Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 156, Issue 4, pp 527–540 | Cite as

The effects of temperature and salinity on reproductive success of Temora longicornis in the Baltic Sea: a copepod coping with a tough situation

  • Linda HolsteEmail author
  • Michael A. St. John
  • Myron A. Peck
Original Paper

Abstract

At specific locations within the Baltic Sea, thermoclines and haloclines can create rapid spatial and temporal changes in temperature (T) and salinity (S) exceeding 10°C and 9 psu with seasonal ranges in temperature exceeding 20°C. These wide ranges in abiotic factors affect the distribution and abundance of Baltic Sea copepods via species-specific, physiological-based impacts on vital rates. In this laboratory study, we characterized the influence of T and S on aspects of reproductive success and naupliar survival of a southwestern Baltic population of Temora longicornis (Copepoda: Calanoida). First, using ad libitum feeding conditions, we measured egg production (EP, no. of eggs female−1 day−1) at 12 different temperatures between 2.5 and 24°C, observing the highest mean EP at 16.9°C (12 eggs female−1 day−1). Next, the effect of S on EP and hatching success (HS, %) was quantified at 12°C for cohorts that had been acclimated to either 8, 14, 20 or 26 psu and tested at each of five salinities (8, 14, 20, 26 and 32 psu). The mean EP was highest for (and maximum EP similar among) 14, 20 and 26 psu cohorts when tested at their acclimation salinity whereas EP was lower at other salinities. For adults reared at 8 psu, a commonly encountered salinity in Baltic surface waters, EP was relatively low at all test salinities—a pattern indicative of osmotic stress. When incubated at 12°C and 15 different salinities between 0 and 34 psu, HS increased asymptotically with increasing S and was maximal (82.6–84.3%) between 24 and 26 psu. However, HS did depend upon the adult acclimation salinity. Finally, the 48-h survival of nauplii hatched and reared at 14 psu at one of six different temperatures (10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20°C) was measured after exposure to a novel salinity (either 7 or 20 psu). Upon exposure to 7 psu, 48-h naupliar mortality increased with increasing temperature, ranging from 26.7% at 10°C to 63.2% at 20°C. In contrast, after exposure to 20 psu, mortality was relatively low at all temperatures (1.7% at 10°C and ≤26.7% for all other temperatures). An intra-specific comparison of EP for three different T. longicornis populations revealed markedly different temperature optima and clearly demonstrated the negative impact of brackish (Baltic) salinities. Our results provide estimates of reproductive success and early survival of T. longicornis to the wide ranges of temperatures and salinities that will aid ongoing biophysical modeling examining climate impacts on this species within the Baltic Sea.

Keywords

Calanoid Copepod Copepodite Stage Prosome Length Bornholm Basin Test Salinity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the help of Philipp Kanstinger, Bianca Ewest, Meike Martin and Gudrun Bening with laboratory rearing and data collection and would like to thank Christian Möllmann and Janna Peters for helpful discussions and comments on this work. This research was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) AQUASHIFT program cluster project Resolving Trophodynamic Consequences of Climate Change (RECONN, # JO556/1-2).

