Marine Biology

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 283–288 | Cite as

Estimating the grazing impact of marine micro-zooplankton

  • M. R. Landry
  • R. P. Hassett
Article

Abstract

This paper describes a dilution technique for estimating the micro-zooplankton grazing impact on natural communities of marine phytoplankton. Experiments performed in coastal waters off Washington, USA (October, 1980), yield estimates of micro-zooplankton impact equivalent to 6 to 24% of phytoplankton standing biomass and 17 to 52% of production per day. Indirect evidence suggests that most of this impact is due to the feeding of copepod nauplii and tintinnids; in contrast, non-loricate ciliates, comprising 80 to 90% of numerical abundance, appeared to contribute little to phytoplankton mortality.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Beers, J. R., F. M. H. Reid and G. L. Stewart: Microplankton of the North Pacific Central Gyre. Population structure and abundance, June 1973. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 60, 607–638 (1975)Google Scholar
  2. Beers, J. R. and G. L. Stewart: Micro-zooplankton in the euphotic zone at five locations across the California Current. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 24, 2053–2068 (1967)Google Scholar
  3. Beers, J. R. and G. L. Stewart: Numerical abundance and estimated biomass of micro-zooplankton. In: The ecology of the plankton off La Jolla, California, in the period April through September, 1967, Part VI. Bull. Scripps Instn Oceanogr. (New Ser.) 17, 67–87 (1970)Google Scholar
  4. Beers, J. R. and G. L. Stewart: Micro-zooplankters in the plankton communities of the upper waters of the eastern tropical Pacific. Deep-Sea Res. 18, 861–883 (1971)Google Scholar
  5. Berk, S. G., D. C. Brownlee, D. R. Heinle, H. J. Kling and R. R. Colwell: Ciliates as a food source for marine planktonic copepods. Microb. Ecol. 4, 27–40 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. Capriulo, G. M. and E. J. Carpenter: Grazing by 35 to 202 μm micro-zooplankton in Long Island Sound. Mar. Biol. 56, 319–326 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. Dussart, B. M.: Les différentes catégories de plancton. Hydrobiologia 26, 72–74 (1965)Google Scholar
  8. Fenchel, T.: Intrinsic rate of natural increase: the relationship with body size. Oecologia (Berl.) 14, 317–326 (1974)Google Scholar
  9. Frost, B. W.: A threshold feeding behavior in Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 263–266 (1975)Google Scholar
  10. Heinbokel, J. F.: Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. I. Grazing and growth rates in laboratory cultures. Mar. Biol. 47, 177–189 (1978a)Google Scholar
  11. Heibokel, J. F.: Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. II. Grazing rates of field populations. Mar. Biol. 47, 191–197 (1978b)Google Scholar
  12. Heinbokel, J. F. and J. R. Beers: Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. III. Grazing impact of natural assemblages. Mar. Biol. 52, 23–32 (1979)Google Scholar
  13. Johannes, R. E.: Phosphorus regeneration and body size in marine animals: micro-zooplankton and nutrient regeneration. Science, N.Y. 46, 923–924 (1964)Google Scholar
  14. Lam, R. K. and B. W. Frost: Model of copepod filtering response to changes in size and concentration of food. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21, 490–500 (1976)Google Scholar
  15. Lorenzen, C. J.: A method for the continuous measurement of in vivo chlorophyll concentration. Deep-Sea Res. 13, 223–227 (1966)Google Scholar
  16. Parsons, T. R. and R. J. LeBrasseur: The availability of food to different trophic levels in the marine food chain. In: Marine foods chains, pp 325–343. Ed. by J. H. Steele. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd 1970Google Scholar
  17. Rassoulzadegan, F. and M. Etienne: Grazing rate of the tintinnid Stenosemalla ventricosa (Clap & Lachm.) Jörg. on the spectrum of the naturally occurring particulate matter from a Mediterranean neritic area. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 258–270 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. Riley, G. A.: Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952–1954. IX. Production and utilization of organic matter. Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 15, 324–341 (1956)Google Scholar
  19. Smetacek, V.: The annual cycle of protozooplankton in the Kiel Bight. Mar. Biol. 63, 1–11 (1981)Google Scholar
  20. Stoecker, D., R. R. L. Guillard and R. M. Kavee: Selective predation by Favella ehrenbergii (Tintinnia) on and among dinoflagellates. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 160, 136–145 (1981)Google Scholar
  21. Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons: A practical handbook of seawater analysis, 2nd ed. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 167, 1–310 (1972)Google Scholar
  22. Zeuthen, E.: Body size and metabolic rate in the animal kingdom, with special regard to the marine micro-fauna. C. r. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg (Sér. chim.) 26, 17–161 (1947)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Landry
    • 1
  • R. P. Hassett
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Oceanography, WB-10University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations