Skip to main content

Diversity of mangrove root-dwelling sponges in a tropical coastal ecosystem in the southern Gulf of Mexico region

Abstract

Sponges are one of the most conspicuous groups of epibionts in mangrove prop root habitats. However, with the exception of the Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific regions, studies focused on species diversity are lacking in other locations that have high mangrove coverage and are relatively distant from coral reef environments. Because mangrove-root epibiont communities, in general, have been understudied worldwide, this research contributes to filling this knowledge gap. In this study, a total of 30 sponge species (belonging to three subclasses, 14 families and 19 genera) were recorded as epibionts on prop roots of the red mangrove Rhizophora mangle in a tropical coastal ecosystem of the Southern Gulf of Mexico. Of these, five were new records for the Gulf of Mexico, 14 were new for the Mexican coasts of the gulf and 25 were new for the study area. Moreover, a similarity analysis based on presence/absence data of mangrove-associated sponges reported throughout the Western Central Atlantic region revealed that the sponge assemblage from the study area was more similar to those documented in most of the Caribbean locations (Jamaica, Cuba, Martinique, Panama, Venezuela, Belize and Colombia) rather than with those of the Northeast of the Gulf of Mexico, Guadeloupe and Trinidad. This relative intra-regional dissimilarity in the structure of mangrove-associated sponge assemblages may be related to differences in environmental conditions as well as taxonomic effort. The study area, unlike most of the Caribbean locations, is characterized by estuarine conditions and high productivity throughout the year. The inter-site variability recorded in the composition of mangrove-associated sponges was influenced by a set of factors such as salinity, dissolved oxygen and hydrodynamism. This study shows the importance of exploring the mangrove-associated sponge assemblages from different regions of the world as it furthers knowledge of the biodiversity and global distribution of this group.

Introduction

Mangrove prop roots that extend into the intertidal and subtidal zone constitute a habitat for a wide diversity of sessile invertebrates [1, 2]. In these habitats, sponges (Phylum Porifera) in addition to being one of the most conspicuous groups of epibionts [3,4,5], can establish mutualistic relationships with mangroves [6] and have been proposed as indicators of environmental change and mangrove epibenthic community health [4, 7]. However, despite the wide distribution of these biogenic habitats in the world, most research on the mangrove-associated sponge communities has been concentrated in two main regions, the Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific [4, 8,9,10,11]. In many of these studies, high sponge species richness has been highlighted, and species composition was found to differ sometimes significantly from that of adjacent habitats (such as coral reefs and seagrass beds) [3, 12].

In the Gulf of Mexico region (GoM), a recent review documented a total of 339 sponge species from different marine environments (e.g. coral reefs, seagrass meadows, soft and rocky bottoms and mangrove stilt roots) from both shallow and deep waters [13]. Although there have been some records of species associated with mangrove root habitats (Rhizophora mangle Linnaeus, 1753) in this region, these are limited to the Northeastern coasts of the gulf [14, 15]. In the Southern/Southwestern coasts of the basin (Mexican coasts of the GoM), despite efforts to understand the regional diversity of sponges, studies conducted there have emphasized coral reef environments [e.g. 1619, among others]. Sponge assemblages in other coastal environments of this region, such as mangroves, have not been investigated so far.

Therefore, this study aims to contribute to knowledge of the biodiversity and spatial distribution of mangrove root-dwelling sponges in tropical coastal ecosystems of the Southern Gulf of Mexico eco-region (SGM), particularly, in one of the Mexican states (Campeche) with the largest cover of mangrove forests [20]. The similarity of the sponge assemblage recorded in the study area with those reported in locations in the Caribbean and in the Northeast of the Gulf of Mexico is also discussed.

