Assessing the Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Sensitive Benthic Macroflora Along the Aegean Coast of Türkiye: An Integrated Ecological Approach
by
, , , , and
Orkide Minareci
1,*
,
Ergün Taşkın
1
,
Furkan Bilgiç
2,
Ersin Minareci
1,
Öznur Yazılan
1 and
Aysu Güreşen
1 1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45140 Manisa, Türkiye
2
Eser Deniz Ecological, Environmental Company, Manisa Technology Development Zone, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45140 Manisa, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2026, 18(9), 558; https://doi.org/10.3390/d18090558
Submission received: 9 August 2026
/
Revised: 3 September 2026
/
Accepted: 7 September 2026
/
Published: 10 September 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Diversity)
Abstract
Sensitive benthic macroflora are widely recognized as valuable indicators of ecological quality in coastal ecosystems. This study investigated their diversity and spatial distribution along the Aegean coast of Türkiye and evaluated their relationships with physicochemical variables, nutrient concentrations, and anthropogenic pressures quantified using the Macroalgae-Land Uses Simplified Index (MA-LUSI). A total of 25 coastal stations were surveyed during spring, summer, and autumn 2022, and 91 sensitive taxa were recorded, including 30 brown algae, 52 coralligenous red algae, four green algae, and five seagrasses. Clustered heatmaps based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity were used to evaluate spatial patterns in community composition using presence–absence and percentage coverage data, whereas Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was applied to examine the relationships between sensitive phytobenthic communities and environmental variables. The presence–absence heatmap clearly distinguished İzmir-Bostanlı from the remaining stations because of its markedly lower sensitive taxon richness and distinct taxonomic composition. The percentage coverage heatmap also revealed considerable spatial variation among stations, reflecting differences in the abundance and distribution of sensitive habitat-forming taxa. CCA demonstrated clear relationships between sensitive phytobenthic communities and local environmental gradients, with several southern and central Aegean stations being closely associated with sensitive habitat-forming taxa. MA-LUSI values ranged from 0.94 at Gökçeada to 11.25 at İzmir-Bostanlı, indicating pronounced spatial differences in anthropogenic pressure. Overall, the findings demonstrate that sensitive benthic macroflora provide reliable indicators of environmental quality and highlight their importance for the ecological assessment, long-term monitoring, and conservation of coastal ecosystems along the Aegean coast of Türkiye. By identifying areas of ecological degradation, this study also provides a scientific basis for prioritizing conservation and restoration actions in coastal areas exposed to high anthropogenic pressure.
1. Introduction
Macroalgae (Ochrophyta, Rhodophyta, and Chlorophyta) and seagrasses constitute the main components of benthic macroflora in coastal marine ecosystems. By forming structurally complex habitats, these communities provide feeding, shelter, and nursery grounds for numerous species and thereby play an important role in maintaining coastal biodiversity [1]. Their high primary productivity and contribution to trophic networks also support coastal ecosystem functioning and the sustainability of ecosystem services [2,3,4].
In recent decades, the loss of benthic habitats driven by climate change and anthropogenic pressures has become a major environmental concern worldwide [5,6,7,8]. Accordingly, the protection, inventory, and long-term monitoring of sensitive benthic macrophyte habitats in the Mediterranean have been identified as priorities under the European Union Habitats Directive and the Barcelona Convention [9,10].
In the Mediterranean Basin, benthic macroflora of conservation priority are represented by canopy-forming brown macroalgae (Cystoseira C. Agardh, Sargassum C. Agardh), calcareous red algae (Corallina L., Lithophyllum Philippi) that constitute the main components of coralligenous habitats, and seagrass meadows (Posidonia K.D. Koenig, Zostera L., Cymodocea K.D. Koenig), all of which are widely distributed throughout the littoral and infralittoral zones of the Turkish coastline [11,12]. In coastal ecosystems with good ecological status, these habitat-forming communities play a fundamental role in ecosystem functioning by creating three-dimensional structures that support benthic biodiversity and enhance ecosystem productivity [2,13,14,15,16].
The decline, fragmentation, or replacement of long-lived habitat-forming benthic macrophytes by short-lived opportunistic macroalgal communities is widely recognized as an indicator of deteriorating water quality associated with nutrient enrichment, reduced light availability, and eutrophication [17,18,19,20]. Due to their high sensitivity to environmental pressures and broad geographical applicability, benthic macrophytes are considered Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) for assessing the ecological status of coastal ecosystems [21,22]. In the present study, the term “sensitive benthic macroflora” refers to long-lived, habitat-forming macroalgae and seagrasses that are particularly susceptible to environmental disturbances such as eutrophication, habitat degradation, and other anthropogenic pressures. These sensitive species typically characterize coastal environments with good ecological status and tend to decline or disappear under increasing environmental stress. Therefore, their presence, abundance, and distribution patterns are widely used as indicators of ecosystem health and environmental quality.
Because benthic macroalgae and seagrasses share similar ecological functions and largely overlapping habitats, they are commonly considered together in ecological assessment studies [23,24]. Accordingly, the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC) require the ecological status of coastal waters to be assessed using Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) [25,26].
Within this framework, numerous benthic macrophyte-based ecological indices have been developed and successfully applied throughout the Mediterranean region [18,19,24,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Among the most widely applied macroalgae- and macrophyte-based ecological indices in the Mediterranean are the Ecological Evaluation Index (EEI and EEI-c), the Rocky Macroalgal Quality Index (R-MaQI), the Macroalgal Quality Index (MaQI), and the Cartography of Littoral and Upper-Sublittoral Rocky-Shore Communities (CARLIT) index. These indices assess ecological quality based on the composition, abundance, and functional characteristics of benthic macrophyte communities and have been extensively used within the framework of the European Water Framework Directive. Previous studies conducted in Mediterranean coastal waters have demonstrated that these indices effectively detect ecological degradation associated with eutrophication, coastal urbanization, and other anthropogenic pressures, while also supporting long-term environmental monitoring and management programmes. Their successful application further highlights the effectiveness of benthic macroflora as biological indicators of environmental quality and anthropogenic disturbance in coastal ecosystems. These ecological indices are primarily based on shifts from long-lived, habitat-forming macrophytes that characterize high ecological statuses to short-lived opportunistic macroalgal communities that proliferate under increasing environmental pressure [13,17,18,19,20,27,32,34].
In Türkiye, several benthic macrophyte-based ecological quality indices have been developed and successfully applied to assess the ecological status of coastal waters [35,36,37,38,39]. In parallel, extensive floristic and taxonomic studies have substantially improved our knowledge of the marine benthic macroflora of the Turkish coastline. As a result, a total of 573 macroalgal taxa (137 Phaeophyceae, 318 Rhodophyta, and 118 Chlorophyta) have been reported from the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts of Türkiye, of which 527 benthic macroalgal taxa (131 Phaeophyceae, 294 Rhodophyta, and 102 Chlorophyta) have been recorded from the Aegean coast alone [40].
Despite these advances, comprehensive studies evaluating the distribution of sensitive benthic macroflora communities along the Aegean coast of Türkiye in relation to physicochemical variables, nutrient concentrations, and land-based pressures quantified using the Macroalgae-Land Uses Simplified Index (MA-LUSI) remain limited. Therefore, understanding the regional responses of sensitive benthic macroflora to environmental gradients is essential for the conservation, monitoring, and sustainable management of coastal ecosystems.
This study aims to assess the diversity and spatial distribution of sensitive benthic macroflora along the Aegean coast of Türkiye and to evaluate their relationships with physicochemical variables, nutrient concentrations, and land-based pressures quantified using the MA-LUSI.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The study was conducted along the Turkish Aegean coastline, extending from Enez in the north to Bozburun in the south. A total of 25 coastal stations were selected, including Enez, Saros Bay, Gökçeada, Yeniköy, Bozcaada, Küçükkuyu, Altınoluk, Ayvalık, Dikili, Çandarlı, Foça, İzmir (Bostanlı), Urla, Ildır, Çeşme, Seferihisar, Kuşadası, Didim, Güllük, Bodrum, Akyaka, Gökova Bay, Datça, Bozburun-1, and Bozburun-2 (Figure 1). The study area encompasses a wide range of coastal environments characterized by different geomorphological features, hydrodynamic conditions, and environmental settings. Environmental variability across the study area reflects both natural gradients and localized human activities, providing representative coastal conditions along the Turkish Aegean Sea.
