Su Jin Han, Jae-Gil Jang, Hyun-Jung Kim, Tae-Ho Seo, Joo Myun Park. Ecological evaluation of marine macroalgal communities on five islands of Korea in the Yellow Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2023, 42(6): 49-56. doi: 10.1007/s13131-022-2089-y
Citation: Su Jin Han, Jae-Gil Jang, Hyun-Jung Kim, Tae-Ho Seo, Joo Myun Park. Ecological evaluation of marine macroalgal communities on five islands of Korea in the Yellow Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2023, 42(6): 49-56. doi: 10.1007/s13131-022-2089-y

Ecological evaluation of marine macroalgal communities on five islands of Korea in the Yellow Sea

doi: 10.1007/s13131-022-2089-y
Funds:  The Project “National Marine Ecosystem Comprehensive Survey” Funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries and the Korea Marine Environment Corporation; the “Development of Science and Technology-based Sea Area Use Impact Assessment Technology” Project Funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries; the Fund of Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology under contract No. PEA0116.
More Information
  • Corresponding author: E-mail: joomyun.park@kiost.ac.kr (J.M. Park)
  • Received Date: 2022-03-01
  • Accepted Date: 2022-07-12
  • Available Online: 2023-02-01
  • Publish Date: 2023-06-25
  • Macroalgae have long been used as biological indicators of marine ecosystem health worldwide due to their ecological importance and sensitivity to environmental stress. A number of previous studies have utilized macroalgal communities in monitoring surveys of environmental conditions. This study examined the characteristics and patterns of marine macroalgal communities in the Yellow Sea off the western coast of Korea. Macroalgae were analyzed for the number of species, biomass, and coverage ratio by macroalgal type. During the study period, 82 macroalgal species (10 green algae, 17 brown algae, and 55 red algae) were identified at the five study sites, with the highest number of species found at Gwanrido and Uido (both containing 41 species) and the lowest at Daeijakdo (27 species). The average biomass (via dry weight) was 98.63 g/m2, consisting of green algae (8.39 g/m2), brown algae (35.08 g/m2), and red algae (55.16 g/m2). The dominant macroalgae species in terms of biomass were Corallina pilulifera, Sargassum thunbergii, and Ulva australis in the intertidal zones, and Botryocladia wrightii and Gelidium elegans in the subtidal zones. Richness, evenness, and diversity indices based on the biomass of abundant species were 5.08, 0.65, and 2.30, respectively, over the entire study area. Based on the evaluation of the environmental states by the community indices, overall, the Ecological Evaluation Index of macroalgae communities in the study area was marked as “Good-Moderate”, but was determined as “Moderate-Low” at several sites during summer. The results can be a direct approach in the assessment of coastal habitats in which anthropogenic as well as climate change influences persist.
  • Macroalgae are primary producers in marine environments and provide important ecological services in coastal ecosystems (Whitaker et al., 2010; Liang et al., 2014). They also serve as biofilters owing to their capacity to remove organic and inorganic pollutants dumped in the coastal sea area from inland areas. Thus, they are considered to be an indicator organism for monitoring the coastal environment (Wells et al., 2007; Scherner et al., 2013; Vale et al., 2021), while they can also cause algal blooms (Liu et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2022; Sun et al., 2022). Ecological information of macroalgae such as species diversity, distribution range, and abundance data can be easily utilized to obtain the current status and environmental conditions of coastal ecosystems (Choi and Rho, 2010; Roleda et al., 2012; Akrong et al., 2021).

    Evaluation of coastal environmental conditions using macroalgae has previously been attempted by analyzing the composition of functional groups of macroalgae (e.g., Wells et al., 2007; Juanes et al., 2008). Generally, macroalgae are divided into six functional groups (sheet, filamentous, coarsely branched, thick-leathery, jointed-calcareous, and crustose) according to their survival strategies. Since each group thrives under different environmental conditions, functional composition has been used to evaluate the level of environmental stress caused by artificial disturbance and pollution in surveyed areas (Littler and Littler, 1984; Padilla and Allen, 2000). Recently, the ecological evaluation index continuous formula (EEI-c) has been developed by classifying five functional types of macroalgae in consideration of body shape, life cycle, growth rate, phenotype adaptability, and transition rate, in order to grade the environmental status of coastal habitats based on the Ecological Status Class (ESC) (Orfanidis et al., 2001, 2003, 2011).

    The coastal region of western Korea has been developed into numerous bays, estuaries, complex shorelines, and islands that are covered with spacious tidal flats along the rias of the coast. These areas often have high tidal ranges, which can lead to turbidity caused by high concentrations of suspended particles in the water (Yang and Kim, 2009; Jung et al., 2010). Since Kang (1966) formed a record of the 140 Korean algal species in “geographical distribution of Korean macroalgae”, various ecological studies measuring features such as macroalgal flora, biomass, vertical distribution, community structure, and functional composition have been attempted. Most research aiming to evaluate environmental conditions through macroalgal communities was focused on only some coastal areas and islands (Yoo et al., 2007; Choi et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010, 2013a; Ahn et al., 2017). However, such research is still scarce in the outlying islands of the western sea of Korea.

    Therefore, this study was conducted to identify the characteristics of macroalgal communities inhabiting the intertidal and subtidal habitats of five islands off the western coast and to evaluate environmental conditions by calculating the EEI-c based on functional groups of macroalgae occurring in the study area. The results may be highly beneficial both for management purposes of coastal ecosystem and for recognizing future human- and climate- induced influences on coastal environments locally and globally.