Materials and methods

Sampling of sponges was conducted by snorkeling (between March and April 2016 and in March 2019) in nine sites distributed along the Isla del Carmen, Campeche, within the Natural Protected Area Laguna de Terminos, at the Southern Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 1; Table 1). These sites corresponded to tidal creeks bordered by the red mangrove R. mangle at 0.7–2.0 m depth. This was the only mangrove species included in the study because it is the only one in the region that develops stilt roots, many of which remain fully or partially submerged in the water. In each site, a linear transect of 20 m in length was placed along the mangrove border, within which 30 suspended stilt roots of R. mangle were randomly selected. On each root, samples of sponges that were morphologically (e.g. form, color, consistency) different were carefully removed from the substrate by hand or using a knife, and promptly placed individually into plastic bags for later taxonomic identification based on external characters, skeletal structure and spicule morphology and size [21]. These sponge samples were of variable size and, when possible, more than one specimen of each species was collected. In each site, the presence/absence of each sponge species was recorded. Environmental parameters such as water temperature (TE), salinity (SA), dissolved oxygen (DO), sedimentation rate (SR), water transparency (TR), depth (DE), hydrodynamism (H), and root length (RL) and circumference (RC) were also recorded in each of the nine sampling sites. Temperature (T°C), salinity and dissolved oxygen (mg/L) were measured by a multi-parameter meter (YSI Model 63, Salinity Conductivity Temperature, Ohio 45,387, USA) at 1 m depth. Sedimentation rate (g dry weight m− 2 day− 1) was measured at each site with a trap system consisting of four sets of plastic bottles (height 23 cm, internal diameter 2.2 cm, and ratio height/diameter 10.4/1) whose opening was vertically positioned at 30 cm from the bottom. Sediment traps remained for 30 days before being taken to the laboratory. The trapped material was repeatedly rinsed with distilled water to remove salts and dried at 70 °C for 48 h before being weighed (dry weight, g) [22]. Water transparency (m) was measured with a Secchi disk and depth (m) with a graduated rule. The hydrodynamism at each site was determined by ‘plaster dissolution’ [23]. At each site, four pre-weighed (g dry weight) plaster cylinders 6 cm in diameter X 10 cm long were placed 50 cm above the bottom, at a distance of 50 cm from each other, for 6 days. The percentage of plaster dissolution was calculated from the weight loss produced by the water movement during the time they remained exposed. Also, the average length and circumference (cm) of the submerged portion was measured in 10 of the mangrove roots that had been selected to collect sponge samples.

Fig. 1
figure1

Location of the study area and sampling sites at the Isla del Carmen in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. E1 Estero Pargo 1, E2 Estero Pargo 2, E3 Estero Pargo 3, E4 Estero Pargo 4, E5 Estero Pargo 5, B Bahamita, C Cases, EG Ensenada Grande, SJ Estero San Julián

Table 1 Geographical coordinates of sampling sites at Isla del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico

Data about mangrove sponge assemblages documented in the Western Central Atlantic region (Belize [8], Colombia [24, 25], Cuba [26], Guadeloupe [27], Jamaica [28], Panama [29, 30], Martinique [31], Northern Gulf of Mexico (Florida Keys, USA) [14, 15], Trinidad [27] and Venezuela [5, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]) were used for comparison to the assemblage reported in this study. A dendrogram was obtained using the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) cluster analysis based on Jaccard’s similarity coefficient, which was built from a binary matrix (presence/absence) of species distribution. The ANOSIM test was used to detect significant differences between groups [41]. At local scale, a non metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) analysis was also used (using the UPGMA based on Jaccard’s similarity coefficient built from the precence/absence data of species) to visualize the variations in sponge species composition among the nine sampling sites. These analyses were done using PAST program v. 3.25 [42]. In addition to examining the influence of environmental variables on the distribution of mangrove-associated sponges at Isla del Carmen, a redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed using the rda function of the vegan community analysis package [43]. In this analysis, the response variable was the presence/absence of the species at each of the sampling sites. Independent variables included TE, SA, DO, DE, TR, SR, RL, RC and H. After an exploratory analysis, the variables RL and RC were excluded from the analysis because the inflation factor of the variance was > 10. Alpha diversity (α–diversity) was calculated as the mean species richness in each site and the global beta diversity (Whittaker’s βw) for all the sampled sites sampled was determined by dividing the total species richness between the mean alpha diversity [44].