The region experiences a typical Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, rainy winters. Sea surface temperatures (SST) exhibit pronounced seasonal fluctuations, while surface salinity remains relatively high overall, with a distinct spatial gradient driven by low-salinity Black Sea water inflow through the Dardanelles Strait in the north and oligotrophic, high-salinity Levantine waters in the south. The area is strongly influenced by complex hydrodynamic processes, including wind-driven seasonal circulation (dominated by northerly Etesian winds during summer), local coastal currents, and structural variations between open coastlines and semi-enclosed bays. These climatic, oceanographic, and geomorphological characteristics, together with localized anthropogenic pressures, shape the physicochemical environment and contribute to the spatial heterogeneity of benthic habitats and macroflora communities across the Aegean coast.
2.2. Sampling and Species Identification
Macroalgal samples were collected from 25 coastal stations distributed along the Turkish Aegean coast during spring, summer, and autumn of 2022. Representative photographs illustrating the environmental conditions and general features of the 25 sampling stations along the Aegean coast are provided in Supplementary Material Figure S1. Specimens were collected by hand from the intertidal zone (0–5 m depth) using mask and snorkel, whereas specimens from deeper habitats (approximately 40 m depth) were collected by SCUBA diving. Collected specimens were preserved in 2–5% formaldehyde in seawater and transported to the Hydrobiology Research Laboratory of Manisa Celal Bayar University (Manisa, Türkiye) for taxonomic identification. In addition, representative macroscopic photographs of the key sensitive phytobenthic taxa identified during the surveys are presented in Supplementary Material Figure S2.
Species identification was performed based on morphological and anatomical characters using relevant regional floras and taxonomic references for Mediterranean and Turkish marine macroalgae. Macroalgal specimens were examined under a light microscope (Nikon SE, Tokyo, Japan). Herbarium specimens were prepared following Taşkın [41], and taxonomic nomenclature was verified using AlgaeBase (https://www.algaebase.org).
Following taxonomic identification, species classified as sensitive according to the Ecological Status Group (ESG) classification were selected for subsequent analyses [17,32]. For coverage assessment, macrofloral samples were collected using 20 cm × 20 cm quadrats with three replicates per station at a depth of 0.5–1 m [17,32]. Physicochemical parameters, including water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and salinity, were measured in situ at each sampling station using a portable multiparameter water quality meter AZ 84051 Combo Water Meter (AZ Instrument Corp., Taiwan). Water samples were collected simultaneously with biological sampling and transported to the laboratory under refrigerated conditions for nutrient analyses. Orthophosphate and ammonium concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically (Jasco UV—VIS 530 Spectrophotometer) according to Parsons et al. [42] and Strickland and Parsons [43], respectively, following the standard methods described by APHA, AWWA, and WEF [44].
2.3. Macroalgae-Land Uses Simplified Index (MA-LUSI)
Anthropogenic pressure at each sampling station was assessed using the MA-LUSI, which was developed from the Land Uses Simplified Index (LUSI) to quantify land-based pressures affecting coastal ecosystems [22,45,46]. MA-LUSI values were calculated within a 1.5 km buffer zone surrounding each sampling station using the Coordination of Information on the Environment (CORINE) Land Cover database. The index integrates indirect pressures, including urbanization, agriculture, commerce, and industry, together with direct pressures associated with aquaculture, nutrient enrichment of sediments, wastewater discharges, irregular freshwater inputs, and harbors. MA-LUSI scores were calculated according to the methodology described by Flo et al. [45].
2.4. Data Analysis
Presence–absence and percentage coverage data for sensitive benthic macroflora were analyzed to evaluate spatial patterns in community composition among the sampling stations. Percentage coverage data were square-root-transformed prior to similarity analysis to reduce the disproportionate influence of highly dominant taxa and to provide a more balanced representation of taxa with moderate and low coverage. In addition, percentage coverage data for Cystoseira sensu lato (s.l.) were analyzed separately to assess the distribution patterns of canopy-forming brown algae.
Bray–Curtis dissimilarity was calculated separately for the presence–absence and square-root-transformed percentage coverage datasets. Clustered heatmaps were generated to visualize taxon distribution and coverage patterns across the sampling stations. Sampling stations and taxa were hierarchically clustered using Bray–Curtis dissimilarity and the average-linkage method. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was performed separately for the presence–absence and percentage coverage datasets to examine the relationships between sensitive benthic macroflora and physicochemical variables. The proportions accounted for by the canonical axes were calculated relative to the total constrained inertia.
PAST software version 4.13 (Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway) was initially used for exploratory data analysis [47]. Following verification and correction of the input data matrices, Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrices, average-linkage hierarchical clustering, and CCA were recalculated in R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) using the vegan package. Clustered heatmaps and CCA ordination diagrams were generated using the ComplexHeatmap, ggplot2, ggrepel, and ggforce packages.
3. Results
A total of 91 sensitive phytobenthic taxa—comprising 5 seagrasses, 30 brown algae, 52 coralligenous red algae, and 4 green algae—were identified across 25 sampling sites along the Aegean coast of Türkiye. The presence and distribution of these sensitive communities at each station are detailed in Table 1.
The physicochemical parameters and nutrient concentrations recorded throughout the study area are presented in Table 2. Monitoring conducted across the spring, summer, and autumn of 2022 yielded a mean pH of 8.20 and a mean water temperature of 19.91 °C. The seasonal variation in physicochemical variables ranged between 7.71 (Bostanlı, autumn) and 8.45 (Datça, spring) for pH, while water temperature fluctuated between 10.9 °C (Enez, autumn) and 28.7 °C (Akyaka, summer).
Dissolved oxygen levels peaked in the spring at 13.2 mg/L (Didim), whereas the lowest recorded level throughout the study occurred at the Bostanlı station during autumn, with 0.10 mg/L. Conductivity values varied between 42.00 mS/cm and 60.9 mS/cm, and salinity levels ranged from 27.9 psu to 42.3 psu. The seasonal data highlight that the Bostanlı station exhibited the lowest dissolved oxygen levels compared to all other sampling sites.
The seasonal variations in phosphate and ammonium concentrations, resulting from the sampling conducted along the Aegean coast, are summarized in Table 2. Phosphate concentrations peaked at the Bostanlı station during spring (28.46 µg/L) and summer (26.41 µg/L); however, the highest phosphate value recorded throughout the study was 30.78 µg/L at the Datça station during the autumn season. The lowest phosphate levels were observed at the Bodrum (11.61 µg/L), Yeniköy (10.84 µg/L), and Saros Bay (0.33 µg/L) stations during the spring, summer, and autumn periods, respectively.
Regarding ammonium concentrations, the Bostanlı station stands out significantly compared to other sampling sites. Ammonium levels reached their maximum values at Bostanlı during the summer (151.97 µg/L) and autumn (91.93 µg/L) seasons. In the spring, the highest ammonium value was recorded at Didim (6.82 µg/L), which represents the lowest maximum value observed across the study period. Conversely, the lowest ammonium concentrations in the region were detected at the Çeşme (1.16 µg/L), Gökova (10.94 µg/L), and Kuşadası (48.27 µg/L) stations.
The clustered heatmap based on the presence–absence data of 41 sensitive phytobenthic taxa revealed marked differences in community composition among the sampling stations (Figure 2). Hierarchical clustering based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity clearly separated İzmir-Bostanlı from the remaining stations, reflecting its substantially lower sensitive taxon richness and distinct occurrence pattern. Enez and Gökçeada also exhibited occurrence patterns that differed from those observed at most other stations, whereas the majority of stations were characterized by relatively similar and taxon-rich assemblages. The simultaneous clustering of sampling stations and taxa further illustrated the taxon-occurrence patterns underlying the observed station groupings.
