land Surveyors and Merrett Survey Services Brochure

Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 41 -MAPPING OF SEDIMENTARY MARINE BIOTOPES AROUNDLUNDY, UKbyPHIL SMITH1 AND ROB NUNNY21Aquatonics Ltd, Glenthorne, Searle Street, Crediton, Devon2Ambios Environmental Consultants Ltd, 16 Alexandra Road, Bridgwater, Somerset,TA6 3HE1Corresponding author, e-mail: phil@aquatonics.comABSTRACTThis paper presents the results of the first spatially continuoussurvey of subtidal sedimentary habitats and benthos aroundLundy. The survey was undertaken in August 2007. A novelapproach was used to provide a more cost-effective, objectiveand reliable method for biotope mapping. Spatial continuityof mapping was achieved by using GIS-modelled output ofkey physical parameters. Relationships between these physicallydefined polygons and benthic data from 49 grab samples wereused to define the biotopes and their boundaries. Ten subtidalsedimentary biotopes were identified. A total of 478 invertebratetaxa and 9 seaweeds were recorded in the survey.Keywords: Lundy, biotope mapping, benthos, sediment, marine,Bristol Channel, GIS.INTRODUCTIONBiotopes are geographic units that contain broadly similar habitat characteristics andbiota. Boundaries between adjacent biotopes can be very clear (as in the case of zonationof different fucoid seaweeds on a steep rocky shore) or very indistinct, as is commonlythe case in marine sedimentary habitats. There is an increasing demand for biotopemapping from regulatory bodies who see it as a more practical tool for managementthan relying on biological data not specifically related to habitat. For example, naturalfluctuations in recruitment success between years can affect the relative abundance ofspecies at a location. Seasonal variations in the biota at a location can also result indifferent species being dominant in different seasons. These fluctuations in dominantspecies can make it extremely difficult to assess whether changes are natural or affectedby human activities such as fishing or dredging. Biotope mapping can assist regulatorybodies to assess whether there have been changes in the potential of the site to supportthe biological community expected for a particular habitat type. The aim of this study was to map subtidal sedimentary biotopes around Lundy basedon the established biotope classification as described by the Joint Nature ConservationCommittee (Connor et al., 2004). Due to the restricted budget, the challenge was toproduce a highly cost-effective method of sampling, sample processing and biotopematching.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 42 - Mapping of subtidal sedimentary biotopes is derived from analysis of the benthic biota(species living in or on the sediment), requiring sampling of the benthos at selected sitesusing grabs or corers, combined with information on habitat such as depth, sediment typeand water energy (wave and tidal action). Unfortunately the high cost of analysing benthicsamples means that relatively few samples can be processed, which means that the locationof boundaries between different biotopes is often uncertain. In recent years biotope mappingusing a combination of remotely sensed data (such as sidescan and high resolutionmultibeam depth) and ground-truthing using grab samples has become relatively common(e.g. Foster-Smith et al., 2004; Mackie et al., 2006; McGonigle et al., 2009; Shumchenia &King, 2010). Combining the biological data from discrete points with physical data (eithermodelled or acquired by remote sensing) has not proved an easy task and is made moredifficult when the desired end-point is a map showing biotopes that have previously beendescribed and agreed at a national level. We report here on a novel approach to bringingbiological and physical datasets together for subtidal biotope mapping that allows likelyboundaries between biotopes to be mapped more accurately and objectively. The marine fauna of Lundy has previously been described mainly from intertidal and divesurveys and the results have been summarised in a series of papers on various taxonomicgroups (e.g. Hiscock, 1975; George, 1975; Brown and Hunnam, 1977; Hayward, 1977;King, 1977; Tyler, 1979; Atkinson and Schembri, 1981; Moore, 1981; Hiscock et al., 1984).The full set of papers is available at http://www.lundy.org.uk/island/marinebiol.html. Inaddition, there was a survey in July 1975, mainly on the east coast of Lundy, which includedsediment cores taken by divers (Hoare and Wilson, 1977).METHODSPrimary Data Sources. Following a review of existing data in late August 2007, 52sampling sites were identified and a field survey was undertaken during the period 31August to 2 September 2007 from the survey vessel ‘Datchet’ operating from Bideford.Guidance at sea was achieved using the vessel’s GPS system. Positioning of each grabsample (landing on the seabed) was also taken using a Garmin 12XL GPS in stand-alone mode giving a nominal accuracy of ±5m. Positions were logged using the WGS84and are available in both latitude and longitude or OSGB 1936 UTM projection(converted using standard settings).Single grab samples were taken at each of 52 sites (Figure 1) using a Mini Hamon grab(0.04m2). Dips were repeated if necessary to try and collect a single representativesample of the sediment. Sites were positioned to give a good geographical coverage inrelation to an initial assessment of the likely habitat distribution. The Hamon grab was chosen to give the best chance of acquiring reasonable samplesof the coarse (gravel/cobble) substrata thought to be common around Lundy. In theevent, nine of the 52 sites could not be sampled for sediment (interpreted as sedimentabsence), and three could not be sampled for biota. Epiflora and epifauna were obtainedat six of the sites that yielded no sediment.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 43 -Figure 1: Sampling sites off Lundy, 2007. Seabed bathymety is shown (depth belowChart Datum)Field processing of sediment samples. In order to retain particle-size accuracy (forgravel samples), but at the same time minimise the number of grab samples collected, amethodology was adopted whereby the coarser sediment fractions of the total samplecollected were sieved for particle-size at sea, then examined for fauna. This requiredcareful control of sieve cleaning, to ensure that biota was not lost during the sieving forparticle-size. Each grab sample was examined and processed as follows:• The full sample from the grab was emptied into a bin. A small (~250 ml) sample ofthe sand and fine gravel fraction (rejecting material >10mm approximately) wascollected for laboratory particle-size analysis.• The remaining sample was washed over a 4mm sieve into the receptor of a sievingtable. The latter drained to the deck via a 0.5mm sieve. Thus the sample was split intotwo fractions (>4 mm, 4-0.5 mm) and the finer elements allowed to run to waste.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 44 -• The drained wet-weight of the 4-0.5mm fraction was recorded using a spring balance.This fraction was then examined for fauna.• The >4 mm fraction was hand-sieved over a 0.5phi nest of sieves (-6 to -2phi, 90 to4mm) and the weights retained on each recorded using a spring balance. Thesesediments were then returned to a single container and examined for fauna.Laboratory analysis of sediments. Particle-size analysis (PSA), organic carbon (ofsediments with >~5% mud) and photograph (gravel fraction, microscope images ofsand) information was generated. The PSA of the fine sediment sample collected(<10mm) was analysed using standard laboratory methods. These data were combinedwith the field-sieved >4mm data based on the 4-10mm overlap, a method approved byThe Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) for gravelPSA.Field processing of biological material. After obtaining the grab sample a decision onhow to process it was made, depending on the nature of the sediment. In most cases thesediment was gently agitated with seawater from a hose whilst the sample was still in alarge plastic tray. The sediment was then transferred to the sieve table and the gentlewashing continued until all the sediment had been thoroughly but carefully washed.During this process, just the seawater (and associated fauna) was carefully sieved overa 0.5mm mesh. Material retained on the sieve was transferred to a labelled screw-topcontainer fixed, then preserved using 10% formalin, (buffered with borax to preventdissolution of shell material). This ‘first flush’ technique has proved highly successful inprevious surveys by Aquatonics Ltd as a method of obtaining small, delicate species invery good condition. The remainder of the sample was then sieved more conventionally,but using a relatively coarse mesh (1.8mm) to reduce the amount of material that had tobe examined in the laboratory. Any live specimens seen on the sieve were removed,identified as far as possible and combined with the preserved material from the 0.5mmmesh. This continued until no more specimens were found. A varying proportion(5-100%, depending on volume and sediment type) of the >1.8mm fraction was then putin a labelled lidded bucket and 10% buffered formalin was added. The purpose of addingthe sediment fraction was to check for any species that may be small (and therefore notvisible) but dense and therefore not present in the ‘first flush’. Later laboratory analysisconfirmed that very few specimens were in the sediment fraction. For samples that were mainly cobbles and coarse gravel, the material from the grabwas placed onto the sieve table and hosed with water to remove surface-dwellingspecies, as these are often smaller and more delicate. This material was collected on asieve with a mesh size of 0.5mm. This ‘first flush’ material was fixed and preserved in10% buffered formalin in a labelled screw-top container. The remainder of the samplewas then sieved through a 1.8mm mesh. Any specimens that could be seen on the1.8mm mesh screen were removed and added to the ‘first-flush’ material. Representativepebbles and cobbles with attached macrofauna and species-rich stones were selected andput into a labelled lidded bucket and 10% buffered formalin was added. If sand andgravel was present a proportion (20-100%) was added to the lidded bucket.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 45 - The biota present in each sample were identified as far as practicable by eye in thefield and this information was recorded on the survey log. Accurate counts were notattempted for numerous species, as they could be counted later in the laboratory. Somespecimens that could be readily identified in the field were counted and returned alive,but most required laboratory checking to get an accurate identification. Any specimensreturned alive were noted on the field log. The field sampling techniques were suited to the main purpose of the survey, whichwas to provide a biotope map of sedimentary habitats around Lundy. Although it islikely to have recorded the majority of species present in a grab sample it will inevitablyhave missed some.Laboratory examination of biota. Formalin was removed by washing each sample on a0.5mm sieve with tap water. The ‘first-flush’ and hand-picked material was examined first,as this contained the majority of the specimens. With the exception of the largest cobbles,which were examined in a white tray by eye for specimens, all other material wasexamined under a binocular microscope, using magnifications of 7-45. Most specimenswere identified by Aquatonics Ltd, using a range of taxonomic keys. Specimens whichwere difficult to identify in the short time available per sample were put aside and sent toDr Peter Garwood of Identichaet for identification. Dr Garwood also provided QA advicefor specimens for the voucher collection which has been produced for the Lundy study. A modified version of the SACFOR scale was used to record the abundance ofseaweeds and colonial invertebrates in the samples. The relative abundance of eachtaxon was assessed by eye, on a six point scale. Prior to exporting the spreadsheet toPrimerÒ, all the taxa that were recorded on the modified SACFOR scale were assigneda score of 1 to 100, depending on their frequency in the sample. S Superabundant 100 A Abundant 50 C Common 20 F Frequent 10 O Occasional 5 R Rare 1 Data were entered onto the Aquatonics Ltd Microsoft Access® database. Taxonomicnomenclature generally follows that in Howson and Picton (1997), but some taxa (e.g.some species of the polychaete genus Syllis) have not been described in the taxonomicliterature and in these cases the most appropriate name has been used. Where availablethe Marine Conservation Society (MCS) code is shown (Howson and Picton, 1997),along with any common names. Data were exported to a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheetfor statistical analysis.Secondary data. A range of sources of secondary data were used to identify habitatconditions (e.g. bed sediments and tides), which included the following:• Tides, sediments and biotopes in the outer Bristol Channel (Mackie et al., 2006).• Diver and video observations of seabed type at the Lundy European Marine Site.(Mercer et al., 2004)Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 46 -• Multibeam bathymetric survey of the Lundy Marine Protected Area in 2005 (dataprovided by HydroSurveys).• Admiralty chart tide data. All data were entered into a MapInfo® GIS system. Grids were generated and analysedusing Vertical Mapper software running within MapInfo. The data were interpreted anda map produced to (a) guide the field survey and (b) inform the final mapping process.BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESSINGData manipulation. With such a large data set (49 sampled stations and almost 490taxa) a statistical package was needed to determine the similarities between the faunaassemblages recorded. The analytical package used was PrimerÒ, the most commonlyused statistical package for assessing benthic data. The biological data were analysedusing two techniques, Cluster analysis and Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS), whichshow how similar sites are to each other (Clarke, 1993). In PrimerÒ the data were transformed to reduce the importance of the species that werenumerous. The transformation chosen was log10 (N+1) where N is the number ofindividuals in a particular taxon. A similarity matrix was calculated in PrimerÒ using theBray-Curtis method. This similarity matrix was then used for Cluster Analysis and MDS.Cluster analysis and MDS. Cluster analysis links sites that are most similar to each other ina dendrogram. The dendrogram was examined to determine clusters that could be relatedto JNCC biotopes. These clusters were plotted and were used as an aid in assigning biotopes. MDS produces a two dimensional plot in which the sites most similar to each otheroccur closest together. The MDS plot is generally easier to interpret than thedendrogram from the cluster analysis, but there is still a subjective element in decidingwhich sites should be considered as a coherent group.BIOTOPE DEFINITIONAssessing similarities between the biota at the sample stations was achieved by firstexamining the dendrogram to determine suitable clusters. These were then plotted ontothe MDS figure to determine if the two methods produced similar groupings. However,cluster analysis and MDS do not give any additional weight to species that are importantfor biotope matching. There also has to be a subjective final sorting of the stationgroupings to take account of key characterising species and substratum type. All the sitesfrom a cluster were grouped together on the Excel spreadsheet. Species that werecharacteristic of the cluster and other species that commonly occurred were listed. With the habitat data derived from the primary and secondary data sources, aMapInfo GIS was created with eight layers of information (as polygons, described inresults section below). From these layers, a series of eight grid files were created usingVertical Mapper (region to grid facility). The grid node spacing was 20m. With all gridsopen in Vertical Mapper, two types of analysis were performed to generate biotopes.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 47 -Step 1: The eight grids were interrogated and a dataset generated showing theirvalue for every 20m spaced node across the survey area. These data were exploredby sorting and generating subsets where different habitat conditions prevailed. Thelargest of these subsets were plotted to enable an understanding of how benthicconditions were varying within the study area. These were combined iteratively withthe output of the faunal clusters to try and define the major associations betweenbiotic assemblages and habitat type (see summary diagram in Appendix 1). Thisinformation was used to match to existing Joint Nature Conservation Committee(JNCC) biotopes where possible (Connor et al., 2004). In some cases there was nogood match, and the nearest JNCC biotope is shown. A few sites were not similarto any others in the survey and showed no match with any JNCC biotope. These areconsidered to be outliers that may require additional sampling before they can bematched.Step 2: Once proto-biotopes had been identified, the range of habitat conditionsfound at each individual grab station were grouped and an envelope of conditionsdefined. These data were fed into the GIS as Grid Queries to generate maps of zoneswhere the specified habitat conditions prevailed. The output of this exercise was aseries of point samples where the biotope faunal assemblage was identified, and anassociated polygon with comparable habitat conditions to those found at the pointsamples, where similar biotope conditions would therefore be expected. At mostsites this process worked extremely well; at some sites the limiting conditions werenot specific enough and no biotope habitat zone could be practically generated. Thisprocess was also only possible where several sites possessed the same cluster type;single-station biotopes have no spatial extent data associated with them. Also, thereare zones in the survey area where sampling failed to provide information on bedconditions, primarily due to the hard nature of the substratum, and definition ofbiotope zones was not practical.RESULTSFlora and fauna. A total of 478 invertebrate taxa and 9 seaweed taxa were recorded(summarised in Table 1). The records will be added to the Marine Recorder databaseby Natural England. As expected, the greatest number of taxa was in the phylumAnnelida (mainly polychaete worms), followed by Crustacea and Mollusca. Furthertaxa are likely to be present in the samples, especially amongst hydroids, encrustingbryozoans, sponges and nudibranchs. The full list of taxa recorded is shown inAppendix 2. The full data set of specimens found at each site is available fromAquatonics Ltd. Some taxa were relatively ubiquitous, for example Glycera lapidum occurred at63% of sites. Taxa that occurred at 10 or more sites are listed in Table 2. Results from the cluster analysis and Multi-dimensional Scaling statisticalanalyses are shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 48 -Rare and scarce species. The criteria to identify Rare and Scarce benthic species havebeen defined by Sanderson (1998):• ‘Nationally Rare’ marine benthic species are those that occur in 8 or fewer of the 1546 10kmx 10km squares within the 3-mile territorial limit of Great Britain and the Isle of Man.• ‘Nationally Scarce’ marine benthic species are those that occur in 9-55 of the 154610km x 10km squares. Unfortunately many marine species are small and easily overlooked in surveys andtheir true distribution is often only poorly known. The ‘Rare and Scarce’ concept ismainly useful for the more easily identifiable or larger species. Although this surveyproduced some unusual records, such as the capitellid polychaete Peresiella clymenoides,many would not be considered Rare or Scarce due to unreliability of the underlyingmarine datasets for small, difficult to identify species. For example Peresiella clymenoideshas only recently been recorded from Irish waters (Dinneen, 1982) and may have beenmis-identified in many surveys of UK benthos. The Nationally Scarce ‘thumbnail’ crab Thia scutellata was recorded at Station 27 (Biotope7A). This crab is a specialist burrower in loosely packed medium sands (Rees, 2001). It hasalso been recorded in similar sediments nearby by Mackie et al. (2006), but was not includedin the list of decapods recorded around Lundy (Atkinson and Schembri, 1981).The Nationally Scarce anemone Mesacmaea mitchellii was recorded at Station 19(Biotope 5D), towards the northern end of the east coast sampling stations. It burrowsin sand or gravel and has been recorded from depths of 15-100 m at locations nearPlymouth, north Devon, south-west and mid Wales, the Isle of Man and West Ireland.It has previously been recorded by divers from muddy gravel and sand off the southernpart of the east coast of Lundy (Hiscock, 1975).Table 1: Summary of taxa recorded in the 2007 survey around LundyPHYLUMNUMBEROF TAXAAnnelids (polychaete and oligochaete worms) 195Crustaceans (e.g. shrimps, crabs and barnacles) 128Molluscs (bivalves, snails and sea slugs) 68Bryozoans (sea mats) 28Echinoderms (brittlestars, sea urchins and starfish) 16Hydroids and anemones 16Nemertea (ribbon worms) 6Chordates (tunicates or sea squirts) 5Sipunculids 5Chelicerates (sea spiders) 4Sponges 2Chaetognaths (arrow worms) 2Others (1 each of flatworm, phoronid & Branchiostoma) 3Total faunal taxa 478Algae (seaweeds) 9Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 49 -Table 2: Taxa recorded at 10 or more stations in the 2007 surveySeventy taxa were foundat 10 or more sites. Foreach taxon the MarineConservation SocietyCode (MCS) is shown.MCS Code Latin name Number of stations % of stationsP 260 Glycera lapidum 31 63.3P 579 Lumbrineris gracilis 29 59.2ZB 212 Echinocyamus pusillus 27 55.1G 1 Nemertea indeterminate 26 53.1P 50 Harmothoe spp. (juv.) 25 51.0S 539 Gammaropsis cornuta 24 49.0Q 44 Anoplodactylus petiolatus 23 46.9P 919 Mediomastus fragilis 22 44.9S 440 Ampelisca tenuicornis 21 42.9ZB 161 Amphipholis squamata 19 38.8W 1702 Modiolus modiolus 19 38.8P 699 Paradoneis lyra 19 38.8S 248 Urothoe elegans 19 38.8P 766 Prionospio banyulensis 18 36.7W 2059 Abra alba 17 34.7ZB 154 Amphiura filiformis 17 34.7W 1805 Anomiidae (saddle oysters) 17 34.7P 1026 Scalibregma celticum 17 34.7P 712 Apistobranchus tullbergi 16 32.7S 1197 Bodotria scorpioides 16 32.7P 380 Eusyllis blomstrandi 16 32.7P 421 Exogone hebes 16 32.7P 846 Tharyx killariensis 16 32.7R 41 Verruca stroemia 16 32.7S 503 Cheirocratus spp. 15 30.6P 1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 15 30.6P 789 Spio decorata 15 30.6W 2104 Timoclea ovata 15 30.6Q 15 Achelia echinata 14 28.6Q 33 Callipallene brevirostris 14 28.6P 829 Caulleriella alata 14 28.6Y 14 Crisia aculeata 14 28.6P 804 Magelona alleni 14 28.6ZB 166 Ophiura spp.(juv.) 14 28.6S 262 Parametaphoxus pectinatus 14 28.6P 94 Pholoe synophthalmica 14 28.6P 718 Poecilochaetus serpens 14 28.6S 138 Synchelidium maculatum 14 28.6S 186 Cressa dubia 13 26.5S 1208 Eudorella truncatula 13 26.5P 1093 Galathowenia oculata 13 26.5S 254 Harpinia antennaria 13 26.5P 1098 Owenia fusiformis 13 26.5W 2006 Phaxas pellucidus 13 26.5P 971 Praxillela affinis 13 26.5P 321 Syllidia armata 13 26.5S 438 Ampelisca spinipes 12 24.5S 159 Amphilochus neopolitanus 12 24.5D 649 Epizoanthus couchii 12 24.5P 494 Nephtys spp. (juv.) 12 24.5P 921 Notomastus latericeus 12 24.5S 1482 Pisidia longicornis 12 24.5W 491 Polinices pulchellus 12 24.5P 358 Syllis sp. E 12 24.5S 498 Abludomelita obtusata 11 22.4S 579 Aora gracilis 11 22.4NONE Branchiostoma lanceolatum 11 22.4P 502 Nephtys kersivalensis 11 22.4L 11 Sagitta spp. 11 22.4P 430 Sphaerosyllis taylori 11 22.4P 796 Spiophanes kroyeri 11 22.4S 1142 Tanaopsis graciloides 11 22.4S 423 Ampelisca spp. (juv.) 10 20.4P 1139 Ampharete lindstroemi 10 20.4Y 17 Crisia eburnea 10 20.4P 422 Exogone naidina 10 20.4S 651 Pariambus typicus 10 20.4P 925 Peresiella clymenoides 10 20.4P 762 Polydora socialis 10 20.4P 794 Spiophanes bombyx 10 20.4Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 50 -Figure 2: Dendrogram from Primer cluster analysis of community similarity betweensample sites. The x axis shows the site number. The y-axis is the Bray Curtis% similarity coefficientFigure 3: Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS) plot. Polygons were drawn around sitesthat were considered to be in the same biotope. Labels in boxes are the biotopenumbers used in Table 5Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 51 -BIO-PHYSICAL PARAMETERSBed sediments. The particle-size and visual characteristics of the bed sediment provide:1) A description of the physical substrata that the benthic fauna inhabit.2) A guide to the sedimentary conditions (water column energy, sediment sources andtransport, carbon input and accumulation), key factors controlling the type of faunafound. These data also provide information on the connectivity in time and space betweensampled sites, linking zones where processes have created similar deposit characteristics. The organic carbon of the mud fraction of the sediments was very constant (1.35 to1.68%, eight analyses conducted), so mud content can be used as a good indicator ofcarbon content. A series of indices were derived that would reflect key characteristics of the sedimentin determining the faunal assemblages. These are listed in Figure 4 and Table 3, andexplained here.Figure 4: Habitat grids used for biotope definition. See Table 4 for colour codesGRAVEL and COBBLES1. The % content of material >2 mm, categories grouped as zero, 1-10%, 10-20% andthen local higher ranges (e.g. 50-90%). At about 35% gravel, all finer sediment isessentially matrix material.2. Whether the gravel was shell or of lithologic origin. Three categories were defined, allshell, shell with traces of stone, or mixed stone and shell. These distinctions haveimportant implications for the stability of the sediments.3. Whether the gravel was bright or dull - that is it had been exposed at the sediment waterinterface or buried within the sediment (see Plate 1). Three indices were measured, bright,dull or an indeterminate mix, for purposes of the biotope map. The informationindicates whether the benthic interface was gravel or not.