Results and discussion

A total of 29 sponge species belonging to three subclasses, eight orders, 14 families, and 20 genera were identified (Table 2; Fig. 2). The most representative subclass was Heteroscleromorpha with 23 species, and just as has been documented in some Caribbean locations, the orders Poecilosclerida and Haplosclerida were dominant in terms of species diversity [45]. Seven species (included six as ‘cf.’ and one as ‘sp.’) did not have enough morphological diagnostic characters (small and incomplete specimens), and although we complete the identification, they need to be confirmed. After a minucious taxonomic evaluation, three species were recognized as ‘potentially new to science’, and they will be described together with other sponges in the region. For the aims of this study, we used the species name with the highest affinity to our species (included as ‘aff.’). These species were Haliclona (Gellius) aff. tenerrima, Scalarispongia aff. Linteiformis and Spongosorites aff. siliquaria.

Table 2 Sponge species found associated to mangrove prop roots of Rhizophora mangle at Isla del Carmen, Campeche
Fig. 2
figure2

Pictures of some of the most typical mangrove-associated sponge species at Isla del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico. a Tedania (T.) ignis, b Halichondria (H.) melanadocia, c Dysidea variabilis, d Hyrtios cf. violaceus, e Haliclona (R.) implexiformis, f Lissodendoryx (L.) carolinensis, g Dysidea etheria, h Cliona celata, i Lissodendoryx (L.) isodictyalis, j Mycale (C.) microsigmatosa, k Suberites auratiacus, l Echinodictyum cf. dendroides, m Mycale (C.) magnirhaphidifera, n Terpios cf. fugax. Scale bar in all pictures = 2 cm

The total number of species recorded here was comparable with that of other studies conducted in submerged mangrove root habitats from both the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific (Table 3). The greatest number of studies have been carried out in Belize and Venezuela for the Caribbean and Indonesia for the Indo-Pacific (Table 3). It is also important to note that of the species recorded in this study only Halichondria (Halichondria) melanadocia Laubenfels, 1936, Haliclona (Reniera) implexiformis (Hechtel, 1965), Chondrilla caribensis form caribensis Rützler, Duran & Piantoni, 2007 and Dysidea etheria Laubenfels, 1936 were previously reported in the study area, but were found in other habitats such as seagrass beds and muddy-sandy bottoms [46, 47]. Of the remaining 25 species, five were new records for the entire GoM (Echinodictyum cf. dendroides, Haliclona [Soestella] cf. luciensis, Haliclona [Soestella] piscaderaensis, Haliclona [Gellius] aff. tenerrima and Scalarispongia aff. linteiformis), 14 were new for the SGM and 25 were new for the study area (Isla del Carmen) (Table 2). Among the 29 species were typical mangrove-associated species such as H. (R.) implexiformis, Mycale (Carmia) magnirhaphidifera van Soest, 1984 and H. (H.) melanadocia (widely reported in the Caribbean region) as well as habitat generalist species such as Tedania (Tedania) ignis (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864), Mycale (Carmia) microsigmatosa Arndt, 1927 and Suberites aurantiacus (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864), which have also been reported in other habitats [7, 24].

