1 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Baseline Investigation into Sargassum muticum (Yendo)

Fensholt Distribution in the Fal and its commercial potential.

Daisy Elizabeth Minnie Parsons

11 Oak Ridge, Lifton, Devon, PL16 0LD

Falmouth Marine School, Killigrew Street, Falmouth, Cornwall, TR11 3QS

__________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Sagassum muticum is an invasive brown macro algae which was believed to have been

originally introduced to British waters in imported oyster spat from Japanese oysters during

the 1970’s. Due to the species ability to survive for long periods as a floating mass with no

holdfast and to reproduce by releasing fertile fronds S. muticum has become widespread

throughout British waters. Surveys undertaken around the Fal Estuary in Cornwall have

located areas where S. muticum is present, research gathered in the effects of S. muticum on

localized biodiversity of seaweeds and an insight into the species commercial potential. The

study found S. muticum to only be present in the entrance of the Fal, particularly at Castle

Beach, with some rock pools displaying up to 96% coverage. The Fal is an important habitat

for BAP species of maerl; Lithothamnion coralloides and Phymatolithon and Eel grass

Zostera marina. Were the species to encroach further into the Fal these protected ecosystems

could be threatened.

Keywords; Sargassum muticum, invasion, biodiversity, macro algal assemblages, Falmouth

__________________

E-mail address: daizyed@gmail.com (D. E. M. Parsons).

2 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1. Introduction

1.1. Sargassum muticum; British history;

Sargassum muticum is an invasive brown macro algae, native to Japan, which has been recorded in UK waters since

1973, believed to have been accidentally introduced through importation of Crassostrea gigas (Japanese oyster)

(Farnham et al, 1973). IUCN (2000), define an invasive species as “an alien species that becomes established in

natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitats, being an agent of change, and threatens native biodiversity”. Grosholz

(2002) recognizes one of the main declines of native population biodiversity, ecosystem processes and community

dynamics as being caused by biological invasions, and since the introduction of S. muticum in the early 1970’s the

spread has been rapid across the Atlantic coast of Western Europe. (Critchley, Farnham, Morrel 1986) This halophyte

is monoecious, but can also disperse by releasing fertile, mature fronds. These drifting fronds are capable of surviving

in the water column indefinitely, helping to make it one of the most successful invasive species of brown algae (Baer,

Stengal 2010). S. muticum has many asymmetrically positioned pneumatocysts which ensure floating, thus keeping

the seaweed on the surface where it can continue to photosynthesise. Zhao, Liu et al. (2007) highlight the importance

of S. muticum in the maintenance of the structure and function of littoral ecosystems along the North coast of China,

with the long fronds integral to the formation of seaweed beds in the littoral and shallow sublittoral regions; providing

nursery, feeding and spawning grounds for various marine organisms, including fish and shellfish. (Tsukidate, 1984)

Since these relatively early days in the ‘Sargassum invasion’ extensive research has been done into the distribution,

(Grosholz 2002) genetic variability, (Zhao et al. 2007) growth rates (Baer, Stengal, 2010) and commercial uses but

there is little hard evidence that S. muticum causes quantifiable damage to marine ecosystems. Mike Mcguiry,

renowned by local seaweed forager Rory MacPhee amongst others as being an expert in the area; goes so far as to

suggest the potentially positive side; that the species ability to withstand variable salinity and temperature allows it to

thrive in areas sparse of algal development, thus creating habitats for small crustaceans and fish. Conversely the

anthropogenic issues created such as entanglement of steering gear of vessels, obscuration of oyster beds and general

annoyance to swimmers (Cheang, Chu et al. 2009) suggest that commercial usage of the species, and thus increasingly

financially viable removal, could be beneficial. Previous attempts at removal have proven to not be financially viable,

or successful. These have included mechanical removal, manual removal and use of pesticides. (Critchley, Farnham,

Morrel 1986)

In the species native habitat S.muticum generally only grows to about 2m but plants have been recorded at 16m