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 52 -Plate 1: Photographs of buried gravel (dull, left) and active gravel (bright, right)Table 3: Categories of physical habitat parameters used in the GIS analysis. A GIS layer wascreated for each of the seven ‘variables’ listed in the table. The range of values assignable toeach variable is shown, together with the GIS search instruction that could be applied to thatlayer during grid analyses (e.g. equal to, less than). This Table is a key for Figure 6Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 53 -SANDWith the high tidal energy levels at Lundy, the sediments generally contained welldefined lognormal sand grain populations. Examples are shown in Figure 5.Figure 5: Examples of sand particle-size populations. For sample sites see Figure 14. Bedload sand population (sand mode in the range 200 to 2000µm). The presence ofthis population shows the occurrence of periods of bedload sand transport under tide orwave action. In general the frequency of occurrence of these episodes is indicated by thelevel of sorting, and the energy of the water movement by the modal size (coarser equalshigher velocity). Five zones of consistent bedload type were identified for biotopemapping, with modes mostly in the range 1.5 to 2.0phi (355 to 250µm). In zones 1-4 thesands were of consistent nature, predominantly of lithogenic origin. In zone five thesands were composed of shell and bryozoan debris.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 54 -5. Suspended sand population (sand mode in the range 63 to 200µm). A particlepopulation with a mode at 3phi (125µm) was ubiquitous through much of the surveyarea. The presence of this population shows a fallout of fine sand from suspension.Seven levels of the relative contribution of this population to the sand fraction at eachstation were identified, from absent through to very dominant. This fine sand is beinggenerated within the Lundy surf zone, from where it escapes to accumulate in deeperquieter waters, carried by the residual currents mostly to the east, much accumulatingin the lee of Lundy (Figure 6). An index was prepared from this data (suspended sandpopulation absent, subsidiary or dominant) for use in the habitat mapping.Figure 6: Fine/very fine sand accumulation around Lundy (blue is low level, red ishigh level, pink is rock outcrop). From GIS contouring of point sample dataJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 55 -SILTCLAY6. Mud is only present in a restricted zone in the lee (east inshore) side of Lundy, whereit can reach ~28% of the sediment. Five mud-content zones were created, defined by theminimum siltclay (material <63 µm) content in the zone.Water parameters, bathymetry and tide. Salinity and temperature were taken to beuniform across the survey area. Bathymetric data were available from the 2005Hydrosurveys work. Depths are plotted in Figures 1 and 4. When mapping zones of bedsediment conditions as regions and grids in the GIS, information plotted from earliersurveys was used as a guide, together with (in the zone immediately east of Lundy), amap of bed backscatter values (see data sources). The high-resolution (1m bin)multibeam bathymetric data was used to plot the distribution of rock (based onrecognition of strata). It was also possible to plot the extent of the subtidal beachfacealong the eastern shore of Lundy from this data, as the extensive coarse(boulder/cobble/gravel) beach has a distinct break of slope at its foot. Smaller beachfacedeposits elsewhere were ‘guesstimated’ from OS map data. Peak tidal current values were derived from the BIOMOR4 study, originally predictedfrom a modelling study of the whole Bristol Channel. The isolines in this source ofinformation stopped several kilometres short of the Lundy coast, but based on tide raceinformation (Chart) an approximate map showing the peak depth-averaged flow velocitieshas been generated (Figure 4). Peak depth-averaged velocities range from 40-150 cm s-1.BIOTOPES RECORDEDThe biotope map for grab sampling sites from the 2007 survey is shown in Figure 7 andthe characteristics of each biotope are summarised in Table 4. In the following biotope descriptions characterising taxa are listed in descendingnumerical combined counts for all sites in the biotope (or for colonial species theequivalent numerical value 1=Rare, 5=Occasional, 10=Frequent, 20=Common,50=Abundant, 100=Superabundant). Where there is a tie in numerical value they arethen listed alphabetically. More complete listings are provided in Appendix 2. The JNCC biotope names used are shorthand versions of the full biotope name andstart with the substratum type, which is either IR (for infralittoral rock) or SS (forsubtidal sediments)Biotope 1: Tide-swept mixed substrata. Stations 50 and 51. Cobbles and boulders inphotic zone, east coast of Lundy. Close match with JNCC biotope IR.MIR.KR.LhypTX Laminaria hyperborea on tide-swept, infralittoral mixed substrata. However, as there are a large number of JNCCbiotopes that include Laminaria hyperborea it is possible that surveys by divers may recorda slightly different biotope. 34-41 taxa recorded, total of 52 taxa at two stations. Characterising taxa - algae: Laminaria hyperborea, Membranipora membranacea, Phycodrysrubens, Membranoptera alata. Also recorded: Palmaria palmata, Cryptopleura ramosa,Rhodymenia pseudopalmata and Lomentaria articulata.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 56 -Laminaria hyperborea, Membranipora membranacea, Phycodrys rubens, Membranoptera alata.Helcion pellucidum, Odontosyllis ctenostoma, Jassa falcata, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Crisiaeburnea, Obelia geniculata, Aora gracilis, Electra pilosaand Alcyonidium gelatinosumIR.MIR.KR.LhypTXLaminaria hyperborea on tide-swept, infralittoral mixed substrataBarnacles (mainlyVerruca stroemia, alsoB. crenatus), Anomiidae (saddle oysters),Pisidialongicornis, Amphipholis squamata, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Epizoanthus couchii, Pomatoceros triqueter& P. lamarckii,Pseudoprotella phasma, Modiolus modiolus, Amphilochus manudens,NudibranchsSpecies rich version of SS.SCS.CCS.PomBPomatoceros triqueterwith barnacles andbryozoan crusts on unstable circalittoral cobbles and pebblesAnomiidae,Puellina venusta, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Abietinaria abietina, Electra pilosa, Escharellavariolosa, Sertularia cupressina, Sertularia spp.Tridentata distans andPomatoceros lamarckiiSome similarities with SS.SCS.CCS.PomBPomatoceros triqueterwith barnacles andbryozoan crusts on unstable circalittoral cobbles and pebbles3A 35, 36, 42& 432-12 (18)Nephtys cirrosa,often with Glycera oxycephala, Magelona johnstoni andScolelepis bonnieri SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna3B 37 3Magelonaalleni,Magelona sp. andEchinocyamus pusillus SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna3C 34 4Caecum glabrum, Erichthonius spp.Lagis koreni, Mediomastus fragilis, Nephtys spp. (juv)and the brittlestarOphiactis balliSS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna4 28 & 30 7-26 (28)Modiolus modiolus, Sertularia cupressina, Dynamena pumila,Electra pilosa andVerrucastroemia. Single specimens of hermit crabs (Paguridae) and Amphioxus (Branchiostomalanceolatum) were recorded at Station 28Similar to SS.SSA.IFiSa.ScupHydSertularia cupressinaandHydrallmania falcataontide- swept sublittoral sand with cobbles or pebbles. Note thatHydrallmania falcata notrecordedAmpelisca tenuicornis, Apistobranchus tullbergi, Parametaphoxus pectinatus, Eudorellatruncatula,Nemertea indeterminate, Mediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris gracilis, Praxillelaaffinis, Exogone hebes, Harmothoespp (juv)., Paradoneis lyra, Nephtys kersivalensis, Tanaopsisgraciloides, Spio decorata, Bodotria scorpioidesand Spiophanes bombyxStation 25 had some similarities with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel, due to thepresence of the venerid bivalveTimoclea ovata. Stations 1 & 20 shared many taxawith St 25, but also had similarities with Biotope 8B5B 11, 17, 18,21, 23, 24,Characterising taxa:Ampelisca tenuicornis, Apistobranchus tullbergi, Urothoe elegans, Poecilochaetus serpens, Lumbrineris gracilis, Gammaropsis cornuta, Glycera lapidum,Harpiniaantennaria. Timoclea ovata and Mediomastus fragilisMost stations were a good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastusfragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel5C 10, 14 & 22 32-63 (101)Abludomelita obtusata, Gammaropsis cornuta, Urothoe elegans, Glycera lapidum, Echinocyamuspusillus, Nemertea indeterminate, Lumbrineris gracilis, Anoplodactylus petiolatusandParadoneislyra.Stations 10 and 22 were a reasonably good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen Mediomastus fragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sandor gravel. The venerid bivalves wereTimoclea ovata (St 10) andCircomphalus casina andDosinia lupinus | (both at St 22)5D 13, 15, 16,19, 29, 38Gammaropsis cornuta, Glycera lapidumand Echinocyamus pusillus.Usually present:Sabellaria spinulosa, Modiolus modiolus, Verruca stroemia,Anomiidae,Crisia aculeata, Achelia echinata, Prionospio banyulensis, Ampelisca spinipes, Syllissp. E andTimoclea ovataSome stations were a reasonably good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sandor gravel. The densities ofSabellaria spinulosa were moderately high at 5 of the 6stations, and it may be that this grouping represents a biotope complex ofSS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen and S.SBR.PoR.SspiMxSabellaria spinulosaon stablecircalittoral mixed sediment.STATIONSINBIOTOPETAXA PERGRAB (ANDTOTAL INBIOTOPE)CHARACTERISING TAXA INCLUDE NEAREST JNCC BIOTOPEBIOTOPE 1 50 & 51 34-41 (52) 2A 31 & 41 60-100 (126)2B 48 23 5A 1, 20 & 2 46-66 (108)47-100 (217)23-78 (192)Table 4: Summary of biotopes recordedJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 57 -STATIONSINBIOTOPETAXA PERGRAB (ANDTOTAL INBIOTOPE)CHARACTERISING TAXA INCLUDE NEAREST JNCC BIOTOPEBIOTOPEAnomiidae (saddle oysters),Sabellaria spinulosa, Modiolus modiolus, Verruca stroemia, Pisidialongicornis, Harmothoe spp.,Achelia echinata, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Crisia aculeata, Cressa dubia,Glycera lapidum, Phtisica marina, Amphipholis squamata,Nudibranchia indeterminate,Aoragracilis, Echinocyamus pusillus, Modiolarca tumida, Syllidia armata, Lumbrineris gracilis, Erichthoniuspunctatus,Sphenia binghami, Epizoanthus couchii, Hiatella arctica, Ampelisca tenuicornis, Ampharetelindstroemi, Callipallene brevirostris, Maera othonis, Gammaropsis cornuta, Parvicardium ovale, Crisiaeburnea, Adyte pellucida, Pholoe synophthalmica andAmpelisca spinipesSS.SBR.PoR.SspiMxSabellaria spinulosaon stable circalittoral mixed sediment6 40 25 Large number of the gammarid amphipodSocarnes erythrophthalmus and high diversity offoliose bryozoans (Crisia aculeata, Crisia eburnea, Crisia