Table 3 Number of sponge species reported in different locations in the Western Central Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions

According to the cluster analysis, the mangrove sponge assemblages reported from the Western Central Atlantic region were separated into two main groups (Fig. 3) that differ significantly (One-way ANOSIM, permutation N = 9999, R = 0.828, p = 0.0064). Group A includes most of the Caribbean locations (mainly of the Central Caribbean) such as Belize, Colombia, Cuba, Martinique, Jamaica, Panama, Venezuela and one from the Gulf of Mexico, the SGM (this study). Group B includes two Caribbean locations of the Lesser Antilles (Guadeloupe and Trinidad) and one of the Gulf of Mexico, the NGM. These findings indicate that the sponge assemblage reported in this study (SGM) is more similar to those documented in most of the Caribbean locations (Jamaica, Cuba, Martinique, Panama, Venezuela, Belice and Colombia) than with those of the NGM, Guadeloupe and Trinidad. As has been documented in other studies, the high spatial heterogeneity (at small and large scale) of mangrove-associated sponge assemblages can be explained by several factors, including the presence of unique species, local colonization events (recruitment) and succession, competition for space, predation, local environmental conditions (including physicochemical parameters and the site exposure to wind-generated waves), and the presence of other habitats (such as coral reefs and seagrass meadows) in surrounding areas [4, 7, 10, 41, 48,49,50,51]. Despite the link between the GoM and the Caribbean Sea through the Loop Current [52] and evidence of faunistic connectivity (e.g. corals) between these regions [53], the relative dissimilarity detected between the sponge assemblage of the SGM and those of the Caribbean could be attributed to differences in environmental conditions.

Fig. 3
figure3

UPGMA analysis using Jaccard similarity index (Cophenetic correlation = 0.92) for the mangrove sponge fauna reported in the Western Central Atlantic region. BEL Belize, COL Colombia, CUB Cuba, MAR Martinique, GUA Guadeloupe, JAM Jamaica, NGM Florida Keys (USA), PAN Panama, SGM Campeche (Mexico), TRI Trinidad, VEN Venezuela. The asterisk indicates the sampling location of this study

Unlike many of the Caribbean locations, where mangrove-associated sponge assemblages were reported, the region of this study is influenced by three permanent rivers that maintain high productivity (up to 285 g C m− 2 yr− 1 in tidal creeks) and turbidity in the coastal zone during the year round [54]. In the study area, the environmental conditions were as follows: TE = 28.5–29.6 °C, SA = 33.9–41.1, TR = 1.05–2.0 m, SR = 78–243 g m− 2 day− 1, DO = 1.3–5.8 mg/L, DE = 0.7–2.0 m, RL = 34.4–77.2 cm, RC = 7.4–10.5 cm, H = 25.1–69.1% and muddy bottom in all sites. Although this study was carried out during the same season of year (dry season), there is also documented evidence that some of these parameters present a wide intra-annual variability in the study area (TE: 25–31.2 °C, SA: 25–36.6 [55], TR: 0.48–2.40 m [54] and SR: 48.3–220.1 g m− 2 day− 1 [56]), reflecting the wide range in environmental conditions to which these sponge assemblages are exposed. Conditions such as transparency and sedimentation rate seem to contrast with that described in some study locations of the Caribbean [4], which are relatively near to oligotrophic environments such as coral reefs. Moreover, the locations NGM, Trinidad and Guadeloupe may have been separated from the rest due to the lower number of records (data on sponge species from mangrove habitats) as has been highlighted in previous studies [57] and could be related to a low taxonomic effort [58]. Of the studies conducted in the Caribbean, only the one in Martinique mentions that most of sampling sites were relatively exposed to various sources of anthropogenic pressures (agricultural, domestic, urban and industrial wastes) and some of them were also near a river mouth [31]. Although sampling sites in this study were also exposed to anthropogenic pressures (urban, industrial and agricultural wastes), the sponge assemblages recorded here were little similar to that of Martinique.

