the pinnid bivalve Atrina zelandica in summer. Marine Ecology Progress Series 288:151–164. Google Scholar

32.

H. Giles and C. A. Pilditch . 2006. Effects of mussel (Perna canaliculus) biodeposit decomposition on benthic respiration and nutrient fluxes. Marine Biology 150:261–271. Google Scholar

33.

P. S. Giller, H. Hillebrand, U-G. Berninger, M. O. Gessner, S. Hawkins, P. Inchausti, C. Inglis, H. Leslie, B. Malmqvist, M. T. Monaghan, P. J. Morin, and G. O'Mullan . 2004. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments. Oikos 104:423–436. Google Scholar

34.

M. E. Granberg, J. S. Gunnarsson, J. E. Hedman, R. Rosenberg, and P. Jonsson . 2008. Bioturbation-driven release of organic contaminants from Baltic Sea sediments mediated by the invading polychaete Marenzelleria neglecta. Environmental Science and Technology 42:1058–1065. Google Scholar

35.

M. E. Granberg, R. Hansen, and H. Selck . 2005. Relative importance of macrofaunal burrows for the microbial mineralization of pyrene in marine sediments: impact of macrofaunal species and organic matter quality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 288:59–74. Google Scholar

36.

C. C. Hakenkamp and M. A. Palmer . 2000. The ecology of hyporheic meiofauna. Pages 307–336. in J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholland . (editors). Streams and ground waters. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Google Scholar

37.

K. Hansen and E. Kristensen . 1998. The impact of the polychaete Nereis diversicolor and enrichment with macroalgal (Chaetomorpha linum) detritus on benthic metabolism and nutrient dynamics in organic-poor and organic-rich sediment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 231:201–223. Google Scholar

38.

D. S. Haven and R. Morales-Alamo . 1966. Aspects of biodeposition by oysters and other invertebrate filter feeders. Limnology and Oceanography 11:487–498. Google Scholar

39.

A. C. Heilskov and M. Holmer . 2001. Effects of benthic fauna on organic matter mineralization in fish-farm sediments: importance of size and abundance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:427–434. Google Scholar

40.

D. J. Hughes, E. J. Cook, and M. D. J. Sayer . 2005. Biofiltration and biofouling on artificial structures in Europe: the potential for mitigating organic impacts. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 43:123–172. Google Scholar

41.

C. G. Jones, J. H. Lawton, and M. Shachak . 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386. Google Scholar

42.

P. Joyce and R. S. Wotton . 2008. Shredder fecal pellets as stores of allochthonous organic matter in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:521–528. Google Scholar

43.

K. Karlson, S. Hulth, K. Ringdahl, and R. Rosenberg . 2005. Experimental recolonisation of Baltic Sea reduced sediments: survival of benthic macrofauna and effects on nutrient cycling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 294:35–49. Google Scholar

44.

G. Krantzberg 1985. The influence of bioturbation on physical, chemical and biological parameters in aquatic environments: a review. Environmental Pollution Series A: Ecological and Biological 39:99–122. Google Scholar

45.

E. Kristensen 2000. Organic matter diagenesis at the oxic/anoxic interface in coastal marine sediments, with emphasis on the role of burrowing animals. Hydrobiologia 426:1–24. Google Scholar

46.

E. Kristensen, M. H. Jensen, and T. K. Andersen . 1985. The impact of polychaete (Nereis virens Sars) burrows on nitrification and nitrate reduction in estuarine sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 85:75–91. Google Scholar

47.

S. Lagauzère, R. Terrail, and J-M. Bonzom . 2009. Ecotoxicology of uranium to Tubifex tubifex worms (Annelida, Clitellata, Tubificidae) exposed to contaminated sediment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72:527–537. Google Scholar

48.

V. Lauringson, E. Malton, J. Kotta, K. Kangur, H. Orav-Kotta, and I. Kotta . 2007. Environmental factors influencing the biodeposition of the suspension feeding bivalve Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas): comparison of brackish and freshwater populations. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 75:459–467. Google Scholar

49.

J. Lewandowski, C. Laskov, and M. Hupfer . 2007. The relationship between Chironomus plumosus burrows and the spatial distribution of pore-water phosphate, iron and ammonium in lake sediments. Freshwater Biology 52:331–343. Google Scholar

50.

S. Lindqvist, K. Norling, and S. Hulth . 2009. Biogeochemistry in highly reduced mussel farm sediments during macrofaunal recolonization by Amphiura filiformis and Nephtys sp. Marine Environmental Research 67:136–145. Google Scholar

51.

B. Malmqvist, R. S. Wotton, and Y. Zhang . 2001. Suspension feeders transform massive amounts of seston in large northern rivers. Oikos 92:35–43. Google Scholar

52.

M. C. Marshall and R. O. Hall . 2004. Hyporheic invertebrates affect N cycling and respiration in stream sediment microcosms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:416–428. Google Scholar

53.

F. Mermillod-Blondin, M. Gerino, M. CreuzéDES Châtelliers, and V. Degrange . 2002. Functional diversity among three detritivorous hyporheic invertebrates: an experimental study in microcosms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:132–149. Google Scholar

54.

F. Mermillod-Blondin and D. G. Lemoine . 2010. Ecosystem engineering by tubificid worms stimulates macrophyte growth in poorly oxygenated wetland sediments. Functional Ecology 24:444–453. Google Scholar

55.

F. Mermillod-Blondin, G. Nogaro, F. Vallier, and J. Gibert . 2008. Laboratory study highlights the key influences of stormwater sediment thickness and bioturbation by tubificid worms on dynamics of nutrients and pollutants in stormwater retention systems. Chemosphere 72:213–223. Google Scholar

56.

F. Mermillod-Blondin and R. Rosenberg . 2006. Ecosystem engineering: the impact of bioturbation on biogeochemical processes in marine and freshwater benthic habitats. Aquatic Sciences 68:434–442. Google Scholar

57.

F. Mermillod-Blondin, R. Rosenberg, F. François-Carcaillet, K. Norling, and L. Mauclaire . 2004. Influence of bioturbation by three benthic infaunal species on microbial communities and biogeochemical processes in marine sediment. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 36:271–284. Google Scholar

58.

F. J. R. Meysman, J. J. Middelburg, and C. H. R. Heip . 2006. Bioturbation: a fresh look at Darwin's last idea. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:688–695. Google Scholar

59.

E. Michaud, R. C. Aller, and G. Stora . 2010. Sedimentary organic matter distributions, burrowing activity, and biogeochemical cycling: natural patterns and experimental artifacts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 90:21–34. Google Scholar

60.

E. Michaud, G. Desrosiers, F. Mermillod-Blondin, B. Sundby, and G. Stora . 2005. The functional group approach to bioturbation: the effects of biodiffusers and gallery-diffusers of the Macoma balthica community on sediment oxygen uptake. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 326:77–88. Google Scholar

61.

E. Michaud, G. Desrosiers, F. Mermillod-Blondin, B. Sundby, and G. Stora . 2006. The functional group approach to bioturbation: II. The effects of the Macoma balthica community on fluxes of nutrients and dissolved organic carbon across the sediment–water interface. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 337:178–189. Google Scholar

62.

S. Mulsow, P. F. Landrum, and J. A. Robbins . 2002. Biological mixing responses to sublethal concentrations of DDT in sediments by Heteromastus filiformis using a 137Cs marker layer technique. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239:181–191. Google Scholar

63.

D. Nizzoli, D. T. Welsh, M. Bartoli, and P. Viaroli . 2005. Impacts of mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) farming on oxygen consumption and nutrient recycling in a eutrophic coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 550:183–198. Google Scholar

64.

G. Nogaro and F. Mermillod-Blondin . 2009. Stormwater sediment and bioturbation influences on hydraulic functioning, biogeochemical processes, and pollutant dynamics in laboratory infiltration systems. Environmental Science and Technology 43:3632–3638. Google Scholar

65.

G. Nogaro, F. Mermillod-Blondin, H. M. Valett, F. François-Carcaillet, J-P. Gaudet, M. Lafont, and J. Gibert . 2009. Ecosystem engineering at the sediment-water interface: bioturbation and consumer-substrate interaction. Oecologia (Berlin) 161:125–138. Google Scholar

66.

A. Norkko, J. E. Hewitt, S. F. Thrush, and G. A. Funnell . 2001. Benthic-pelagic coupling and suspension-feeding bivalves: Linking site-specific sediment flux and biodeposition to benthic community structure. Limnology and Oceanography 46:2067–2072. Google Scholar

67.

D. Ouellette, G. Desrosiers, J-P. Gagne, F. Gilbert, J-C. Poggiale, P. U. Blier, and G. Stora . 2004. Effects of temperature on in vitro sediment reworking processes by a gallery biodiffusor, the polychaete Neanthes virens. Marine Ecology Progress Series 266:185–193. Google Scholar

68.

M. A. Palmer, A. P. Covich, B. J. Finlay, J. Gibert, K. D. Hyde, R. K. Johnson, T. Kairesalo, P. S. Lake, C. R. Lovell, R. J. Naiman, C. Ricci, F. F. Sabater, and D. L. Strayer . 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in freshwater sediments. Ambio 26:571–577. Google Scholar

69.

T. H. Pearson 2001. Functional group ecology in soft-sediment marine benthos: the role of bioturbation. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 39:233–267. Google Scholar

70.

