Barren littoral coarse sand

Summary

UK and Ireland classification

Description

Freely-draining sandy beaches, particularly on the upper and mid shore, which lack a macrofaunal community due to their continual mobility. Trial excavations are unlikely to reveal any macrofauna in these typically steep beaches on exposed coasts. Oligochaetes, probably mainly enchytraeids, and the isopod Eurydice pulchra may be found in extremely low abundances, but if present in any quantity should be classed as Ol or AmSco.Eur. Burrowing amphipods (Bathyporeia spp.) may be present on very rare occasions. Occasionally, other species may be left behind in low abundance by the ebbing tide. BarSa may occur on the mid and/or lower shore below BarSh in exposed conditions. In moderately exposed conditions, and where BarSa occurs on the upper shore, a range of relatively more species-rich clean sand communities may occur on the mid and lower shore. These include AmSco, Ol, and Po, depending on the degree of wave exposure and sediment mobility. Tal may occur on the same shore as BarSa, where driftlines of algae and other debris accumulate on the upper shore. (Information from Connor et al., 2004; JNCC, 2015).

Depth range

Strandline, Upper shore, Mid shore, Lower shore

Additional information

The barren shingle/gravel shore biotope (LGS.BarSh) is also represented by this review. In Britain and Ireland the status of the LGS.BarSh biotope is listed as 'uncommon' (Connor et al., 1997b ) and it is differentiated from the LGS.BarSnd biotope solely on the basis of particle size (typically from 4 - 256 mm). LGS.BarSh shores have little associated fine sediment and owing to the mobility of the substratum the biotope does not support macrofauna. Furthermore, trial excavations are unlikely to reveal macroscopic infauna. Any species that are found, such as the occasional amphipod or small polychaete have probably been left stranded by the ebbing tide.

Listed By

Further information sources

Search on:

Habitat review

Ecology

Ecological and functional relationships

Community and population patterns of distribution and abundance in exposed sandy beaches have been assumed to be primarily controlled by specific species responses to the hydrodynamic climate and sediment characteristics which are intimately linked, a scenario where biological interactions do not appear to play a critical role (McLachlan, 1983). Furthermore, there is a conspicuous lack of information concerning the effects of biotic factors e.g. competition, on the structure and distribution of sandy beach populations, as it is likely that detection of intra- and interspecific competition in such a dynamic environment is very complex (Branch, 1984). However, competition for space and food is unlikely to be a limiting feature in this high energy environment, as the faunal population of mobile amphipods and isopods is extremely small and they swim in the water column at high tide in search of food, only sheltering temporarily in the sediment at low tide (Peterson, 1991). Consequently, no single species can be considered a keystone species whose activity is essential to the structure of the community.

Seasonal and longer term change

The LGS.BarSnd and LGS.BarSh biotopes will be sensitive to seasonal changes in the hydrodynamic regime, and as a result of increased wave action and water movement, sedimentary disturbance is likely.

Habitat structure and complexity

  • The hydrodynamic regime (tides, waves and residual currents) together with the underlying physiography and geology create the conditions for a given substrata to develop.
  • Grain size, shape and degree of sorting are most important in determining porosity and permeability which influence drainage. Drainage is critical in determining the moisture content, oxygen saturation, organic content and the depth of the reducing layer (if present). Permeability increases with coarse substrate and better sorting, and drainage also increases on steeper beaches. Consequently, the sediment diameter of the coarse sand of this biotope (0.25 - 2 mm diameter) ensures that it is freely-draining.
  • In the LGS.BarSnd biotope a macrophyte community is absent owing to the lack of stable substrata. However, in the LGS.BarSh biotope a temporary covering of the green algae Ulva may develop (via attachment to larger pebbles and cobbles) during the period of relative stability in the summer.