At the local scale, a wide inter-site variability in species composition was also detected and a global beta diversity of 1.96 was recorded (Table 2). According to species composition, the nMDS analysis resulted in three groups for the nine sampling sites (Fig. 4). In group A (E5, B, EG and SJ), the sites had the greatest α-diversity (10–13) and were relatively more exposed to wind-generated waves and had greater marine influence (SJ). Those in group B (E2, E3, E4 and C) had intermediate values of α-diversity (4–10) and were located in relatively narrow tidal channels. Group C (E1) had the site with the lowest α-diversity (only one species, Terpios cf. fugax) and was located at the end of a tidal channel (Fig. 1). In fact, sites E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5 were located within the same tidal channel and a gradient from higher to lower α-diversity from the entrance to the end of this channel was notable. According to RDA analysis, the variables used explained about 61% of the variance of the species distribution at the sampling sites (constrained/uncosntrained variance = 0.60 v. 0.01, R2adj = 0.61). Most of the recorded species were found in areas where values of salinity, dissolved oxygen and root circumference were relatively high, while only two species (Terpios cf. fugax and Haliclona [Soestella] cf. luciensis) showed a strong relationship with water temperature and transparency (Fig. 5). This result is consistent with that of previous studies, where spatial distribution patterns of mangrove-associated sponges could not be explained by a single factor, but was multifactorial (e.g. including sedimentation rate, turbidity, degree of exposure to waves and desiccation during low tides, spatial competition, root density and/or length, nutrients availability and predation) [4, 7, 49,50,51,52].

Fig. 4
figure4

nMDS ordination plot (using Jaccard similarity index, Cophenetic correlation = 0.88) for nine compared mangrove-associated sponge assemblages at Isla del Carmen, Mexico. E1 Estero Pargo 1, E2 Estero Pargo 2, E3 Estero Pargo 3, E4 Estero Pargo 4, E5 Estero Pargo 5, B Bahamita, C Cases, EG Ensenada Grande, SJ Estero San Julián

Fig. 5
figure5

Redundancy analysis (RDA). The species (red) and their relationship with environmental variables (blue) at the sampling sites (E1 Estero Pargo 1, E2 Estero Pargo 2, E3 Estero Pargo 3, E4 Estero Pargo 4, E5 Estero Pargo 5, B Bahamita, C Cases, EG Ensenada Grande, SJ Estero San Julián)

In summary, this is the first work where a mangrove-associated sponge assemblage is reported for the Mexican coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. This study contributes to knowledge of marine biodiversity in the coastal region with the greatest mangrove coverage in Mexico, which during the last decades has been threatened by anthropic activities (urban development, agriculture, and oil industry). The data generated in this study will serve as baseline for further studies focused on mangrove-associated sponge communities, which in turn, will contribute to conservation of these important habitats.

Availability of data and materials

Our manuscript has no associated data.

References

  1. 1.

    Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: A review. Aquat Bot. 2008;89:155–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Carugati L, Gatto B, Rastelli E, et al. Impact of mangrove forests degradation on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13298.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hunting ER, van Soest RWM, van der Geest HG, Vos A, Debrot AO. Diversity and spatial heterogeneity of mangrove associated sponges of Curaçao and Aruba. Contrib Zool. 2008;77:205–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Diaz MC, Rützler K. Biodiversity and abundance of sponges in Caribbean mangrove: indicators of environmental quality. Smithson Contrib Mar Sci. 2009;38:151–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Guerra-Castro E, Cruz-Motta JJ, Eloy CJ. Cuantificación de la diversidad de especies incrustantes asociadas a las raíces de Rhizophora mangle L. en el Parque Nacional Laguna de la Restinga. Interciencia. 2011;36:923–30.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ellison AM, Fransworth EJ, Twilley RR. Facultative mutualism between red mangrove and root-fouling sponges in Belizean Mangal. Ecology. 1996;77:2431–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Díaz MC, Smith P, Rützler K. Sponges species richness and abundance as indicators of mangrove epibenthic community health. Atoll Res Bull. 2004;518:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rützler K, Diaz MC, van Soest RWM, Zea S, Smith KP, Alvarez B, Wulff J. Diversity of sponge fauna in mangrove ponds, Pelican Cays, Belize. Atoll Res Bull. 2000;467:229–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barnes DKA, Bell JJ. Coastal sponge communities of the West Indian Ocean: taxonomic afinities, richness and diversity. Afr J Ecol. 2002;40:337–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Becking LE, Cleary DFR, de Voogd NJ. Sponge species composition, abundance, and cover in marine lakes and coastal mangroves in Berau, Indonesia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013;481:105–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Calcinai B, Bastari A, Makapedua DM, Cerrano C. Mangrove sponges from Bangka Island (North Sulawesi, Indonesia) with the description of a new species. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 2016;97:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Diaz MC. Mangrove and coral reef sponge faunas: untold stories about shallow water Porifera in the Caribbean. Hydrobiologia. 2012;687:179–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rützler K, van Soest RWM, Piantoni C. Sponges (Porifera) of the Gulf of Mexico. In: Felder DL, Camp DK, editors. Gulf of Mexico–Origins, Waters, and Biota. Texas A&M University Press; 2009. p. 285–313.

