Open Access

The quantitative separation of meiofauna

A comparison of methods
  • G. Uhlig1,
  • H. Thiel2 and
  • J. S. Gray3
Helgoländer wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen25:BF01609968

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01609968

Summary

1. This paper presents the results of a meeting on the evaluation of quantitative procedures for the separation of meiofauna, held at the Marine Station of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, in May 1972. Close co-operation on the part of the participants (p. 194) has allowed assessment of advantages and disadvantages of the separation methods applied. The time needed for preserved methods can be reduced by changing to scanning rather than picking out for sorting and counting.

2. Sorting without concentrations: This method is suitable for very fine-grained sediments, oozes; it is generally applied for preserved samples; adequate for hard fauna; insufficient for soft fauna; very time consuming.

3. Decantation: Suitable for sandy sediments; generally applied for preserved samples; adequate for hard fauna; insufficient for soft fauna; time consuming.

4. Elutriation: Suitable for sandy sediments; for unpreserved samples only with anaesthetization, more effective with preserved samples; limited for total live fauna. With preserved samples, adequate for hard fauna; insufficient for soft fauna; quick method.

5. Warm-water elutriation: Suitable for sandy sediments; designed for live hard fauna (especially nematodes, ostracods); quick method.

6. Sea-water ice treatment: Suitable for sandy sediments with microporal structure; only for live extraction; limited for hard fauna; well suited for soft fauna (including ciliates and flagellates); time consuming.

Advertisement