    In this study, macroalgal samples were collected from both intertidal and subtidal zones of five islands along the western coast of Korea (part of the Yellow Sea off western Korean waters). The islands were: Daeijakdo (DJD) in Incheon, Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo (GBD) and Hodo (HD) in Chungcheongnam-do, Gwanrido (GD) in Jeollabuk-do, and Uido (UD) in Jeollanam-do (Fig. 1). All study islands are located far from the inland and have little anthropogenic influences such as pollution, river discharge and sewage. Only the study sites on GD and UD are located near ports which may have been influenced by moving passenger ships and/or fishing vessels. Nitrate, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) were lower on HD and GD than on the other islands, whereas both particulate organic carbon (POC) and particulate organic nitrogen (PON) were higher (unpublished data). Overall, benthic community structures were similar among the study islands, but the abundances of filter bivalves (e.g., oysters and mussels) potentially influencing macroalgal growth tended to be higher on DJD and GBD (unpublished data).

    Figure  1.  Map showing the five study sites located along the western coasts of Korea. DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido.

    Samplings of macroalgae were conducted during May (spring) and August (summer) of 2017, and macroalgae samples were collected from rocky substrates. In total, ten quadrats were installed on each island during low tide; two quadrats (50 cm × 50 cm) were randomly installed on the ground in each of the upper, middle, and lower parts of the intertidal zone and the two stations in the subtidal zone (at depths of 1−4 m and 5−8 m). Quadrats were first photographed before all macroalgae existing within the quadrats collected using chisel knives (Tajima, TJM Design Corp., Japan). Analysis of these data was used to record the percentage coverage of each macroalgal type in each zone (Saito and Atobe, 1970).

    Immediately after collection, macroalgae samples were fixed in the field with seawater-diluted formalin solution (5%−10%, Samchun Pure Chemical Co., Ltd., Korea) and transported to the laboratory. The samples were then washed with fresh water and identified at the species level using a combination of naked eye and microscope (Olympus CX31, Olympus Corp., Japan) observations. Following this, they were dried in a drying oven (Lab House Co., Korea) at 105℃ for 2 d before measuring the dry weight (0.01 g). The dry weight value was used to determine biomass per unit area (g/m2).

    The list of macroalgal species based on scientific names followed the National List of Species of Korea [Marine Algae] (Kim et al., 2013b) and the AlgaeBase classification system (www.algaebase.org; Guiry and Guiry, 2021).

    To understand the ecological characteristics of macroalgal communities, the richness index, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, and evenness index were calculated based on the current status of macroalgae (species number and biomass) at each site (Margalef, 1958; McNaughton, 1967; Cohen and Fowler, 1990). The ecological indices were calculated using the PRIMER v6 statistical software (Clarke and Gorley, 2006; PRIMER-e, New Zealand).

    In this study, macroalgal species were classified into two ecological status groups (ESGs) and five subgroups, namely, ESG I (subgroups IA, IB, and IC) and ESG II (subgroups IIA and IIB), based on their morphology, growth rate, phenotype adaptability, lifespan, and transition rate (Orfanidis et al., 2011). The EEI-c was calculated using the coverage of macroalgal species in each group. The coastal environmental conditions were evaluated according to the ecological evaluation class (ESC) (Table 1; Orfanidis et al., 2011). The characteristics of each group and the equation for calculating the EEI-c are as follows:

    ESG I: thick perennial (IA), thick plastic (IB), shade-adapted plastic (IC).

    ESG II: fleshy opportunistic (IIA), filamentous sheet-like opportunistic (IIB).

    ESG I (% coverage) = [(IA × 1) + (IB × 0.8) + (IC × 0.6)] (x-axis).

    ESG II (% coverage) = [(IIA × 0.8) + (IIB × 1)] (y-axis).

    EEI-c (x, y) = a + b(x/100) + c(x/100)2 + d(y/100) + e(y/100)2+f (x/100)(y/100), a=0.4680, b=1.2088, c=−0.3583, d=−1.1289, e=0.5129, f=−0.1869.

    During the study period, 82 macroalgal species (10 species of green algae (Chlorophyta), 17 species of brown algae (Ochrophyta-Phaeophyceae), and 55 species of red algae (Rhodophyta)) were recorded at five study sites, with six species (Ulva australis, Sargassum thunbergii, Gelidium elegans, Chondrus ocellatus, Polyopes affinis, and Symphyocladia latiuscula) occurring at all study sites (Table S1). In total, 57 and 62 species were found in the intertidal and subtidal zones, respectively. Spatially, 27 species occurred on DJD, 34 on HD, 35 on GBD, and 41 on both GD and UD (Table 2). The frequency of the occurrence of macroalgal species by taxonomic group ranged from 7.32% to 19.51% for green algae, 11.76% to 26.83% for brown algae, and 53.66% to 78.05% for red algae. The mean occurrence of red algae was the highest on UD compared to the other sites, and the lowest on GD, where the occurrence of brown algae was the highest. Overall, the occurrence of green algae was relatively low in all study sites regardless of the season and tidal zone.