  14. 14.

    Engel S, Pawlik JR. Interactions among Florida sponges. II. Mangrove habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;303:145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schutte VG, Byers JE. Variation in a simple trait of mangrove roots governs predator access to, and assemblage composition of, epibiotic sponges. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2017;573:15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Green G. Sinopsis taxonómica de 13 especies de esponjas del Arrecife La Blanquilla, Veracruz, México. An Centro Cienc Mar Limnol Univ Nac Autón Méx. 1977;4:79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    González-Gándara C, Patiño-García A, Asís-Anastasio U, Serrano A, Gómez P. Lista de esponjas marinas asociadas al arrecife Tuxpan, Veracruz, México. Rev Mex Biodiv. 2009;80:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ugalde D, Gómez P, Simões N. Marine sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae) from the Gulf of México, new records and redescription of Erylus trisphaerus (de Laubenfels, 1953). Zootaxa. 2015;3911:151–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    de la Cruz-Francisco V, González-González M, Morales-Quijano I. Faunística y distribución de Demospongiae: Porifera del arrecife Enmedio, Sistema arrecifal Lobos-Tuxpan, México. CICIMAR Oceánides. 2016;31:7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    CONABIO. Manglares de México: Extensión y distribución. 2nd ed. México: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Boury-Esnault N, Rützler K. Thesaurus of sponge morphology. Smithson Contrib Zool. 1997;596:1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Carballo JL, Ávila E, Enríquez S, Camacho L. Phenotypic plasticity in a mutualistic association between the sponge Haliclona caerulea and the calcareous macroalga Jania adherens induced by transplanting experiments. I: morphological responses of the sponge. Mar Biol. 2006;148:467–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gambi MC, Buia MC, Casola E, Scardi M. Estimates of water movement in Posidonia oceanica beds: a first approach. In: Boudouresque CF, Meinesz A, Fresi E, Gravez V, editors, International Workshop on Posidonia Beds. GIS Posidonie, Marseille. 1989;101–112.

  24. 24.

    Zea S. Esponjas del Caribe colombiano. Bogotá: Catálogo científico. Cartagena, Colombia;1987.

  25. 25.

    Quirós-Rodríguez JA, Medrano-Mangones WJ, Santafé-Patiño GG. Esponjas (Porifera: Demospongiae) de raíces sumergidas de Rizhophora mangle en la bahía de Cispatá, Córdoba, Caribe Colombiano. Rev Mex Biodiv. 2017;88:80–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Alcolado PM. Comunidades de esponjas de manglares de Cuba. In: Carrera LM, Guzman JM, editors. Ecosistemas de manglar en el archipélago cubano. La Habana: Academia de Cuba; 2007. pp. 243–53.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Toffart JL. Populations of mangrove roots in Guadeloupe (French Antilles). I. Floristic and faunistic analysis; methodology and first results. B Ecol. 1983;14:227–39.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hechtel GJ. A systematic study of the Demospongiae of Port Royal, Jamaica. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University; 1965.

  29. 29.