The CCA based on the presence–absence data of sensitive phytobenthic taxa and the physicochemical variables measured at the sampling stations is presented in Figure 3. The first two canonical axes accounted for 36.7% and 31.4% of the constrained inertia, respectively. Several central and southern Aegean stations, including Ildır, Ayvalık, Gökova Bay, Bodrum, Kuşadası, Bozburun-1, Bozburun-2, Datça, and Akyaka, were associated with the distribution of sensitive habitat-forming taxa. In contrast, İzmir-Bostanlı occupied a distinct position in the ordination and was associated with elevated total phosphorus and ammonium concentrations.
The clustered heatmap based on the average percentage coverage of sensitive phytobenthic taxa revealed marked spatial variation in community composition and coverage patterns among the sampling stations (Figure 4). Hierarchical clustering based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity distinguished stations characterized by different combinations and coverage levels of seagrasses, Cystoseira s.l., and coralline red algae. The heatmap further illustrated that spatial differentiation among the sampling stations was associated with variations in the coverage of habitat-forming taxa, including Posidonia oceanica, Gongolaria barbata, Cystoseira compressa, and several coralline red algae. Detailed average percentage coverage values for the sensitive taxa at each sampling station are presented in Table 3.
The CCA ordination based on the average percentage coverage of sensitive phytobenthic taxa and the physicochemical variables measured at the sampling stations is presented in Figure 5. CCA1 and CCA2 accounted for 27.4% and 20.8% of the constrained inertia, respectively. The ordination revealed spatial differentiation among the sampling stations in relation to the measured environmental gradients, particularly temperature, salinity, conductivity, nutrient concentrations, and dissolved oxygen. Several southern and central Aegean stations, including Gökova Bay, Bodrum, Kuşadası, Bozburun-1, Bozburun-2, Datça, and Akyaka, were associated with distinct combinations of sensitive habitat-forming taxa. These assemblages included the brown algae Ericaria corniculata and Sargassum vulgare and the coralline red algae Titanoderma pustulatum, Neogoniolithon setchellii, and Jania pedunculata var. adhaerens.
The CCA based on the average percentage coverage of sensitive phytobenthic taxa and the physicochemical variables measured at the sampling stations is presented in Figure 5. The first two canonical axes accounted for 27.4% and 20.8% of the constrained inertia, respectively. Gökova Bay, Bodrum, Kuşadası, Bozburun-1, Bozburun-2, Datça, and Akyaka were positioned along the salinity and conductivity gradients and were associated with sensitive taxa, including the brown algae Ericaria corniculata and Sargassum vulgare and the red algae Titanoderma pustulatum, Neogoniolithon setchellii, and Jania pedunculata var. adhaerens. Gongolaria barbata was associated with the İzmir-Bostanlı and Çandarlı stations and with higher total phosphorus concentrations. In contrast, Ericaria corniculata and Ericaria crinita were associated with Çeşme, Bodrum, Kuşadası, Bozburun-1, Bozburun-2, and Datça and with higher water temperatures.
MA-LUSI values demonstrated substantial spatial variation in land-based anthropogenic pressure across the study area (Table 4). The highest MA-LUSI value was recorded at İzmir-Bostanlı (11.25), whereas the lowest value was recorded at both Gökçeada and Bozburun-2 (0.94).
4. Discussion
Sensitive habitat-forming benthic macroflora constitute some of the most valuable components of Mediterranean coastal ecosystems because they provide essential ecosystem services and support marine biodiversity. Owing to their slow growth rates and high sensitivity to environmental disturbance, these communities are regarded as priority conservation targets throughout the Mediterranean Sea [48,49,50,51]. According to Verlaque et al., 73 marine macroalgal species are considered threatened in the Mediterranean Sea, including 31 species belonging to the genera Cystoseira, Ericaria, and Gongolaria [52]. Similarly, Taşkın reported that 40 marine macroalgal species and four seagrass species are threatened or endangered in Türkiye [53]. In this context, the high diversity of sensitive habitat-forming benthic macroflora recorded in the present study further emphasizes the conservation value of the Turkish Aegean coast. This finding is consistent with previous studies highlighting the ecological importance of Mediterranean habitat-forming communities and expands current knowledge of their distribution along the Turkish Aegean coast. The survey of 25 stations provides a high-resolution spatial dataset that contributes to addressing existing knowledge gaps concerning sensitive habitat-forming taxa in under-sampled Aegean coastal sectors.
Our findings provide evidence of a close association between local anthropogenic pressures and the degradation of sensitive benthic habitats. Bostanlı emerged as a critical station characterized by elevated nutrient concentrations, particularly ammonium and phosphate, together with severely depleted dissolved oxygen levels. These physicochemical conditions were consistent with the distinct position of Bostanlı in the multivariate analyses. The clustered heatmap revealed substantially lower sensitive taxon richness and a distinct occurrence pattern at Bostanlı, whereas the CCA ordination demonstrated the association of this station with elevated nutrient concentrations. The marked reduction in sensitive habitat-forming taxa at Bostanlı underscores the susceptibility of these communities to eutrophication and other land-based pressures. The integration of biological observations with the MA-LUSI assessment further demonstrates the value of sensitive benthic macroflora as biological indicators of cumulative anthropogenic pressure on coastal ecological integrity.
The marked spatial variation in sensitive benthic macroflora observed in the present study indicates that local environmental conditions play an important role in shaping habitat-forming communities. This result is consistent with previous studies showing that the distribution of long-lived macroalgae and seagrasses reflects environmental quality and habitat stability [13,17,18,19,20,32]. The combined evaluation of sensitive benthic macroflora, physicochemical variables, nutrient concentrations, and MA-LUSI provides a more comprehensive assessment of coastal ecosystem condition than biological observations alone. Similar integrated approaches have been recommended for ecological assessment and long-term monitoring of Mediterranean coastal waters [22,45,46].
The ecological significance of the sensitive benthic macroflora recorded in this study is also consistent with previous applications of macroalgae- and macrophyte-based assessment tools developed for Mediterranean coastal waters. Indices such as the EEI and EEI-c, R-MaQI, MaQI, CARLIT, and Ecological Status of Coralligenous Assemblages (ESCA) have demonstrated that habitat-forming macroalgae and seagrasses respond strongly to environmental degradation and anthropogenic pressures [22,45,46]. Comparable patterns have been reported from France, Italy, Greece, and other Mediterranean coastal regions, where sensitive macroalgal assemblages were associated with good ecological status, whereas eutrophication and coastal urbanization favored opportunistic and disturbance-tolerant communities [54,55,56,57]. The agreement between these studies and the present findings supports the broader applicability of habitat-forming macroflora as indicators of ecological status across Mediterranean coastal ecosystems.
Canopy-forming brown algae belonging to the genera Ericaria, Gongolaria, and Cystoseira s.l., together with Posidonia oceanica and coralline red algae, were among the principal sensitive habitat-forming taxa recorded across the study area. Their occurrence at several Aegean stations and their reduced representation in areas subjected to nutrient enrichment and land-based pressures further support the suitability of these communities as indicators of ecological quality and coastal ecosystem health. The spatial patterns identified through the presence–absence and percentage coverage analyses also demonstrate the complementary value of evaluating both taxonomic occurrence and habitat coverage when assessing the condition of sensitive benthic communities.
Overall, the present study provides new insights into the diversity and spatial distribution of sensitive habitat-forming benthic macroflora along the Turkish Aegean coast. The integration of biological communities with environmental variables and anthropogenic pressure indicators provides a valuable baseline for future monitoring programmes and supports the conservation and ecosystem-based management of Mediterranean coastal habitats. Future studies should incorporate multi-year monitoring to assess the temporal dynamics of these sensitive communities under ongoing environmental change. By identifying sites of ecological decline, particularly Bostanlı, the present findings also provide scientific support for prioritizing areas requiring habitat restoration, improved wastewater management, and stricter regulation of nutrient inputs.
5. Conclusions
The present study provides a comprehensive assessment of the diversity and spatial distribution of sensitive habitat-forming benthic macroflora along the Turkish Aegean coast, highlighting their value as bioindicators of coastal ecological integrity. The findings reveal marked spatial variation in the diversity, community composition, and coverage of sensitive phytobenthic taxa in association with local environmental conditions and anthropogenic pressures. In particular, Bostanlı exhibited clear signs of ecological degradation, including substantially lower sensitive taxon richness, elevated nutrient concentrations, and severely depleted dissolved oxygen levels. These findings indicate the adverse effects of eutrophication and coastal urbanization on sensitive benthic habitats.