denticulata andCrisidia cornuta)Unmatched to any JNCC biotope. The substrate was fine shell gravel, with the veneridClausinella fasciata present. The substrate and presence of venerid bivalves suggests somesimilarities with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and veneridbivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel, butM. fragilis and Lumbrineris spp. were absent7A 27 & 52 13-30 (38)Glycera lapidum,Polygordius lacteus, Hesionura elongata,Pisione remota andGraniaspp.Similar to SS.SCS.ICS.HeloMsimHesionura elongata andMicrophthalmus similis withother interstitial polychaetes in infralittoral mobile coarse sand. In these examples thepolychaeteMicrophthalmus similis was not recorded7B 33 4 Single specimens each ofGlycera lapidum,Hesionura elongata,Amphilochus neopolitanusandOphiura sp.Similar to SS.SCS.ICS.HeloMsimHesionura elongata andMicrophthalmus similis withother interstitial polychaetes in infralittoral mobile coarse sand. In these examples thepolychaeteMicrophthalmus similis was not recorded8A 44 & 45 36-37 (53)Abra alba, Echinocyamus pusillus, Glycera lapidum, Spisula elliptica, Phaxas pellucidus,Sthenelais limicola, Sagittaspp., Callianassa subterranea, Lagis koreniand Polinices pulchellusNo close match with any JNCC biotope. Intermediate betweenSS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpelLagis koreniandPhaxas pellucidusin circalittoral sandy mudand SS.SSA.CMuSa.AalbNucAbra alba andNucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy sandor slightly mixed sediment8B 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 30-52 (117)Tubificoides amplivasatus, Parametaphoxus pectinatus, Tharyx killariensis, Spio decorata,Nemertea indeterminate,Ampelisca tenuicornis, Ampelisca spp. (juv) andLumbrineris gracilis.Usually presentHarpinia antennaria, Eudorella truncatula, Abra alba, Pariambus typicus,Amphiura filiformis, Perioculodes longimanus, Phaxas pellucidus, Anoplodactylus petiolatus,Nephtys hombergii&Mediomastus fragilisAmpelisca brevicornis, Magelona alleni, Marphysa bellii, Aricidea minuta, Lumbrineris gracilis,Nephtys hombergii, Pariambus typicus, Phaxas pellucidus, Polydora socialis, Terebellides stroemiandTharyx killariensisNo close match with any JNCC biotope. Intermediate betweenSS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpelLagis koreniandPhaxas pellucidusin circalittoral sandy mudand SS.SSA.IMuSa.SsubNhomSpisula subtruncata andNephtys hombergii in shallowmuddy sand. Note that neitherLagis koreni norSpisula subtruncata were recorded10 12 14Hydroides norvegica, Epizoanthus couchii, Golfingia vulgaris vulgaris, Notomastus latericeus,Ampelisca spinipes, Amphiura filiformis, Euclymene lumbricoides, Mediomastus fragilis,Nematonereis unicornis, Notomastus sp., Photis longicaudata, Terebellides stroemi,Trichobranchus roseusandUpogebia deltaura.Species-poor variation of SS.SMX.OMx Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment?5E 7, 8 & 9 91-123 (208) 9 53 11No close match with any JNCC biotope. Intermediate betweenSS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpelLagis koreniandPhaxas pellucidusin circalittoral sandy mudand SS.SSA.CMuSa.AalbNucAbra alba andNucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy sandor slightly mixed sedimentTable 4: Summary of biotopes recorded (cont.)Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 58 -Figure 7: Map of sedimentary biotopes around LundyJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 59 - Characterising taxa - invertebrates: Helcion pellucidum, Odontosyllis ctenostoma, Jassafalcata, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Crisia eburnea, Obelia geniculata, Aora gracilis, Electra pilosa,Dexamine spinosa, Pseudoprotella phasma, Apherusa bispinosa, Ischyrocerus anguipes?,Autolytus spp., Phtisica marina, Caprella acanthifera, Oriopsis armandi, Modiolus modiolus,Ophiothrix fragilis and Alcyonidium gelatinosum.Biotope 2 complex: Cobbles and pebbles. Similar to SS.SCS.CCS.PomB Pomatocerostriqueter with barnacles and bryozoan crusts on unstable circalittoral cobbles and pebbles.Biotope 2A. Stations 31 & 41. Cobbles. Scoured cobble pavements at St 31; stablecobbles with some gravel/sand matrix at St 41.Similar to SS.SCS.CCS.PomB Pomatoceros triqueter with barnacles and bryozoan crustson unstable circalittoral cobbles and pebbles. This is a species-rich variation, suggestingthat the cobbles are not regularly disturbed. 60-100 taxa per grab, total of 126 taxa recorded in three sites. Similar to Assemblage V of Mackie et al. (2006), which they did not assign to a JNCCbiotope and considered to be a biotope complex. However, they also stated that thepresence of Pomatoceros spp., barnacles and bryozoans could be viewed as indicative ofSS.SCS.CCS.PomB. Their nearest station in this Assemblage was OBC 28. This wastheir second closest station to Lundy, approximately due north. Characterising taxa: Barnacles (mainly Verruca stroemia, also B. crenatus at Station 31),Anomiidae (saddle oysters), Pisidia longicornis, Harmothoe spp., Amphipholis squamata,Eusyllis blomstrandi, Epizoanthus couchii, Pomatoceros triqueter, P. lamarckii, Pseudoprotellaphasma, Modiolus modiolus, Amphilochus manudens, Cressa dubia, Nudibranchiaindeterminate, Balanus crenatus, Ceradocus semiserratus, Janira maculosa, Cheirocratus spp.,Stenothoe marina, Glycera lapidum, Callipallene brevirostris, Hinia incrassata, Pholoesynophthalmica, Sphaerosyllis bulbosa, Lepidonotus squamatus and Munna minuta.Biotope 2B. Station 48. Scoured cobble pavement. Some similarities with SS.SCS.CCS.PomB Pomatoceros triqueter with barnacles andbryozoan crusts on unstable circalittoral cobbles and pebbles; however at Station 48 nobarnacles were recorded. 23 taxa per grab. Similar to Assemblage V of Mackie et al. (2006), which they did not assign to a JNCCbiotope and considered to be a biotope complex (see above). Their nearest station in thisAssemblage was OBC 28. This was their second closest station to Lundy, approximatelydue north of the island and close to Station 48. The commonest (or, in the case of colonial bryozoans, the most widespread) taxa wereAnomiidae, Puellina venusta, Eusyllis blomstrandi, Abietinaria abietina, Electra pilosa, Escharellavariolosa, Sertularia cupressina, Sertularia spp. Tridentata distans and Pomatoceros lamarckii.Biotope 3 complex: Mobile medium sand. SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSaBiotope 3A. Stations 35, 36, 42 & 43. Well sorted medium sands with active bedtransport. SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna. 2-12 taxa per grab. Total of 18 taxa recorded at the four stations. Characterising taxa: Nephtys cirrosa.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 60 - Other taxa recorded at 50% of stations: Glycera oxycephala, Magelona johnstoni andScolelepis bonnieri.Biotope 3B. Station 37. Well sorted medium sands with active bed transport.SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna. 3 taxa per grab (Magelona alleni, Magelona sp. and Echinocyamus pusillus). Due to the very sparse invertebrate fauna in this biotope it is possible that Station 37was very similar to those in Biotope 3A, and that further grab samples at this locationwould have included specimens of, for example, Nephtys cirrosa.Biotope 3C. Station 34. Well sorted medium sands with active bed transport. SS.SSA.IFiSa.IMoSa Infralittoral mobile clean sand with sparse fauna. The only taxa recorded were single specimens of Caecum glabrum, Erichthonius sp.Lagis koreni, Mediomastus fragilis, Nephtys sp. (juv) and the brittlestar Ophiactis balli.Biotope 4: Tide-swept sand with cobbles or pebbles. Stations 28 & 30. Two differentsediment types. Station 28 was 1-10% gravel (shell with some lithogenic) and mediumsand bedload transport. Station 30 was sandy gravel with a 30-40% shell content. Similar to SS.SSA.IFiSa.ScupHyd Sertularia cupressina and Hydrallmania falcata ontide-swept sublittoral sand with cobbles or pebbles. Note that Hydrallmania falcate wasnot recorded. 7-26 taxa per grab. Total of 28 taxa recorded at the three stations. Similar to Assemblage IVc of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Modiolus modiolus, Sertularia cupressina, Dynamena pumila, Electrapilosa and Verruca stroemia. Single specimens of hermit crabs (Paguridae) and Amphioxus (Branchiostomalanceolatum) were recorded at Station 28.Biotope 5 complex: Coarse sand or gravel/mixed sediment. 5A-5D had similaritieswith SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen Mediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and veneridbivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel. Biotope 5D had relatively high densitiesof Sabellaria spinulosa and may be intermediate between S.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen andSS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx Sabellaria spinulosa on stable circalittoral mixed sediment. Biotope5E had even higher densities of Sabellaria spinulosa and was a reasonable match withSS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx. One of the most interesting features of Biotopes 5A and 5B werethe high densities of the polychaete Apistobranchus tullbergi, which was not recorded atany of the locations sampled by Mackie et al. (2006). This species is strongly associatedwith the higher mud fraction sediments that lie along the east coast of Lundy. It ispossible that the presence of this species in high densities represents an entity that couldbe proposed to the JNCC as a new biotope.Sabellaria spinulosa was recorded at 15 stations. The highest densities occurred at St 8(218 individuals, equivalent to 5450 m-2), in Biotope 5E. The two other stations inBiotope 5E (St 7 and St 9) also had moderately high densities of S. spinulosa, equivalentto 525 and 875 m-2 respectively. St 26 (Biotope 5B) had a density of 1975 m-2. Using aproposed scoring system for evaluating Sabellaria spinulosa ‘reefiness’ (Hendrick &Foster-Smith, 2006) most of the locations where Sabellaria spinulosa was present inJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 61 -reasonable numbers would be considered to belong to the ‘low reefiness’ category, butSt 26 and St 8 were of ‘medium reefiness’. The latter two stations were not in the ‘highreefiness’ category as the tubes did not extend more than 15 cm above the surface andthere is no evidence that they were found ‘persistently over time’ at the same location.Biotope 5A. Stations 1, 20 and 25. Three samples with various mixed sediments (St 1mud with some medium sand and shell gravel; St 20 sand with some mud and some fineshell gravel; St 25 gravel with medium /coarse sand and some mud). Station 25 had some similarities with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen Mediomastus fragilis,Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel, due to thepresence of the venerid bivalve Timoclea ovata. Stations 1 & 20 shared many taxa with St 25, but also had similarities with Biotope 8B. 46-66 taxa per grab (mean 54 taxa). Total of 108 taxa at three stations. Broad similarities with Assemblage IVa of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Ampelisca tenuicornis, Apistobranchus tullbergi, Parametaphoxuspectinatus, Eudorella truncatula, Nemertea indeterminate, Mediomastus fragilis, Lumbrinerisgracilis, Praxillela affinis, Exogone hebes, Harmothoe spp., Paradoneis lyra, Nephtyskersivalensis, Tanaopsis graciloides, Spio decorata, Bodotria scorpioides and Spiophanes bombyx.Taxa present at 67% of stations: Tubificoides amplivasatus, Anoplodactylus petiolatus,Spiophanes kroyeri, Peresiella clymenoides, Gammaropsis cornuta, Abra alba, Tharyxkillariensis, Galathowenia oculata, Scalibregma celticum, Euclymene sp A, Notomastuslatericeus, Sthenelais boa, Ampharete lindstroemi, Amphiura filiformis, Glycera alba, Glyceralapidum, Phyllodoce rosea, Diastylis sp (juv), Ebalia cranchii, Glycinde nordmanni, Nephtysspp. (juv), Phaxas pellucidus and Podarkeopsis capensis.Biotope 5B. Stations 11, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 & 26. Most sites had 1-10% gravel (shell or mixed), 20-25% mud and bedload transport ofmedium sand. Most stations were a good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand orgravel. As would be expected for this biotope the main venerid bivalve was Timocleaovata. The high densities of the polychaete Apistobranchus tullbergi are probably unusualfor this biotope, particularly considering that this species was not recorded at anylocations in the nearby survey by Mackie et al. (2006). 47-100 taxa per grab (mean 78.4). Total of 217 taxa at seven stations. Similar to Assemblage IVa of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Ampelisca tenuicornis, Apistobranchus tullbergi, Urothoe elegans,Poecilochaetus serpens, Lumbrineris gracilis, Gammaropsis cornuta, Glycera lapidum andHarpinia antennaria. Taxa present at 71% of stations included: Abra alba, Tubificoides diazi?, Praxillela affinis,Harmothoe spp., Tharyx killariensis, Anoplodactylus petiolatus, Nemertea indeterminate,Amphiura filiformis, Exogone hebes, Nephtys kersivalensis, Phoronis spp., Parametaphoxuspectinatus, Galathowenia oculata, Mediomastus fragilis, Echinocyamus pusillus, Pholoesynophthalmica, Photis longicaudata, Scalibregma inflatum, Eudorella truncatula, Paradoneislyra, Amphipholis squamata, Caulleriella alata, Owenia fusiformis, Spiophanes kroyeri,Tanaopsis graciloides, Magelona alleni, Scalibregma celticum, Euclymene oerstedii, Prionospiobanyulensis, Timoclea ovata, Bodotria scorpioides and Polinices pulchellus.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 62 -Biotope 5C. Stations 10, 14 and 22. Stations 10 and 22 had 1-10% mixed gravel, withbedload transport of medium sand and some fine sand fallout. Station 14 was broadlysimilar but had a higher proportion of gravel. Sites 10 and 22 were a reasonably good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand orgravel. The venerid bivalves were Timoclea ovata (Station 10) and Circomphalus casina andDosinia lupinus (both at Station 22). Only Station 10 had Mediomastus fragilis present (asingle specimen). 32-63 taxa (mean 46.0). Total of 101 taxa at three stations. Broad similarities with Assemblage IVa of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Abludomelita obtusata, Gammaropsis cornuta, Urothoe elegansGlycera lapidum, Echinocyamus pusillus, Nemertea indeterminate, Lumbrineris gracilis,Anoplodactylus petiolatus and Paradoneis lyra. Taxa present at 67% of stations: Tubificoides diazi?, Apistobranchus tullbergi, Amphilochusneopolitanus, Exogone hebes, Notomastus sp. E, Phyllochaetopterus (socialis?), Galathoweniaoculata, Owenia fusiformis, Amphipholis squamata, Amphiura filiformis, Syllides japonica,Synchelidium maculatum, Aglaophamus rubella, Aponuphis bilineata, Caulleriella alata,Guernea coalita, Marphysa bellii, Sphaerosyllis bulbosa, Syllis sp. D, and venerid bivalves(Timoclea ovata, Circomphalus casina & Dosinia lupinus).Biotope 5D. Stations 13, 15, 16, 19, 29, 38 and 49. Most stations had 10-20% of mixedgravel, with bedload transport of medium sand and a zone of some fine sand fallout.Station 29 was similar but with 30-70% of mixed gravel. Some stations were a reasonably good match with SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVenMediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves in circalittoral coarse sand orgravel. As would be expected for this biotope the main venerid bivalve was Timocleaovata. The number of Mediomastus fragilis was lower than expected and this species wasonly recorded at Stations 13 and 29. The densities of Sabellaria spinulosa were moderatelyhigh at 5 of the 6 stations, and it may be that this grouping represents a biotope complexof SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen and S.SBR.PoR.SspiMx Sabellaria spinulosa on stablecircalittoral mixed sediment. 23-78 taxa per grab (mean = 58). Total of 192 taxa at seven stations. Similar to Assemblage IVe of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Gammaropsis cornuta, Glycera lapidum and Echinocyamus pusillus.Taxa present at 71% of stations: Sabellaria spinulosa, Modiolus modiolus, Verruca stroemia,Anomiidae, Crisia aculeata, Amphilochus neopolitanus, Cheirocratus spp., Cressa dubia,Harmothoe spp. Achelia echinata, Leptocheirus hirsutimanus, Polydora socialis, Anoplodactyluspetiolatus, Prionospio banyulensis, Ampelisca spinipes, Syllis sp. E and Timoclea ovata. Other notable taxa: the Nationally Scarce burrowing anemone Mesacmaea mitchelliiwas recorded at Station 19.Biotope 5E. Stations 7, 8, 9. Stations 8 & 9 had 20-30% mixed gravel, with bedloadtransport of medium sand and a zone of some fine sand fallout. Station 7 was different,possibly a patch of mobile gravel on scoured bed. SS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx Sabellariaspinulosa on stable circalittoral mixed sediment. 91-123 taxa per grab, total of 208 taxa recorded in three sites.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 63 - Very similar to Assemblage IVe of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Anomiidae (saddle oysters), Sabellaria spinulosa, Modiolusmodiolus, Verruca stroemia, Pisidia longicornis, Harmothoe spp., Achelia echinata, Eusyllisblomstrandi, Crisia aculeata, Cressa dubia, Glycera lapidum, Phtisica marina, Amphipholissquamata, Nudibranchia indeterminate, Aora gracilis, Echinocyamus pusillus, Modiolarcatumida, Syllidia armata, Lumbrineris gracilis. Taxa present at 67% of stations: Erichthonius punctatus, Anomiidae, Sphenia binghami,Epizoanthus couchii, Cheirocratus spp., Hiatella arctica, Ampelisca tenuicornis, Ampharetelindstroemi, Callipallene brevirostris, Maera othonis, Gammaropsis cornuta, Parvicardium ovale,Crisia eburnea, Adyte pellucida, Pholoe synophthalmica and Ampelisca spinipes.Biotope 6. Fine shell gravel. Station 40. Sandy gravel, with 30-40% shell and coarseshell sand. Unmatched to any JNCC biotope. The substratum was fine shell gravel, withthe venerid Clausinella fasciata present. Further sampling is needed to accurately assessthis biotope. The substratum and presence of venerid bivalves suggests some similaritieswith SS.SCS.CCS.MedLumVen Mediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and veneridbivalves in circalittoral coarse sand or gravel, though neither Mediomastus fragilis norLumbrineris spp. were present in the sample. 25 taxa recorded at a single station. The main characteristics of the fauna at Station 40 were the large number of thegammarid amphipod Socarnes erythrophthalmus, and the high diversity of turf-formingbryozoans (Crisia aculeata, Crisia eburnea, Crisia denticulata and Crisidia cornuta).Biotope 7 complex. Mobile coarse sand. Similar to SS.SCS.ICS.HeloMsim Hesionuraelongata and Microphthalmus similis with other interstitial polychaetes in infralittoral mobilecoarse sand. In these examples the polychaete Microphthalmus similis was not recorded.Biotope 7A. Stations 27 & 52. Both stations had some fine sand fallout. Station 27 had20% shell gravel, with bedload transport of medium sand and some coarse sand. Station52 had 1-10% mixed gravel, with bedload transport of medium-coarse sand. Similar toSS.SCS.ICS.HeloMsim Hesionura elongata and Microphthalmus similis with otherinterstitial polychaetes in infralittoral mobile coarse sand. In these examples thepolychaete Microphthalmus similis was not recorded. 13-30 taxa per grab. Total of 38 taxa at two sites. Similar to Assemblage IIIc of Mackie et al. (2006), which also lacked Microphthalmussimilis. Characterising taxa: Glycera lapidum, Polygordius lacteus, Hesionura elongata, Pisioneremota and Grania spp. Other notable taxa: Station 27 had the only record of the Nationally Scarce crab Thiascutellata. As this species is only found at sites with loosely packed medium sands thatallow easy burrowing, it is likely that its distribution is closely linked to that of this biotope.Mackie et al. (2006) found most Thia scutellata in the equivalent assemblage (IIIa-d).Biotope 7B. Station 33. Within a scoured zone of lag deposits, patchy sediment with30-70% mixed gravel and some matrix sand. Similar to SS.SCS.ICS.HeloMsim Hesionuraelongata and Microphthalmus similis with other interstitial polychaetes in infralittoralJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 64 -mobile coarse sand. In these examples the polychaete Microphthalmus similis was notrecorded. Similar to Assemblage IIIc of Mackie et al. (2006), which also lackedMicrophthalmus similis. 4 taxa per grab (single specimens each of Glycera lapidum, Hesionura elongata,Amphilochus neopolitanus and Ophiura sp.).Biotope 8 complex. Mud and sand. No close match with any JNCC biotope, butintermediate between SS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpel Lagis koreni and Phaxas pellucidus incircalittoral sandy mud and SS.SSA.CMuSa.AalbNuc Abra alba and Nucula nitidosa incircalittoral muddy sand or slightly mixed sediment.Biotope 8A. Stations 44 & 45. Both stations had bedload transport of medium sand andtraces of fine sand fallout. Station 44 had 30-70% mixed gravel; Station 45 had 1-10% shellgravel. No close match with any JNCC biotope, but intermediate betweenSS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpel Lagis koreni and Phaxas pellucidus in circalittoral sandy mudand SS.SSA.CMuSa.AalbNuc Abra alba and Nucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy sand orslightly mixed sediment. Only single specimens of Lagis koreni were recorded at eachstation. Nucula nitidosa was not recorded. The JNCC biotope classification (Connor etal., 2004) considers that these two biotopes and SS.SSA.IMuSa.SsubNhom Spisulasubtruncata and Nephtys hombergii in shallow muddy sand may be found at the samelocations in different years, due to differences in recruitment success of the dominanttaxa. 36-37 taxa. Total of 53 taxa at two stations. Similar to Assemblages IIb and IIc of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Abra alba, Echinocyamus pusillus, Glycera lapidum, Spisula elliptica,Phaxas pellucidus, Sthenelais limicola, Sagitta spp., Callianassa subterranea, Lagis koreni andPolinices pulchellus.Biotope 8B. Stations 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. All sites had 1-10% gravel (shell or mixed) withbedload transport of medium and coarse sand, all dominated by fine sand fallout. No closematch with any JNCC biotope, but intermediate between SS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpelLagis koreni and Phaxas pellucidus in circalittoral sandy mud and SS.SSA.CMuSa.AalbNucAbra alba and Nucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy sand or slightly mixed sediment. Notethat Lagis koreni was only recorded at Station 5 and Nucula nitidosa was not recorded. TheJNCC biotope classification (Connor et al., 2004) considers that these two biotopes andSS.SSA.IMuSa.SsubNhom Spisula subtruncata and Nephtys hombergii in shallow muddysand may be found at the same locations in different years, due to differences inrecruitment success of the dominant taxa. 30-52 taxa per grab (mean 45.2). Total of 117 taxa at five stations. Similar to Assemblages IIb and IIc of Mackie et al. (2006). Characterising taxa: Tubificoides amplivasatus, Parametaphoxus pectinatus, Tharyxkillariensis, Spio decorata, Nemertea indeterminate, Ampelisca tenuicornis, Ampelisca spp.(juv) & Lumbrineris gracilis. Present at 80% of stations: Harpinia antennaria, Eudorella truncatula, Abra alba,Pariambus typicus, Amphiura filiformis, Perioculodes longimanus, Phaxas pellucidus,Anoplodactylus petiolatus, Nephtys hombergii & Mediomastus fragilis.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 65 -Biotope 9. Muddy sand. Station 53 (Mooring site). Gravelly sand with a small amountof silt and clay. This location was used to test the grab, and was not part of the mainsampling program. However, the sample was preserved and analysed. Station 53 waswell-separated from the other sampling stations on the cluster analysis and MDS. TheMDS plot shows some affinities with Biotope 8B, which is geographically very close,immediately west of Station 53. No close match with any JNCC biotope, but intermediate betweenSS.SMU.CSaMu.LkorPpel Lagis koreni and Phaxas pellucidus in circalittoral sandy mudand SS.SSA.IMuSa.SsubNhom Spisula subtruncata and Nephtys hombergii in shallowmuddy sand. Note that neither Lagis koreni nor Spisula subtruncata were recorded. 