The role of shallow water sponges in mediating water quality in the Florida Keys, Florida (USA)


Abstract

Sponges are important to benthic-pelagic coupling in marine ecosystems via their role in re-mineralizing dissolved organic nutrients and filtration of particulate and microbial material from the water column. This is especially so in shallow water and poorly flushed environments where the ratio of sponge biomass to water volume is highest. Such is the case in shallow, hard-bottom habitats surrounding the Florida Keys (Florida, USA), where over 60 species of primarily high microbial abundance (HMA) sponges dominate the animal biomass. We examined the feeding of the five most abundant inshore HMA sponge species in this region, focusing on their filtration of bloom-forming microalgae, aqueous nutrients, and dosed human-associated bacteria (E. coli) measured through their retention efficiencies, removal capacities, and clearance rates. Due to high variation, filtration of all bacterioplankton combined was largely non-significant across species. However, high nucleic acid bacteria and Picoeukaryotes were filtered at rates 3-5-fold greater (respectively) compared to controls. Significant species-specific effects were observed in the removal of nitrates, nitrites, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and dissolved organic carbon compared to controls. This study confirms the reliance of HMA sponges on dissolved nutrients and carbon, whereas their retention of bacterioplankton was idiosyncratic among sponge species and type of microbe. The HMA sponges we tested had significant effects on water chemistry, which again varied among species. With respect to the potential use of sponges as a restoration tool for improving water quality, our results suggest that alteration of specific water quality constituents may be possible through the selective use of various sponge species in restoration.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].