Ecological communities are increasingly exposed to multiple chemical and physical stressors, but distinguishing anthropogenic impacts from other environmental drivers remains challenging. Rarely are multiple stressors investigated in replicated studies over large spatial scales (>1000 kms) or supported with manipulations that are necessary to interpret ecological patterns. We measured the composition of sediment infaunal communities in relation to anthropogenic and natural stressors at multiple sites within seven estuaries. We observed increases in the richness and abundance of polychaete worms in heavily modified estuaries with severe metal contamination, but no changes in the diversity or abundance of other taxa. Estuaries in which toxic contaminants were elevated also showed evidence of organic enrichment. We hypothesised that the observed response of polychaetes was not a 'positive' response to toxic contamination or a reduction in biotic competition, but due to high levels of nutrients in heavily modified estuaries driving productivity in the water column and enriching the sediment over large spatial scales. We deployed defaunated field-collected sediments from the surveyed estuaries in a small scale experiment, but observed no effects of sediment characteristics (toxic or enriching). Furthermore, invertebrate recruitment instead reflected the low diversity and abundance observed during field surveys of this relatively 'pristine' estuary. This suggests that differences observed in the survey are not a direct consequence of sediment characteristics (even severe metal contamination) but are related to parameters that covary with estuary modification such as enhanced productivity from nutrient inputs and the diversity of the local species pool. This has implications for the interpretation of diversity measures in large-scale monitoring studies in which the observed patterns may be strongly influenced by many factors that covary with anthropogenic modification.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2013.
All research outputs
#28,601,215
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#183,770
of 224,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,255
of 252,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,524
of 5,536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