(Mcguiry, M. 2011) in some areas around the British coast, indicating that we could only be seeing the beginning of

the problem. Sanchez and Fernandez concluded in their 2005 paper, of questionable ethicality, that they had found “no

evidence that S. muticum altered the successional sequence of this macroalgal assemblage. Species richness, diversity

and percentage cover of native macro algae did not show significant differences between control and removal

treatments”. Considering the rigorous methodology; incorporating total clearance of living organisms using a blow

torch in the control sites and over two years of bi-monthly sampling applied to the study, Sanchez and Ferdanez

concluded that S. muticum is not a threat to biodiversity in the low intertidal zone. On the other hand, research

conducted by Hartog (1997) showed that S. muticum had infested littoral pools normally dominated by Zostera

marina, even though S. muticum is an epithitic species abundant on rocky substrates whereas Z. marina is a root

bearing species of sea grass, inhabiting sandy and muddy substrates. (Lewey, L. A. 1976) Z. marina has been

identified (Hartog 1997) as a species which is vulnerable to environmental changes, although the beds located on

muddy and sandy substrate may not be affected by the spread of S.muticum, the littoral infestation in the areas of

mixed substrate is yet another restriction on the ability of Z. marina to maintain permanent communities. (Critchley,

Farnham, Morrel. 1986)

1.2. The Fal and Helford SAC.

The entire area of the Fal and Helford estuaries and the bays at the entrance, from St Anthony’s Head to The Manacles

has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with Zostera marina and maerl species; Phymatolithon

calcareum and Lithothamnion corallioide present. These species are listed under Annex I of the EU Habitat Directive

under “sandbanks partially covered by water at all times” (JNCC no date) as discovered by Critchley, Farnham and

3 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. Morrel; S. muticum can be a threat to Z. marina, and being as Maerl can grow from 40m depth up to the tide line

(JNCC 1999) the spread of S. muticum could pose problems for both of these nationally recognised important and rare

habitats.

2. Method.

2.1. Study sites;

The study was carried out between March and April 2012 over eight beaches around the Fal estuary. 1. St Anthony’s

Head, 2. St Mawes, 3. St Just in Roseland, 4. Restroguet Weir, 5. Mylor Bridge, 6. Castle Beach, 7. Little Dennis, 8.

Gyllingvase. (See fig.1. Map of the survey points). The littoral zones surveyed ranged in substrate from muddy silt at

Restronguet Weir to jagged outcrops of rocks at St Anthony’s Head. The beaches also exhibited differences in levels

of exposure which one would expect to have an effect on seaweed biodiversity. St Anthony’s Head has the highest

level of exposure with ample fetch across the English Channel. Both Mylor Bridge and Restronguet Passage are

examples of extremely sheltered shores. The survey points were chosen as they are representative of various different

types of shore. The biodiversity of seaweeds would be expected to vary depending on the different levels of exposure,

as discussed in W J Ballantine’s 1961 seminal paper.

The surveys were conducted at the low spring tides, with the greatest tidal height above astronomical low being 0.7m.

The method chosen is based upon a combination of research undertaken by Sanchez and Fernandez in Spain between

2002 and 2004 and the MCS’s (Marine Conservation Society) scientifically recognised survey techniques. Their study

was designed to quantify the impact of S.muticum on the surrounding biodiversity. The research undertaken herein has

been adapted due to time constraints and is as a result a baseline investigation incorporating random sampling

techniques as recommended by the MCS. The main aim of this project is to map where S. muticum is present in the

Fal. The effect on seaweed biodiversity will then be statistically analysed with a view to determining whether the

presence of S.muticum is detrimental to the native macro algae assemblage. This will be discussed further in the

discussion.

2.2. Method;

Seaweed biodiversity will be recorded in 10 0.5m by 0.5m quadrats at each survey site at the low spring tide. The first

quadrat will be randomly selected by standing at the lowest accessible point of the littoral zone and throwing the

quadrat over my shoulder. The quadrats will be randomized by tying knots at random lengths of a piece of string

(Hawkins, Jones, 1992) and moving the distance dictated by the knot along the beach. This method is specifically

designed for sampling which needs to be taken along the same level on a beach. The seaweed biodiversity in each

quadrat is then recorded and an average cover of each seaweed calculated ready for statistical analysis to determine

whether the biodiversity of seaweeds increases in quadrats where S. muticum is present.

3. Theory/calculation

Ho There will be no significant difference in seaweed biodiversity in quadrats where S. muticum is present.

H1 There will be a significant difference in seaweed biodiversity in quadrats where S. muticum is present.

The results of this experiment will be statistically tested using Spearman’s Rank Coefficient

R1 = 6∑d2

1 -

______

n (n

2-1) (Biology Investigation, 2003)

4 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Figure 1. Map of survey points. (Digimaps 2012)

5 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 4. Results

The statistical test showed that there is no significant difference between seaweed biodiversity on beaches where S.

muticum is present compared to biodiversity on beaches where S. muticum is not present.

