4.3 Article

Seasonal changes in the mesozooplankton biomass and community structure in subarctic and subtropical time-series stations in the western North Pacific

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 72, 期 3, 页码 387-402

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10872-015-0347-8

关键词

Mesozooplankton community; Seasonal change; Subarctic; Subtropical; Western North Pacific

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seasonal changes in mesozooplankton biomass and their community structures were observed at time-series stations K2 (subarctic) and S1 (subtropical) in the western North Pacific Ocean. At K2, the maximum biomass was observed during the spring when primary productivity was still low. The annual mean biomasses in the euphotic and 200- to 1000-m layers were 1.39 (day) and 2.49 (night) g C m(-2) and 4.00 (day) and 3.63 (night) g C m(-2), respectively. Mesozooplankton vertical distribution was bimodal and mesopelagic peak was observed in a 200- to 300-m layer; it mainly comprised dormant copepods. Copepods predominated in most sampling layers, but euphausiids were dominant at the surface during the night. At S1, the maximum biomass was observed during the spring and the peak timing of biomass followed those of chlorophyll a and primary productivity. The annual mean biomasses in the euphotic and 200- to 1000-m layers were 0.10 (day) and 0.21 (night) g C m(-2) and 0.47 (day) and 0.26 (night) g C m(-2), respectively. Copepods were dominant in most sampling layers, but their mean proportion was lower than that in K2. Mesozooplankton community characteristics at both sites were compared with those at other time-series stations in the North Pacific and with each other. The annual mean primary productivities and sinking POC fluxes were equivalent at both sites; however, mesozooplankton biomasses were higher at K2 than at S1. The difference of biomasses was probably caused by differences of individual carbon losses, population turnover rates, and trophic structures of communities between the two sites.

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