4.2 Article

Copepod feeding selectivity on microplankton, including the toxigenic diatoms Pseudo-nitzschia spp., in the coastal Pacific Northwest

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 326, 期 -, 页码 207-220

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps326207

关键词

copepod grazing; prey selectivity; Pseudo-nitzschia; microzooplankton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of the Pacific Northwest ECOHAB project, we measured clearance rates and feeding selectivity of calanoid copepods off the coast of Washington State, USA, during fall of 2003. We tested the hypothesis that copepods discriminate amongst prey, particularly against the toxic diatoms Pseudonitzschia spp. in natural assemblages from this highly productive, upwelling environment. Seven grazing experiments were conducted across and along the shelf using the copepods Calanus pacificus, Metridia pacifica, Acartia longiremis and a small community assemblage dominated by Acartia spp., with minor contributions from Pseudocalanus spp., Paracalanus spp. and Oithona spp. Three general patterns emerged from our experiments. First, all copepods, except A. longiremis in 1 experiment, showed neutral preference or discriminated against Pseudo-nitzschia, but preference did not appear related to cellular domoic acid concentrations. Second, the dominant prey biomass contributors in each experiment were cleared at low rates relative to other prey types. In most cases the dominants were the diatom Thalassiosira spp. or the autotrophic dinoflagellates Ceratium spp. and Prorocentrum spp. The third pattern was high preference for microzooplankton. High clearance on microzooplankton can result in trophic cascades, which were evident in our size-fractionated chlorophyll data. These patterns indicate that copepods could have both direct and indirect effects on the plankton community composition on the Washington coast. However, our estimates of total potential grazing suggest that copepod grazing impact on Pseudo-nitzschia populations is negligible.

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