Table 1. Breakdown of average percentage of seaweeds found on the 8 survey sites; 1. St Anthony’s Head, 2. St

Mawes, 3. St Just in Roseland, 4. Restroguet Weir, 5. Mylor Bridge, 6. Castle Beach, 7. Little Dennis, 8. Gyllingvase.

Divided by colour, green algae first, (Shaded light grey), brown (shaded darker grey) and finally red algae (darkest

grey shading). The shaded columns indicate S. muticum is present at the site.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Invasive? (country of origin, intr.

to. date) Phylum

Blidingia minima 0.4 X Chlorophyta

Enteromorpha intestinalis 1.2 1.4 2 2.6 0.6 X Chlorophyta

Ulva Luctuca 9.6 8.4 1.6 1 0.8 13.3 0.2 10.8 X Chlorophyta

Ascophyllum nodosum 7.4 X Phaeophyceae

Colpomenia peregrina 1.2 0.6 0.4 Pacific, N.A Cornwall 1907 Phaeophyceae

Dictyota dichotoma 0.2 X Phaeophyceae

Fucus ceranoides 0.2 X Phaeophyceae

Fucus seratus 12.6 75.6 84.8 81.8 14.6 36.5 9.9 X Phaeophyceae

Fucus spiralis 1.6 64.9 X Phaeophyceae

Fucus vesiculosus 5.8 X Phaeophyceae

Himanthalia elongata 4.9 13.6 X Phaeophyceae

Laminaria digitata 7.6 X Phaeophyceae

Laminaria saccharina 1.6 2 4 X Phaeophyceae

Pelvitia canaliculata 0.4 1.2 4.6 X Phaeophyceae

Petalonia fascia 0.4 X Phaeophyceae

Phytomatolithon purpureum 2.4 1.4 0.6 X Phaeophyceae

Sargassum muticum 32.8 13.3 45.5 Japan, Isle of Wight, 1973 Phaeophyceae

Asparagopsis armata 1.2 0.4 0.9 Aus. /NZ. Lundy 1949 Rhodophyta

Corallina officinalis 5.8 7.4 0.2 4.2 6 8.8 X Rhodophyta

Dilsea carnosa 0.2 X Rhodophyta

Furcellaria lumbricalis 0.8 2 4.6 X Rhodophyta

Gastroclonium ovatum 0.8 X Rhodophyta

Gelidium pusillum 18 0.8 2.4 2.2 X Rhodophyta

Gigartina stellata 1.2 2 4 0.4 1.1 12.9 0.2 0.7 X Rhodophyta

Gracilaria verrucosa 0.6 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 X Rhodophyta

Heterosiphonia plumosa 0.6 X Rhodophyta

Laurencia pinnatifida 0.8 X Rhodophyta

6 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Lomentaria articulata 0.6 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.4 X Rhodophyta

Membranoptera alata 2 0.6 2 X Rhodophyta

Nemalion helminthoides 0.2 0.2 X Rhodophyta

Palmaria palmata 0.8 X Rhodophyta

Porphyra umbilicalis 1 X Rhodophyta

Rhodymenia pseudopalmata 0.6 1.6 1.1 X Rhodophyta

There was found to be a significant difference in biodiversity between exposed areas of shoreline and less exposed

areas of shoreline. Restronguet Weir exhibited almost [96% and 98%] total coverage of Fucus seratus in three of the

quadrats.

5. Discussion

The earlier surveys, undertaken in March found S. muticum to be in later stages of development than several other

species present. Holdfasts of Himanthalia elongata were discovered in stages of early development in close proximity

to examples of S. muticum of over 70 centimetres in length. In order to understand the full effects of S. muticum on

the biodiversity of intertidal rock pools in the Fal further studies would need to be undertaken incorporating removal

techniques and control sites as seen in the studies undertaken by Sanchez and Ferdanez in 2005. Were the rock pools

which were found to be heavily populated with S muticum cleared and new growth removed regularly to allow other

algae the chance to thrive a clearer picture could be painted on the repercussions of this seaweed.