Productivity

Macroalgal productivity within the LGS.BarSnd biotope is likely to be very low. Macroalgae (if present) occur in extremely low abundance and is typically absent owing to the lack of a stable substratum. Therefore the benthic microalgae (microphytobenthos e.g. diatoms, flagellates and euglenoides) are probably the most significant primary producers of the depositing shore and are confined to the interstices of the illuminated sediment surface. The phytoplankton of the sea also becomes a temporary part of the sandy beach ecosystem when the tide is in and primary producers from other environments may appear on the shore. These are invariably macroalgae that have become detached from rocky substrata and have been washed up. Eventually they decompose on the beach and contribute to the energy budget of the shore system. Consequently, most productivity on the mobile sandy shore may be categorized as secondary, derived from detritus and allochthonous organic matter. In the LSG.BarSh biotope also represented by this review, a temporary covering of the green algae Ulva sp. may develop during periods of relative stability during the summer and consequently contribute to the productivity of the biotope.

Recruitment processes

The burrowing amphipods Bathyporeia pelagica and Pontocrates arenarius and the isopod Eurydice pulchra may occur in the LGS.BarSnd and LGS.BarSh biotopes at extremely low abundance. If these species are found in any greater abundance the biotope should be classed as LGS.AEur. However, the recruitment processes of these species may be summarized as follows:
  • Eurydice pulchra breeds between April and August once sea temperatures rise above 10°C, and the highest number of juveniles occurs around the periods of maximum summer temperatures. Males and females pair during their nightly swimming on falling spring tides and mating occurs in the sand once the female has completed her moult. Incubation of the embryos in the brood pouch takes some 7-8 weeks and after release of the young the female returns to the non-breeding condition (J. Fish, pers. comm.). Juvenile Eurydice pulchra first appear in July, the minimum length being 1.7 mm (J. Fish, pers. comm.). Although the first juveniles may reach sexual maturity before the onset of winter, they begin breeding in the following spring and die during their second autumn after a total lifespan of approximately 15 months. Mid-summer juveniles also mature to breed the following summer and only reached 12 months of age before dying. In contrast, the last broods appearing as late as October, do not mature until late the following summer. They breed in their second October and then overwinter for a second time, producing a second brood in the spring before dying of at 18-20 months old (Fish, 1970; Jones, 1970; Hayward, 1994).
  • Bathyporeia pelagica may breed throughout the year, but the greatest reproductive activity occurs during spring and late summer/autumn. Males and females pair whilst swimming and mate on the night-time ebb tides following each new and full moon. Development of an egg to the stage when it is released as a juvenile takes just 15 days to complete. The overwintering population of Bathyporeia pelagica consists largely of juvenile animals. These mature in spring to form the majority of the next breeding population and eventually die in June and July, after a lifespan of about one year (Fish & Preece, 1970). Bathyporeia pilosa has a similar recruitment cycle.
  • In Pontocrates arenarius from Irish Sea coasts, breeding has been recorded throughout the year (Fish & Fish, 1996).)

Time for community to reach maturity

Beaches are dynamic environments, even when they are neither gaining nor losing sediment they are subject to short-term changes in response to wave regimes and weather conditions. Beach profiles show alteration as beach-face sands are re-cycled and decline as the component sand grains are reduced in calibre by attrition and weathering. In some locations these trends are marked by accretion as new sandy sediment arrives and the coastline advances. Whilst in other locations there is a loss of sandy sediment, marked by diminishing beach volumes and coastline retreat (Bird, 1983). As a consequence of the dynamic nature of the habitat the faunal component of the biotope is very sparse and low in species richness. Therefore, the community might be considered 'mature' only a few days or weeks after the last spring tide or drying event, as the mobile species migrate into the biotope from adjacent areas carried in as surf plankton.

Additional information

No text entered.