By integrating presence–absence and percentage coverage data with physicochemical variables and MA-LUSI assessments, this study provides a robust baseline for future ecological monitoring and ecosystem-based coastal management. The relationships observed between sensitive phytobenthic assemblages and environmental gradients demonstrate the responsiveness of benthic macroflora to ecological disturbance and support their use as reliable indicators of coastal environmental quality. Canopy-forming brown algae belonging to the genera Ericaria, Gongolaria, and Cystoseira s.l., together with Posidonia oceanica and coralline red algae, were among the principal sensitive habitat-forming components recorded along the Aegean coast.
The consistency of the present findings with observations reported from other Mediterranean coastal regions further supports the broader applicability of sensitive habitat-forming benthic macroflora as indicators of ecological quality and anthropogenic disturbance. Overall, these communities provide an effective basis for biodiversity conservation, ecological status assessment, and long-term environmental monitoring across Mediterranean coastal ecosystems. The identification of coastal areas exposed to elevated anthropogenic pressure highlights the need for targeted conservation measures, including improved wastewater management, stricter control of nutrient inputs, and site-specific habitat restoration. The present findings provide scientific support for ecosystem-based management and marine conservation planning along the Turkish Aegean coast while contributing to the broader assessment of environmental quality throughout the Mediterranean Sea.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d18090558/s1, Figure S1: Representative field photographs of the 25 sampling stations along the Aegean coast, illustrating the general environmental conditions, coastal topography, and habitat structure at each site. Station numbers strictly correspond to the geographical locations mapped in Figure 1 of the main text. Figure S2: Representative in situ and macroscopic photographs of some phytobenthic taxa identified across the sampling network.
Author Contributions
O.M., methodology, data analysis and interpretation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; E.T., conceptualization, methodology, visualization; data analysis and interpretation; Ö.Y. and A.G., data analysis and interpretation, writing—original draft; F.B. and E.M., methodology, data curation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) under Project No. 121Y215.
Institutional Review Board Statement
No experimental procedures involving humans or animals were conducted; therefore, ethical approval was not required according to the guidelines of Manisa Celal Bayar University Ethics Committee (https://etikkurul.mcbu.edu.tr, accessed on 1 September 2026).
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
Furkan Bilgiç was employed by the Eser Deniz Ecological, Environmental Company. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.
References
- Satheesh, A.; Siddiq, A.A.; Baakdah, M.; Al-Sofyani, A.A. An introduction to the ecological significance of seaweeds on coastal ecosystems. In Biotechnological Applications of Seaweeds; Nabti, E., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ballesteros, E.; Sala, E.; Garrabou, J.; Zabala, M. Community structure and frond size distribution of a deep-water stand of Cystoseira spinosa (Phaeophyta) in the northwestern Mediterranean. Eur. J. Phycol. 1998, 33, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ballesteros, E.; Garrabou, J.; Hereu, B.; Zabala, M.; Cebrian, E.; Sala, E. Deep-water stands of Cystoseira zosteroides C. Agardh (Fucales, Ochrophyta) in the northwestern Mediterranean: Insights into assemblage structure and population dynamics. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 82, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Orth, R.J.; Carruthers, T.J.B.; Dennison, W.C.; Duarte, C.M.; Fourqurean, J.W.; Heck, K.L., Jr.; Hughes, A.R.; Kendrick, G.A.; Kenworthy, W.J.; Olyarnik, S.; et al. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 2006, 56, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mangialajo, L.; Chiantore, M.; Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Loss of fucoid algae along a gradient of urbanisation, and structure of benthic assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2008, 358, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Thibaut, T.; Blanfuné, A.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Verlaque, M. Decline and local extinction of Fucales in the French Riviera: The harbinger of future extinctions? Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2015, 16, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Blanfuné, A.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Verlaque, M.; Thibaut, T. The fate of Cystoseira crinita, a forest-forming fucale (Phaeophyceae, Stramenopiles), in France (North Western Mediterranean Sea). Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 181, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mancuso, F.P.; Strain, E.M.A.; Piccioni, E.; De Clerck, O.; Sarà, G.; Airoldi, L. Status of vulnerable Cystoseira populations along the Italian infralittoral fringe, and relationships with environmental and anthropogenic variables. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 762–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- European Economic Community (EEC). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1992, L206, 7–50. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Proposal of Standard Methods for Inventorying and Monitoring Coralligenous and Rhodoliths Populations; Working Document Prepared by G. Pergent for the Tenth Meeting of Focal Points for SPAs, Marseilles, France, 17–20 May 2011; UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.359/10; RAC/SPA: Tunis, Tunisia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Boudouresque, C.F.; Bernard, G.; Bonhomme, P.; Charbonnel, E.; Diviacco, G.; Meinesz, A.; Pergent, G.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Ruitton, S.; Tunesi, L. Tutela e Conservazione delle Praterie di Posidonia oceanica; RAMOGE: Monaco, Monaco, 2008; pp. 1–202. [Google Scholar]
- Piazzi, L.; Bonaviri, C.; Castelli, A.; Ceccherelli, G.; Costa, G.; Curini-Galletti, M.; Langeneck, J.; Manconi, R.; Montefalcone, M.; Pipitone, C.; et al. Biodiversity in canopy-forming algae: Structure and spatial variability of the Mediterranean Cystoseira assemblages. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2018, 207, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Orfanidis, S.; Panayotidis, P.; Stamatis, N. An insight to the ecological evaluation index (EEI). Ecol. Indic. 2003, 3, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gianni, F.; Bartolini, F.; Airoldi, L.; Ballesteros, E.; Francour, P.; Guidetti, P.; Meinesz, A.; Thibaut, T.; Mangialajo, L. Conservation and restoration of marine forests in the Mediterranean Sea and the potential role of marine protected areas. Adv. Oceanogr. Limnol. 2013, 4, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gorman, D.; Bajjouk, T.; Populus, J.; Vasquez, M.; Ehrhold, A. Modeling kelp forest distribution and biomass along temperate rocky coastlines. Mar. Biol. 2013, 160, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Personnic, S.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Astruch, P.; Ballesteros, E.; Blouet, S.; Bellan-Santini, D.; Bonhomme, P.; Thibaut-Botha, D.; Feunteun, E.; Harmelin-Vivien, M.; et al. An ecosystem-based approach to assess the status of a Mediterranean ecosystem, the Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadow. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Orfanidis, S.; Panayotidis, P.; Stamatis, N. Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: A marine benthic macrophytes-based model. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2001, 2, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sfriso, A.; Facca, C.; Ghetti, P.F. Rapid Quality Index (R-MaQI), based mainly on macrophyte associations, to assess the ecological status of Mediterranean transitional environments. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 23, 493–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sfriso, A.; Facca, C.; Ghetti, P.F. Validation of the Macrophyte Quality Index (MaQI) set up to assess the ecological status of Italian marine transitional environments. Hydrobiologia 2009, 617, 117–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sfriso, A.; Facca, C.; Bonometto, A.; Boscolo, R. Compliance of the macrophyte quality index (MaQI) with the WFD (2000/60/EC) and ecological status assessment in transitional areas: The Venice lagoon as study case. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 536–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mediterranean Geographical Intercalibration Group (MedGIG). WFD Intercalibration Technical Report for Coastal and Transitional Waters in the Mediterranean Ecoregion. In WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 5 Report: Coastal Waters—Marine Angiosperms; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC): Ispra, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission (EC). Commission Decision of 20 September 2013 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, L266, 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Boudouresque, C.F.; Bernard, G.; Pergent, G.; Shili, A.; Verlaque, M. Regression of Mediterranean seagrasses caused by natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances and stress: A critical review. Bot. Mar. 2009, 52, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lopez y Royo, C.; Casazza, G.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Pergent, G. A biotic index using the seagrass Posidonia oceanica (BiPo) to evaluate the ecological status of coastal waters. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- European Commission (EC). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2000, L327, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
- Gerakaris, V.; Panayotidis, P.; Vizzini, S.; Nicolaidou, A.; Economou-Amilli, A. Effectiveness of Posidonia oceanica biotic indices for assessing the ecological status of coastal waters in Saronikos Gulf (Aegean Sea, eastern Mediterranean). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2017, 18, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ballesteros, E.; Torras, X.; Pinedo, S.; García, M.; Mangialajo, L.; De Torres, M. A new methodology based on littoral community cartography dominated by macroalgae for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 55, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Pergent, G.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Casalta, B.; Lopez y Royo, C.; Mimault, B.; Salivas-Decaux, M.; Short, F. Comparison of three seagrass monitoring systems: SeagrassNet, the “Posidonia” Programme and RSP. In Proceedings of the Third Mediterranean Symposium on Marine Vegetation, Marseille, France, 27–29 March 2007; Pergent-Martini, C., El Asmi, S., Le Ravallec, C., Eds.; RAC/SPA Publ.: Tunis, Tunisia, 2007; pp. 141–150. [Google Scholar]
- Romero, J.; Martínez-Crego, B.; Alcoverro, T.; Pérez, M. A multivariate index based on the seagrass Posidonia oceanica (POMI) to assess the ecological status of coastal waters under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2007, 55, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Fernández-Torquemada, Y.; Díaz-Valdés, M.; Colilla, F.; Luna, B.; Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L.; Ramos-Esplá, A.A. Descriptors from Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile meadows in coastal waters of Valencia, Spain, in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2008, 65, 1492–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gobert, S.; Sartoretto, S.; Rico-Raimondino, V.; Andral, B.; Chery, A. Assessment of the ecological status of Mediterranean French coastal waters as required by the Water Framework Directive using the Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index (PREI). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1727–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Orfanidis, S.; Panayotidis, P.; Ugland, K.I. Ecological Evaluation Index (EEI) application: A step forward in functional groups, formula and reference conditions value. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2011, 12, 199–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Orfanidis, S.; Papathanasiou, V.; Mittas, N.; Theodosiou, T.; Ramfos, A.; Tsioli, S.; Kosmidou, M.; Kafas, A.; Mystikou, A.; Papadimitriou, A. Further improvement, validation, and application of CymoSkew biotic index for the ecological status assessment of the Greek coastal and transitional waters. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 118, 106727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Boudouresque, C.F.; Blanfuné, A.; Ruitton, S.; Thibaut, T. Macroalgae as a tool for coastal management in the Mediterranean Sea. In Handbook of Algal Science, Technology and Medicine; Levine, I.A., Fleurence, J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 277–290. [Google Scholar]
- Taşkın, E.; Tsiamis, K.; Orfanidis, S. Ecological quality of the Sea of Marmara (Türkiye) assessed by the Marine Floristic Ecological Index (MARFEI). J. Black Sea Mediterr. Environ. 2018, 24, 97–114. [Google Scholar]
- Taşkın, E.; Tan, İ.; Minareci, E.; Minareci, O.; Çakır, M.; Beken, Ç.P. Ecological quality status of the Turkish coastal waters by using marine macrophytes (macroalgae and angiosperms). Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Taşkın, E.; Tan, İ.; Çakır, M.; Sungur, Ö.; Minareci, O.; Minareci, E.; Atabay, H. Ecological quality status of the Turkish coastal waters by using a marine macrophytic biotic index (EEI-c). Turk. J. Bot. 2023, 47, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Taşkın, E.; Yazılan, Ö.; Bilgiç, F.; Minareci, E.; Akçalı, B.; Minareci, O.; Tan, İ. Comparative evaluation of destructive (EEI-c) and non-destructive (BEARI) macroalgal indices for ecological status assessment of Aegean coastal waters. Diversity 2026, 18, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Güreşen, A.; Güreşen, S.O.; Aktan, Y. Combined synthetic and biotic indices of Posidonia oceanica to qualify the status of coastal ecosystems in the North Aegean. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Taşkın, E.; Çakır, M. Marine macroalgal flora on the Aegean and the Levantine coasts of Turkey. Bot. Mar. 2022, 65, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Taşkın, E. Species of Ectocarpales (Phaeophyceae = Brown Algae) Between the Dardanelles Strait and Ayvalık. Ph.D. Thesis, Celal Bayar University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Manisa, Türkiye, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, T.R.; Maita, Y.; Lalli, C.M. A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Seawater Analysis; Pergamon Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Strickland, J.D.H.; Parsons, T.R. A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis, 2nd ed.; Bulletin No. 167; Fisheries Research Board of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- APHA; AWWA; WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 24th ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Flo, E.; Garcés, E.; Camp, J. Land Uses Simplified Index (LUSI): Determining land pressures and their link with coastal eutrophication. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mediterranean Geographical Intercalibration Group (MedGIG). WFD Intercalibration Technical Report: Part 3—Coastal and Transitional Waters. Mediterranean Sea GIG: Coastal Waters—Macroalgae; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ballesteros, E. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: A synthesis of present knowledge. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 2006, 44, 123–195. [Google Scholar]
- Larkum, A.W.D.; Orth, R.J.; Duarte, C.M. (Eds.) Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Duarte, C.M.; Losada, I.J.; Hendriks, I.E.; Mazarrasa, I.; Marbà, N. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- UNEP/MAP (United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan). Ecosystem Approach Implementation Roadmap for the Achievement of Good Environmental Status in the Mediterranean Sea; UNEP/MAP–Barcelona Convention: Athens, Greece, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Verlaque, M.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Perret-Boudouresque, M. Mediterranean seaweeds listed as threatened under the Barcelona Convention: A critical analysis. Sci. Rep. Port-Cros Natl. Park 2019, 33, 179–214. Available online: https://www.portcros-parcnational.fr/sites/portcros-parcnational.fr/files/33_179-214_mediterraneanseaweeds_verlaque.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2026).
- Taşkın, E. National Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Vegetation in Special Environmental Protection Areas of Turkey; Specially Protected Areas Regional Activity Centre (SPA/RAC): Ankara, Türkiye, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Blanfuné, A.; Thibaut, T.; Boudouresque, C.F.; Mačić, V.; Marković, L.; Palomba, L.; Verlaque, M.; Boissery, P. The CARLIT method for the assessment of the ecological quality of European Mediterranean waters: Relevance, robustness and possible improvements. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cecchi, E.; Gennaro, P.; Piazzi, L.; Ricevuto, E.; Serena, F. Development of a new biotic index for ecological status assessment of Italian coastal waters based on coralligenous macroalgal assemblages. Eur. J. Phycol. 2014, 49, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- De La Fuente, G.; Chiantore, M.; Gaino, F.; Asnaghi, V. Ecological status improvement over a decade along the Ligurian coast according to a macroalgae-based index (CARLIT). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Savin, A.; Sini, M.; Xynogala, I.; Lioupa, V.; Vougioukalou, K.; Stamatis, K.; Noè, S.; Ragkousis, M.; Gerovasileiou, V.; Dailianis, T.; et al. Assessment of macroalgal communities on shallow rocky reefs in the Aegean Sea indicates an impoverished ecological status. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2023, 24, 307–323. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Sampling area on the coasts of Türkiye [1—Enez; 2—Saros Bay; 3—Gökçeada; 4—Yeniköy; 5—Bozcaada; 6—Küçükkuyu; 7—Altınoluk; 8—Ayvalık; 9—Dikili; 10—Çandarlı; 11—Foça; 12—İzmir (Bostanlı); 13—Urla; 14—Ildır; 15—Çeşme; 16—Seferihisar; 17—Kuşadası; 18—Didim; 19—Güllük; 20—Bodrum; 21—Akyaka; 22—Gökova Bay; 23—Datça; 24—Bozburun-1; 25—Bozburun-2]. Green points indicate the sampling stations.
Figure 1.
