Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Research about Baltimore Canyon, Norfolk Canyon

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Baltimore Canyon, Norfolk Canyon.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Benthic infaunal communities of Baltimore and Norfolk Canyons

The imperative for finding, cataloging, and understanding continental margin diversity derives from the many key functions, goods and services provided by margin ecosystems and by an increasingly deleterious human footprint on our continental slopes (Levin and Dayton 2009). Progress in seafloor mapping technology and direct observation has revealed unexpected heterogeneity, with a mosaic of habitats and ecosystems linked to geomorphological, geochemical, and hydrographic features that are capable of influencing biotic diversity (Levin and Sibuet 2012). Submarine canyons are dramatic and widespread topographic features crossing continental and island margins in oceans, connecting shelf-margins to deep ocean basins (Harris and Whiteway 2011). Their importance as biodiversity hotspots has continued to emerge over the last two decades as research efforts have increased. Understanding the physical parameters within a canyon system is a primary factor for understanding habitat variability and ecological patterns within the confines of canyon systems (Levin et al. 2001). Margin sediments exhibit ubiquitous depth zonation (Carney et al. 2005), with a diverse suite of species that occupy restricted bathymetric ranges along any given section of the margin. Major shifts in composition among taxa are observed at the shelf-slope transition zone (canyons <500 m), along the upper slope (1,000 m), and at the lower slope transition zone (<3,000 m) (Gibson et al. 2005). In the deep sea, macrofaunal assemblages are generally limited by the availability of allochthonous organic material (Rowe et al. 1982, Billet et al. 1983, Rex et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2008) where macrofaunal densities usually decline with depth and distance from the shore (Rowe et al. 1982, Houston and Haedrich 1984, Rex et al. 2005). However, canyon fauna can experience enhanced food supply through the resuspension and deposition of organic-rich sediments, delivered by increased current velocities within the confines of the canyon (Rowe 1971, Shepard et al. 1974). As a result, canyons are often reported as sustaining enhanced abundances and biomass compared with nearby open slope habitats at similar depths (Vetter and Dayton 1998, Duineveld et al. 2001, De Leo et al. 2010) as well as enhancing regional (γ) and local (α) biodiversity (Hecker et al. 1983, Vetter and Dayton 1998, De Leo et al. 2010, Vetter et al. 2010). Furthermore, enhanced habitat heterogeneity can also be a major structuring agent of ecological assemblages, promoting beta (β) diversity (McClain and Barry 2010) in canyon environments. Canyon systems have often been described as biodiversity hotspots, especially at mid-slope depths (Levin and Sibuet 2012) where physical processes, characterized by complex patterns in hydrography, promote topographically induced upwelling, enhanced mixing via internal tides, and the focusing of tidal bores (Vetter and Dayton 1998, Cacchione et al. 2002). Additionally, sediment transport and accumulation (García et al. 2008) represent important influential ecological drivers. Factors such as substrata heterogeneity (Levin and Sibuet 2012) and concentration of organic matter (De Leo et al. 2010) have been suggested to explain higher faunal diversity, abundance, and benthic productivity found in canyon systems compared with surrounding areas. Bathymetric patterns of species diversity have been attributed to changes in sediment characteristics (Etter and Grassle 1992), productivity, currents, oxygen, disturbance, and the interplay of biotic effects with depth and latitude (Levin et al. 2001, Carney et al. 2005). Recent studies report on the uniqueness of canyon benthic communities and habitats and the view that no two canyons are alike (Cunha et al. 2011). Certain submarine canyons may maintain 436 characteristic and unique faunas, but more often canyon macrofaunal assemblages show high dominance and locally reduced biodiversity (Rowe 1971, Gage 1997, Curdia et al. 2004, Cun

Baltimore Canyon, Norfolk Canyon

Demersal fish distribution and habitat use within and near Baltimore and Norfolk Canyons, U.S. Middle Atlantic Slope

Numerous submarine canyons along the United States middle Atlantic continental margin support enhanced productivity, diverse and unique habitats, active fisheries, and are vulnerable to various anthropogenic disturbances. During two cruises (15 Aug&ndash;2 Oct 2012 and 30 Apr&ndash;27 May 2013), Baltimore and Norfolk canyons and nearby areas (including two cold seeps) were intensively surveyed to determine demersal fish distributions and habitat associations. Overall, 34 ROV dives (234&ndash;1612 m) resulted in 295 h of bottom video observations and numerous collections. These data were supplemented by 40, 30-min bottom trawl samples. Fish observations were assigned to five general habitat designations: 1) sand-mud (flat), 2) sloping sand-mud with burrows, 3) low profile gravel, rock, boulder, 4) high profile, canyon walls, rocks or ridges, and 5) seep-mixed hard and soft substrata, the later subdivided into seven habitats based on amounts of dead mussel and rock cover. The influence of corals, sponges and live mussels (seeps only) on fish distributions was also investigated. Both canyon areas supported abundant and diverse fish communities and exhibited a wide range of habitats, including extensive areas of deep-sea corals and sponges and two nearby methane seeps (380&ndash;430 m, 1455&ndash;1610 m). All methods combined yielded a total of 123 species of fishes, 12 of which are either new records for this region or have new range data. Depth was a major factor that separated the fish faunas into two zones with a boundary around 1400 m. Fishes defining the deeper zone included Lycodes sp.,Dicrolene introniger, Gaidropsaurus ensis, Hydrolagus affinis, Antimora rostrata, andAldrovandia sp. Fishes in the deep zone did not exhibit strong habitat affinities, despite the presence of a quite rugged, extensive methane seep. We propose that habitat specificity decreases with increasing depth. Fishes in the shallower zone, characterized by Laemonema sp., Phycis chesteri, Nezumia bairdii, Brosme brosme, and Helicolenus dactylopterus, exhibited a variety of habitat use patterns. In general, fish assemblages in the soft substrata areas (dominated by P. chesteri, N. bairdii, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, Lophius americanus, Merluccius albidus) were different from those in more complex habitats (dominated by Laemonema spp., Hoplostethus spp., B. brosme,Benthocometes robustus, L. americanus, Dysommina rugosa). Although, when present, the dense coral and sponge cover did not statistically affect general fish assemblage patterns in hard bottom habitats, these sessile organisms markedly increased habitat complexity, and some fish species exhibited close association with them. Fish species compositions in the two canyons were not substantially different from the surrounding slopes. However, the diversity of habitats within both the canyons and seeps exerted an important influence on assemblage structure. At least for some species (e.g., B. brosme) canyon and seep environments may be a refuge from intensive bottom fishing activities. We frequently observed evidence of commercial and recreational fishing activity (lost gear on bottom and fishing boats in the area) throughout the canyons and some resulting habitat damage. Conservation measures for the unique and more vulnerable areas (seep and coral habitats) have recently been approved.

Baltimore Canyon, Norfolk Canyon