11 taxa. In order of densities recorded (then alphabetically) these were Ampeliscabrevicornis, Magelona alleni, Marphysa bellii, Aricidea minuta, Lumbrineris gracilis, Nephtyshombergii, Pariambus typicus, Phaxas pellucidus, Polydora socialis, Terebellides stroemi andTharyx killariensis. Station 53 was one of only two stations that had the amphipod Ampelisca brevicornispresent, the other was Station 6, the closest station to the SW. Station 53 was alsosimilar to Station 6 in the relatively high numbers (2 & 4 respectively) of the polychaeteMarphysa bellii, which was only recorded at a few stations to the east of Lundy.Biotope 10. Mixed sediment. Station 12. Sediment was 10-20% mixed gravel with somebedload medium sand, dominated by fallout sand. Unmatched with any JNCC biotope,but may perhaps be a species-poor variation of SS.SMX.OMx Offshore circalittoralmixed sediment. The substratum at Station 12 was sand, shell gravel and some mud.Normally this combination would support a relatively diverse fauna, but at Station 12only 14 taxa were recorded. These included the burrowing shrimp Upogebia deltaura.This species and U. stellata were mainly recorded in the nearby Biotope 5A, but therewere few other species in common. 14 taxa: Hydroides norvegica, Epizoanthus couchii, Golfingia vulgaris vulgaris, Notomastuslatericeus, Ampelisca spinipes, Amphiura filiformis, Euclymene lumbricoides, Mediomastusfragilis, Nematonereis unicornis, Notomastus sp., Photis longicaudata, Terebellides stroemi,Trichobranchus roseus and Upogebia deltaura.DISCUSSIONComparison with previous surveysThe previous survey of the benthic macrofauna in sediments around Lundy in July 1975used divers to take cores and identify or collect epifauna at eleven locations in shallowwaters, mainly on the east coast (Hoare and Wilson, 1977). They recorded 81invertebrate taxa, compared to 478 from 49 stations in our 2007 survey. There are likelyto be several reasons for the large difference in the number of taxa, for example samplingmethod, sorting method, total amount of sediment sorted and the greater diversity oflocations and substrata in our survey. Detailed comparison between the two surveys isnot practical due to differences in methodology, but we have examined whether themost widespread species were similar and where the highest number of taxa occurred.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 66 - Of the 21 taxa that Hoare and Wilson (1977) found at 3 of more stations, 17 wererecorded in the 2007 survey. However, many of the most common taxa in our survey(see Table 2) were not recorded by Hoare and Wilson (1977). For example, the smallechinoderm Echinocyamus pusillus was recorded in 55% of samples in 2007 but was notrecorded in 1975. In some cases the differences may be due to identifications of difficultgroups. We did not record the capitellid polychaete Capitella capitata, but in July 1975 itwas recorded at 4 stations. We recorded the capitellid Mediomastus filiformis at 45% ofour stations, but this species was not recorded in 1975, so it is possible that it wasmis-identified as Capitella capitata. In general, the 1975 survey did not record many ofthe smaller polychaetes and gammarid amphipods. Hoare and Wilson (1977) found the greatest diversity at two stations on the centralpart of the east coast (Quarry Bay, 31 taxa and Halfway Bay 37 taxa). We recorded abroadly similar number of taxa at Stations 2, 4 & 5 (30-52 taxa per station). However,the highest numbers of taxa in our surveys were from two locations off the north coast.Station 8 had 105 taxa and St 9 123 taxa. With St 7 (91 taxa) these formed a veryspecies-rich group, with a total of 208 taxa recorded at just three stations. These threesites formed Biotope 5E, which was a good match with the JNCC biotopeSS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx Sabellaria spinulosa on stable circalittoral mixed sediment. Theother stations with high numbers of taxa were all off the east coast of Lundy and mainlybelonged to Biotopes 5B and 5D. The marine fauna lists for Lundy provide information on 753 invertebrate taxa (seehttp://www.lundy.org.uk/island/marinebiol.html for details). The 2007 survey recorded478 taxa, many of them apparently not previously recorded around Lundy. It is beyondthe scope of this paper to provide a detailed update to each of these faunal lists for thevarious taxonomic groups. For some groups, grab sampling is a good method ofobtaining specimens that are in a suitable condition for identification. For example, weidentified 62 amphipod crustaceans in the 2007 survey, which compares well with the59 amphipods listed by Moore (1981). For other groups, such as coelenterates andopisthobranchs, identification of fixed specimens is often very difficult and in these casesthe 2007 survey adds little new information.Biotope mappingThe biotope concept (understanding biological communities in relation to their habitat)is relied upon in marine environment management and impact-assessment legislativeframeworks. The application of biotope identification processes is problematic in sub-tidal sedimentary areas where biological information is available only at restrictednumbers of sampling points and transects (from diving, video and grabbing) and wherehighly mobile/variable phytoplankton provide the primary input to the ecosystems (cfrocky intertidal and terrestrial environments where static vegetation plays a key role inbiotope definition). The high financial cost of sampling and identifying the benthos tospecies level (with statistical confidence) exacerbates the problem by limiting thenumber of point samples that can be taken. It is often not easy to identify biotopes, orassess the geographical significance of any biotopes that are identified (total area,juxtaposition) or be assured that all biotopes present have been sampled. Thus theJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 67 -marine biotope maps we are generating today often fall short of providing the usefulinformation for which the biotope concept was originally developed. Acoustic seabed mapping projects around the world are now economically creatingspatially continuous maps of sedimentary and geological features of the seabed. Ifspecific benthic communities were associated with different sediment types, then thedistribution of those sediments could be used as a proxy to provide spatially continuousmaps of benthic biotopes, and provide a more reliable (temporally stable) basis formapping (Roff et al., 2003). However, although species are adapted to live in differentsediments, sediment type is not the only determinant of habitat suitability. Other factorssuch as depth and clarity of water, salinity and temperature regimes, and wave andcurrent velocity (bed stability and dispersion) are also influential in defining thecomposition of benthic communities. These data are also relatively easy to measure ormodel to give spatial continuity of habitat information. However, even when taking allsuch bio-physical habitat characteristics into account, the species composition of benthicsediment communities will often vary as a function of purely biological factors (oftencyclic or variable over periods of years to decades), which mean that through time anyfixed benthic habitat may be ‘home’ for more than one community of species. Anotherimportant area of uncertainty is the extent to which fishing practices (particularlybottom trawling) modify biotopes. Such impacts may have implications for the mappedarea east of Lundy, which includes an experimental no-take zone. The novel aspects of this study have been 1) experimenting with field methods toincrease cost-efficiency of data gathering, 2) reliance on detailed sediment properties asindicators of key benthic habitat conditions and 3) using GIS methods to bring togetherbiological and physical data sets (matching communities to habitat). The key stepsexemplifying the approaches used in this study can be summarised as follows: 1) It is important to initially make an effective study of readily available data to bothguide survey design and input to the final database. In terms of physical habitat, recent(post this survey) government investment in freely available datasets has made thisapproach very effective in UK waters, providing spatially continuous data (oftenmodelled but calibrated to field information) for parameters such as bathymetry, waveenergy and tidal currents (Nunny, 2010). 2) Undertake necessary field and laboratory work to both identify infauna andcharacterise seabed conditions. Field surveys can effectively be run together, and can useinnovative techniques to less precisely but much more cost effectively acquire data. 3) Independently analyse the habitat and biological data, the former on a spatiallycontinuous and the latter on a clustered-point basis. 4) Examine the interaction between the two data sets using a GIS grid model,iteratively adjusting the fit to allow key parameters and relationships to emerge. 5) Once base relationships have emerged the spatially-consistent attributes of theinfaunal assemblages can be readily described and applied to clearly defined seabedareas, using GIS interrogation and mapping methods. 6) Although the biotope descriptions that emerge often do not precisely conform tothe growing national database, this is a healthy sign and producing locally valid biotopedescriptions is internationally recognised best practice (ICES, 2008).Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 68 - 7) Final biotope descriptions can be ‘tweaked’ to best-fit the JNCC classificationwherever possible, or if not the possible existence of a new biotope should be flagged. 8) Clear identification of how well observed biotopes ‘fit’ established categories (suchas is presented in this paper) is important, as it will encourage ongoing revision andclarification of common biotope definitions.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank Natural England for funding this study and providingpermission for this work to be published. We would also like to thank two anonymousreferees who provided very helpful comments.REFERENCESAtkinson, R.J.A. & Schembri, P.J. 1981. The marine fauna of Lundy. Crustacea:Euphausiacea and Decapoda. Annual Report of the Lundy Field Society 1980, 31, 35-63.Brown, G.H. and Hunnam, P.J. 1977. The marine fauna of Lundy. Opisthobranchia.Annual Report of the Lundy Field Society 1976, 27, 37-47.Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in communitystructure. Australian Journal of Ecology, 18: 117-143.Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen,K.O. & Reker, J.B. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and IrelandVersion 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version). [cited17/12/2010]. Available from www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification.Dinneen, P. 1982. Peresiella clymenoides Harmelin, 1968; a capitellid polychaete new toIreland and Great Britain. Irish Naturalists' Journal 20, 471-475.Foster-Smith, R.L., Brown, C.J., Meadows, W.J., White, W.H. & Limpenny, D.S.2004. Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel.Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems. Journal of theMarine Biological Association U.K. 84, 489-500.George, J.D. 1975. The marine fauna of Lundy. Polychaeta (marine bristleworms).Annual Report of the Lundy Field Society 1974, 25, 33-48.Hayward, PJ. 1977. The marine fauna of Lundy. Bryozoa. Annual Report of the LundyField Society 1976, 27, 16-34.Hendrick, V.J. & Foster-Smith, R.I. 2006. Sabellaria spinulosa reef: a scoring system forevaluating ‘reefiness’ in the context of the Habitats Directive. Journal of the MarineBiological Association U.K. 86: 665-677.Hiscock, K. 1975. The marine fauna of Lundy. Coelenterata. Annual Report of the LundyField Society 1974, 25, 20-32.Hiscock, K., Stone, S.M.K. & George, J.D. 1984. The marine fauna of Lundy. Porifera:sponges. A preliminary study. Annual Report of the Lundy Field Society 1983, 34,16-35.Hoare, R. & Wilson, J. 1977. The macrofauna of soft substrates off the coast of Lundy.Annual Report of the Lundy Field Society 1976, 27, 53-58.Howson, C.M. & Picton, B.E. 1997. The Species Directory of the Marine Fauna and Flora ofthe British Isles and Surrounding Seas. Ulster Museum and Marine ConservationSociety, Belfast and Ross-on-Wye.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 69 -ICES. 2008. Report of the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM).31 March-4 April 2008 ICES Marine Habitat Committee, CM 2008/MHC: 08 REF.FTC, ACOMKing, P.E. 1977. The marine fauna of Lundy. Pycnogonida (sea spiders). Annual Reportof the Lundy Field Society 1976, 27, 35-37.Mackie, A.S.Y., James, J.W.C., Rees, E.I.S., Darbyshire, T., Philpott, S.L., Mortimer,K., Jenkins, G.O. & Morando, A. 2006. The Outer Bristol Channel Marine Habitat Study.National Museum Wales, Cardiff.McGonigle, C., Brown, C., Quinn, R. & Grabowski, J. 2009. Evaluation of image-basedmultibeam sonar backscatter classification for benthic habitat discrimination andmapping at Stanton Banks, UK. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81, 423-437.Mercer, T.S., Howson, C.M. & Bunker, F. St P.D. 2006. Lundy European Marine SiteSublittoral Monitoring 2003/4. Unpublished report to English Nature, Peterborough byAquatic Survey and Monitoring Ltd. EN contract FST20/46/16.Moore, PG. 1981. The marine fauna of Lundy. Crustacea: Amphipoda. Annual Reportof the Lundy Field Society 1980, 31, 52-63.Nunny R.S, 2010. Devon’s Undersea Landscapes: Habitat Mapping Strategy. April 2010.Unpublished report to Devon Wildlife Trust.Rees, E.I.S. 2001. Habitat specialization by Thia scutellata (Decapoda: Brachyura) offWales. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K., 81, 697-698.Roff J.C., Taylor, M.E. & Laughren, J. 2003. Geophysical approaches to theclassification, delineation and monitoring of marine habitats and their communities.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13, 77-90Sanderson, W.G. 1998. Rarity of marine benthic species in Great Britain: developmentand application of assessment criteria. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and FreshwaterEcosystems 6, 245-256.Shumchenia, E.J. & King, J.W. 2010. Comparison of methods for integrating biologicaland physical data for marine habitat mapping and classification. Continental ShelfResearch 30, 1717 -1729.Tyler, PA. 1979. The marine fauna of Lundy. Echinodermata. Annual Report of the LundyField Society 1978, 29, 34-37.Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 70 -APPENDIX 1: GIS grid search parameters best corresponding to faunal assemblages.An ‘x’ in a column indicates the parameter was not used in defining that biotopeJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 71 -APPENDIX 2: Full list of taxa recordedPhylum MCS Code Family TaxonAnnelida P 171 Phyllodocidae Nereiphylla rubiginosaAnnelida P 188 Phyllodocidae Pterocirrus macrocerosAnnelida P 255 Glyceridae Glycera spp.Annelida P 256 Glyceridae Glycera albaAnnelida P 257 Glyceridae Glycera celticaAnnelida P 260 Glyceridae Glycera lapidumAnnelida P 262 Glyceridae Glycera oxycephalaAnnelida P 268 Goniadidae Glycinde nordmanniAnnelida P 271 Goniadidae Goniada maculataAnnelida P 291 Sphaerodoridae Sphaerodorum gracilisAnnelida P 319 Hesionidae Podarkeopsis capensisAnnelida P 321 Hesionidae Syllidia armataAnnelida P 350 Syllidae Ehlersia ferrugineaAnnelida P 355 Syllidae Eurysyllis tuberculataAnnelida P 358 Syllidae Syllis variegata (Syllis sp. C)Annelida P 358 Syllidae Syllis sp. EAnnelida P 358 Syllidae Syllis sp. HAnnelida P 358 Syllidae Syllis sp. DAnnelida P 358 Sylllidae Syllis spp. (indet.)Annelida P 362 Syllidae Trypanosyllis coeliacaAnnelida P 375 Syllidae Amblyosyllis formosaAnnelida P 379 Syllidae Eusyllis assimilisAnnelida P 380 Syllidae Eusyllis blomstrandiAnnelida P 382 Sylllidae Eusyllis lamelligeraAnnelida P 384 Iphimediidae Iphimedia spatulaAnnelida P 386 Syllidae Odontosyllis ctenostomaAnnelida P 388 Syllidae Odontosyllis gibbaAnnelida P 400 Syllidae Pionosyllis pulligeraAnnelida P 405 Syllidae Streptosyllis websteriAnnelida P 406 Syllidae Syllides japonicaAnnelida P 407 Syllidae Syllides benedictiAnnelida P 421 Syllidae Exogone hebesAnnelida P 422 Syllidae Exogone naidinaAnnelida P 423 Syllidae Exogone verugeraAnnelida P 424 Syllidae Sphaerosyllis ‘blobby’Annelida P 425 Syllidae Sphaerosyllis bulbosaAnnelida P 426 Syllidae Sphaerosyllis erinaceusAnnelida P 430 Syllidae Sphaerosyllis tayloriAnnelida P 431 Syllidae Sphaerosyllis tetralixAnnelida P 434 Syllidae Autolytus sp.indeterminateAnnelida P 437 Syllidae Autolytus brachycephalusAnnelida P 440 Syllidae Autolytus langerhansiAnnelida P 444 Syllidae Autolytus proliferaAnnelida P 451 Syllidae Proceraea spp.Annelida P 455 Sylllidae Procerastea spp. (indet.)Annelida P 482 Nereididae Platynereis spp.Annelida P 483 Nereididae Platynereis coccineaAnnelida P 484 Nereidae Platynereis dumeriliiAnnelida P 487 Nereididae Websterinereis glaucaAnnelida P 493 Nephtyidae Aglaophamus rubellaAnnelida P 494 Nephtyidae Nephtys spp. (juv.)Annelida P 498 Nephtyidae Nephtys cirrosaAnnelida P 499 Nephtyidae Nephtys hombergiiAnnelida P 502 Nephtyidae Nephtys kersivalensisAnnelida P 526 Amphinomidae Euphrosine borealis?Annelida P 539 Onuphidae Aponuphis bilineataAnnelida P 544 Onuphidae Nothria britannicaAnnelida P 553 Eunicidae Eunicidae (indet.)Annelida P 564 Eunicidae Marphysa belliiAnnelida P 566 Eunicidae Marphysa sanguineaAnnelida P 568 Eunicidae Nematonereis unicornisAnnelida P 571 Lumbrineridae Lumbrineriopsis paradoxaAnnelida P 579 Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris gracilisAnnelida P 591 Oenonidae Drilonereis filumAnnelida P 613 Dorvilleidae Ophryotrocha spp.Phylum MCS Code Family TaxonPorifera C 133 Sycettidae Scypha ciliataPorifera C 480 Clionidae Cliona celataAnthozoa D 407 Sertulariidae SertulariidaeAnthozoa D 409 Sertulariidae Abietinaria abietinaAnthozoa D 422 Sertulariidae Dynamena pumilaAnthozoa D 424 Sertulariidae Hydrallmania falcataAnthozoa D 430 Sertulariidae Sertularella polyzoniasAnthozoa D 433 Sertularidae Sertularia spp.Anthozoa D 435 Sertulariidae Sertularia cupressinaAnthozoa D 445 Sertulariidae Tridentata distansAnthozoa D 455 Plumulariidae Kirchenpaueria pinnataAnthozoa D 466 Plumulariidae Nemertesia ramosaAnthozoa D 520 Campanulariidae Obelia geniculataAnthozoa D 597 Alcyoniidae Alcyonium digitatumAnthozoa D 649 Epizoanthidae Epizoanthus couchiiAnthozoa D 673 Actiniidae Actiniidae (indet.)Anthozoa D 743 Hormathiidae Adamsia carciniopadosAnthozoa D 753 Haloclavidae Mesacmaea mitcheliiTurbellaria F 2 Turbellaria (indet.)Nemertea G 1 Nemertea (indet.)Nemertea G 34 Tubulanidae Tubulanus polymorphusNemertea G 41 Cerebratulidae Cerebratulus fuscusNemertea G 60 Lineidae Micrura sp. (possibly M.auriantica)Nemertea G 62 Lineidae Micrura fasciolataNemertea G 63 Lineidae Micrura lactea?Chaetognatha L 11 Sagitta spp.Chaetognatha L 29 Spadella cephalopteraSipuncula N 1 Sipuncula (indet.)Sipuncula N 17 Golfingiidae Golfingia vulgaris vulgarisSipuncula N 25 Golfingiidae Nephasoma minutumSipuncula N 28 Golfingiidae Thysanocardia proceraSipuncula N 34 Phascolionidae Phascolion strombus strombusAnnelida P 15 Pisionidae Pisione remotaAnnelida P 146 Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce roseaAnnelida P 19 Aphroditidae Aphrodita aculeataAnnelida P 32 Polynoidae Adyte pellucidaAnnelida P 49 Polynoidae Gattyana cirrosaAnnelida P 50 Polynoidae Harmothoe pagenstecheriAnnelida P 50 Polynoidae Harmothoe spp.Annelida P 55 Polynoidae Malmgrenia castaneaAnnelida P 59 Polynoidae Harmothoe fragilisAnnelida P 65 Polynoidae Harmothoe imparAnnelida P 68 Polynoidae Malmgrenia marphysaeAnnelida P 70 Polynoidae Malmgrenia mcintoshiAnnelida P 82 Polynoidae Lepidonotus squamatusAnnelida P 92 Pholoidae Pholoe inornataAnnelida P 93 Pholoidae Pholoe pallidaAnnelida P 94 Pholoidae Pholoe synophthalmicaAnnelida P 106 Sigalionidae Sthenelais spp. (juv.)Annelida P 107 Sigalionidae Sthenelais boaAnnelida P 109 Sigalionidae Sthenelais limicolaAnnelida P 122 Phyllodocidae Hesionura elongataAnnelida P 127 Phyllodocidae Mysta pictaAnnelida P 130 Phyllodocidae Mystides caecaAnnelida P 136 Phyllodocidae Pseudomystides limbataAnnelida P 141 Phyllodocidae Anaitides groenlandicaAnnelida P 142 Phyllodocidae Anaitides lineataAnnelida P 151 Phyllodocidae Eulalia aureaAnnelida P 155 Phyllodocidae Eulalia mustelaAnnelida P 156 Phyllodocidae Eulalia ornataAnnelida P 159 Phyllodocidae Eulalia tripunctataAnnelida P 163 Phyllodocidae Eumida spp.Annelida P 164 Phyllodocidae Eumida bahusiensisAnnelida P 165 Phyllodocidae Eumida ockelmanniAnnelida P 167 Phyllodocidae Eumida sanguineaJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 72 -APPENDIX 2: Full list of taxa recorded (cont.)Phylum MCS Code Family TaxonAnnelida P 638 Dorvilleidae Protodorvillea kefersteiniAnnelida P 643 Dorvilleidae Schistomeringos rudolphiAnnelida P 665 Orbiniidae Orbinia sertulataAnnelida P 672 Orbiniidae Scoloplos armigerAnnelida P 676 Paraonidae Aricidea spp.Annelida P 677 Paraonidae Aricidea minutaAnnelida P 685 Paraonidae Aricidea cerrutiiAnnelida P 699 Paraonidae Paradoneis lyraAnnelida P 712 Apisthobranchidae Apistobranchus tullbergiAnnelida P 718 Poecilochaetidae Poecilochaetus serpensAnnelida P 722 Spionidae Aonides oxycephalaAnnelida P 723 Spionidae Aonides paucibranchiataAnnelida P 733 Spionidae Laonice bahusiensisAnnelida P 744 Spionidae Microspio mecznikowianusAnnelida P 747 Spionidae Minuspio cirriferaAnnelida P 748 Spionidae Polydora spp.Annelida P 750 Spionidae Polydora caecaAnnelida P 754 Spionidae Polydora flavaAnnelida P 762 Spionidae Polydora socialisAnnelida P 766 Spionidae Prionospio banyulensisAnnelida P 773 Spionidae Pseudopolydora paucibranchiataAnnelida P 774 Spionidae Pseudopolydora pulchraAnnelida P 778 Spionidae Scolelepis spp.Annelida P 779 Spionidae Scolelepis bonnieriAnnelida P 787 Spionidae Spio sp. 1Annelida P 788 Spionidae Spio armataAnnelida P 789 Spionidae Spio decorataAnnelida P 791 Spionidae Spio martinensisAnnelida P 794 Spionidae Spiophanes bombyxAnnelida P 796 Spionidae Spiophanes kroyeriAnnelida P 802 Magelonidae Magelona johnstoniAnnelida P 803 Magelonidae Magelona spp.Annelida P 804 Magelonidae Magelona alleniAnnelida P 806 Magelonidae Magelona minutaAnnelida P 811 Chaetopteridae Chaetopterus spp.Annelida P 817 Chaetopteridae Phyllochaetopterus (P. socialis?)Annelida P 818 Spionidae Scolelepis korsuniAnnelida P 823 Cirratulidae Aphelochaeta sp. AAnnelida P 828 Cirratulidae Caulleriella spp.Annelida P 829 Cirratulidae Caulleriella alataAnnelida P 833 Cirratulidae Chaetozone gibberAnnelida P 846 Cirratulidae Tharyx killariensisAnnelida P 878 Flabelligeridae Diplocirrus glaucusAnnelida P 907 Capitellidae Capitella capitataAnnelida P 913 Capitellidae Dasybranchus spp.Annelida P 919 Capitellidae Mediomastus fragilisAnnelida P 920 Capitellidae Notomastus spp.Annelida P 921 Capitellidae Notomastus latericeusAnnelida P 923 Capitellidae Notomastus sp. EAnnelida P 925 Capitellidae Peresiella clymenoidesAnnelida P 927 Capitellidae Pseudonotomastus southerniAnnelida P 955 Maldanidae Clymenura tricirrataAnnelida P 955 Maldanidae Clymenura spp.Annelida P 963 Maldanidae Euclymene lumbricoidesAnnelida P 964 Maldanidae Euclymene oerstediiAnnelida P 965 Maldanidae Euclymene spp.Annelida P 965 Maldanidae Euclymene sp. AAnnelida P 967 Maldanidae Heteroclymene robustaAnnelida P 970 Maldanidae Praxillela spp.Annelida P 971 Maldanidae Praxillela affinisAnnelida P 985 Maldanidae Petaloproctus spp.Annelida P 1012 Opheliidae Ophelina spp.Annelida P 1021 Scalibregmatidae Asclerocheilus spp.Annelida P 1026 Ophelidae Scalibregma celticumAnnelida P 1027 Scalibregmatidae Scalibregma inflatumPhylum MCS Code Family TaxonAnnelida P 1063 Polygordiidae Polygordius appendiculatusAnnelida P 1065 Polygordiidae Polygordius lacteusAnnelida P 1093 Oweniidae Galothowenia oculataAnnelida P 1098 Oweniidae Owenia fusiformisAnnelida P 1100 Pectinariidae Pectinariidae (juv.)Annelida P 1107 Pectinariidae Lagis koreniAnnelida P 1117 Sabellaridae Sabellaria spinulosaAnnelida P 1133 Ampharetidae Ampharete spp. (juv.)Annelida P 1139 Ampharetidae Ampharete lindstroemiAnnelida P 1175 Trichobranchidae Terebellides stroemiAnnelida P 1178 Trichobranchidae Trichobranchus roseusAnnelida P 1179 Terebellidae Terebellidae (juv.)Annelida P 1187 Terebellidae Axionice maculataAnnelida P 1215 Terebellidae Phisidia aureaAnnelida P 1217 Terebellidae Pista cristataAnnelida P 1234 Terebellidae Lysilla niveaAnnelida P 1242 Terebellidae Polycirrus medusaAnnelida P 1243 Terebellidae Polycirrus norvegicusAnnelida P 1254 Terebellidae Thelepus cincinnatusAnnelida P 1263 Sabellidae Branchiomma bombyxAnnelida P 1269 Sabellidae Chone filicaudataAnnelida P 1290 Sabellidae Jasmineira elegansAnnelida P 1304 Sabellidae Oriopsis armandiAnnelida P 1316 Sabellidae Pseudopotamilla reniformisAnnelida P 1334 Serpulidae Hydroides norvegicaAnnelida P 1340 Serpulidae Pomatoceros lamarckiiAnnelida P 1341 Serpulidae Pomatoceros triqueterAnnelida P 1343 Serpulidae Serpula vermicularisAnnelida P 1489 Tubificidae Tubificoides amplivasatusAnnelida P 1491 Tubificidae Tubificoides brownaeAnnelida P 1494 Tubificidae Tubificoides diazi?Annelida P 1501 Enchytraeidae EnchytraeidaeAnnelida P 1524 Enchytraeidae Grania spp.Chelicerata Q 15 Ammotheidae Achelia echinataChelicerata Q 33 Callipallenidae Callipallene brevirostrisChelicerata Q 44 Phoxichilidiidae Anoplodactylus petiolatusChelicerata Q 51 