Lagoon sandworm (Armandia cirrhosa)
Distribution data supplied by the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). To interrogate UK data visit the NBN Atlas.Map Help
Researched by | Nicola White | Refereed by | Dr Richard S.K. Barnes |
Authority | Filippi, 1861 | ||
Other common names | - | Synonyms | - |
Summary
Description
A small, ribbon-like species, less than 8 mm long with three eyes on its head. It has 26 or 27 segments that bear chitinous bristles.
Recorded distribution in Britain and Ireland
Eight Acre Pond in the Keyhaven-Lymington lagoons in Hampshire; Small Mouth Spit (Portland Harbour) and East Fleet Sandbank (Fleet Lagoon) in Dorset.Global distribution
South from the English Channel along the eastern Atlantic coasts, on Madeira and in the Mediterranean and Adriatic.Habitat
Found in gravely, sandy and muddy substrata in water only slightly less saline than seawater.Depth range
-Identifying features
- Ventral gutter extends along whole of body.
- 26 or 27 chaeta-bearing segments.
- 3 eyes on the head.
- Very small, less than 8 mm long.
Additional information
Almost nothing is known of its biology.
Listed by
Biology review
Taxonomy
Level | Scientific name | Common name |
---|---|---|
Phylum | Annelida | Segmented worms e.g. ragworms, tubeworms, fanworms and spoon worms |
Class | Polychaeta | Bristleworms, e.g. ragworms, scaleworms, paddleworms, fanworms, tubeworms and spoon worms |
Family | Opheliidae | |
Genus | Armandia | |
Authority | Filippi, 1861 | |
Recent Synonyms |
Biology
Parameter | Data | ||
---|---|---|---|
Typical abundance | Moderate density | ||
Male size range | 3-7mm | ||
Male size at maturity | |||
Female size range | Very small(<1cm) | ||
Female size at maturity | |||
Growth form | Vermiform segmented | ||
Growth rate | Data deficient | ||
Body flexibility | |||
Mobility | |||
Characteristic feeding method | No information, Sub-surface deposit feeder | ||
Diet/food source | |||
Typically feeds on | Detritus | ||
Sociability | |||
Environmental position | Infaunal | ||
Dependency | Independent. | ||
Supports | No information | ||
Is the species harmful? | Data deficient |
Biology information
Almost nothing is known of the biology of this species. Abundance varies markedly, from 463 individuals per metre square in Eight-Acre Pond to just 12 specimens recorded after extensive searching in the whole of the Fleet and Portland Harbour.
Habitat preferences
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Physiographic preferences | Isolated saline water (Lagoon) |
Biological zone preferences | Lower eulittoral |
Substratum / habitat preferences | Muddy sand |
Tidal strength preferences | |
Wave exposure preferences | Very sheltered |
Salinity preferences | Reduced (18-30 psu), Variable (18-40 psu) |
Depth range | |
Other preferences | No text entered |
Migration Pattern | Non-migratory or resident |
Habitat Information
The species was formerly very abundant in Eight-Acre Pond, Hampshire, but despite repeated surveys has not been recorded there since 1990. Two new sites were discovered in Dorset in 1994, bringing the total number of sites in the UK to 3.Life history
Adult characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Reproductive type | No information |
Reproductive frequency | No information |
Fecundity (number of eggs) | No information |
Generation time | Insufficient information |
Age at maturity | Insufficient information |
Season | Insufficient information |
Life span | Insufficient information |
Larval characteristics
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Larval/propagule type | - |
Larval/juvenile development | Planktotrophic |
Duration of larval stage | No information |
Larval dispersal potential | No information |
Larval settlement period | Insufficient information |
Life history information
Some Armandia species are known to swarm up into the water to spawn (Rouse & Pleijel, 2001). Armandia cirrosa has planktotrophic larvae (Rouse & Pleijel, 2001).Sensitivity review
The MarLIN sensitivity assessment approach used below has been superseded by the MarESA (Marine Evidence-based Sensitivity Assessment) approach (see menu). The MarLIN approach was used for assessments from 1999-2010. The MarESA approach reflects the recent conservation imperatives and terminology and is used for sensitivity assessments from 2014 onwards.