    Table  1.  Ecological Status Class (ESC) boundaries of transitional and coastal waters based on the Ecological Evaluation Index continuous formula (EEI-c)
    ESCEEI-c (mean±SD)
    High (H)9.72±0.46
    Good-High (G-H)8.09±0.74
    Good-Moderate (G-M)5.84±0.70
    Moderate-Low (M-L)4.04±0.68
    Bad (B)2.34±0.78
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  2.  Number of macroalgal species observed at the five study sites along the western coast of Korea
    SiteTaxonIntertidal zoneSubtidal zoneTotal
    SpringSummerSpringSummer

    DJD
    Chlorophyta21213
    Ochrophyta435
    Rhodophyta5651319
    Subtotal77111727

    GBD
    Chlorophyta44
    Ochrophyta52116
    Rhodophyta12781325
    Subtotal21991435

    HD
    Chlorophyta4215
    Ochrophyta32114
    Rhodophyta8891025
    Subtotal1512111134

    GD
    Chlorophyta44318
    Ochrophyta524511
    Rhodophyta7516822
    Subtotal1611231441

    UD
    Chlorophyta21123
    Ochrophyta2436
    Rhodophyta1817131932
    Subtotal2222142441
    Note: DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido. − represents no data.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The mean biomass (dry weight) of all macroalgae was 98.63 g/m2, including green algae (8.39 g/m2), brown algae (35.08 g/m2), and red algae (55.16 g/m2). The total mean biomass of brown algae was the highest (110.00 g/m2) on GD, and that of red algae was the highest (85.96 g/m2) on GBD (Fig. 2). Overall, the mean biomass was higher in the intertidal zones of GBD and GD, while it was higher in the subtidal zones of DJD, depending on the tidal level (Fig. 2). The site showing the largest difference in mean biomass between the intertidal and the subtidal zone was DJD (163.61 g/m2 vs. 19.09 g/m2, respectively), while the lowest difference in mean biomass between intertidal and subtidal zones was on HD (95.14 g/m2 vs. 63.44 g/m2, respectively).

    Figure  2.  Mean biomass (dry weight) of macroalgae in each taxonomic group across the five study sites along the western coast of Korea. a. Mean biomass combining intertidal and subtidal zones; b. mean biomass in the intertidal zone; c. mean biomass in the subtidal zone. DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

    Based on the macroalgal biomass content, the dominant species were Corallina pilulifera, Sargassum thunbergii, and Ulva australis in the intertidal zone, and Botryocladia wrightii and Gelidium elegans in the subtidal zone (Table 3). In the intertidal zone, Sargassum thunbergii was the most abundant macroalgal species on HD (48.13%) and GD (66.85%), whereas Ulva australis, Gelidiophycus freshwateri, and Corallina pilulifera were common macroalgal species on DJD (51.41%), GBD (27.99%), and UD (45.46%), respectively. In contrast, in the subtidal zone, Botryocladia wrightii dominated the macroalgal communities of GBD and HD. Two Geldium species (Gelidium elegans and Gelidium vagum) were the most abundant macroalgae on DJD and UD, and Myagropsis myagroides dominated only in the intertidal zone of GD among all study sites.

    Table  3.  Dominant (≥30%) and subdominant (10%−30%) species in terms of percentage of average biomass at both the intertidal zone and subtidal zone of five study sites along the western coast of Korea
    SiteIntertidal zoneSubtidal zone
    DJDUlva australis (51.41%)
    Chondrus pinnulatus (13.46%)
    Polyopes affinis (13.01%)
    Gelidium elegans (32.02%)
    Chondrus pinnulatus (13.75%)
    GBDGelidiophycus freshwateri (27.99%)
    Corallina pilulifera (24.88%)
    Chondria atropurpurea (24.67%)
    Botryocladia wrightii (27.44%)
    Gelidium elegans (21.29%)
    Rhodymenia intricata (14.49%)
    HDSargassum thunbergii (48.13%)
    Myelophycus simplex (12.85%)
    Botryocladia wrightii (22.46%)
    Rhodymenia intricata (18.47%)
    Gelidium elegans (14.67%)
    Chondracanthus tenellus (11.37%)
    GDSargassum thunbergii (66.85%)Myagropsis myagroides (23.40%)
    Sargassum miyabei (22.37%)
    Campylaephora hypnaeoides (13.00%)
    UDCorallina pilulifera (45.46%)
    Ulva australis (34.63%)
    Gelidium vagum (57.23%)
    Haraldiophyllum bonnemaisonii (12.16%)
    Note: DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Ecological indices based on species number and biomass of the macroalgae community ranged from 2.32 to 5.31 in richness, from 0.42 to 0.75 in evenness, from 1.39 to 2.35 in diversity, and from 0.41 to 0.80 in dominance (Table 4). The richness index was higher in the subtidal zone on DJD and GD, whereas it was higher in the intertidal zone on GBD, HD, and UD. Evenness and diversity were higher in the subtidal zone in all sites, while dominance was higher in the intertidal zone in all sites.

    Table  4.  Community indices in each intertidal and subtidal zone of five study sites in the western coast of Korea
    Community indicesDJDGBDHDGDUD
    InterSubInterSubInterSubInterSubInterSub
    Richness2.323.243.713.173.622.892.804.525.315.03
    Evenness0.640.750.570.700.600.730.460.700.420.45
    Diversity1.592.331.852.041.912.061.392.351.441.53
    Dominance0.650.460.530.490.610.410.750.460.800.69
    Note: DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido; Inter: intertidal zone; Sub: subtidal zone.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    ESCs were evaluated based on EEI-c derived using the coverage of macroalgae present and the current status of macroalgal communities at the five sites in the western sea (Table 5). As a results, ESCs in the intertidal zones were evaluated as “Moderate-Low” or “Good-Moderate” except for GD during spring, which was “Good-High”; additionally, ESCs in the subtidal zones were all either “Moderate-Low” or “Good-Moderate” except for UD during summer, which was “Bad”. During spring, overall ESCs were determined as “Good-Moderate” in all sites except UD. During summer, ESCs were “Good-Moderate” in two sites (HD and GD) and “Moderate-Low” in three sites (DJD, GBD and UD). Therefore, the environmental conditions based on ESC tended to be better during spring than during summer.