    Diaz MC. Common sponges from shallow marine habitats from Bocas del Toro region, Panama. Caribb J Sci. 2005;41:465–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lehnert H, van Soest RWM. Shallow water sponges of Jamaica. Beaufortia. 1998;48:71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Perez T, Diaz MC, Ruiz C, Condor-Lujan B, Klautau M, Hajdu E, Lobo-Hajdu G, Zea S, Pomponi SA, Thacker RW, Carteron S. How a collaborative integrated taxonomic effort has trained new spongiologists and improved knowledge of Martinique Island (French Antilles, eastern Caribbean Sea) marine biodiversity. PloS one. 2017;12:e0173859.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sutherland J. Dynamics of the epibenthic community on roots of the mangrove Rhizophora mangle, at Bahia de Buche, Venezuela. Mar Biol. 1980;58:75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Diaz H, Bevilacqua M, Bone D. Esponjas en Manglares del Parque National Morrocoy. Coro: Editorial Científica Venezolana; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Orihuela B, Diaz H, Conde JE. Mass mortality in a mangrove roots fouling community in a hypersaline tropical lagoon. Biotropica. 1991;23:592–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Pauls S1 Systematic and diversity study of Porifera and Cnidaria of the Ciénaga de Ocumare de la Costa Bay, Henri Pittier National Park. Monograph Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela; 1998.

  36. 36.

    Pauls S. “Sponges.”. In: Aguilera M, Azocar A, Gonzales E, editors. Biodiversity of Venezuela. Caracas: Polar Foundation and Ministry of Science and Technology; 2003. pp. 210–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ramírez I. Taxonomy of the Sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae) of Bocaripo Lagoon, Estado Sucre, and Caribe Island, Dependencia Federal, Venezuela [Bachelor Thesis]. Cumaná, Universidad de Oriente; 2002.

  38. 38.

    Diaz MC, Pauls S, Villamizar E, et al. Porifera Biodiversity in Nueva Esparta, Venezuela: Common Species from La Restinga and Cabugua Island. Abstract. The Twin Cays Mangrove Ecosystem, Belize: Biodiversity, Geological History, and Two Decades of Change. Smithsonian Institution Conference, Fort Pierce, Florida; 2003.

  39. 39.

    Pérez A. Estudio de las comunidades de esponjas asociadas a las raíces del mangle rojo (Rhizophora mangle) en la Laguna de La Restinga entre julio 2004 y agosto 2005 [Bachelor Thesis]. Venezuela, Universidad de Oriente; 2007.

  40. 40.

    Guerra-Castro E, Young P, Pérez-Vázquez A, Carteron S, Alvizu A. Spatial variability and human disturbance of sponge assemblages associated with mangrove roots in the southern Caribbean. Mar Freshwater Res. 2011;62:491–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Clarke KR. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol. 1993;18:117–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hammer Ø, Harper DA, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001;4:9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Oksanen J. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. R package version. 2011;1:1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Whittaker RH. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr. 1960;30:279–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Maldonado M, Aguilar R, Bannister RJ, et al Sponge grounds as key marine habitats: a synthetic review of types, structure, functional roles, and conservation concerns. In: Rossi S, Bramanti L, Gori A, Orejas C, editors. Marine animal forests: The Ecology of Benthic Biodiversity Hotspots. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 145–183.

  46. 46.

    Núñez-Fernández MCE. Estudio Taxonómico de las esponjas de la Laguna de Términos, Campeche, México [Bachelor Thesis]. Mexico City, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 1978.

  47. 47.

