Oecologia

, Volume 150, Issue 4, pp 655–667 | Cite as

An indoor mesocosm system to study the effect of climate change on the late winter and spring succession of Baltic Sea phyto- and zooplankton

  • Ulrich Sommer
  • Nicole Aberle
  • Anja Engel
  • Thomas Hansen
  • Kathrin Lengfellner
  • Marcel Sandow
  • Julia Wohlers
  • Eckart Zöllner
  • Ulf Riebesell
Global Change and Conversation Ecology

Abstract

An indoor mesocosm system was set up to study the response of phytoplankton and zooplankton spring succession to winter and spring warming of sea surface temperatures. The experimental temperature regimes consisted of the decadal average of the Kiel Bight, Baltic Sea, and three elevated regimes with 2°C, 4°C, and 6°C temperature difference from that at baseline. While the peak of the phytoplankton spring bloom was accelerated only weakly by increasing temperatures (1.4 days per degree Celsius), the subsequent biomass minimum of phytoplankton was accelerated more strongly (4.25 days per degree Celsius). Phytoplankton size structure showed a pronounced response to warming, with large phytoplankton being more dominant in the cooler mesocosms. The first seasonal ciliate peak was accelerated by 2.1 days per degree Celsius and the second one by 2.0 days per degree Celsius. The over-wintering copepod populations declined faster in the warmer mesocosm, and the appearance of nauplii was strongly accelerated by temperature (9.2 days per degree Celsius). The strong difference between the acceleration of the phytoplankton peak and the acceleration of the nauplii could be one of the “Achilles heels” of pelagic systems subject to climate change, because nauplii are the most starvation-sensitive life cycle stage of copepods and the most important food item of first-feeding fish larvae.