    Table  5.  Ecological Status Class (ESC) evaluation results of macroalgal community using Ecological Evaluation Index continuous formula (EEI-c) based on ground coverage of macroalgal species
    ContentDJDGBDHDGDUD
    InterSubInterSubInterSubInterSubInterSub
    Spring
    ESG I 0.00 4.80 10.43 2.10 8.70 3.40 30.18 7.05 3.88 8.54
    ESG II 2.78 8.90 12.05 12.05 11.50 10.00 9.88 10.18 5.04 45.08
    EEI-c 5.50 5.42 5.67 4.91 5.56 5.20 7.50 5.52 5.67 3.25
    ESC G-M G-M G-M M-L G-M G-M G-H G-M G-M B
    EEI-c per site 5.46 5.29 5.38 6.51 4.46
    ESC per site G-M G-M G-M G-M M-L
    Summer
    ESG I 2.00 16.20 3.43 2.57 5.33 1.50 5.80 11.60 7.92 11.63
    ESG II 18.40 29.45 34.13 6.80 3.73 6.20 7.57 10.90 13.88 41.02
    EEI-c 4.41 4.86 3.45 5.39 5.92 5.34 5.63 5.87 5.30 3.74
    ESC M-L M-L M-L G-M G-M G-M G-M G-M G-M M-L
    EEI-c per site 4.64 4.42 5.63 5.75 4.52
    ESC per site M-L M-L G-M G-M M-L
    Note: DJD: Daeijakdo; GBD: Gyeokryeolbiyeoldo; HD: Hodo; GD: Gwanrido; UD: Uido; Inter: intertidal zone; Sub: subtidal zone; G-H: Good-High; G-M: Good-Moderate; M-L: Moderate-Low; B: Bad.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this study, 82 species of macroalgae were identified (10 species of green algae, 17 species of brown algae, and 55 species of red algae). Each study site contained between 27–41 species, and each tidal level contained between 57–62 species. Previous studies have shown higher or similar numbers of macroalgal species (from 21 to 122 species) occurring in the intertidal and subtidal zones of the western coast of Korea (Table 6). However, we should be cautious in making direct comparisons between different studies at different sites. The number of recorded macroalgal species can differ according to elements of the survey method such as sampling season, replication, and geographic range. Furthermore, environmental conditions such as water temperature, salinity, turbidity, exposure to air, and substrate features can greatly impact the number of species present (Choi et al., 1994; Best et al., 2001; Park and Hwang, 2011; Kim et al., 2013a; Kong and Kim, 2015; Park et al., 2013). Therefore, comparing total macroalgal species counts between different sites may not provide very meaningful insights.

    Table  6.  Comparison of the number of species in each macroalgae taxonomic groups along the western sea of Korea
    Tidal levelSiteSeasonSpeciesReference
    CORTotal
    Inter+SubBunjeomdoaWi, Sp, Su, Au983754Yoo and Kim (2003)
    OngdoaWi, Su242632Heo et al. (2011)
    JusamdobWi, Su493245Heo et al. (2011)
    WoejodobWi, Su263644Heo et al. (2011)
    EocheongdoaWi, Sp, Su, Au122366101Kim et al. (2013a)
    DaeijakdoaSp, Su351927this study
    GyeokryeolbiyeoldoaSp, Su462535this study
    HodoaSp, Su542534this study
    GwanridobSp, Su8112241this study
    UidobSp, Su363241this study
    InterBagryoungdoaWi, Sp, Su, Au662941Baek et al. (2007)
    SapsidoaWi, Sp, Su, Au123058100Yoon and Boo (1991)
    OeyondoaWi, Sp, Su, Au162779122Cho and Boo (1996)*
    Sinangun UI.bSu11163663Oh et al. (2005)
    DochogundobSu10142953Park et al. (2007)
    DeokjeokdoaWi, Sp, Su, Au221721Lee et al. (2007)
    GogunsangundobWi, Sp, Su, Au10163258Kim et al. (2011)
    Note: *Monthly basis sampling; superscripts of a and b indicate the study sites of middle and southern parts, respectively. Inter: intertidal zone; Sub: subtidal zone; Wi: winter; Sp: spring; Su: Summer; Au: Autumn; C: Chlorophyta; O: Ochrophyta (Phaeophyceae); R: Rhodophyta.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Each taxonomic group of macroalgae (green, brown, and red algae) shows different survival responses to environmental changes (Romdoni et al., 2018). In this study, the proportion of the macroalgal community made up of green algae, brown algae, and red algae ranged from 7.3%–19.5%, 11.8%–26.8%, and 53.7%–78.0%, respectively. In previous studies at nearby marine locations, the values obtained were similar to ours, being 4.5%–18.9% for green algae, 9.5%–30.0% for brown algae, and between 54.7%–81.8% for red algae (see also Table 6). Except for UD, the proportion of green algae, which is known for excellent environmental adaptability and rapid transition and growth in contaminated environments, was higher in this study area than in the nearby previously studied areas. On DJD, GBD, and GD, the proportion of brown algae, which tend to dominate in uncontaminated environments, was similar to or higher than those of the nearby areas, implying differences in environmental conditions between our study sites and nearby areas.

