Catalogus

Sedentary megafaunal and macrofaunal assemblages were quite different in virtually all aspects assessed during this analysis. Although macrofauna in this study had far greater species richness and were far more abundant than sedentary megafauna, conservative estimates for megafaunal biomass and secondary production indicate these organisms contribute substantially more energy to higher trophic levels than macrofauna. In addition, the megafaunal assemblages are characterized by many influential ‘ecosystem engineers’. Consequently, the differences in numbers of species and individuals are irrelevant with regard to determining value to the ecosystem. Megafauna in this area also exhibited more sensitivity in environmental factors. They live substantially longer than macrofauna, likely leading to greater stability in megafaunal assemblages. These differences indicate that current approaches focusing on macrofauna severely undervalue infaunal resources and contributions to higher trophic levels. They imply that studies of megafaunal assemblages should provide considerably greater insight into ecosystem dynamics and secondary production than macrofaunal assemblages and would have greater power to predict or assess environmental degradation or change, and document or predict recovery trajectories.