References

  1. Alheit J, Möllmann C, Dutz J, Kornilovs G, Loewe P, Morholz V, Wasmund N (2005) Synchronous ecological regime shifts in the central Baltic and North Sea in the late 1980s. ICES J Mar Sci 62:1205–1215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaugrand G, Reid PC (2003) Long-term changes in phytoplankton, zooplankton and salmon related to climate. Glob Chang Biol 9:801–817. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00632.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaugrand G, Ibanez F (2004) Monitoring marine plankton ecosystems. 2: long-term changes in North Sea calanoid copepods in relation to hydro-climatic variability. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 284:35–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps284035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castellani C, Altunbaş Y (2006) Factors controlling the temporal dynamics of egg production in the copepod Temora longicornis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:143–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps308143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkley DM, Dagg MJ, Uye S (1992) Feeding, excretion and egg production by individuals and populations of marine, planktonic copepods, Acartia spp. and Cetropages furcatus. J Plankton Res 14:71–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/14.1.71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chikin SM, Tarasova NA, Saralov AI, Bannikova OM (2003) The distribution of bacterio- and mesozooplankton in the coastal waters of the White and Barents Seas. Microbiology 72:213–220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023276200000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinnery FE, Williams JA (2004) The influence of temperature and salinity on Acartia (Copepoda: Calanoida) nauplii survival. Mar Biol (Berl) 145:733–738Google Scholar
  8. Damgaard RM, Davenport J (1994) Salinity tolerance, salinity preference and temperature tolerance in the high-shore harpacticoid copepod Tigriopus brevicornis. Mar Biol (Berl) 118:443–449. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00350301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dutz J, Koski M, Jonasdottir SH (2008) Copepod reproduction is unaffected by diatom aldehydes or lipid composition. Limnol Oceanogr 53:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fennel W, Neumann T (2003) Variability of copepods as seen in a coupled physical-biological model of the Baltic Sea. ICES Mar Sci Symp 219:208–219Google Scholar
  11. Flinkman J, Aro E, Vuorinen I, Viitasalo M (1998) Changes in northern Baltic zooplankton and herring nutrition from 1980s to 1990s: top-down and bottom-up processes at work. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 165:127–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps165127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry FEJ (1971) The effect of environmental factors on the physiology of fish. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish physiology, vol 4. Academic, New York, pp 1–98Google Scholar
  13. Halsband C, Hirche H-J (2001) Reproductive cycles of dominant calanoid copepods in the North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 209:219–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps209219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halsband-Lenk C, Hirche H-J, Carlotti F (2002) Temperature effect on reproduction and development of congener copepod populations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 271:121–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(02)00025-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen FC, Möllmann C, Schütz U, Neumann T (2006) Spatio-temporal distribution and production of calanoid copepods in the central Baltic Sea. J Plankton Res 28:39–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbi097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. HELCOM Thematic Assessment (2007) Baltic Sea environment proceedings 111. https://doi.org/www.helcom.fi
  17. Holste L, Peck MA (2006) The effects of temperature and salinity on egg production and hatching success of Baltic Acartia tonsa (Copepoda: Calanoida): A laboratory investigation. Mar Biol (Berl) 148:341–350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-005-0132-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ikeda T (1970) Relationship between respiration rate and body size in marine plankton animals as a function of the temperature of habitat. Bull Fac Fish Hokkaido Univ 21:91–112Google Scholar
  19. Jeffries HP (1962) Succession of two Acartia species in estuaries. Limnol Oceanogr 7:354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson M, Gorokhova E, Larsson U (2004) Annual variability in ciliate community structure, potential prey and predators in the open northern Baltic Sea proper. J Plankton Res 26:67–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbg115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimmel DG, Bradley BP (2001) Specific protein responses in the calanoid copepod Eurytemora affinis (Poope, 1880) to salinity and temperature variation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 266:135–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(01)00352-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinne O (1971) Salinity: animals-invertebrates. In: Kinne O (ed) Marine ecology, vol 1. Wiley Interscience, London, pp 821–995Google Scholar
  23. Kiørboe T, Sabatini M (1995) Scaling of fecundity, growth and development in marine planktonic copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 120:285–298. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps120285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein Breteler WCM, Gonzales SR (1988) Influence of temperature and food concentration on body size, weight and lipid content of two calanoid copepod species. Hydrobiologia 167–168:201–210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00026306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein Breteler WCM, Schogt N, Gonzales SR (1990) On the role of food quality in grazing and development of life stages, and generic change of body size during cultivation of pelagic copepods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 135:177–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90117-U CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klekowski RZ, Weslavski JM (1990) Atlas of the marine fauna of southern Spitsbergen. Invertebrates part I, vol 2. Ossolineum, Wroclaw, pp 97–103Google Scholar