Keywords

Plankton Climate change Seasonal succession Spring bloom 

References

  1. Aberle N, Lengfellner K, Sommer U (2006) Spring bloom succession, grazing impact and herbivore selectivity of ciliate communities in response to winter warming. Oecologia (this issue)Google Scholar
  2. Bautista B, Harris RP, Tranter PRG, Harbour D (1992) In situ copepod feeding and grazing rates during a spring bloom dominated by Phaeocystis sp. in the English Channel. J Plankton Res 14:691–703Google Scholar
  3. Behrends G (1996) Long-term investigation of seasonal mesozooplankton dynamics in Kiel Bight, Germany. In: Proceedings of the 13th symposium on Baltic and Marine Biology, pp 93–98Google Scholar
  4. Brock TD (1981) Calculating solar radiation for ecological studies. Ecol Model 14:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushing DH (1975) Marine ecology and fisheries. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards M, Beaugrand G, Reid PC, Rowden AA, Joes MB (2002) Ocean climate anomalies and the ecology of the North Sea. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 239:1–10Google Scholar
  7. Edwards M, Richardson AJ (2004) Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430:881–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feuchtmayr H (2004) Mesozooplankton impacts on lower trophic levels from freshwater, marine and brackish systems in spring—a comparative study. PhD thesis, University of KielGoogle Scholar
  9. Fromentin JM, Planque B (1996) Calanus and the environment in the eastern North Atlantic. II: Influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation on C. finnmarchicus and C. helgolandicus. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 134:111–118Google Scholar
  10. Goldman JC, McCarthy JJ, Peavey DG (1979) Growth rate influence on the chemical composition of phytoplankton in oceanic waters. Nature 279:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granéli E, Turner JT (2002) Top-down regulation in ctenophore–copepod–ciliate–diatom–phytoflagellate communities in coastal waters: a mesocosm study. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 239:57–68Google Scholar
  12. Greve W, Reiners F (1995) Biocoenotic process patterns in the German Bight. In: Eleftheriou A, et al (eds) Biology and ecology of shallow coastal waters. Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, pp 67–71Google Scholar
  13. Hansen HP, Koroleff F (1999) Determination of nutrients. In: Grasshoff K, Kremling K, Ehrhardt M (eds) Methods of seawater analysis, 3rd edition. Wiley VCH, Weinheim pp 159–228Google Scholar
  14. Hillebrand H, Dürselen CD, Kischtel D, Pollingher U (1999) Biovolume calculations for pelagic and benthic microalgae. J Phycol 35:403–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes RM, Aminot A, Kérouel R, Hooker BA, Peterson BJ (1999) A simple and precise method for measuring ammonium in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1801–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptations and vulnerability. UNEP and WHO, 2001Google Scholar
  17. Irigoien X, Titelman J, Harris RP, Harbour D, Castellani C (2003) Feeding of Calanus finnmarchicus nauplii in the Irminger Sea. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 262:193–200Google Scholar
  18. Katechakis A, Stibor H, Sommer U, Hansen T (2002) Changes in the phytoplankton community and microbial food web of Blanes Bay (Catalan Sea, NW Mediterranean) under prolonged grazing pressure by doliolids (Tunicata), cladocerans or copepods (Crustacea). Mar Ecol Progr Ser 234:55–69Google Scholar
  19. Kleppel GS (1993) On the diet of calanoid copepods. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 99:183–195Google Scholar
  20. Lehmann A, Krauss WW, Hinrichsen HH (2002) Effects of remote and local atmospheric forcing on circulation and upwelling in the Baltic Sea. Tellus 54A:299–316Google Scholar
  21. Lopez MDG (1996) Effect of starvation on development and survivorship of nauplian Calanus pacificus (Brodsky). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 203:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madhudatrap M, Nehring S, Lenz J (1996) Resting eggs of zooplankton (Copepoda and Cladocera) from the Kiel Bay and adjacent waters (southwestern Baltic). Mar Biol 125:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthäus W., H. Schinke (1994) Mean atmospheric circulation patterns associated with Major Baltic Inflows. Dt Hydrogr Z 46:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menden-Deuer S, Lessard EJ (2000) Carbon to volume relationships in dinoflagellates, diatoms and other protist plankton. Limnol Oceanogr 45:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Montagnes DJS, Lynn DH, Roff JC, Taylor WD (1988) The annual cycle of heterotrophic planktonic ciliates in the waters surrounding the Isles of Shoals, Gulf of Maine: an assessment of their trophic role. Mar Biol 99:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Putt M, Stoecker DK (1989) An experimentally determined carbon:volume ratio for marine “oligotrichous” ciliates from estuarine and coastal waters. Limnol Oceanogr 34:1097–1103Google Scholar
  27. Riley GA (1957) Phytoplankton of the North Central Sargasso Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 2:252–270Google Scholar
  28. Scheffer M, Straile D, van Nes EH, Hosper H (2001) Climate warming causes regime shifts in lake food webs. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1780–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sell AF, van Keuren D, Madin LP (2001) Predation by omnivorous copepods on early developmental stages of Calanus finnmarchicus and Pseudocalanus spp. Limnol Oceanogr 46:953–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharp JH (1974) Improved analysis for particulate organic carbon and nitrogen from seawater. Limnol Oceanogr 19:984–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smayda TJ (1971) Normal and accelerated sinking of diatoms in the sea. Mar Geol 11:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smetacek V, v Bodungen B, Knoppers B, Peinert R, Pollehne F, Stegmann P, Zeitszschel B (1984) Seasonal stages characterizing the annual cycle of an inshore pelagic ecosystem. Rapp P V Reun Cons Int Explor Mer 183:126–135Google Scholar
  33. Sommer U (1991) The application of the Droop model of nutrient limitation to natural phytoplankton. Verh Int Verein Limnol 24:791–794Google Scholar
  34. Sommer U (1996) Plankton ecology: the last two decades of progress. Naturwiss 83:393–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sommer U, Stibor H (2002) Copepoda–Cladocera–Tunicata: the role of three major mesozooplankton groups in pelagic food webs. Ecol Res 17:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sommer U, Gliwicz ZM, Lampert W, Duncan A (1986) The PEG model of seasonal succession of planktonic events in fresh waters. Arch Hydrobiol 106:433–471Google Scholar
  37. Sommer F, Hansen T, Feuchtmayr H, Santer B, Tokle N, Sommer U (2003a) Do calanoid copepods suppress appendicularians in the coastal ocean? J Plankton Res 25:869–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sommer U, Sommer F, Santer B, Zöllner E, Jürgens K, Jamieson C, Boersma M, Gocke K (2003b) Daphnia versus copepod impact on summer phytoplankton: functional compensation at both trophic levels. Oecologia 135:639–647Google Scholar
  39. Sommer F, Saage A, Santer B, Hansen T, Sommer U (2005a) Linking foraging strategies of marine calanoid copepods to patterns of nitrogen stable isotope signatures in a mesocosm study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 286:99–106Google Scholar
  40. Sommer U, Hansen T, Blum O, Holzner N, Vadstein O, Stibor H (2005b) Copepod and microzooplankton grazing in mesocosms fertilised with different Si:N ratios: no overlap between food spectra and Si:N influence on zooplankton trophic level. Oecologia 142:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Straile D (2000) Meteorological forcing of plankton dynamics in a large and deep continental European lake. Oecologia 122:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Straile D, Adrian R (2000) The North Atlantic Oscillation and plankton dynamics in two European lakes—two variations on a general theme. Global Change Biol 6:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sverdrup HU (1953) On conditions for the vernal blooming of phytoplankton. J Cons Explor Mer 18:287–295Google Scholar
  45. Tilzer MM, Elbrächter M, Gieskes WW, Beese B (1986) Light–temperature interactions in the control of photosynthesis in Antarctic phytoplankton. Polar Biol 5:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Urabe J, Clasen J, Sterner RW (1997) Phosphorus limitation of Daphnia growth Is it real? Limnol Oceanogr 42:1436–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Utermöhl H (1958) Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitt Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 9:263–272Google Scholar
  48. Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TC, Fromentin JM, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bairlein F (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White HH (1979) Effects of dinoflagellate bioluminescence on the ingestion rates of herbivorous zooplankton. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 36:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yachi S, Loreau M (1999) Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 96:1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Sommer
    • 1
  • Nicole Aberle
    • 1
  • Anja Engel
    • 2
  • Thomas Hansen
    • 1
  • Kathrin Lengfellner
    • 1
  • Marcel Sandow
    • 1
  • Julia Wohlers
    • 1
  • Eckart Zöllner
    • 1
  • Ulf Riebesell
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Institute for Marine SciencesKiel UniversityKielGermany
  2. 2.Alfred Wegener InstituteBremerhavenGermany

Personalised recommendations