    Cheney (1977) proposed the (R+C)/P value (each letter indicates the number of species in each Chlorophyta (C), Phaeophyceae (P) and Rhodophyta (R)) as an indicator of the geographical characteristics of the macroalgal flora based on the number of species in each macroalgal taxonomic group; he classified the flora as temperate or Arctic if the (R+C)/P value was 3 or lower, tropical if it was 6 or higher, and hybrid if it was intermediate. In our study areas, the (R+C)/P values ranged from 2.73 for GD to 7.50 for HD, displaying a wide range from temperate to tropical macroalgal flora. Although GD was located in the middle latitudes among the study areas, it was classified as having a temperate macroalgal flora, while islands at both higher and lower latitudes had hybrid or tropical macroalgal flora. This trend of Cheney’s index in this study was not in accordance with the general climate trend of macroalgal communities suggested by Cheney (1977), but at least, it can be explained by distinct coastal environments in the western waters of Korea. Generally, seawater in the Yellow Sea region is turbid, and the bottom layers are mostly covered with mud, providing unfavorable environmental conditions for the growth of macroalgae, so that more diverse red algae occur in such environments (Hwang et al., 1996). In contrast, the macroalgal community in GD is dominated by brown algae, which reflects its cleaner waters compared to other more turbid sites (Koh and Oh, 1992). Our results could explain variations in macroalgal composition on a global scale, while local environmental conditions (such as turbidity) can sometimes override the influence of climate, providing unexpected results.

    Community indices of marine biota, such as diversity and dominance, are quantitative indicators for determining the characteristics of the biological community and partial environmental conditions. Park et al. (2006) suggested that a higher diversity and lower dominance indicate a more stable community structure and good environmental conditions. In the present study, diversity was lower and dominance was higher in the intertidal zones as compared to the subtidal zones, indicating that the algal community of the intertidal zone was less stable and the environmental conditions were poorer. This pattern is probably due to the difference in the growing environment for macroalgae between the intertidal and subtidal zones; due to its permanent submergence below water, the subtidal zone has relatively stable environmental conditions; in contrast, the intertidal zone undergoes large environmental changes between low tide and high tide, experiencing swings in temperature, salinity, dryness, and humidity, which can have a destabilizing effect on the ecosystem. Among the study sites, DJD, GBD, and HD indicated little or almost no impact from human interference. However, GD and UD were located near ports and piers which entail frequent arrival and departures of vessels, and occasional coastal reclamations by port constructions and modifications. These human activities may affect environmental factors such as seawater flow, sediment realignment, and water quality (Song et al., 2003). Such an environment in the latter study sites resulted in the dominance of a small number of species with excellent environmental adaptability and rapid growth (Park et al., 2013). In addition, the subtidal zone of UD was at a depth of 3 m, compared to the other islands where the water depth was 6–8 m. Therefore, abiotic factors such as the intensity and quality of light and competition for substrate may result in low macroalgal diversity in this habitat (Koh and Oh, 1992; Edwards and Connell, 2012).

    Macroalgae classified into ESG I consist of perennial species (late successional species) that respond sensitively to environmental changes from natural or artificial disturbances. Meanwhile, ESG II is composed of fast-growing opportunistic species that show excellent adaptation to environmental changes based on morphological, physiological, and ecological characteristics (Orfanidis et al., 2001). Because the species belonging to ESG I dominate in the pristine state, and ESG II species become abundant in degraded environmental conditions (Orfanidis et al., 2001), changes in the composition of the macroalgae functional group over time can closely reflect changes in the habitat environment (Littler and Littler, 1984; Pinedo et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2007). Orfanidis et al. (2001, 2003) divided species into five grades based on an EEI model to evaluate the habitat environmental conditions using the characteristics of macroalgal communities and suggested the necessity for ecosystem restoration for habitats with EEI values lower than six. Subsequently, Orfanidis et al. (2011) supplemented the existing EEI model to present EEI-c because even species within the same ESG category may show different responses to similar stressors. Several studies have evaluated the environmental conditions of ecosystems along the western coast of Korea using the EEI model. For example, Yoo et al. (2007) evaluated the habitat environment of the summer macroalgal flora in the western Taean Peninsula, and determined its condition to be “Bad-Low” based on EEI values of 0.80−2.29. Ahn et al. (2017) determined the habitat condition as “Low-Moderate” based on EEI values ranging from 3.77 to 7.33 in the coastal region of the Taean Peninsula. Furthermore, Oh et al. (2016) determined that the coastal habitat condition was “Moderate” from EEI values of 5.15−6.11 in three regions of a marine national park in the western Korean waters. As a result, higher EEI values indicate better environmental condition of the coastal habitat such as in marine national parks where habitats are well protected by the national government, whereas the coastal habitat of the western Taean Peninsula showed a poorer habitat environment during summer based on lower EEI values.