Holly Latham’s 2012 unpublished research looking at changes in epifaunal activity between mooring areas and non-

mooring areas was a partnership project with Falmouth Harbour Commission using Plymouth Universities ROV

which found S. muticum to be present within the Helford where there are large areas or both Eelgrass and Maerl. The

Fal is macrotidal, with a tidal range of about 4.6m; most of the beaches surveyed had a low shore profile, muddy

substrate and few or no rocks to attach to. Hawkins and Jones 1992, state that S. muticum is most commonly found in

sheltered harbours and estuaries, on boulders and stones; however the three beaches where S. muticum were present

were the three most exposed of the shores. The reason for this is likely to be the very dense coverage of the fucoids or

wracks. As there is very little wave action on the shores within the estuary the fucoids form very clear zonation

patterns. (Ballantine 1961), Although the fucoids were present in the more exposed areas of coasts the plants were

exhibited textbook growth, displaying reduced numbers of bladders with plants shorter and bushier (Hawkins, Jones

1992) than their cousins within the estuary and without the clearly defined zonation patterns typical of sheltered

shores.

5.1. Commercial potential of Sargassum muticum;

5.1.1. Metal absorption of brown macro algae;

Various studies have been undertaken into the biosorption of heavy metals using seaweeds. Davis et al recognize that

heavy metals present at above natural levels in water supplies resultant from effluent from industries such as mining

and metal processing are an important environmental priority due to the inability of numerous species to tolerate

above lethal levels. (Bryan, Langston 1992, Bryan, Gibbs 1983) There are various environmental regulations such as

the Mining Wastes Directive (MWD) 2009 (NetRegs 2012) and the requirement for companies to hold an

Environmental Permit in order to carry out mining waste operations backed up with a Waste Management Plan

(WMP) (NetRegs 2012) in place to ensure safe removal. Whilst these legislations should control any further increases

in levels of heavy metal content in the water there is the existing legacy remaining in the Fal from the past heavy

industries carried out largely at Carrick Roads. Brown algae have a gel form of an alginate in the cell walls which is

responsible for metal sorption (Fourest and Volesky 1997). The cell walls of brown algae are characteristically thin,

adding to their ability to be highly absorbent. The flat chip like shape of the phallus as opposed to the more standard

7 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. spherical shape often exhibited in algae “facilitates rapid ion mass transfer and effective metal binding”. (Yang and

Volesky, 1999) For centuries the Fal has been subject to run off from mining activities and species within the Fal have

been found to have increased levels of heavy metals within their cells (Warwick 2001)

5.1.2. Nutritional viability of Sargassum muticum

Aitkin and Senn discuss the abundance of important vitamins present in marine plants which makes them ideal

candidates for plant fertilizer. The high levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphates present in S.muticum can be

easily absorbed through plant roots as the organic matter aids water and mineral retention in the top layers of the soil.

(Aitken and Senn 1965)

5.1.3. Health implications of Sargassum muticum

Sargassum muticum amongst other sea weeds are rich in polysaccharides which could be harvested and used in health

applications for both humans and animals. (Sullivan et al 2010) Polysaccharides have the potential to be exploited as

prebiotic functional materials. These increase the activity of beneficial gut microbiota which increases the

effectiveness of the gastrointestinal tract. Foods such as these are referred to as ‘functional foods’ as they fulfil criteria

other than nutrition. (O Sullivan et al 2010)

6. Conclusion

It is clear from the table of results that brown algae are the most abundant phylum, with coverage ranging from 37.2%

to 86.8%. Where fucoids were abundant there was commonly low levels of biodiversity, for example in the 9th quadrat

on Mylor Church Beach there was 100% cover of Fucus seratus.

There was one quadrat recorded at Gyllingvase which had 100% cover of Sargassum muticum with the algae in a

mature stage of development. There was a relatively high level of biodiversity in the other quadrats measured on

Gyllingvase [between 4 and 7 other seaweeds recorded] which clearly shows that Sargassum muticum can be

responsible for out-competing native seaweeds; the bushy nature of the algae quickly blocks out sunlight, stopping

other species from photosynthesising.

The statistical test showed that there was no significant difference in biodiversity between beaches with S. muticum

and those without, but this does not mean that the alien species is not a potential threat to biodiversity as the beaches

surveyed were very different in terms of exposure levels and abundance of fucoids. Fucus seratus is a hardy brown

macro algae with limited seasonal change in substrate coverage (personal observations). This would make attachment

of S. mutium nigh on impossible. In order to collect a more scientifically viable conclusion quadrat surveys would

have to be undertaken on beaches with similar exposure levels to the beaches where S. muticum was found.