    Ávila E, Ávila-García AK, Cruz-Barraza JA. Temporal and small-scale spatial variations in abundance and biomass of seagrass-dwelling sponges in a tropical estuarine system. Mar Ecol. 2015;36:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rützler K. Low-tide exposure of sponges in a Caribbean mangrove community. Mar Ecol. 1995;16:165–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wulff JL. Sponge predators may determine differences in sponge fauna between two sets of mangrove cays, Belize barrier reef. Atoll Res Bull. 2000;477:249–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wulff JL. Sponge systematics by starfish: predators distinguish cryptic sympatric species of Caribbean fire sponges, Tedania ignis and Tedania klausi n. sp. (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida). Biol Bull. 2006;211:83–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Wulff JL. Ecological interactions and the distribution, abundance, and diversity of sponges. In: Becerro MA, Uriz MJ, Maldonado M, Turon X, editors. Advances in Sponge Science: Phylogeny, Systematics, Ecology. In: Advances in Marine Biology, Academic Press; 2012. p. 273–344.

  52. 52.

    Oey L, Ezer T, Lee H. Loop Current, rings and related circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: A review of numerical models and future challenges. Geophysical Monograph-American Geophysical Union. 2005;161:1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Chávez-Hidalgo A, De la Cruz-Agüero G, Chávez EA. Indirect evidences on the connectivity of coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and the Mexican Caribbean. Proc 11th Int Coral Reef Symp. 2008;427–430.

  54. 54.

    Rivera-Monroy VH, Madden CJ, Day JW, Twilley RR, Vera-Herrera F, Alvarez-Guillén H. Seasonal coupling of a tropical mangrove forest and an estuarine water column: enhancement of aquatic primary productivity. Hydrobiologia. 1998;379:41–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ávila E, Cancino-Magaña Y, Rodríguez-Santiago MA, Ballesteros M. Spatio-temporal dynamics of a predator-prey relationship: the nudibranch Doris kyolis and the sponge Halichondria melanadocia. Ocean Coast Res. 2020;68.

  56. 56.

    Ávila E, Araujo-Leyva OR, Rodríguez-Santiago MA, López-Rosas H. Alien barnacle Amphibalanus amphitrite epizoic in two native oyster species from the southern Gulf of Mexico: spatio-temporal variability and current status of its epibiosis. Mar Biol Res. 2018;14:581–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Miloslavich P, Díaz JM, Klein E, Alvarado JJ, Díaz C, Gobin J, Escobar-Briones E, Cruz-Motta JJ, Weil E, Cortés J, Bastidas AC, Robertson R, Zapata F, Martín A, Castillo J, Kazandjian A, Ortiz M. Marine biodiversity in the Caribbean: regional estimates and distribution patterns. PloS one. 2010;5(8):e11916.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Gray A, Cavers S. Island biogeography, the effects of taxonomic effort and the importance of island niche diversity to single-island endemic species. Syst Biol. 2014;63:55–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Bingham BL, Young CM. Stochastic events and dynamics of a mangrove root epifaunal community. Mar Ecol. 1995;16:145–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Rützler K. The mangrove community: aspects of its structure, faunistics, and ecology. In: Ayala-Castañares A, editor. Memorias, Simposio International Lagunas Costeras. Mexico: UNAM; 1969. pp. 515–36.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Inclán-Rivadeneyra R. Ecology of the epibiosis on the submerged roots of Rhizophora mangle in Bahía de la Ascensión, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Cienc Mar. 1989;15:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Hernán Álvarez-Guillen, Andrés Reda-Deara, Andrea Cabrera-Mercado and Alejandro Gómez-Ponce for their assistance with field sampling.

Funding

This study was funded by the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (internal project no. 618), with complementary funding from the project PAPIIT-IN203419, UNAM.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

EA and LEVM designed the research; EA, LEVM, PJCP and JACB collected and identified the species; EA and PJCP wrote the manuscript and performed part of the analysis; JCCD performed multivariate analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Ávila.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castellanos-Pérez, P.d., Vázquez-Maldonado, L.E., Ávila, E. et al. Diversity of mangrove root-dwelling sponges in a tropical coastal ecosystem in the southern Gulf of Mexico region. Helgol Mar Res 74, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10152-020-00545-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Porifera
  • Biodiversity
  • Southern Gulf of Mexico
  • Rhizophora mangle
  • Distribution