    Evaluations of environmental conditions on the western coast of Korea have previously been conducted using either the composition of macroalgal functional groups (Littler and Littler, 1984) or EEI values (Orfanidis et al., 2001). However, no studies have evaluated environmental conditions using an improved EEI-c model. The present study is the first to evaluate habitat environmental conditions using EEI-c values in western Korean waters. However, Jung et al. (2020) evaluated coastal habitats on the eastern coast of Korea by applying EEI-c, determining the environmental conditions at Hupo Bank as “Good-High” (G-H). They reported that canopy-forming brown algae belonging to ESG I dominated in spring, while turf-forming red algae belonging to ESG II dominated in summer. In a study applying EEI-c along the Algerian coastline, Chabane et al. (2018) reported that habitats not impacted by environmental pollution were dominated by the ESG I species Cystoseira amentacea var. stricta, Lithophyllum incrustans, and Jania rubens, whereas ESG II species such as Ulva rigida, Ulva intestinalis, and Caulerpa cylindracea were abundant at polluted sites. In the present study, the environmental conditions of GD and HD were evaluated as “Good-Moderate” (G-M) due to the dominance of Sargassum thunbergii and Myagropsis myagroides belonging to ESG I. However, the environmental conditions of DJD, GBD, and UD, were evaluated as “Moderate-Low” (M-L), due to the dominance of Corallina pilifera (ESG I), Ulva australis, Botryocladia wrightii, Gelidium vagum, and Gelidium elegans (ESG II). The evaluation of macroalgal communities by applying EEI-c cannot only be a good protocol for monitoring the ecosystem, but also contribute to the coastal management plan (Caldeira et al., 2017). Therefore, it will be necessary to secure more data on macroalgal biota to evaluate the environmental conditions for the entire coast of Korea in the future.

    Changes in the environmental conditions of marine habitats due to coastal development, marine pollution, and increasing water temperatures can act as stressors for macroalgal communities (Russell et al., 2009). In this study, the EEI-c of macroalgal communities in five islands along the western coast of Korea were evaluated as “Moderate-Low” or “Good-Moderate”. The coastal habitats of HD and GD were better for inhabiting macroalgae, whereas the other sites were judged to be in poor environmental conditions. Analyses of biological communities in marine ecosystems can be a direct approach in coastal habitats where anthropogenic as well as climate change influences persist. Therefore, to maintain a sustainable marine ecosystem, it is necessary to accumulate ecological data through continuous monitoring and prepare a management plan for ecosystem restoration in the western waters of R. O. Korea.