Sampling area on the coasts of Türkiye [1—Enez; 2—Saros Bay; 3—Gökçeada; 4—Yeniköy; 5—Bozcaada; 6—Küçükkuyu; 7—Altınoluk; 8—Ayvalık; 9—Dikili; 10—Çandarlı; 11—Foça; 12—İzmir (Bostanlı); 13—Urla; 14—Ildır; 15—Çeşme; 16—Seferihisar; 17—Kuşadası; 18—Didim; 19—Güllük; 20—Bodrum; 21—Akyaka; 22—Gökova Bay; 23—Datça; 24—Bozburun-1; 25—Bozburun-2]. Green points indicate the sampling stations.
Figure 2.
Clustered heatmap showing the presence–absence patterns of 41 sensitive phytobenthic taxa across 25 sampling stations. Sampling stations and taxa were hierarchically clustered based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity using the average-linkage method. Blue and white cells indicate the presence and absence of individual taxa, respectively.
Figure 2.
Clustered heatmap showing the presence–absence patterns of 41 sensitive phytobenthic taxa across 25 sampling stations. Sampling stations and taxa were hierarchically clustered based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity using the average-linkage method. Blue and white cells indicate the presence and absence of individual taxa, respectively.
Figure 3.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) ordination of sensitive phytobenthic communities based on presence–absence data and physicochemical variables across the sampling stations. The upper panel presents the complete ordination, including the distinct position of the Bostanlı station, whereas the lower panel provides an enlarged view of the central ordination area. Black points and labels indicate sampling stations, green points and labels represent sensitive taxa, and blue arrows indicate physicochemical variables. CCA1 and CCA2 account for 39.9% and 27.3% of the constrained inertia, respectively, together representing 67.2% of the total constrained inertia.
Figure 3.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) ordination of sensitive phytobenthic communities based on presence–absence data and physicochemical variables across the sampling stations. The upper panel presents the complete ordination, including the distinct position of the Bostanlı station, whereas the lower panel provides an enlarged view of the central ordination area. Black points and labels indicate sampling stations, green points and labels represent sensitive taxa, and blue arrows indicate physicochemical variables. CCA1 and CCA2 account for 39.9% and 27.3% of the constrained inertia, respectively, together representing 67.2% of the total constrained inertia.
Figure 4.
Clustered heatmap showing the spatial distribution and percentage coverage patterns of sensitive phytobenthic taxa across the sampling stations. Color intensity represents square-root-transformed percentage coverage, with darker shades of blue indicating higher values. Sampling stations and taxa were hierarchically clustered based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity using the average-linkage method.
Figure 4.
Clustered heatmap showing the spatial distribution and percentage coverage patterns of sensitive phytobenthic taxa across the sampling stations. Color intensity represents square-root-transformed percentage coverage, with darker shades of blue indicating higher values. Sampling stations and taxa were hierarchically clustered based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity using the average-linkage method.
Figure 5.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) ordination of sensitive phytobenthic communities based on average percentage coverage data and physicochemical variables across the sampling stations. The upper panel presents the complete ordination, including the distinct position of the Bostanlı station, whereas the lower panel provides an enlarged view of the central ordination area. Black points and labels indicate sampling stations, with the Bostanlı station highlighted by a red point; green points and italicized labels represent sensitive taxa, and blue arrows indicate physicochemical variables. CCA1 and CCA2 account for 27.4% and 20.8% of the constrained inertia, respectively.
Figure 5.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) ordination of sensitive phytobenthic communities based on average percentage coverage data and physicochemical variables across the sampling stations. The upper panel presents the complete ordination, including the distinct position of the Bostanlı station, whereas the lower panel provides an enlarged view of the central ordination area. Black points and labels indicate sampling stations, with the Bostanlı station highlighted by a red point; green points and italicized labels represent sensitive taxa, and blue arrows indicate physicochemical variables. CCA1 and CCA2 account for 27.4% and 20.8% of the constrained inertia, respectively.
Table 1.
Distribution of sensitive phytobenthic communities along 25 sites [1—Enez, 2—Saros Bay, 3—Gökçeada, 4—Yeniköy, 5—Bozcada, 6—Küçükkuyu, 7—Altınoluk, 8—Ayvalık, 9—Dikili, 10—Çandarlı, 11—Foça, 12—İzmir (Bostanlı), 13—Urla, 14—Ildır, 15—Çeşme, 16—Seferihisar, 17—Kuşadası, 18—Didim, 19—Güllük, 20—Bodrum, 21—Akyaka, 22—Gökova Bay, 23—Datça, 24—Bozburun-1, 25—Bozburun-2] (0: absent, 1: present; * alien and invasive species; ** endangered or threatened species).
Table 1.
Distribution of sensitive phytobenthic communities along 25 sites [1—Enez, 2—Saros Bay, 3—Gökçeada, 4—Yeniköy, 5—Bozcada, 6—Küçükkuyu, 7—Altınoluk, 8—Ayvalık, 9—Dikili, 10—Çandarlı, 11—Foça, 12—İzmir (Bostanlı), 13—Urla, 14—Ildır, 15—Çeşme, 16—Seferihisar, 17—Kuşadası, 18—Didim, 19—Güllük, 20—Bodrum, 21—Akyaka, 22—Gökova Bay, 23—Datça, 24—Bozburun-1, 25—Bozburun-2] (0: absent, 1: present; * alien and invasive species; ** endangered or threatened species).
| Taxon | Acronym | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gongolaria barbata f. aurantia Kützing | Caur | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cystoseira compressa (Esper) Gerloff & Nizamuddin | Ccom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cystoseira compressa f. plana (Ercegovič) Cormaci, G.Furnari, Giaccone, Scammanca & D.Serio | Cpla | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ericaria corniculata (Turner) Neiva & Serrão ** | Ccor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cystoseira crinitophylla Ercegović ** | Ccri | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cystoseira foeniculacea (Linnaeus) Greville ** | Cfoe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cystoseira foeniculacea f. latiramosa (Ercegovic) A.Gómez Garreta, M.C.Barceló, M.A.Ribera & J.R.Lluch | Clat | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cystoseira foeniculacea f. tenuiramosa (Ercegović) A.Gómez Garreta, M.C.Barceló, M.A.Ribera & J.Rull Lluch | Cten | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cystoseira humilis Schousboe ex Kützing ** | Chum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cystoseira humilis var. myriophylloides (Sauvageau) J.H.Price & D.M.John | Cmyr | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gongolaria montagnei var. compressa (Ercegović) Verlaque, Blanfuné, Boudouresque & Thibaut | Cmon | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cystoseira schiffneri Hamel ** | Csch | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ericaria amentacea (C.Agardh) Molinari & Guiry ** | Eame | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ericaria barbatula (Kützing) Molinari & Guiry ** | Ebar | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ericaria brachycarpa (J.Agardh) Molinari & Guiry ** | Ebra | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ericaria crinita (Duby) Molinari & Guiry ** | Ecri | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ericaria crinita f. bosphorica (Sauvageau) D.Serio & G.Furnari | Ebos | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ericaria funkii (Gerloff & Nizamuddin) Molinari & Guiry ** | Efun | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ericaria mediterranea (Sauvageau) Molinari & Guiry ** | Emed | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Gongolaria barbata (Stackhouse) Kuntze ** | Gbar | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Gongolaria elegans (Sauvageau) Molinari & Guiry ** | Gele | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Gongolaria montagnei (J.Agardh) Kuntze ** | Gmon | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Gongolaria montagnei var. tenuior (Ercegović) Molinari & Guiry | Gten | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Gongolaria squarrosa (De Notaris) Kuntze ** | Gsqu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Padina ditristromatica Ni-Ni-Win & H. Kawai | Pdit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Padina pavonica (Linnaeus) Thivy | Ppav | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Padina pavonicoides Ni-Ni-Win & H. Kawai | Ppavo | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sargassum acinarium (Linnaeus) Setchell ** | Saci | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sargassum hornschuchii C.Agardh ** | Shor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sargassum vulgare C.Agardh | Svul | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Amphiroa beauvoisii J.V.Lamouroux | Abea | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Amphiroa cryptarthrodia Zanardini | Acry | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Amphiroa rigida J.V.Lamouroux | Arig | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Choreonema thuretii (Bornet) F.Schmitz | Cthu | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Contarinia squamariae (Meneghini) Denizot | Csqu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Corallina officinalis Linnaeus | Coff | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ellisolandia elongata (J.Ellis & Solander) K.R.Hind & G.W.Saunders | Eelo | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Halopithys incurva (Hudson) Batters | Hinc | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hydrolithon boreale (Foslie) Y.M.Chamberlain | Hbor | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hydrolithon cruciatum (Bressan) Y.M.Chamberlain | Hcru | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Hydrolithon farinosum (J.V.Lamour.) Penrose & Y.M. Chamberlain | Hfar | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hydrolithon farinosum var. chalicodictyum (W.R.Taylor) Serio | Hcha | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jania longifurca Zanardini | Jlon | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jania pedunculata var. adhaerens (J.V.Lamouroux) A.S.Harvey, Woelkerling & Reviers | Jadh | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jania rosea (Lamouroux) Decaisne | Jros | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jania rubens (Linnaeus) J.V.Lamouroux | Jrub | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jania rubens var. corniculata (Linnaeus) Yendo | Jcor | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jania squamata (Linnaeus) J.H.Kim, Guiry & H.-G.Choi | Jsqu | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jania virgata (Zanardini) Montagne | Jvir | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jania virgata var. attenuata (Kützing) Taşkin | Jatt | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum byssoides (Lamarck) Foslie ** | Lbys | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum corallinae (P.Crouan & H.Crouan) Heydrich | Lcor | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum cystoseirae (Hauck) Heydrich | Lcys | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum dentatum (Kützing) Foslie | Lden | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum incrustans Phillippi | Linc | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum lithophylloides Heydrich | Llit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum papillosum (Zanardini ex Hauck) Foslie | Lpap | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lithophyllum racemus (J.V.Lamouroux) Foslie | Lrac | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithophyllum stictiforme (Areschoug) Hauck | Lsti | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Roseolithon crispatum (Hauck) P.W.Gabrielson, Maneveldt, Hughey & V.peña | Lcri | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lithothamnion valens Foslie | Lval | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Melobesia membranacea (Esper) J.V Lamouroux | Mmem | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mesophyllum alternans (Foslie) Cabioch & M.LMendoza | Malt | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mesophyllum expansum (Philippi) Cabioch & M.LMendoza | Mexp | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mesophyllum lichenoides (J.Ellis) Me.Lemoine | Mlic | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Neogoniolithon brassica-florida (Harvey) Setchell & L.R.Mason | Nbra | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Neogoniolithon hauckii (Rothpletz) R.A.Townsend & Huisman | Nhau | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Neogoniolithon setchellii (Foslie) W.H.Adey | Nset | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Peyssonnelia dubyi P.Crouan & H.Crouan | Pdub | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Agissea harveyana (P.Crouan & H.Crouan ex J.Agardh) Pestana, Lyra, Cassano & J.M.C. Nunes | Phar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peyssonnelia heteromorpha (Zanardini) Athanasiadis | Phet | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Peyssonnelia rubra (Greville) J.Agardh | Prub | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Peyssonnelia squamaria (S.G.Gmelin) Decaisne ex J.Agardh | Psqu | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Phyllophora crispa (Hudson) P.S.Dixon | Pcri | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Phymatolithon calcareum (Pallas) W.H.Adey & D.L.McKibbin ex Woelkerling & L.M.Irvine | Pcal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Phymatolithon lenormandii (Areschoug) W.H.Adey | Plen | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Pneophyllum confervicola (Kützing) Y.M.Chamberlain | Pcon | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Pneophyllum fragile Kützing | Pfra | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Spongites fruticulosa Kützing | Sfru | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Tenarea tortuosa (Esper) Me.Lemoine ** | Ttor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Titanoderma pustulatum (J.V.Lamouroux) Nägeli | Tpus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Titanoderma trochanter (Bory) Benhissoune, Boudouresque, Perret-Boudouresque & Verlaque ** | Ttro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Acetabularia acetabulum (Linnaeus) P.C.Silva | Aace | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Anadyomene stellata (Wulfen) C.Agardh | Aste | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Flabellia petiolata (Turra) Nizamuddin | Fpet | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Halimeda tuna (J.Ellis & Solander) J.V.Lamouroux | Htun | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson | Cnod | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Halophila stipulacea (Forsskål) Ascherson * | Hsti | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Posidonia oceanica (Linnaeus) Delile | Poce | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Nanozostera noltei (Hornemann) Tomlinson & Posluszny | Znol | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ruppia maritima Linnaeus | Rmar | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 2.
Physicochemical parameters and nutrient concentrations.
| Parameter | Period | Maximum Value | Site | Minimum Value | Site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Spring | 8.45 | Datça | 7.94 | Yeniköy |
| Summer | 8.37 | Çeşme | 8.03 | Bostanlı | |
| Autumn | 8.38 | Ildır | 7.71 | Bostanlı | |
| Temperature (°C) | Spring | 22.9 | Bozburun-2 | 13.3 | Bozcaada |
| Summer | 28.7 | Akyaka | 20.2 | Foça | |
| Autumn | 21.3 | Bozburun-2 | 10.9 | Enez | |
| Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) | Spring | 13.2 | Didim | 6.5 | Bostanlı |
| Summer | 9.1 | Bostanlı | 5.9 | Akyaka | |
| Autumn | 10.70 | Gökçeada | 0.10 | Bostanlı | |
| Total dissolved solids (mg/L) | Spring | 36,707 | Foça | 29,820 | Gökçeada |
| Summer | 43,239 | Bozburun-1 | 34,506 | Akyaka | |
| Autumn | 40,115 | Gökçeada | 31,240 | Kuşadası | |
| Conductivity (mS/cm) | Spring | 51.70 | Foça | 42.00 | Gökçeada |
| Summer | 60.9 | Bozburun-1 | 48.6 | Akyaka | |
| Autumn | 56.5 | Gökçeada | 44.0 | Kuşadası | |
| Salinity (psu) | Spring | 35.2 | Foça | 27.9 | Gökçeada |
| Summer | 42.3 | Bozburun-1 | 32.8 | Akyaka | |
| Autumn | 38.6 | Gökçeada | 28.0 | Kuşadası | |
| Phosphate (µg/L) | Spring | 28.46 | Bostanlı | 11.61 | Bodrum |
| Summer | 26.41 | Bostanlı | 10.84 | Yeniköy | |
| Autumn | 30.78 | Datça | 0.33 | Saros B. | |
| Ammonium (µg/L) | Spring | 6.82 | Didim | 1.16 | Çeşme |
| Summer | 151.97 | Bostanlı | 10.94 | Gökova B. | |
| Autumn | 91.93 | Bostanlı | 48.27 | Kuşadası |
Table 3.
Distribution of average percentage coverage of sensitive species (seagrasses, Cystoseira s.l., and coralline red algae) among stations. Sampling stations: 1—Enez; 2—Saros Bay; 3—Gökçeada; 4—Yeniköy; 5—Bozcaada; 6—Küçükkuyu; 7—Altınoluk; 8—Ayvalık; 9—Dikili; 10—Çandarlı; 11—Foça; 12—İzmir; 13—Urla; 14—Ildır; 15—Çeşme; 16—Seferihisar; 17—Kuşadası; 18—Didim; 19—Güllük; 20—Bodrum; 21—Akyaka; 22—Gökova Bay; 23—Datça; 24—Bozburun-1; 25—Bozburun-2.
Table 3.
Distribution of average percentage coverage of sensitive species (seagrasses, Cystoseira s.l., and coralline red algae) among stations. Sampling stations: 1—Enez; 2—Saros Bay; 3—Gökçeada; 4—Yeniköy; 5—Bozcaada; 6—Küçükkuyu; 7—Altınoluk; 8—Ayvalık; 9—Dikili; 10—Çandarlı; 11—Foça; 12—İzmir; 13—Urla; 14—Ildır; 15—Çeşme; 16—Seferihisar; 17—Kuşadası; 18—Didim; 19—Güllük; 20—Bodrum; 21—Akyaka; 22—Gökova Bay; 23—Datça; 24—Bozburun-1; 25—Bozburun-2.
| Taxon | Acronym | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cystoseira compressa (Esper) Gerloff & Nizamuddin | Ccom | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cystoseira compressa f. plana (Ercegovič) Cormaci, G.Furnari, Giaccone, Scammanca & D.Serio | Cpla | 0 | 0 | 8.33 | 1.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ericaria corniculata (Turner) Neiva & Serrão | Ccor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.6 | 0 | 16.6 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 | 0 | 0 | 29.3 | 31.6 | 33.3 |
| Ericaria crinita (Duby) Molinari & Guiry | Ccri | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.67 | 0 | 0 |
| Cystoseira foeniculacea (Linnaeus) Greville | Cfoe | 0 | 16.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 | 3.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cystoseira foeniculacea f. tenuiramosa (Ercegović) A.Gómez Garreta, M.C.Barceló, M.A.Ribera & J.Rull Lluch | Cten | 0 | 6.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gongolaria barbata (Stackhouse) Kuntze | Gbar | 6.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.67 | 16.6 | 0 | 23.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gongolaria montagnei (J.Agardh) Kuntze | Gmon | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 3.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Padina pavonica (Linnaeus) Thivy | Ppav | 3.33 | 5.00 | 10 | 7.33 | 5.00 | 8.33 | 5.67 | 3.67 | 3.33 | 0.67 | 18.3 | 0 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 13.6 | 0.67 | 8.67 | 34.0 | 6.67 | 8.33 | 0.67 | 18.3 | 16.6 | 6.67 | 8.33 |
| Sargassum vulgare C.Agardh | Svul | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amphiroa rigida J.V. Lamouroux | Arig | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 1.67 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 4.33 | 1.00 | 1.67 | 2.00 | 0.67 | 1.67 |
| Corallina officinalis Linnaeus | Coff | 0.33 | 0 | 20 | 13.3 | 0.67 | 1.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.67 | 1.00 | 0 | 1.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Ellisolandia elongata (J.Ellis & Solander) K.R.Hind & G.W.Saunders | Eelo | 0.33 | 0 | 21.6 | 10 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.67 | 5.00 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Hydrolithon farinosum (J.V.Lamour.) Penrose & Y.M. Chamberlain | Hfar | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.1 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.28 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.23 |
| Jania rubens (Linnaeus) J.V. Lamouroux | Jrub | 0.67 | 6.00 | 0.67 | 15.0 | 2.67 | 25.0 | 11.6 | 10.3 | 10 | 0.33 | 1.33 | 0 | 8.00 | 10.6 | 15.3 | 4.00 | 23.3 | 14.0 | 9.00 | 1.33 | 1.33 | 0 | 8.33 | 1.33 | 0.67 |
| Jania virgata var. attenuata (Kützing) Taşkin | Jatt | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jania longifurca Zanardini | Jlon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.67 | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jania pedunculata var. adhaerens (J.V.Lamouroux) A.S.Harvey, Woelkerling & Reviers | Jadh | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jania virgata (Zanard.) Mont. | Jvir | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Melobesia membranacea (Esper) J.V. Lamouroux | Mmem | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mesophyllum alternans (Foslie) Cabioch & M.L.Mendoza | Malt | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 |
| Mesophyllum lichenoides (J.Ellis) Me.Lemoine | Mlic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 | 0 |
| Neogoniolithon setchellii (Foslie) W.H.Adey | Nset | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.33 | 3.33 |
| Titanoderma pustulatum (J.V.Lamouroux) Nägeli | Tpus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peyssonnelia dubyi P.L.Crouan & H.Crouan | Pdub | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.33 |
| Peyssonnelia squamaria (S.G.Gmelin) Decaisne ex J.Agardh | Psqu | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0.17 |
| Phymatolithon lenormandii (Areschoug) W.H.Adey | Plen | 0.50 | 0.33 | 5.00 | 0.50 | 1.67 | 5.00 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 3.67 | 1.33 | 2.00 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 4.33 | 1.00 | 3.33 | 3.00 | 0 | 0.67 | 16.6 | 26.6 | 13.3 | 2.67 | 2.33 | 5.67 |
| Pneophyllum fragile Kützing | Pfra | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.07 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pneophyllum confervicola (Kützing) Y.M. Chamberlain | Pcon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Titanoderma trochanter (Bory) Benhissoune, Boudouresque, Perret-Boudouresque & Verlaque | Ttro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Tenarea tortuosa (Esper) Me.Lemoine | Ttor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.67 | 0 | 0 |
| Halopithys incurva (Hudson) Batters | Hinc | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lithophyllum cystoseirae (Hauck) Heydrich | Lcys | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0 | 0.03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acetabularia acetabulum (Linnaeus) P.C.Silva | Aace | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 8.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1.67 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anadyomene stellata (Wulfen) C.Agardh | Aste | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Flabellia petiolata (Turra) Nizamuddin | Fpet | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Halimeda tuna (J.Ellis & Solander) J.V. Lamouroux | Htun | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Ascherson | Cnod | 33.3 | 13.3 | 6.67 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 13.3 | 5.00 | 6.67 | 16.6 | 13.3 | 0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 6.67 | 33.3 | 6.67 | 16.6 | 26.6 | 3.33 | 16.6 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 3.33 |
| Halophila stipulacea (Forsskål) Ascherson | Hsti | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Posidonia oceanica (Linnaeus) Delile | Poce | 0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 40 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 50 | 40 | 33.3 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 50 | 20 | 33.3 | 23.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 33.3 | 0 | 33.3 |
| Nanozostera noltei (Hornemann) Tomlinson & Posluszny | Znol | 0 | 2.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 4.
Macroalgae-Land Uses Simplified Index (MA-LUSI) values at the sampling stations.
| No | Site | MA-LUSI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Enez | 4.00 |
| 2 | Saros B. | 2.81 |
| 3 | Gökçeada | 0.94 |
| 4 | Yeniköy | 1.13 |
| 5 | Bozcaada | 1.88 |
| 6 | Küçükkuyu | 3.00 |
| 7 | Altınoluk | 3.00 |
| 8 | Ayvalık | 4.50 |
| 9 | Dikili | 4.50 |
| 10 | Çandarlı | 5.63 |
| 11 | Foça | 5.00 |
| 12 | İzmir-Bostanlı | 11.25 |
| 13 | Urla | 6.25 |
| 14 | Ildır | 4.68 |
| 15 | Çeşme | 5.00 |
| 16 | Seferihisar | 3.75 |
| 17 | Kuşadası | 1.88 |
| 18 | Didim | 4.50 |
| 19 | Güllük | 5.00 |
| 20 | Bodrum | 4.50 |
| 21 | Akyaka | 4.70 |
| 22 | Gökova B. | 1.88 |
| 23 | Datça | 3.00 |
| 24 | Bozburun-1 | 3.75 |
| 25 | Bozburun-2 | 0.94 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Minareci, O.; Taşkın, E.; Bilgiç, F.; Minareci, E.; Yazılan, Ö.; Güreşen, A. Assessing the Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Sensitive Benthic Macroflora Along the Aegean Coast of Türkiye: An Integrated Ecological Approach. Diversity 2026, 18, 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18090558
AMA Style
Minareci O, Taşkın E, Bilgiç F, Minareci E, Yazılan Ö, Güreşen A. Assessing the Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Sensitive Benthic Macroflora Along the Aegean Coast of Türkiye: An Integrated Ecological Approach. Diversity. 2026; 18(9):558. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18090558
Chicago/Turabian StyleMinareci, Orkide, Ergün Taşkın, Furkan Bilgiç, Ersin Minareci, Öznur Yazılan, and Aysu Güreşen. 2026. "Assessing the Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Sensitive Benthic Macroflora Along the Aegean Coast of Türkiye: An Integrated Ecological Approach" Diversity 18, no. 9: 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18090558
APA StyleMinareci, O., Taşkın, E., Bilgiç, F., Minareci, E., Yazılan, Ö., & Güreşen, A. (2026). Assessing the Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Sensitive Benthic Macroflora Along the Aegean Coast of Türkiye: An Integrated Ecological Approach. Diversity, 18(9), 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18090558
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
