4.4 Article

Biology and life cycles of pelagic tunicates in the Lazarev Sea, Southern Ocean

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.11.014

关键词

LAKRIS; Lazarev Sea; German SO-GLOBEC; Pelagic tunicates; Salpa thompsoni; Ihlea racovitzai; Biology; Life cycle

资金

  1. German LAKRIS (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, BMBF Forschungsvorhaben) [03F0406A/B]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four grid surveys were carried out in the top 200 m layer of the Lazarev Sea during fall 2004, summer 2005-06, winter 2006 and summer 2007-08 onboard the R.V. Polarstern as a part of the German SO-GLOBEC. The distribution, abundance and biology of two species of salps, Salpa thompsoni and Ihlea racovitzai, were investigated. With the exception of fall 2004, I. racovitzai dominated the salp community although being represented by low densities (<20 ind. 1000 m(-3)). S. thompsoni was scarce during the summers of 2005-06 and 2007-08 and almost absent from the region during winter 2006. Nevertheless, it was modestly numerous during fall 2004 reaching densities of up to 33 ind. 1000 m(-3) in the southwestern stations of the grid. The data on the seasonal population structure and life cycle off. racovitzai showed that this species followed the generalized pattern typical of S. thompsoni, i.e. sexual/asexual reproduction and spawning during fall. I. racovitzai densities were the lowest during summer, increased during fall and peaked in during winter. Numerous offspring were produced by I. racovitzai during fall, just before the area became ice-covered. Conversely, S. thompsoni was not able to complete its life cycle in the Lazarev Sea, with a high occurrence of stage X (unfertilized) aggregates present. Highest S. thompsoni densities in summer and fall, and its disappearance in winter are indicative of a population of the expatriate origin that is sustained by advection. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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