4.2 Article

Trophic relationships and pelagic-benthic coupling during summer in the Barents Sea Marginal Ice Zone, revealed by stable carbon and nitrogen isotope measurements

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 310, 期 -, 页码 33-46

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps310033

关键词

stable isotopes; delta C-13; delta N-15; food web; Arctic; Barents Sea; Marginal Ice Zone; pelagic-benthic coupling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food web structure and pathways from primary production were studied in pelagic, sympagic (ice-associated) and benthic communities during summer in a seasonally ice covered region of the northern Barents Sea. Stable isotopes of carbon (delta C-13) and nitrogen (delta N-15) were used as tracers of organic material through marine food webs and trophic levels of organisms, respectively. Measurements of delta N-15 show that sympagic amphipods occupy the lowest trophic levels (ca. 2), for primary consumers, followed by zooplankton (2.0 to 2.6), benthic suspension and deposit feeders (2.2 to 3.7), benthic carnivores (3.6 to 4.4) and fishes (3.3 to 4.4). The VC values indicate that zooplankton mainly graze on suspended particulate organic material (POM). Sympagic amphipods derive most of their energy from ice POM, but some species had delta C-13 values indicating that phytoplankton also contributes to their energy intake. delta C-13 values of some components of the benthic community suggest that POM settling out of the water column is efficiently exploited by the benthic fauna. Elevated delta C-13 values of the benthic fauna relative to zooplankton at some stations indicate that the degree of pelagic-benthic coupling at stations separated by only 90 km is determined by a combination of factors, including water-mass properties and the primary-production regime. These results may qualify findings of previous studies that have sampled from discrete locations or have pooled specimens collected from a broad area to make conclusions about food webs on a regional scale.

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

4.2
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