  27. Koski M, Klein Breteler W, Schogt N, Gonzales S, Jakobsen HH (2006) Life-stage-specific differences in exploitation of food mixtures: diet mixes enhances copepod egg production but not juvenile development. J Plankton Res 28:919–936. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbl029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krause M, Dippner JW, Beil J (1995) A review of hydrographic controls on the distribution of zooplankton biomass and species in the North Sea with particular reference to a survey conducted in January–March 1987. Prog Oceanogr 35:81–152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6611(95)00006-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee CE, Petersen CH (2002) Genotype-by-environmental interaction for salinity tolerance in the freshwater-invading copepod Eurytemora affinis. Physiol Biochem Zool 75:335–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/343138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lukashin VN, Kosobokova KN, Shevchenko VP, Shapiro GI, Pantyulin AN, Pertzova NM, Deev MG, Klyuvitkin AA, Novigatskii AN, Solovev KA, Prego R, Latche L (2003) Results of multidisciplinary oceanographic studies in the White Sea in June 2000. Oceanology (Mosc) 43:224–239Google Scholar
  31. Maps F, Runge JA, Zakardjian B, Joly P (2005) Egg production and hatching success of Temora longicornis (Copepoda, Calanoida) in the southern Gulf of St Lawrence. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 285:117–128. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps285117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall SM (1973) Respiration and feeding in copepods. Adv Mar Biol 11:57–120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2881(08)60268-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MatLab (2005) 7.0.4.365 (R14). The MathsWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthäus W, Franck H (1992) Characteristics of major Baltic inflows—a statistical analysis. Cont Shelf Res 12:1375–1400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4343(92)90060-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mauchline J (1998) The biology of calanoid copepods. Elsevier Academic, Oxford, 710 pGoogle Scholar
  36. Möllmann C, Kornilovs G, Sidrevics L (2000) Long-term dynamics of main zooplankton species in the Baltic Sea. J Plankton Res 22:2015–2038. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/22.11.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Möllmann C, Kornilovs G, Fetter M, Köster FW, Hinrichsen H-H (2003) The marine copepod Pseudocalanus elongatus, as a mediator between climate variability and fisheries in the Central Baltic Sea. Fish Oceanogr 12:360–368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2003.00257.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagaraj M (1988) Combined effects of temperature and salinity on the complete development of Eurytemora velox (Crustacea: Calanoidea). Mar Biol (Berl) 99:353–358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02112127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neumann T, Fennel W (2006) A method to represent seasonal vertical migration of zooplankton in 3D-Eularian models. Ocean Model 12:188–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2005.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peck MA, Holste L (2006) Effects of salinity, photoperiod and adult stocking density on egg production and egg hatching success of Acartia tonsa (Calanoida: Copepoda): optimizing intensive cultures. Aquaculture 255:341–350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.11.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters J (2006) Lipids in key copepod species of the Baltic Sea and North Sea—implications for life cycles, trophodynamics and food quality. PhD thesis, University Bremen, Bremen, 159 pGoogle Scholar
  42. Peters J, Dutz J, Hagen W (2007) Role of fatty acids on the reproductive success of copepod Temora longicornis in the North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 341:153–163. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps341153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson WT, Kimmerer WJ (1994) Processes controlling recruitment of the marine calanoid copepod Temora longicornis in Long Island Sound: egg production, egg mortality, and cohort survival rates. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1594–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sandström O (1980) Selective feeding by Baltic herring. Hydrobiologia 69:199–207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00046793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt J (2006) Small and meso-scale distribution patterns of key copepod species in the Central Baltic Sea and their relevance for larval fish survival. PhD thesis, University of Kiel, Kiel, 89 pGoogle Scholar
  46. Segerstråle SG (1957) Baltic Sea. Mem Geol Soc Am 1:751–800Google Scholar
  47. SPSS Inc (1990) SPSS reference guide. SPSS, Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas WH, Scotten HL, Bradshaw JS (1963) Thermal gradient incubators for small aquatic organisms. Limnol Oceanogr 8:357–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thor P (2000) Relationship between specific dynamic action and protein deposition in calanoid copepods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 245:171–182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(99)00159-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wesche A, Wiltshire KH, Hirche HJ (2007) Overwintering strategies of dominant calanoid copepods in the German Bight, southern North Sea. Mar Biol (Berl) 151:1309–1320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0560-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Viitasalo M (1992) Mesozooplankton of the Gulf of Finland and northern Baltic Proper—a review of monitoring data. Ophelia 35:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Viitasalo M, Koski M, Pellikka K, Johansson S (1995a) Seasonal and long-term variations in the body size of planktonic copepods in the northern Baltic Sea. Mar Biol (Berl) 123:241–250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Viitasalo M, Vuorinen I, Seasmaa S (1995b) Mesozooplankton dynamics in the northern Baltic Sea: implications of variations in hydrography and climate. J Plankton Res 17:1857–1878. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/17.10.1857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vuorinen I, Hänninen J, Viitasalo M, Helminen U, Kuosa H (1998) Proportion of copepod biomass declines with decreasing salinity in the Baltic Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 55:767–774. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1998.0398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Holste
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael A. St. John
    • 1
  • Myron A. Peck
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Hydrobiology and Fisheries ScienceUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations