jats:titleAbstract</jats:title>jats:pLittle is known of the macrobenthos supported within stingray feeding pits. Compared to adjacent unpitted areas during low tide, macrobenthic abundance and biodiversity within the stingray pits might be expected to be (i) jats:italicgreater</jats:italic>, the water-retaining pits functioning like rock pools; (ii) jats:italicno different</jats:italic>, since macrofaunal recolonisation can occur very rapidly; or (iii) jats:italicless</jats:italic>, consequent on the substratum changes that typify depressions in soft sediments. In both (i) and (iii) differences in composition of the supported assemblages would be expected, though not in (ii). To differentiate between these alternative hypotheses, faunal characteristics within intertidal stingray pits were compared to those in the adjacent background sandflat in Moreton Bay, Queensland, where the prey of the rays are the decapod crustaceans jats:italicTrypaea</jats:italic> and jats:italicMictyris</jats:italic> that otherwise structure the benthic system. Results generally (though not totally) support hypothesis (ii), it being consistently found that feeding pits supported less macrobenthic abundance than the surrounding sandflat but subequal taxon density, evenness and patchiness of their faunas, and their taxonomic compositions were very similar. Such feeding pits undoubtedly structure many intertidal sandflats and increase both their topographical complexity and their habitat diversity, but this is not reflected in increased macrobenthic biodiversity.</jats:p>