Skip to main content
Log in

Ciliates as a food source for marine planktonic copepods

  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Copepods of the genusEurytemora, isolated from the Patuxent River, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay, were fed suspensions of the ciliateUronema isolated from the Rhode River, a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Grazing by copepods was determined by the decrease in numbers of ciliates, which were monitored by both direct counting and particle size analysis. Results from both methods of analysis showed significant reduction in the numbers ofUronema in the suspension whenEurytemora was present. Survival of copepods with ciliates added as food source was significantly longer than without ciliates. Analysis of field samples collected in the fall showed that ciliates comprised approximately 20% of the total plankton biomass at selected sampling sites. The results of the laboratory and field studies indicate that copepods can feed on ciliates and suggest that, in nature, ciliates may comprise an important source of food for copepods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. D. Allan, T. G. Kinsey, and M. C. James, Abundances and production of copepods in the Rhode River subestuary of Chesapeake Bay,Chesapeake Sci. 17 (1976), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. R. Beers and G. L. Stewart, Micro-zooplankton in the euphotic zone at five locations across the California Current,Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24 (1967), 2053–2068.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. R. Beers and G. L. Stewart, Micro-zooplankton and its abundance relative to the larger Zooplankton and other seston components,Mar. Biol. 4 (1969), 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. J. R. Beers and G. L. Stewart, The ecology of the plankton off La Jolla, California in the period April through September 1967. Part VI. Numerical abundance and estimated biomass of microzooplankton,Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. 17 (1970), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. G. Berk, R. R. Colwell, and E. B. Small, A Study of feeding responses to bacterial prey by estuarine ciliates,Trans. Am. Micros. Soc. 95 (1976), 514–520.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. M. Boyd, Selection of particle sizes by filter-feeding copepods: A plea for reason,Limnol. Oceanogr. 21 (1976), 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. J. Conover, Feeding on large particles byCalanus hyperboreus. In:Some Contemporary Studies in Marine Science, edited by H. Barnes, pp. 187–194. Halfner Publishing Co., New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. R. Curds and A. Cockburn. Studies on the growth and feeding ofTetrahymena pyriformis in axenic and monoxenic culture,J. Gen. Microbiol. 54 (1968), 343–358.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. S. K. Eltringham, Life in mud and sand, English University Press Ltd., London, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. W. Frost, Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepodCalanus pacificus, Limnol. Oceanogr. 17 (1972), 805–815.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. T. Gauld, Grazing rate of planktonic copepods,J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 29 (1951), 695–706.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Gillbricht, Das Verhalten von Zooplankton-vorzugsweise vonTintinnopsis beroidea Entzgegenuber thermohalinen Sprungsichten,Kurtz. Mitt. Inst. Fisch. Biol. Univ. Hamb. 5 (1954), 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Gold, Growth characteristics of the mass-reared tintinnidTintinnopsis beroidea, Mar. Biol. 8 (1971), 105–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. R. D. Hamilton and J. E. Preslan, Cultural characteristics of a pelagic marine hymenostome ciliate,Uronema sp.,J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 4 (1969), 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Hedin, On the ecology of tintinnids on the Swedish west coast,Zoon. 3 (1975), 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. R. Heinle, Production of a calanoid copepod,Acartia tonsa, in the Patuxent River estuary,Chesapeake Sci. 7 (1966), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. R. Heinle and D. A. Flemer, Carbon requirements of a population of the estuarine copepodEurytemora affinis, Mar. Biol. 31 (1975), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D. R. Heinle, R. P. Harris, J. F. Ustach, and D. A. Flemer, Detritus as food for estuarine copepods,Mar. Biol. 40 (1977), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. J. Lippson, (Ed.),The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. M. Mullin, Selective feeding by calanoid copepods from the Indian Ocean. In:Some Contemporary Studies in Marine Science, edited by H. Barnes, pp. 545–554. Halfner Publishing Co., New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Nauwreck, Die Beziehungen zwischen Zooplankton und Phytoplankton im See Erken,Symb. Bot. Upsal. 17 (1963), 163 p.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Nival and S. Nival, Particle retention efficiencies of an herbivorous copepod,Acartia clausi (adult and copepodite stages): Effects on grazing,Limnol. Oceanogr. 21 (1976), 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  23. G.-A. Paffenhöfer, Feeding, growth, and food conversion of the marine planktonic copepodCalanus helgolandicus, Limnol. Oceanogr. 21 (1976), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  24. K. G. Porter, Selective grazing and differential digestion of algae by Zooplankton,Nature 244 (1973), 179–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. S. A. Poulet, Grazing ofPseudocalanus minutus on naturally occurring particulate matter,Limnol. Oceanogr. 18 (1973), 564–573.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Proper and J. C. Garver, Mass culture of the protozoaColpoda steinii, Biotech. Bioeng. 8 (1966), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. S. Richman and J. N. Rogers, Feeding ofCalanus helgolandicus on synchronously growing populations of the marine diatomDitylum brightwellii, Limnol. Oceanogr. 14 (1969), 701–709.

    Google Scholar 

  28. F. H. Rigler, Laboratory measurements of processes involved in secondary production. 2. Feeding rates: Zooplankton. In:Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters, edited by W. T. Edmondson and G. G. Winberg, pp. 228–256. IBT Handbook No. 17. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  29. F. H. Rigler, M. E. MacCallum, and J. C. Roff, Production of Zooplankton in Char Lake,J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 31 (1974), 637–646.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. Vitiello, Contribution a l'etude des tintinnides de la baie d'Alger,Pelagos 2 (1964), 5–42.

    Google Scholar 

  31. R. A. Vollenweider, The scientific basis of lake and stream eutrophication, with particular reference to phosphorus and nitrogen as eutrophication factors,Tech. Rep. O.E.C.D. Paris Das/ CSI/6827 (1968), 1–182.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D. S. Wilson, Food size selection among copepods,Ecology 54 (1973), 909–914.

    Google Scholar 

  33. B. Zeitzschel, Tintinnen des westlichen Arabischen Meeres, ihre Bedeutung als Indikatoren fur Wasserkorper und Glied der Nahrungskette,“Meteor” Gorschungsergebnisse, D. Biologie (1969), 47–101.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berk, S.G., Brownlee, D.C., Heinle, D.R. et al. Ciliates as a food source for marine planktonic copepods. Microb Ecol 4, 27–40 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02010427

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02010427

Keywords

Navigation