Preferences & Distribution

Habitat preferences

Depth Range Strandline, Upper shore, Mid shore, Lower shore
Water clarity preferences
Limiting Nutrients Field unresearched
Salinity preferences Full (30-40 psu)
Physiographic preferences Open coast
Biological zone preferences Eulittoral, Supralittoral
Substratum/habitat preferences Coarse clean sand, Medium clean sand
Tidal strength preferences
Wave exposure preferences Exposed, Moderately exposed
Other preferences

Additional Information

The species that occur are typical of unconsolidated coarse sediments that are re-mobilized as a result of strong tidal streams or wave action.

Species composition

Species found especially in this biotope

    Rare or scarce species associated with this biotope

    -

    Additional information

    No text entered.

    Sensitivity review

    Sensitivity characteristics of the habitat and relevant characteristic species

    The biotope description is taken from JNCC (2015). Coarse sands drain rapidly and the lack of water and organic content, combined with the sediment mobility which results in high-levels of abrasion, means this biotope lacks a macrofaunal community. The sensitivity assessments are therefore based on the abiotic (non-living) habitat.  Occasionally, other species may be left behind in low abundance by the ebbing tide, these are not typically present in the biotope and sensitivity is not considered.

    Resilience and recovery rates of habitat

    This biotope is subject to high levels of abrasion resulting from sediment mobility. The species that are present (if any) are robust animals that can withstand some physical disturbance and/or recover rapidly, or migrate as adults into the biotope. The LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSa biotope is primarily identified by the type of the substratum rather than the biological community, which may be absent, or if present, occur in extremely low abundance. The mobile species that may be found in the LGS.BarSnd biotope occur throughout the littoral zone and are not dependent specifically on this biotope. Therefore the substratum type has been used primarily to indicate the sensitivity of this biotope and no species indicative of sensitivity were chosen.

    Resilience assessment. As this biotope is characterized by the absence, rather then the presence of species, recovery is assessed as 'High' for any level of impact. The biotope would be considered to be sensitive to pressures that allowed the establishment of a permanent, species rich biological assemblage as low abundances and low species richness are characteristic of the biotope.

    Hydrological Pressures

    Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

    ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
    Temperature increase (local) [Show more]

    Temperature increase (local)

    Benchmark. A 5°C increase in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species resulting from sediment mobility and abrasion (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: changes in temperature will therefore not alter the biotope (based on the abiotic habitat). Resistance to an increase in temperature is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Temperature decrease (local) [Show more]

    Temperature decrease (local)

    Benchmark. A 5°C decrease in temperature for one month, or 2°C for one year. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species resulting from sediment mobility and abrasion (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: changes in temperature will therefore not alter the biotope (based on the abiotic habitat). Resistance to a decrease in temperature is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Salinity increase (local) [Show more]

    Salinity increase (local)

    Benchmark. A increase in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species resulting from sediment mobility and abrasion (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: changes in salinity will therefore not alter the biotope (based on the abiotic habitat). Resistance to an increase in salinity is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Salinity decrease (local) [Show more]

    Salinity decrease (local)

    Benchmark. A decrease in one MNCR salinity category above the usual range of the biotope or habitat. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species resulting from sediment mobility and abrasion (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: changes in salinity will therefore not alter the biotope (based on the abiotic habitat). Resistance to a decrease in salinity is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Water flow (tidal current) changes (local) [Show more]

    Water flow (tidal current) changes (local)

    Benchmark. A change in peak mean spring bed flow velocity of between 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s for more than one year. Further detail

    Evidence

    Changes in water flow at the pressure benchmark are considered unlikely to lead to alterations in the biotope as wave exposure would still result in sediment mobility, preventing the establishment of a more species rich biotope.  Resistance is therefore assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) so that the biotope is considered to be ‘Not sensitive’.  A reduction in water flow (coupled with reduced wave exposure) exceeding the pressure benchmark, could reduce sediment mobility and this may allow the establishment of a biotope such as LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Sco or LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Eur where finer sands were deposited.