Physical pressures
Use / to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Substratum loss [Show more]Substratum lossBenchmark. All of the substratum occupied by the species or biotope under consideration is removed. A single event is assumed for sensitivity assessment. Once the activity or event has stopped (or between regular events) suitable substratum remains or is deposited. Species or community recovery assumes that the substratum within the habitat preferences of the original species or community is present. Further details EvidenceArmandia cirrhosa is probably found within the top 1-2 cm of sediment so would be removed upon substratum loss. Recovery would be very low because only two extant populations of the species exist within the UK. | High | Very low / none | Very High | Very low |
Smothering [Show more]SmotheringBenchmark. All of the population of a species or an area of a biotope is smothered by sediment to a depth of 5 cm above the substratum for one month. Impermeable materials, such as concrete, oil, or tar, are likely to have a greater effect. Further details. EvidenceThe species would be able to move through new sediment and re-establish itself upon smothering. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Very low |
Increase in suspended sediment [Show more]Increase in suspended sedimentBenchmark. An arbitrary short-term, acute change in background suspended sediment concentration e.g., a change of 100 mg/l for one month. The resultant light attenuation effects are addressed under turbidity, and the effects of rapid settling out of suspended sediment are addressed under smothering. Further details EvidenceThe species is probably tolerate to siltation as it occurs in lagoons where siltation naturally occurs. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Very low |
Decrease in suspended sediment [Show more]Decrease in suspended sedimentBenchmark. An arbitrary short-term, acute change in background suspended sediment concentration e.g., a change of 100 mg/l for one month. The resultant light attenuation effects are addressed under turbidity, and the effects of rapid settling out of suspended sediment are addressed under smothering. Further details Evidence | No information | |||
Desiccation [Show more]Desiccation
EvidenceThe low shore position of the species suggests that it is intolerant of desiccation. However, if it lives in a mud burrow it would be sheltered from the drying effects of wind and sun. Insufficientinformation is available to be able to make an accurate assessment. | No information | Not relevant | No information | Very low |
Increase in emergence regime [Show more]Increase in emergence regimeBenchmark. A one hour change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceThe low shore position of the species suggests that it is intolerant of emergence. However, if it lives in a mud burrow it would be sheltered from desiccation and temperature extremes. Insufficientinformation is available to be able to make an accurate assessment. | No information | Not relevant | No information | Very low |
Decrease in emergence regime [Show more]Decrease in emergence regimeBenchmark. A one hour change in the time covered or not covered by the sea for a period of one year. Further details Evidence | No information | |||
Increase in water flow rate [Show more]Increase in water flow rateA change of two categories in water flow rate (view glossary) for 1 year, for example, from moderately strong (1-3 knots) to very weak (negligible). Further details EvidenceIncreased water flow may wash away the worm and associated fine sediment. Recovery would be very low because only two extant populations of the spices exist within the UK | Intermediate | High | Very low | |
Decrease in water flow rate [Show more]Decrease in water flow rateA change of two categories in water flow rate (view glossary) for 1 year, for example, from moderately strong (1-3 knots) to very weak (negligible). Further details Evidence | No information | |||
Increase in temperature [Show more]Increase in temperature
For intertidal species or communities, the range of temperatures includes the air temperature regime for that species or community. Further details EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Decrease in temperature [Show more]Decrease in temperature
For intertidal species or communities, the range of temperatures includes the air temperature regime for that species or community. Further details Evidence | No information | |||
Increase in turbidity [Show more]Increase in turbidity
EvidenceThe species is probably tolerant of a change in turbidity as it is not affected by light availability. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Very low |
Decrease in turbidity [Show more]Decrease in turbidity
Evidence | No information | |||
Increase in wave exposure [Show more]Increase in wave exposureA change of two ranks on the wave exposure scale (view glossary) e.g., from Exposed to Extremely exposed for a period of one year. Further details EvidenceThe species is within the top 1 cm of the sediment so would be removed upon increased wave exposure. The fine sediment with which the worm is usually associated would also be washed away. Tamaki (1987) observed that an unidentified species of Armandia in Japan was very susceptible to increased wave exposure because it is in the top 1 cm of the sediment. | High | Very High | Very low | |
Decrease in wave exposure [Show more]Decrease in wave exposureA change of two ranks on the wave exposure scale (view glossary) e.g., from Exposed to Extremely exposed for a period of one year. Further details Evidence | No information | |||
Noise [Show more]Noise
EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Visual presence [Show more]Visual presenceBenchmark. The continuous presence for one month of moving objects not naturally found in the marine environment (e.g., boats, machinery, and humans) within the visual envelope of the species or community under consideration. Further details EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Abrasion & physical disturbance [Show more]Abrasion & physical disturbanceBenchmark. Force equivalent to a standard scallop dredge landing on or being dragged across the organism. A single event is assumed for assessment. This factor includes mechanical interference, crushing, physical blows against, or rubbing and erosion of the organism or habitat of interest. Where trampling is relevant, the evidence and trampling intensity will be reported in the rationale. Further details. EvidenceArmandia cirrhosa lives in the top 1-2 cm of the sediment which would be disturbed by physical disturbance caused by a passing scallop dredge or equivalent disturbance. Individuals in direct contact with the disturbance causing impact are likely to be damaged and/or killed, however, Armandia cirrhosa is very small so that a proportion of the population is likely to be missed or displaced. Therefore, an intolerance of intermediate has been recorded. | Intermediate | Moderate | Moderate | Very low |
Displacement [Show more]DisplacementBenchmark. Removal of the organism from the substratum and displacement from its original position onto a suitable substratum. A single event is assumed for assessment. Further details EvidenceThe species would probably be able to re-establish itself upon displacement. | Tolerant | Not relevant | Not sensitive | Very low |
Chemical pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Synthetic compound contamination [Show more]Synthetic compound contaminationSensitivity is assessed against the available evidence for the effects of contaminants on the species (or closely related species at low confidence) or community of interest. For example:
The evidence used is stated in the rationale. Where the assessment can be based on a known activity then this is stated. The tolerance to contaminants of species of interest will be included in the rationale when available; together with relevant supporting material. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Heavy metal contamination [Show more]Heavy metal contaminationEvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Hydrocarbon contamination [Show more]Hydrocarbon contaminationEvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Radionuclide contamination [Show more]Radionuclide contaminationEvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Changes in nutrient levels [Show more]Changes in nutrient levelsEvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Increase in salinity [Show more]Increase in salinity
EvidenceThe species has only been recorded at sites with reduced salinity so can therefore probably not tolerate fully marine conditions. | High | None | Very High | Very low |
Decrease in salinity [Show more]Decrease in salinity
Evidence | No information | |||
Changes in oxygenation [Show more]Changes in oxygenationBenchmark. Exposure to a dissolved oxygen concentration of 2 mg/l for one week. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Biological pressures
Use [show more] / [show less] to open/close text displayed
Intolerance | Recoverability | Sensitivity | Evidence / Confidence | |
Introduction of microbial pathogens/parasites [Show more]Introduction of microbial pathogens/parasitesBenchmark. Sensitivity can only be assessed relative to a known, named disease, likely to cause partial loss of a species population or community. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Introduction of non-native species [Show more]Introduction of non-native speciesSensitivity assessed against the likely effect of the introduction of alien or non-native species in Britain or Ireland. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Extraction of this species [Show more]Extraction of this speciesBenchmark. Extraction removes 50% of the species or community from the area under consideration. Sensitivity will be assessed as 'intermediate'. The habitat remains intact or recovers rapidly. Any effects of the extraction process on the habitat itself are addressed under other factors, e.g. displacement, abrasion and physical disturbance, and substratum loss. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Extraction of other species [Show more]Extraction of other speciesBenchmark. A species that is a required host or prey for the species under consideration (and assuming that no alternative host exists) or a keystone species in a biotope is removed. Any effects of the extraction process on the habitat itself are addressed under other factors, e.g. displacement, abrasion and physical disturbance, and substratum loss. Further details. EvidenceInsufficientinformation | No information | Not relevant | No information | Not relevant |
Additional information
Importance review
Policy/legislation
Designation | Support |
---|---|
Wildlife & Countryside Act | Schedule 5, section 9 |
UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority | Yes |
Species of principal importance (England) | Yes |
Features of Conservation Importance (England & Wales) | Yes |
Status
National (GB) importance | Nationally rare | Global red list (IUCN) category | - |
Non-native
Parameter | Data |
---|---|
Native | - |
Origin | - |
Date Arrived | - |
Importance information
-none-Bibliography
Anonymous, 1999s. Saline lagoons. Habitat Action Plan. In UK Biodiversity Group. Tranche 2 Action Plans. English Nature for the UK Biodiversity Group, Peterborough., English Nature for the UK Biodiversity Group, Peterborough.
Barnes, R.S.K., 1994. The brackish-water fauna of northwestern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downie, A. J., 1996. The Lagoon Sandworm Armandia cirrhosa. English Nature Research Reports, 202, 26pp.
Howson, C.M. & Picton, B.E., 1997. The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. Belfast: Ulster Museum. [Ulster Museum publication, no. 276.]
Rouse, G.W. & Pleijel, F., 2001. Polychaetes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tamaki, A., 1987. Comparison of resistivity to transport by wave action in several polychaete species on an intertidal sand flat. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 37, 181-189.
Datasets
NBN (National Biodiversity Network) Atlas. Available from: https://www.nbnatlas.org.
OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System), 2024. Global map of species distribution using gridded data. Available from: Ocean Biogeographic Information System. www.iobis.org. Accessed: 2024-12-26
Citation
This review can be cited as:
Last Updated: 20/04/2007