Acknowledgements

Project kindly sponsored by Falmouth Harbour Commissions Falmouth Habitat Project.

Glossary

Alien Species

a non-established introduced species (q.v.), which is incapable of establishing self-sustaining or self-propagating

populations in the new area without human interference (cf. 'introduced species'; 'non-native').

Biodiversity

"The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic

ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between

species and of ecosystems." (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992).

8 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Brackish

Referring to mixtures of fresh and seawater. Usually regarded as between 0.5 ‰ and 30 ‰ salinity (q.v.) (based on

McLusky, 1993).

Epiphytic

Growing on the surface of a living plant (but not parasitic upon it) (Marlin, no date)

Enclosed Coast

a marine inlet or harbour fully enclosed from the open sea except at the entrance, not normally open to the sea at two

ends. The connection with the open sea is normally less restricted than is the case with lagoons (based on Hiscock,

1990.)

Estuary

1) a semi-enclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection with the open sea, and within which sea water is

measurably diluted by fresh water derived from land drainage (Pritchard 1967).

Extremely Exposed

Of wave exposure - open coastlines which face into the prevailing wind and receive both wind-driven waves and

oceanic swell without any offshore obstructions such as islands or shallows for several thousand kilometres and where

deep water is close to the shore (50 m depth contour within about 300 m) (from Hiscock, 1990).

Extremely sheltered

Of wave exposure - fully enclosed coasts with a fetch of no more than about 3 km (from Hiscock, 1990).

Factor

Environmental - a component of the physical, chemical, ecological or human environment that may be influenced by

natural events or anthropogenic activity (Tyler-Walters & Jackson, 1999).

Heavy Metal

A generic term for a range of metals with a moderate to high atomic weight, for example cadmium, mercury, lead.

Although many are essential for life in trace quantities, in elevated concentrations most are toxic and will

bioaccumulate, and so are important pollutants (MarLIN no date).

Halophyte

Species of plants which are capable of living in waters with high salinity.

Monoecious

Plants which can reproduce independently as they have both male and female reproductive organs on different parts of

the same plant.

Ria

A drowned river valley in an area of high relief; most have resulted from the post-glacial rise in relative sea-level

(based on Allaby & Allaby, 1990). As defined for the EC Habitats Directive, 'rias and voes' are "drowned river

valleys (not of glacial origin) with relatively deep narrow well-defined channels which are predominantly marine

throughout".

ROV: Remotely Operated Vehicle.

Sheltered

Of wave exposure - coasts with a restricted fetch and/or open water window. Coasts can face prevailing winds but

with a short fetch (< 20 km) or extensive shallow area offshore, or may face away from prevailing winds (from

Hiscock, 1990).

9 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Appendix I.

Area graphs of results representing seaweed cover on the beaches surveyed.

Figure 2. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at St Anthony’s Head

Figure 3. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at castle Cove

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% c

ove

r o

f se

awe

ed

Quadrat no.

St Anthony's Head Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Sargassum muticum

Rhodymenia pseudopalmata

Phytomatolithon purpureum

Pelvitia canaliculata

Lomentaria articulata

Gracilaria verrucosa

Gigartina stellata

Gelidium pusillum

Furcellaria lumbricalis

Fucus spiralis

Fucus seratus

Enteromorpha intestinalis

Corallina officinalis

Asparagopsis armata

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% c

ove

r o

f se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Castle Cove St Mawes Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva lactuca

Rhodymenia pseudopalmata

Membranoptera Alata

Lomentaria articulata

gracilaria verrucosa

Gigartina stellata

Fucus spiralis

Enteromorpha intestinalis

Corallina officinalis

Ascophyllum nodosum

10 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Figure 4. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at St Just in Roseland.

Figure 5. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at Restronguet Weir.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% c

ove

r o

f se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Between St Just in Roseland and St Mawes Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Membranoptera alata

Laminaria saccharina

Lomentaria articulata

Gracilaria verrucosa

Gigartina stellata

Fucus vesiculosus

Fucus seratus

Enteromorpha intestinalis

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% c

ove

r o

f se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Restronguet Weir Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Membronoptera alata

Laminaria saccharina

Lomentaria articulata

Gracilaria verrucosa

Gigartina stellata

Fucus seratus

Corallina officinalis

11 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Figure 6. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at Mylor Church Beach.