  • Ahn J K, Yoo K D, Oh J C, et al. 2017. Species composition and vertical distribution of marine algal communities at the Taean Peninsula of the west coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50(1): 55–64. doi: 10.5657/KFAS.2017.0055
    Akrong M O, Anning A K, Addico G N D, et al. 2021. Spatio-temporal variations in seaweed diversity and abundance of selected coastal areas in Ghana. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 44: 101719. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101719
    Baek J M, Hwang M S, Lee J W, et al. 2007. The macroalgal community of Bagryoungdo Island in Korea. Algae (in Korean), 22(2): 117–123. doi: 10.4490/ALGAE.2007.22.2.117
    Best E P H, Buzzelli C P, Bartell S M, et al. 2001. Modeling submersed macrophyte growth in relation to underwater light climate: modeling approaches and application potential. Hydrobiologia, 444(1): 43–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1017564632427
    Caldeira A Q, De Paula J C, Reis R P, et al. 2017. Structural and functional losses in macroalgal assemblages in a southeastern Brazilian bay over more than a decade. Ecological Indicators, 75: 242–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.029
    Chabane K, Bahbah L, Seridi H. 2018. Ecological quality status of the Algiers coastal waters by using macroalgae assemblages as bioindicators (Algeria, Mediterranean Sea). Mediterranean Marine Science, 19(2): 305–315. doi: 10.12681/mms.15951
    Cheney D P. 1977. A new and improved ratio for comparing seaweed floras. Journal of Phycology, 13(S1): 12
    Cho T O, Boo S M. 1996. Seasonal changes of marine plants in Oeyondo Island on the Yellow Sea. Algae (in Korean), 11(3): 285–293
    Choi D S, Kim K Y, Lee W J, et al. 1994. Marine algal flora and community structure of Uido Island, west-southern coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (in Korean), 12: 65–75
    Choi H G, Lee K H, Wan X Q, et al. 2008. Temporal variations in seaweed biomass in Korean coasts: Woejodo and Jusamdo, Jeonbuk. Algae (in Korean), 23(4): 335–342. doi: 10.4490/ALGAE.2008.23.4.335
    Choi C G, Rho H S. 2010. Marine algal community of Ulsan, on the eastern coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 43(3): 246–253. doi: 10.5657/kfas.2010.43.3.246
    Clarke K R, Gorley R N. 2006. PRIMER V6: User Manual/Tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E Ltd
    Cohen C, Fowler J. 1990. Practical Statistics for Field Biology. Maidenhead: Open University Press
    Edwards M S, Connell S D. 2012. Competition, a major factor structuring seaweed communities. In: Wiencke C, Bischof K, eds. Seaweed Biology. Berlin: Springer, 135–156
    Guiry M D, Guiry G M. 2021. AlgaeBase. http://www.Algaebase.org[2021-10-08]
    Heo J S, Park S K, Yoo H I, et al. 2011. Macroalgal community structure on the rocky shores of Ongdo, Jusamdo and Woejodo islands of the Yellow Sea. Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 14(4): 389–397. doi: 10.5657/FAS.2011.0389
    Hwang E K, Park C S, Sohn C H, et al. 1996. Analysis of functional form groups in macroalgal community of Yonggwang vicinity, western coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (in Korean), 29(1): 97–106
    Juanes J A, Guinda X, Puente A, et al. 2008. Macroalgae, a suitable indicator of the ecological status of coastal rocky communities in the NE Atlantic. Ecological Indicator, 8(4): 351–359. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.04.005
    Jung R H, Hwang D W, Kim Y G, et al. 2010. Temporal variations in the sedimentation rate and benthic environment of intertidal surface sediments around Byeonsan Peninsula, Korea. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (in Korean), 43(6): 723–734. doi: 10.5657/kfas.2010.43.6.723
    Jung S W, Rho H S, Choi C G. 2020. Characteristics and ecosystem changes of marine algal communities in Wangdol-cho on the east coast of Korea. Ocean Science Journal, 55(4): 549–562. doi: 10.1007/s12601-020-0034-6
    Kang J W. 1966. On the geographical distribution of marine algae in Korea. Bulletin of Pusan Fisheries College, 7: 1–125
    Kim H S, Boo S M, Lee I K, et al. 2013a. National List of Species of Korea: Marine Algae. Incheon: National Institute of Biological Resources
    Kim B Y, Kim W S, Choi H G. 2010. Seasonal variability of seaweed biomass along the vertical shore gradients of Nachido and Odo islands, the Yellow Sea, Korea. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 13(4): 324–331. doi: 10.5657/fas.2010.13.4.324
    Kim J H, Ko Y D, Kim Y S, et al. 2011. Marine algal flora and community structure of Gogunsan islands outside the Saemangeum Dike. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (in Korean), 25(2): 156–165
    Kim Y S, Yang E A, Nam K W. 2013b. Benthic marine algal flora and community structure of Eocheongdo in western coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (in Korean), 27(6): 655–665. doi: 10.13047/KJEE.2013.27.6.655
    Koh C H, Oh S H. 1992. Distribution pattern of macroalgae in the eastern Yellow Sea, Korea. The Korean Journal of Phycology, 7: 139–146
    Kong D, Kim A R. 2015. Analysis on the relationship between biological indices and survey area of benthic macroinvertebrates using mathematical model. Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment (in Korean), 31(6): 610–618. doi: 10.15681/KSWE.2015.31.6.610
    Lee W J, Hwang M S, Baek J M, et al. 2007. Primary survey on algal community of Gyounggi Bay for restoration. Algae (in Korean), 22(3): 201–207. doi: 10.4490/ALGAE.2007.22.3.201
    Liang Zhourui, Wang Feijiu, Sun Xiutao, et al. 2014. Reproductive biology of Sargassum thunbergii (Fucales, Phaeophyceae). American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(17): 2574–2581. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.517271
    Littler M M, Littler D S. 1984. Relationships between macroalgal functional form groups and substrata stability in a subtropical rocky-intertidal system. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 74(1): 13–34. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(84)90035-2
    Liu Jinlin, Tong Yichao, Xia Jing, et al. 2022. Ulva macroalgae within local aquaculture ponds along the estuary of Dagu River, Jiaozhou Bay, Qingdao. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 174: 113243. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113243
    Liu Jinlin, Xia Jing, Zhuang Minmin, et al. 2021a. Golden seaweed tides accumulated in Pyropia aquaculture areas are becoming a normal phenomenon in the Yellow Sea of China. Science of the Total Environment, 774: 145726. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145726
    Liu Jinlin, Xia Jing, Zhuang Minmin, et al. 2021b. Controlling the source of green tides in the Yellow Sea: NaClO treatment of Ulva attached on Pyropia aquaculture rafts. Aquaculture, 535: 736378. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736378
    Margalef R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. General Systems, 3: 36–71
    McNaughton S J. 1967. Relationships among functional properties of Californian Grassland. Nature, 216(5111): 168–169. doi: 10.1038/216168b0
    Oh J C, Choi H G, Kim C D, et al. 2016. Ecological evaluation of marine national parks based on seaweed community index. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (in Korean), 49(3): 385–392. doi: 10.5657/KFAS.2016.0385
    Oh B G, Lee J W, Lee H B. 2005. Summer marine algal vegetation of uninhabited islands in Sinangun, southwestern coast. Algae (in Korean), 20(1): 53–59. doi: 10.4490/ALGAE.2005.20.1.053
    Orfanidis S, Panayotidis P, Stamatis N. 2001. Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: A marine benthic macrophytes-based model. Mediterranean Marine Science, 2(2): 45–66. doi: 10.12681/mms.266
    Orfanidis S, Panayotidis P, Stamatis N. 2003. An insight to the ecological evaluation index (EEI). Ecological Indicators, 3(1): 27–33. doi: 10.1016/S1470-160X(03)00008-6
    Orfanidis S, Panayotidis P, Ugland K. 2011. Ecological evaluation index continuous formula (EEI-c) application: a step forward for functional groups, the formula and reference condition values. Mediterranean Marine Science, 12(1): 199–232. doi: 10.12681/mms.60
    Padilla D K, Allen B J. 2000. Paradigm lost: reconsidering functional form and group hypotheses in marine ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 250(1–2): 207–221,
    Park C S, Hwang E K. 2011. An investigation of the relationship between sediment particles size and the development of green algal mats (Ulva prolifera) on the intertidal flats of Muan, Korea. Journal of Applied Phycology, 23(3): 515–522. doi: 10.1007/s10811-010-9620-9
    Park C S, Park K Y, Hwang E K. 2013. Benthic algal flora in a man-made artificial beach in the Hwawon Resort Complex, southwestern coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (in Korean), 31(2): 78–86. doi: 10.11626/KJEB.2013.31.2.078
    Park Y K, Seo K S, Choi C K. 2006. Environmental Biology (in Korean). Seoul: Daehakseolim
    Park C S, Wee M Y, Hwang E K. 2007. Summer algal flora of uninhabited islands in Dochodo, southwestern coast of Korea. Algae (in Korean), 22(4): 305–311. doi: 10.4490/ALGAE.2007.22.4.305
    Pinedo S, García M, Satta M P, et al. 2007. Rocky-shore communities as indicators of water quality: a case study in the northwestern Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55(1–6): 126–135,
    Roleda M Y, Morris J N, Mcgraw C M, et al. 2012. Ocean acidification and seaweed reproduction: Increased CO2 ameliorates the negative effect of lowered pH on meiospore germination in the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae). Global Change Biology, 18(3): 854–864. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02594.x
    Romdoni T A, Ristiani A, Meinita M D N, et al. 2018. Seaweed species composition, abundance and diversity in Drini and Kondang Merak Beach, Java. E3S Web of Conferences, 47: 03006. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/20184703006
    Russell B D, Thompson J A I, Falkenberg L J, et al. 2009. Synergistic effects of climate change and local stressors: CO2 and nutrient-driven change in subtidal rocky habitats. Global Change Biology, 15(9): 2153–2162. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01886.x
    Saito Y, Atobe S. 1970. Phytosociological study of intertidal marine algae: I. Usujiri Benten-Jima, Hokkaido. Bulletin of the Faculty of Fisheries Hokkaido University, 21(2): 37–69
    Scherner F, Horta P A, De Oliveira E C, et al. 2013. Coastal urbanization leads to remarkable seaweed species loss and community shifts along the SW Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 76(1–2): 106–115,
    Song W O, Jin J Y, Chae J W, et al. 2003. A review of measures against environmental impact of suspended sediments generated by coastal development works. Ocean and Polar Research (in Korean), 25(spc3): 409–416. doi: 10.4217/OPR.2003.25.spc3.409
    Sun Yuqing, Yao Lulu, Liu Jinlin, et al. 2022. Prevention strategies for green tides at source in the southern Yellow Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 178: 113646. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113646
    Vale C G, Arenas F, Barreiro R, et al. 2021. Understanding the local drivers of beta-diversity patterns under climate change: The case of seaweed communities in Galicia, North West of the Iberian Peninsula. Diversity and Distributions, 27(9): 1696–1705. doi: 10.1111/ddi.13361
    Wells E, Wilkinson M, Wood P, et al. 2007. The use of macroalgal species richness and composition on intertidal rocky seashores in the assessment of ecological quality under the European water framework directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55(1–6): 151–161,
    Whitaker S G, Smith J R, Murray S N. 2010. Reestablishment of the southern California rocky intertidal brown alga, Silvetia compressa: An experimental investigation of techniques and abiotic and biotic factors that affect restoration success. Restoration Ecology, 18: 18–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00717.x
    Yang E A, Kim Y S. 2009. Summer marine algal flora of Sipidongpado, located in the middle western coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Nature Conservation (in Korean), 3(1): 1–5
    Yoo J S, Kim Y H. 2003. Community dynamics of the benthic marine algae in Hakampo, the western coast of Korea. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology, 21(4): 428–438
    Yoo H I, Lee J H, Lee K H, et al. 2007. Summer marine algal floras and community structures in Taean Peninsula, Korea. Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (in Korean), 40(4): 210–219. doi: 10.5657/kfas.2007.40.4.210
    Yoon M Y, Boo S M. 1991. Flora and zonation of marine plants at the littoral area of Sapsido Island on the Yellow Sea of Korea. Korean Journal of Phycology (in Korean), 6: 145–156
  • Relative Articles