S. P. Pelegri and T. H. Blackburn . 1995a. Effect of bioturbation by Nereis sp., Mya arenaria and Cerastoderma sp. on nitrification and denitrification in estuarine sediments. Ophelia 42:289–299. Google Scholar

71.

S. P. Pelegri and T. H. Blackburn . 1995b. Effects of Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta: tubificidae) on N-mineralization in freshwater sediments, measured with 15N isotopes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 9:289–294. Google Scholar

72.

R. Przeslawski, Q. Zhu, and R. Aller . 2009. Effects of abiotic stressors on infaunal burrowing and associated sediment characteristics. Marine Ecology Progress Series 392:33–42. Google Scholar

73.

M. Pusch and J. Schwoerbel . 1994. Community respiration in hyporheic sediments of a mountain stream (Steina, Black Forest). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 130:35–52. Google Scholar

74.

C. O. Quintana, M. Tang, and E. Kristensen . 2007. Simultaneous study of particle reworking, irrigation transport and reaction rates in sediment bioturbated by the polychaetes Heteromastus and Marenzelleria. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 352:392–406. Google Scholar

75.

A. D. Rasmussen, G. T. Banta, and O. Andersen . 1998. Effects of bioturbation by the lugworm Arenicola marina on cadmium uptake and distribution in sandy sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series 164:179–188. Google Scholar

76.

D. C. Rhoads 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy sea floor. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 12:263–300. Google Scholar

77.

R. Rosenberg 2001. Marine benthic faunal successional stages and related sedimentary activity. Scientia Marina 65:107–119. Google Scholar

78.

U. Schälchli 1992. The clogging of coarse gravel river beds by fine sediment. Hydrobiologia 235/236:189–197. Google Scholar

79.

J. L. Schaller, A. Weiske, M. Mkandawire, and E. G. Dudel . 2010. Invertebrates control metals and arsenic sequestration as ecosystem engineers. Chemosphere 79:169–173. Google Scholar

80.

D. E. Spooner and C. V. Vaughn . 2006. Context-dependent effects of freshwater mussels on stream benthic communities. Freshwater Biology 51:1016–1024. Google Scholar

81.

B. Statzner, E. Fièvet, J-Y. Champagne, R. Morel, and E. Herouin . 2000. Crayfish as geomorphic agents and ecosystem engineers: biological behavior affects sand and gravel erosion in experimental streams. Limnology and Oceanography 45:1030–1040. Google Scholar

82.

P. Stief and A. Schramm . 2010. Regulation of nitrous oxide emission associated with benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology 55:1647–1657. Google Scholar

83.

K. Sundbäck, F. Linares, F. Larson, and A. Wulff . 2004. Benthic nitrogen fluxes along a depth gradient in a microtidal fjord: the role of denitrification and microphytobenthos. Limnology and Oceanography 49:1095–1107. Google Scholar

84.

J. M. Svensson, A. Enrich-Prast, and L. Leonardson . 2001. Nitrification and denitrification in eutrophic lake sediment bioturbated by oligochaetes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 23:177–186. Google Scholar

85.

J. M. Svensson and L. Leonardson . 1996. Effect of bioturbation by tube-dwelling chironomid larvae on oxygen uptake and denitrification in eutrophic lake sediments. Freshwater Biology 35:289–300. Google Scholar

86.

K. Vopel, D. Thistle, and R. Rosenberg . 2003. Effect of the brittle star Amphiura filiformis (Amphiuridae, Echinodermata) on oxygen flux into the sediment. Limnology and Oceanography 48:2034–2045. Google Scholar

87.

G. Wharton, J. A. Cotton, R. S. Wotton, J. A. B. Bass, C. M. Heppell, M. Trimmer, I. A. Sanders, and L. L. Warren . 2006. Macrophytes and suspension-feeding invertebrates modify flows and fine sediments in the Frome and Piddle catchments, Dorset (UK). Journal of Hydrology 330:171–184. Google Scholar

88.

P. J. Wood and P. D. Armitage . 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203–217. Google Scholar

89.

R. S. Wotton and B. Malmqvist . 2001. Feces in aquatic ecosystems. BioScience 51:537–544. Google Scholar

90.

Y. Zhou, H. S. Yang, T. C. Zhang, P. B. Qin, and F. S. Zhang . 2006. Density-dependent effects on seston dynamics and rates of filtering and biodeposition of the suspension-cultured scallop Chlamys farreri in a eutrophic bay (northern China): an experimental study in semi-in situ flow-through systems. Journal of Marine Systems 59:143–158. Google Scholar
Florian Mermillod-Blondin "The functional significance of bioturbation and biodeposition on biogeochemical processes at the water–sediment interface in freshwater and marine ecosystems," Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30(3), 770-778, (28 June 2011). https://doi.org/10.1899/10-121.1
Received: 6 September 2010; Accepted: 1 May 2011; Published: 28 June 2011
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top