    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help
    Emergence regime changes [Show more]

    Emergence regime changes

    Benchmark.  1) A change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of ≥1 year or 2) an increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level for ≥1 year. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope occurs from the lower to upper shore and sediment mobility, rather than emergence, is a key factor preventing the establishment of a more species rich biotope.  An increase in the emergence period of this biotope would make it even more inhospitable to marine invertebrates. Where the biotope occurs in the supralittoral zone, a reduction in saline spray and splash may favour the colonization of terrestrial plants, which if able fully to establish will have a stabilising effect on the substratum. Consequently, this factor has the potential to alter the LGS.BarSnd biotope so that its starts to become another biotope. Similarly a decrease in emergence that led to this biotope becoming fully sublittoral would result in reclassification. The LGS.BarSnd biotope would not be recognized in either scenario and resistance has therefore been assessed as ‘Low’. On return to prior emergence regime sublittoral species that are intolerant of emergence and plants that may have colonized the substratum and which are intolerant to saline splash and spray will probably decline rapidly. Therefore resilience has been assessed as ‘High’. This biotope is therefore considered to have ‘Low’ sensitivity’ to changes in emergence. 

    		Low
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help
    Wave exposure changes (local) [Show more]

    Wave exposure changes (local)

    Benchmark. A change in near shore significant wave height of >3% but <5% for more than one year. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is found on shores that are judged to be moderately exposed, exposed or very exposed to wave action (JNCC, 2015). The presence of this biotope across these three categories is considered to indicate (by proxy) that increases or decreases in wave exposure at the pressure benchmark are unlikely to lead to alterations to the biotope.  Resistance is therefore assessed as ‘High’ and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) so that the biotope is considered to be ‘Not sensitive’.  A reduction in wave exposure (exceeding the pressure benchmark), could reduce sediment mobility and this may allow the establishment of a biotope such as LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Pon or LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Eur where finer sands were deposited.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help

    Chemical Pressures

    Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

    ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
    Transition elements & organo-metal contamination [Show more]

    Transition elements & organo-metal contamination

    Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

    Evidence

    This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available. As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species, exposure to contaminants will not result in significant impacts.

    		Not Assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination [Show more]

    Hydrocarbon & PAH contamination

    Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

    Evidence

    This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available. As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species, exposure to contaminants will not result in significant impacts.

    		Not Assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]

    Synthetic compound contamination

    Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

    Evidence

    This pressure is Not assessed but evidence is presented where available. As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species, exposure to contaminants will not result in significant impacts.

    		Not Assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Radionuclide contamination [Show more]

    Radionuclide contamination

    Benchmark. An increase in 10µGy/h above background levels. Further detail

    Evidence

    No evidence was found

    		No evidence (NEv)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		No evidence (NEv)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Introduction of other substances [Show more]

    Introduction of other substances

    Benchmark. Exposure of marine species or habitat to one or more relevant contaminants via uncontrolled releases or incidental spills. Further detail

    Evidence

    This pressure is Not assessed.

    		Not Assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    De-oxygenation [Show more]

    De-oxygenation

    Benchmark. Exposure to dissolved oxygen concentration of less than or equal to 2 mg/l for one week (a change from WFD poor status to bad status). Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species, de-oxygenation will not result in significant impacts. De-oxygenation is unlikely as this biotope is intertidal and exposure to air and tidal flushing is likely to recharge oxygen levels. Biotope resistance is therefore assessed as 'High', and resilience as 'High' (by default) and the biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help
    Nutrient enrichment [Show more]

    Nutrient enrichment

    Benchmark. Compliance with WFD criteria for good status. Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species present due to sediment mobility, nutrient enrichment will not result in significant impacts. Biotope resistance is therefore assessed as 'High', and resilience as 'High' (by default) and the biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help
    Organic enrichment [Show more]

    Organic enrichment

    Benchmark. A deposit of 100 gC/m2/yr. Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the lack of species, organic enrichment will not result in significant impacts. Organic deposits are likely to be removed rapidly by wave action although in periods of calm an organic deposit may be rapidly colonized by oligochaetes. Biotope resistance is assessed as 'High' as enrichment is likely to be very short-lived, and resilience as 'High' (by default), the biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help

    Physical Pressures

    Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

    ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
    Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) [Show more]

    Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)

    Benchmark. A permanent loss of existing saline habitat within the site. Further detail

    Evidence

    All marine habitats and benthic species are considered to have a resistance of ‘None’ to this pressure and to be unable to recover from a permanent loss of habitat (resilience is ‘Very Low’).  Sensitivity within the direct spatial footprint of this pressure is therefore ‘High’.  Although no specific evidence is described confidence in this assessment is ‘High’, due to the incontrovertible nature of this pressure.

    		None
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Very Low
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help
    Physical change (to another seabed type) [Show more]

    Physical change (to another seabed type)

    Benchmark. Permanent change from sedimentary or soft rock substrata to hard rock or artificial substrata or vice-versa. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by coarse sands (JNCC, 2015). A change to a hard or artificial substratum would significantly alter the character of the biotope. The biotope is therefore considered to have 'No' resistance to this pressure (based on a change to a sediment habitat), recovery is assessed as 'Very low', as the change at the pressure benchmark is permanent. Biotope sensitivity is therefore assessed as 'High'.

    		None
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		Very Low
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		High
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Physical change (to another sediment type) [Show more]

    Physical change (to another sediment type)

    Benchmark. Permanent change in one Folk class (based on UK SeaMap simplified classification). Further detail

    Evidence

    The benchmark for this pressure refers to a change in one Folk class.  The pressure benchmark originally developed by Tillin et al., (2010) used the modified Folk triangle developed by Long (2006) which simplified sediment types into four categories: mud and sandy mud, sand and muddy sand, mixed sediments and coarse sediments.  The change referred to is therefore a change in sediment classification rather than a change in the finer-scale original Folk categories (Folk, 1954).  The change in one Folk class is considered to relate to a change in classification to adjacent categories in the modified Folk triangle.  For coarse sands a change in one folk class may refer to a change to gravels, mixed sediments or muddy sands, sandy muds and muds. A change in sediment type would result in reclassification of the biotope (JNCC, 2015) and a change to mixed or fine sediments would likely result in the establishment of a species rich and more diverse community (depending on other habitat factors). Biotope resistance is therefore assessed as ‘None’ and resilience as ‘Very low’ as the change at the pressure benchmark is permanent. Sensitivity is therefore ‘High’.

    		None
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help    		Very Low
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		High
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction) [Show more]

    Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)

    Benchmark. The extraction of substratum to 30 cm (where substratum includes sediments and soft rock but excludes hard bedrock). Further detail

    Evidence

    The process of extraction will remove the abiotic habitat; therefore a resistance of ‘None’ is recorded. As the coarse sands are mobile where small areas are impacted infilling is likely to be rapid following sediment redistribution by wave action. For instance, at Village Bay on St Kilda, an island group far out into the Atlantic west of Britain, an expanse of sandy beach was removed offshore as a result of winter storms to reveal an underlying rocky shore (Scott, 1960). Yet in the following summer the beach was gradually replaced when wave action was less severe. In view of such observations, that many sandy beaches disappear in winter and reappear in spring, it is likely that recovery would occur in less than a year or six months.  As a result, resilience is assessed as ‘High’, and sensitivity as ‘Medium’.  Recovery where large volumes of sand are removed over wide areas may lead to slower recovery if sediments are not available and/or water transport is limited. 

