4.6 Article

Copepod reproductive success in spring-bloom communities with modified diatom and dinoflagellate dominance

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 351-357

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr138

Keywords

copepod reproduction; diatoms; dinoflagellates; RNA:DNA ratio; spring bloom

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [111336, 125251, 255566]
  2. Walter and Andree de Nottbeck Foundation
  3. Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation
  4. Research and Development Institute ARONIA
  5. Nordic Marine Academy
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [111336, 111336] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dinoflagellates have increased and diatoms decreased in the Baltic Sea in recent decades, possibly because of changes in the climate and altered patterns of stratification. The hypothesis that grazing copepods would benefit from the change in species composition was tested experimentally by studying the reproductive output of the crustacean copepod Eurytemora affinis in five Baltic Sea phytoplankton spring communities dominated by different dinoflagellates (Biecheleria baltica, Gymnodinium corollarium) and diatoms (Chaetoceros cf. wighamii, Skeletonema marinoi, and Thalassiosira baltica). After a 5-d acclimation and a 4-d incubation, egg production, egg hatching success, and the RNA: DNA ratio of E. affinis were measured. Egg production was highest on a G. corollarium-dominated diet and lowest on a S. marinoi-dominated diet and on a B. baltica-dominated natural spring bloom, but there were no differences in hatching success. The results demonstrate strong species-specific effects unconstrained by the dominating group. Hence, the hypothesis of specific effects derived from a diatom or dinoflagellate diet is too simplistic, and there is a need to explore phytoplankton taxa at a species level to reveal the reasons for copepod reproductive success.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available