4.3 Article

A comparison of two zooplankton time series data collected in the Gulf of Maine

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 249-259

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbn119

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC [SAH01001] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [SAH01001] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interannual and seasonal trends of zooplankton abundance and species composition were compared between the Bongo net and Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) time series in the Gulf of Maine. Data from 5799 Bongo and 3118 CPR samples were compared from the years 1978-2006. The two programs use different sampling methods, with the Bongo time series composed of bimonthly vertically integrated samples from locations throughout the region, while the CPR was towed monthly at 10 m depth on a transect that bisects the region. It was found that there was a significant correlation between the interannual (r = 0.67, P < 0.01) and seasonal (r = 0.95, P < 0.01) variability of total zooplankton counts. Abundance rankings of individual taxa were highly correlated and temporal trends of dominant copepods were similar between samplers. Multivariate analysis also showed that both time series equally detected major shifts in community structure through time. However, absolute abundance levels were higher in the Bongo and temporal patterns for many of the less abundant taxa groups were not similar between the two devices. The different mesh sizes of the samplers probably caused some of the discrepancies; but diel migration patterns, damage to soft bodied animals and avoidance of the small CPR aperture by some taxa likely contributed to the catch differences between the two devices. Nonetheless, Bongo data presented here confirm the previously published patterns found in the CPR data set, and both show that the abundance increase of the 1990s has been followed by average to below average levels from 2002 to 06.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据