    		None
    High
    Low
    NR
    Help    		High
    Low
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Medium
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Help
    Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed [Show more]

    Abrasion / disturbance of the surface of the substratum or seabed

    Benchmark. Damage to surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species through sediment mobility (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: abrasion will therefore not alter biotope character. The highly mobile species present occasionally in this biotope may only be found in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope. Resistance to this pressure is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface [Show more]

    Penetration or disturbance of the substratum subsurface

    Benchmark. Damage to sub-surface features (e.g. species and physical structures within the habitat). Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species through sediment mobility (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: abrasion will therefore not alter biotope character. The highly mobile species present occasionally in this biotope may only be found in extremely low abundance and are not specifically dependent on this biotope Resistance to this pressure is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) [Show more]

    Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)

    Benchmark. A change in one rank on the WFD (Water Framework Directive) scale e.g. from clear to intermediate for one year. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope occurs in scoured habitats and it is likely, depending on local sediment supply, that the biotope is exposed to chronic or intermittent episodes of high-levels of suspended solids as local sediments are re-mobilised and transported. This biotope is characterized by the absence of species through sediment mobility (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: changes in suspended solids will therefore not alter the biotope. Resistance to an increase or decrease in suspended solids is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Smothering and siltation rate changes (light) [Show more]

    Smothering and siltation rate changes (light)

    Benchmark. ‘Light’ deposition of up to 5 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species through sediment mobility (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: the addition of a single deposit of fine sediments which will be removed by wave action will therefore not alter the biotope. Resistance to this pressure is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy) [Show more]

    Smothering and siltation rate changes (heavy)

    Benchmark. ‘Heavy’ deposition of up to 30 cm of fine material added to the seabed in a single discrete event. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is characterized by the absence of species through sediment mobility (JNCC, 2015), rather than the presence of typical species: the addition of a single deposit of fine sediments which will be removed by wave action will therefore not alter the biotope. Resistance to this pressure is therefore assessed as 'High' and resilience as ‘High’ (by default) and this biotope is considered to be 'Not sensitive'.

    		High
    High
    Medium
    NR
    Help    		High
    High
    High
    High
    Help    		Not sensitive
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Help
    Litter [Show more]

    Litter

    Benchmark. The introduction of man-made objects able to cause physical harm (surface, water column, seafloor or strandline). Further detail

    Evidence

    Not assessed.

    		Not Assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not assessed (NA)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Electromagnetic changes [Show more]

    Electromagnetic changes

    Benchmark. A local electric field of 1 V/m or a local magnetic field of 10 µT. Further detail

    Evidence

    No evidence

    		No evidence (NEv)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		No evidence (NEv)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Underwater noise changes [Show more]

    Underwater noise changes

    Benchmark. MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for 20% of days in a calendar year. Further detail

    Evidence

    Not relevant.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Introduction of light or shading [Show more]

    Introduction of light or shading

    Benchmark. A change in incident light via anthropogenic means. Further detail

    Evidence

    Not relevant.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Barrier to species movement [Show more]

    Barrier to species movement

    Benchmark. A permanent or temporary barrier to species movement over ≥50% of water body width or a 10% change in tidal excursion. Further detail

    Evidence

    Not relevant.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Death or injury by collision [Show more]

    Death or injury by collision

    Benchmark. Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static or moving structures due to 0.1% of tidal volume on an average tide, passing through an artificial structure. Further detail

    Evidence

    Not relevant’ to seabed habitats.  NB. Collision by grounding vessels is addressed under surface abrasion.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Visual disturbance [Show more]

    Visual disturbance

    Benchmark. The daily duration of transient visual cues exceeds 10% of the period of site occupancy by the feature. Further detail

    Evidence

    Not relevant.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help

    Biological Pressures

    Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed

    ResistanceResilienceSensitivity
    Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species [Show more]

    Genetic modification & translocation of indigenous species

    Benchmark. Translocation of indigenous species or the introduction of genetically modified or genetically different populations of indigenous species that may result in changes in the genetic structure of local populations, hybridization, or change in community structure. Further detail

    Evidence

    This biotope is not characterized by any typical species, those that are present, such as Bathyporeia spp.  are not translocated and this pressure is therefore considered 'Not relevant'.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species [Show more]

    Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species

    Benchmark. The introduction of one or more invasive non-indigenous species (INIS). Further detail

    Evidence

    The high levels of abrasion resulting from the movement of coarse sands and the subsequent sediment instability will limit the establishment of all but the most highly scour-resistant invasive non-indigenous species (INIS) and no direct evidence was found for the effects of INIS on this biotope.  The low levels of water and organic matter retained by this biotope, are considered to inhibit permanent colonization by invasive species.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Introduction of microbial pathogens [Show more]

    Introduction of microbial pathogens

    Benchmark. The introduction of relevant microbial pathogens or metazoan disease vectors to an area where they are currently not present (e.g. Martelia refringens and Bonamia, Avian influenza virus, viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia virus). Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the absence of a biological assemblage apart from occasional and ephemeral presence of Bathyporeia spp. this pressure is considered to be 'Not relevant'.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Removal of target species [Show more]

    Removal of target species

    Benchmark. Removal of species targeted by fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the absence of a biological assemblage apart from occasional and ephemeral presence of Bathyporeia spp. this pressure is considered to be 'Not relevant'.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help
    Removal of non-target species [Show more]

    Removal of non-target species

    Benchmark. Removal of features or incidental non-targeted catch (by-catch) through targeted fishery, shellfishery or harvesting at a commercial or recreational scale. Further detail

    Evidence

    As this biotope is characterized by the absence of a biological assemblage apart from occasional and ephemeral presence of Bathyporeia spp. this pressure is considered to be 'Not relevant'.

    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help    		Not relevant (NR)
    NR
    NR
    NR
    Help

    Bibliography

    1. Bird, E.C.F., 1983. Factors influencing beach and accretion: a global review. In Sandy beaches as ecosystems(ed. A. McLachlan & T. Erasmus), pp. 709-717. The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers.

    2. 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 Ireland. Version 04.05. ISBN 1 861 07561 8. In JNCC (2015), The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03. [2019-07-24]. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available from https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

    3. Connor, D.W., Brazier, D.P., Hill, T.O., & Northen, K.O., 1997b. Marine biotope classification for Britain and Ireland. Vol. 1. Littoral biotopes. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report no. 229, Version 97.06., Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, JNCC Report No. 230, Version 97.06.

    4. Fish, J.D. & Fish, S., 1996. A student's guide to the seashore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    5. Fish, J.D. & Preece, G.S., 1970. The annual reproductive patterns of Bathyporeia pilosa and Bathyporeia pelagica (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 475-488.

    6. Fish, S., 1970. The biology of Eurydice pulchra (Crustacea: Isopoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 753-768.

    7. Hayward, P.J. 1994. Animals of sandy shores. Slough, England: The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd. [Naturalists' Handbook 21.]

    8. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2022.  The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 22.04. [Date accessed]. Available from: https://mhc.jncc.gov.uk/

    9. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1999. Marine Environment Resource Mapping And Information Database (MERMAID): Marine Nature Conservation Review Survey Database. [on-line] http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid

    10. Jones, D.A., 1970. Population densities and breeding in Eurydice pulchra and Eurydice affinis in Britain. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 635-655.

    11. Long, D., 2006. BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. Available from: http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf

    12. McLachlan, A., 1983. Sandy beach ecology - a review. In Sandy beaches as ecosystems (ed. A. McLachlan & T. Erasmus), pp.321-381. The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers.

    13. Peterson, C.H., 1991. Intertidal zonation of marine invertebrates in sand and mud. American Scientist, 79, 236-249.

    14. Scott, A., 1960. The fauna of the sandy beach, Village Bay, St. Kilda. A dynamical relationship. Oikos, 11, 153-160.

    Citation

    This review can be cited as:

    Tillin, H.M. & Budd, G., 2016. Barren littoral coarse sand. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 25-11-2024]. Available from: https://marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/16

     Download PDF version

    Last Updated: 23/03/2016