Pycnogonidae Pycnogonum littoraleCrustacea R 41 Verrucidae Verruca stroemiaCrustacea R 68 Archaeobalanidae Elminius modestusCrustacea R 77 Balanidae Balanus crenatusCrustacea S 25 Mysidacea (indet.)Crustacea S 92 Mysidae Heteromysis formosaCrustacea S 102 Eusiridae Apherusa bispinosaCrustacea S 131 Oedicerotidae Perioculodes longimanusCrustacea S 137 Oedicerotidae Synchelidium haplochelesCrustacea S 138 Oedicerotidae Synchelidium maculatumCrustacea S 158 Amphilochidae Amphilochus manudensCrustacea S 159 Amphilochidae Amphilochus neopolitanusCrustacea S 164 Amphilochidae Gitana sarsiCrustacea S 173 Amphilochidae Peltocoxa brevirostrisCrustacea S 177 Leucothoidae Leucothoe incisaCrustacea S 178 Leucothoidae Leucothoe lilljeborgiCrustacea S 186 Cressidae Cressa dubiaCrustacea S 191 Ischyroceridae Microjassa cumbrensisCrustacea S 204 Stenothoidae Parametopa kervilleiCrustacea S 213 Stenothoidae Stenothoe marinaCrustacea S 214 Stenothoidae Stenothoe monoculoidesCrustacea S 216 Stenothoidae Stenothoe cf tergestinaCrustacea S 217 Stenothoidae Stenothoe valida?Crustacea S 248 Urothoidae Urothoe elegansCrustacea S 253 Phoxocephalidae Harpinia spp. (juv.)Crustacea S 254 Phoxocephalidae Harpinia antennariaCrustacea S 255 Phoxocephalidae Harpinia crenulataCrustacea S 257 Phoxocephalidae Harpinia pectinataCrustacea S 258 Phoxocephalidae Harpinia serrataJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 73 -APPENDIX 2: Full list of taxa recorded (cont.)Phylum MCS Code Family TaxonCrustacea S 262 Phoxocephalidae Parametaphoxus pectinatusCrustacea S 330 Lysianassidae Socarnes erythrophthalmusCrustacea S 360 Argissidae Argissa hamatipesCrustacea S 378 Iphimediidae Iphimedia spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 380 Iphimediidae Iphimedia minutaCrustacea S 381 Iphimediidae Iphimedia nexaCrustacea S 399 Liljeborgiidae Listriella mollisCrustacea S 412 Dexaminidae Atylus swammerdameiCrustacea S 413 Dexaminidae Atylus vedlomensisCrustacea S 415 Dexaminidae Dexamine spinosaCrustacea S 418 Dexaminidae Guernea coalitaCrustacea S 423 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca spp. (juv.)Crustacea S 427 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca brevicornisCrustacea S 438 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca spinipesCrustacea S 440 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca tenuicornisCrustacea S 442 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca typicaCrustacea S 452 Pontoporeiidae Bathyporeia elegansCrustacea S 489 Melphidippidae Megaluropus agilisCrustacea S 493 Melphidippidae Melphidippella macraCrustacea S 497 Melitidae Abludomelita gladiosaCrustacea S 498 Melitidae Abludomelita obtusataCrustacea S 502 Melitidae Ceradocus semiserratusCrustacea S 503 Melitidae Cheirocratus spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 504 Melitidae Cheirocratus assimilisCrustacea S 505 Melitidae Cheirocratus intermediusCrustacea S 506 Melitidae Cheirocratus sundevalliiCrustacea S 519 Melitidae Maera othonisCrustacea S 521 Melitidae Maerella tenuimanaCrustacea S 537 Isaeidae Isaeidae (indet.)Crustacea S 539 Isaeidae Gammaropsis cornutaCrustacea S 541 Isaeidae Gammaropsis maculataCrustacea S 543 Isaeidae Gammaropsis palmataCrustacea S 552 Isaeidae Photis longicaudataCrustacea S 558 Ischyroceridae Ischyroceridae (indet.)Crustacea S 561 Ischyroceridae Erichthonius spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 564 Ischyroceridae Erichthonius punctatusCrustacea S 567 Ischyroceridae Ischyrocerus anguipes?Crustacea S 568 Ischyroceridae Jassa spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 569 Ischyroceridae Jassa falcataCrustacea S 579 Aoridae Aora gracilisCrustacea S 588 Aoridae Leptocheirus hirsutimanusCrustacea S 605 Corophiidae Corophium spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 615 Corophiidae Corophium sextonaeCrustacea S 621 Corophiidae Unciola crenatipalmaCrustacea S 640 Caprellidae Caprella spp.?Crustacea S 641 Caprellidae Caprella acanthiferaCrustacea S 651 Caprellidae Pariambus typicusCrustacea S 657 Phtisicidae Phtisica marinaCrustacea S 659 Phtisicidae Pseudoprotella phasmaCrustacea S 792 Gnathiidae Gnathiidae (praniza)Crustacea S 796 Gnathiidae Gnathia oxyuraeaCrustacea S 803 Anthuridae Anthura gracilisCrustacea S 850 Cirolanidae Eurydice spp.Crustacea S 892 Janiridae Janira maculosaCrustacea S 907 Munnidae Munna minutaCrustacea S 950 Arcturidae Arcturella damnoniensisCrustacea S 1140 Anarthruridae Pseudoparatanais bateiCrustacea S 1142 Leptognathiidae Tanaopsis graciloidesCrustacea S 1154 Typhlotanaidae Typhlotanais microchelesCrustacea S 1177 Apseudidae Apseudes talpaCrustacea S 1184 Bodotriidae BodotriidaeCrustacea S 1187 Bodotriidae Cumopsis fageiCrustacea S 1196 Bodotriidae Bodotria pulchellaCrustacea S 1197 Bodotriidae Bodotria scorpiodesCrustacea S 1208 Leuconiidae Eudorella truncatulaPhylum MCS Code Family TaxonCrustacea S 1224 Nannastacidae Cumella pygmaeaCrustacea S 1236 Pseudocumatidae Pseudocuma longicornisCrustacea S 1237 Pseudocumatidae Pseudocuma similisCrustacea S 1247 Diastylidae Diastylis spp. (juv.)Crustacea S 1251 Diastylidae Diastylis laevisCrustacea S 1345 Hippolytidae Eualus pusiolusCrustacea S 1350 Hippolytidae Hippolyte variansCrustacea S 1362 Processidae Processa spp. (indet.)Crustacea S 1374 Pandalidae Pandalina brevirostrisCrustacea S 1386 Crangonidae Crangon bispinosus neglectaCrustacea S 1415 Callianassidae Callianassa subterraneaCrustacea S 1419 Upogebiidae Upogebia deltauraCrustacea S 1421 Upogebiidae Upogebia stellataCrustacea S 1445 Paguridae Paguridae (juv., indet.)Crustacea S 1448 Paguridae Anapagurus hyndmanniCrustacea S 1462 Paguridae Pagurus prideauxCrustacea S 1470 Galatheidae Galathea spp.Crustacea S 1472 Galatheidae Galathea intermediaCrustacea S 1478 Galatheidae Munida rugosaCrustacea S 1482 Porcellanidae Pisidia longicornisCrustacea S 1485 Brachyura megalopaCrustacea S 1505 Leucosiidae Ebalia cranchiiCrustacea S 1508 Leucosiidae Ebalia tuberosaCrustacea S 1518 Majidae Hyas araneusCrustacea S 1524 Majidae Dorhynchus thomsoni?Crustacea S 1526 Majidae Inachus dorsettensisCrustacea S 1529 Majidae Macropodia sp indeterminateCrustacea S 1531 Majidae Macropodia linaresiCrustacea S 1535 Majidae Eurynome spp.Crustacea S 1555 Atelecyclidae Atelecylus rotundatusCrustacea S 1559 Thiidae Thia scutellataCrustacea S 1577 Portunidae Liocarcinus spp.Crustacea S 1584 Portunidae Liocarcinus pusillusCrustacea S 1606 Goneplacidae Goneplax rhomboidesCrustacea S 1615 Xanthidae Pilumnus hirtellusMollusca W 53 Leptochitonidae Leptochiton asellusMollusca W 161 Trochidae Gibbula tumidaMollusca W 234 Patellidae Helcion pellucidumMollusca W 273 Cerithiopsidae Cerithiopsis barleeiMollusca W 289 Littorinidae Lacuna pallidulaMollusca W 344 Rissoidae Alvania puncturaMollusca W 376 Rissoidae Pusillina inconspicua?Mollusca W 410 Iravadiidae Hyala vitreaMollusca W 418 Caecidae Caecum glabrumMollusca W 491 Naticidae Polinices pulchellusMollusca W 603 Eulimidae Eulima bilineataMollusca W 669 Eulimidae Vitreolina philippiMollusca W 708 Buccinidae Buccinum undatumMollusca W 747 Buccinidae Hinia incrassataMollusca W 965 Pyramidellidae Partulida pellucidaMollusca W 1002 Philinidae/Diaphanidae Philine sp./Diaphana minuta (juv.)Mollusca W 1028 Cylichnidae Cylichna cylindraceaMollusca W 1069 Haminoeidae Haminoea naviculaMollusca W 1243Nudibranch A (orange spots onwhite)Mollusca W 1243Nudibranch B (red bands onrhinophores)Mollusca W 1243 Nudibranchia (indet.)Mollusca W 1289 Dotidae Doto tuberculataMollusca W 1302 Goniodorididae Goniodoris nodosaMollusca W 1325 Onchidorididae Onchidoris muricataMollusca W 1334 Onchidorididae Adalaria spp.Mollusca W 1349 Polyceridae Polycera faeroensis?Mollusca W 1560 Bivalvia (indet.) - with brownmarkingsJournal of the Lundy Field Society, 3, 2012- 74 -APPENDIX 2: Full list of taxa recorded (cont.)Phylum MCS Code Family TaxonBryozoa Y 401 Adeonidae Reptadonella violaceaBryozoa Y 418 Hippoporinidae Pentapora foliaceaBryozoa Y 425 Schizoporellidae Schizoporella dunkeriBryozoa Y 502 Celleporidae Lagenipora lepralioides?Phoronida ZA 3 Phoronidae Phoronis spp.Echinodermata ZB 75 Pterasteridae Crossaster papposusEchinodermata ZB 100 Asteriidae Asterias rubensEchinodermata ZB 124 Ophiotrichidae Ophiothrix fragilisEchinodermata ZB 143 Ophiactidae Ophiactis balliEchinodermata ZB 154 Amphiuridae Amphiura filiformisEchinodermata ZB 161 Amphiuridae Amphipholis squamataEchinodermata ZB 166 Ophiuridae Ophiura spp.Echinodermata ZB 167 Ophiuridae Ophiura affinisEchinodermata ZB 168 Ophiuridae Ophiura albidaEchinodermata ZB 170 Ophiuridae Ophiura ophiuraEchinodermata ZB 193 Parechinidae Psammechinus miliarisEchinodermata ZB 212 Fibulariidae Echinocyamus pusillusEchinodermata ZB 222 Loveniidae Echinocardium spp. (juv.)Echinodermata ZB 224 Loveniidae Echinocardium flavescensEchinodermata ZB 272 Cucumariidae Paracucumaria hyndmani?Echinodermata ZB 280 Cucumariidae Leptopentacta elongataEchinodermata ZD 85 Ascidiidae Ascidiella scabraTunicata ZD 110 Styelidae Polycarpa spp.Tunicata ZD 120 Styelidae Dendrodoa grossulariaTunicata ZD 145 Molgulidae MolgulidaeTunicata ZD 152 Molgulidae Molgula occultaChordata None Branchiostomatidae Branchiostoma lanceolatumRhodophycota ZM 1 Encrusting red algaeRhodophycota ZM 170 Palmariaceae Palmaria palmataRhodophycota ZM 455 Lomentariaceae Lomentaria articulataRhodophycota ZM 468 Rhodymeniaceae Rhodymenia pseudopalmataRhodophycota ZM 592 Delesseriaceae Cryptopleura ramosaRhodophycota ZM 611 Delesseriaceae Membranoptera alataRhodophycota ZM 616 Delesseriaceae Phycodrys rubensChromophycota ZR 351 Laminaraceae Laminaria hyperboreaPhylum MCS Code Family TaxonMollusca W 1566 Nuculidae Nucula spp.Mollusca W 1577 Nuculanidae Nuculoma tenuisMollusca W 1688 Glycymerididae Glycymeris glycymerisMollusca W 1691 Mytilidae MytilidaeMollusca W 1700 Mytilidae Modiolus adriaticusMollusca W 1702 Mytilidae Modiolus modiolusMollusca W 1718 Mytilidae Modiolarca tumidaMollusca W 1768 Pectinidae PectinidaeMollusca W 1773 Pectinidae Aequipecten opercularisMollusca W 1805 Anomiidae AnomiidaeMollusca W 1837 Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosaMollusca W 1882 Galeommatidae Semierycina nitidaMollusca W 1906 Montacutidae Mysella bidentataMollusca W 1943 Cardiidae Acanthocardia echinataMollusca W 1951 Cardiidae Parvicardium ovaleMollusca W 1952 Cardiidae Parvicardium scabrumMollusca W 1959 Cardiidae Laevicardium crassumMollusca W 1975 Mactridae Spisula ellipticaMollusca W 1977 Mactridae Spisula solidaMollusca W 1978 Mactridae Spisula subtruncataMollusca W 1996 Pharidae Ensis spp. (damaged, indet.)Mollusca W 2006 Pharidae Phaxas pellucidusMollusca W 2015 Tellinidae Arcopagia crassaMollusca W 2021 Tellinidae Moerella donacinaMollusca W 2023 Tellinidae Moerella pygmaeaMollusca W 2049 Psammobiidae Gari tellinellaMollusca W 2051 Psammobiidae Gari fervensisMollusca W 2059 Semelidae Abra albaMollusca W 2061 Semelidae Abra nitidaMollusca W 2062 Semelidae Abra prismaticaMollusca W 2091 Veneridae Circomphalus casinaMollusca W 2095 Veneridae Gouldia minimaMollusca W 2098 Veneridae Chamelea gallinaMollusca W 2100 Veneridae Clausinella fasciataMollusca W 2104 Veneridae Timoclea ovataMollusca W 2113 Veneridae Tapes rhomboidesMollusca W 2128 Veneridae Dosinia lupinusMollusca W 2152 Myidae Sphenia binghamiMollusca W 2157 Corbulidae Corbula gibbaMollusca W 2166 Hiatellidae Hiatella arcticaMollusca W 2233 Thraciidae Thracia villosiusculaBryozoa Y 8 Crisiidae Crisidia cornutaBryozoa Y 14 Crisiidae Crisia aculeataBryozoa Y 16 Crisiidae Crisia denticulataBryozoa Y 17 Crisiidae Crisia eburneaBryozoa Y 41 Diastoporidae Plagioecia patina?Bryozoa Y 42 Diastoporidae Plagioecia samiensisBryozoa Y 54 Annectocymidae Entalophoroecia deflexaBryozoa Y 66 Lichenoporidae Disporella hispida?Bryozoa Y 76 Alcyonidiidae Alcyonidium diaphanumBryozoa Y 77 Alcyonidiidae Alcyonidium gelatinosumBryozoa Y 137 Vesiculariidae Bowerbankia spp.Bryozoa Y 138 Vesiculariidae Bowerbankia citrinaBryozoa Y 141 Vesiculariidae Bowerbankia imbricataBryozoa Y 154 Aeteidae Aetea anguinaBryozoa Y 155 Aeteidae Aetea sicaBryozoa Y 170 Membraniporidae Membranipora membranaceaBryozoa Y 172 Membraniporidae Conopeum reticulumBryozoa Y 178 Electridae Electra pilosaBryozoa Y 206 Calloporidae Callopora rylandiBryozoa Y 300 Cellariidae Cellaria fistulosaBryozoa Y 302 Cellariidae Cellaria sinuosaBryozoa Y 325 Cribilinidae Puellina venustaBryozoa Y 337 Hippothoidae Celleporella hyalinaBryozoa Y 369 Escharellidae Escharella variolosa