Figure 7. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at Castle Beach

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% c

ove

r o

f Se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Mylor Church Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Lomentaria articulata

Laminaria saccharina

Gigartina stellata

Gelidium pusillum

Fucus seratus

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% C

ove

r o

f Se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Castle Beach Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Sargassum muticum

Rhodymenia pseudopalmata

Porphyra umbilicalis

Phytomatolithon purpureum

Petalonia fascia

Pelvitia canaliculata

Nemalion Helminthoides

Lomentaria articulata

Himanthalia elongata

Gracilaria verrucosa

Gigartina stellata

Gelidium pusillum

Furcellaria lumbricalis

Fucus seratus

Enteromorpha intestinalis

Dictoyota dichotoma

Corallina officinalis

Colpomenia peregrina

Asparagopsis armata

12 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

Figure 8. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at Little Dennis.

Figure 9. Area graph showing the biodiversity of seaweeds found at Gyllingvase.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% C

ove

r o

f Se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Little Dennis Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Phytomatolithon purpureum

Palmaria palmata

Laurencia pinnatifida

Laminaria digitata

Himanthalia elongata

Heterosiphonia plumosa

Gigartina stellata

Gelidium pusillum

Gastroclonium ovatum

Furcellaria lumbricalis

Fucus seratus

Fucus ceranoides

Corallina officinalis

Colpomenia peregrina

Blidingia minima

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% C

ove

r o

f Se

awe

ed

Quadrat number

Gyllingvase Seaweed Biodiversity

Ulva Luctuca

Sargassum muticum

Pelvitia canaliculata

Nemalion Helminthoides

Gigartina stellata

Fucus seratus

Enteromorpha intestinalis

Dilsea carnosa

Corallina officinalis

Colpomenia peregrina

Asparagopsis armata

13 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. References.N J. B. and T. L. SENN, 1965. Seaweed products as a fertilizer and soil conditioner for

Aitkin, J. B. and Senn, T.L., 1965. Seaweed products as a fertilizer and soil conditioner for horticultural crops.

Botanica Marina, 8 (1) 144-148 Available through: Science Direct [Accessed 10th December 2010]

Allaby, A. & Allaby, M., ed., 1990. Concise Oxford dictionary of earth sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baer, J., Stengel, D, B., 2010. Variability of growth, development and reproduction of the non-native seaweed

Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyceae) on the Irish west coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science [e-journal] 90 185-

194 Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 1st March 20112].

Biology Investigation (2003) Brilliant Stats. Shropshire: Curriculum Press

Bryan, G W | Gibbs, P E 1983 Heavy metals in the Fal estuary, Cornwall; a study of long-term contamination by

mining waste and its effects on estuarine organisms. Marine Biological Association. Plymouth, England, Occasional

Publication No.2, (02Cb BRY), 112 pp

Bryan, G. W and Langston, W. J. 1992. Bioavailability, accumulation and effects of heavy metals in sediments with

special reference to United Kingdom estuaries Environmental Pollution. 76, 89-131

© Crown Copyright/database right 2012. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service

Cheang, C.C., Chu, K.H., Fujita, D., Yoshida, G., Hiraoko, M., Critchley, A., Choi, H.G., Duan, D., Serisawa, Y.,

Ang, P.O.A Jr., 2009. Low genetic variability of Sargassum muticum (Phaeophyceae) revealed by a global analysis of

native and introduced populations. Phycological Society of America [e-journal] 46 (6) 1063-1074 Available through:

Elsevier database [Accessed 4th February 2012]

Critchley, A. T., Farnham, W.F. and Morrell, S.L. 1986. An account of the attempted control of an introduced marine

alga, Sargassum muticum, in Southern England. Biological Conservation [e-journal] 35 (4) 313-332 Available

through: Science Direct [Accessed 1st March 2012]

Davis, T.A., Volesky, B. and Veira, R.H.S.F. 1999. Sargassum seaweed as biosorbent for heavy metals. Water

Research [e-journal] 34 (17) 4270-4278 Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 10th December 2011]

Farnham, W. F., Fletcher, R. L., Irvine, L.M., 1973. Attached Sargassum found in Britain. Nature [journal] (243) 231-

232 Available through: Nature Publishing Group [Accessed 4th December 2011]

Fourest E., Volesky, B. 1997 Alginate properties and heavy metal biosorption by marine algae. Appl. Bio-chem.

Biotechno [e-journal] 67, 33-44 Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 6th December 2010]

Gibson, R. Hextall, B. Rogers, A. 2001 Photographic Guide to the Sea & Shore Life of Britain and North West

Europe Oxford: Oxford University Press

Grosholz, E. 2002. Ecological and environmental consequences of coastal invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution

[e-journal] 17(1) Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 1st December 2011]

Hartog, C. D. 1997. Is Sargassum muticum a threat to eelgrass beds? Aquatic Botany [e-journal] (58) 37-41 Available

through: Elsevier database [Accessed 1st December 2011]

Hawkins, S. J. Jones, H. D. 1992 Marine Field Course Guide 1 Rocky Shores London: IMMEL

Hiscock, K., 1990. Marine Nature Conservation Review: methods. Joint Nature Conservation Committee,

Peterborough, Nature Conservancy Council, CSD Report, No. 1072. (Marine Nature Conservation Review Report,

No. MNCR/OR/5.).

14 D. E. M. Parsons / J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. Laann, K. L. Jageu, C. Stiger- Pouvreau, V. 2008 Effect of different conditioning treatments on total phenolic content

and antioxidant activities in two Sargassacean species: Comparison of the frondose Sargassum muticum (Yendo)

Fensholt and the cylindrical Bifurcaria bifurcata R. Ross Phycological Society of America [e-journal] (58) 4 238-245

Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 2nd

March 2012]

Lewey, S. A. (1976). Studies on the brown alga Sargassum muticum (Yendo) Fensholt in Britain. M Phil thesis,

CNAA, Portsmouth Polytechnic.

Lincoln, R., Boxshall, G. & Clark, P., 1998. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics Second edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press.

McLusky, D.S., 1993. Marine and estuarine gradients - an overview. In Proceedings of the 21st Symposium of the

Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association, Gent, 9-14 September 1991. Marine and estuarine gradients (ECSA 21),

(ed. P. Meire & M. Vincx). Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 27, 2-4, 489-493

O Sullivan et al 2010. Prebiotics from Marine Macroalgae for Human and Animal Health Applications Marine Drugs

[journal] (8) 2038-2064 ISSN 1660-3397

Pritchard, D.W., 1967. What is an estuary: physical viewpoint? In Estuaries (ed. G.H. Lauf), 3-5. Washington;

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS Publication, no. 83].

Sanchez, I., Ferdanez, C. 2005. Impact of the invasive seaweed Sargassum muticum (phaeophyta) on an intertidal

macroalgal assemblage. Phycological Society of America [e-journal] (41) 923-930 Available through: Elsevier

database [Accessed 2nd

March 2012]

Tsukidate, J. 1984. Studies on the regeneration of the brown algae, Sargassum muticum (Yendo) Fensholt and

Sargassum tortile C. Agardh. Hydrobiologia [journal] (116/117) 393-397 Available through: Springer Science

[Accessed 29nd

December 2011]

Tyler-Walters, H. & Jackson, A., 1999. Assessing seabed species and ecosystems sensitivities. Rationale and user

guide. Report to the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions from the Marine Life Information

Network (MarLIN), Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth. [MarLIN Report, no.4.]

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), 1985. The International System of

Units (SI) in Oceanography. Report of IAPSO working group on symbols, units and nomenclature in physical

oceanography (SUN). IAPSO Publication Scientifique, no. 32, UNESCO technical papers in marine science, no. 45.

Warwick. R, M. 2001. Evidence for the effects of metal concentration on the intertidal macrobenthic assemblage of

the Fal Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin [journal] (42) 2 145-148 Available through: Elsevier [Accessed 1st May

2012]

Yang J. and Volesky B. (1999) Cadmium biosorption rate in protonated Sargassum biomass. [Journal] Envir. Sci.

Technol. 33, 751-757. Available through: Elsevier database [Accessed 19th April 2012]

Zhao, F. Liu, F. Liu, J. Ang Jr, P.O. Duan, D., 2007. Genetic structure analysis of natural Sargassum muticum

(Fucales, Phaeophyta) populations using RAPD and ISSR markers. J Appl Phycol [e-journal] (20) 191-198 Available

through; Springer Science [Accessed 2nd

April 2012]

Web References

IUCN. 2009 About Marine Invasive Species. [Online] Available at: www.iunc.org [Accessed 10th April 2012]

MarLIN. No date MarLIN Glossary [online] Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk [Accessed 17th April 2012]

McGuiry, M. 2011.The Seaweed Site: information on marine algae. [Online] Available at:

http://www.seaweed.ie/sargassum/index.html [Accessed 10th December 2011