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-042024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-030510152025
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 25.8 %FULLTEXT: 25.8 %META: 70.2 %META: 70.2 %PDF: 3.9 %PDF: 3.9 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 0.8 %其他: 0.8 %Algeria: 0.8 %Algeria: 0.8 %Canada: 0.8 %Canada: 0.8 %China: 19.4 %China: 19.4 %Czech Republic: 0.1 %Czech Republic: 0.1 %Egypt: 0.1 %Egypt: 0.1 %Georgia: 0.4 %Georgia: 0.4 %Greece: 0.7 %Greece: 0.7 %Hong Kong, China: 0.5 %Hong Kong, China: 0.5 %India: 0.5 %India: 0.5 %Indonesia: 1.1 %Indonesia: 1.1 %Italy: 0.5 %Italy: 0.5 %Korea Republic of: 16.7 %Korea Republic of: 16.7 %Malaysia: 1.0 %Malaysia: 1.0 %Mexico: 0.2 %Mexico: 0.2 %Nigeria: 0.4 %Nigeria: 0.4 %Portugal: 0.4 %Portugal: 0.4 %Romania: 0.4 %Romania: 0.4 %Russian Federation: 6.9 %Russian Federation: 6.9 %Turkey: 1.1 %Turkey: 1.1 %United Kingdom: 0.4 %United Kingdom: 0.4 %United States: 46.1 %United States: 46.1 %Viet Nam: 0.8 %Viet Nam: 0.8 %其他AlgeriaCanadaChinaCzech RepublicEgyptGeorgiaGreeceHong Kong, ChinaIndiaIndonesiaItalyKorea Republic ofMalaysiaMexicoNigeriaPortugalRomaniaRussian FederationTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited StatesViet Nam

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(6)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (586) PDF downloads(34) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return