Advertisement

Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 181–191 | Cite as

The feeding rates ofPleurobrachia (ctenophora) andSagitta (chaetognatha), with notes on the potential seasonal role of planktonic predators in the dynamics of north sea zooplankton communities

  • C. L. J. Frid
  • L. C. Newton
  • J. A. Williams
Article

Abstract

The zooplankton off the north-east coast of England has been the subject of a number of studies focusing on its productivity. It has also been shown to be representative of the zooplankton of much of the western North Sea. The community contains a number of predatory species, three of which are widely described as ‘voracious’, the ctenophorePleurobrachia pileus, the chaetognathSagitta elegans and the hyperiid amphipodThemisto compressa (≡ Parathemisto gaudichaudi). This study investigates the role of these planktonic predators in this community, with special reference to the seasonal changes in predation pressure.

The functional response ofPleurobrachia pileus feeding onAcartia was determined from laboratory experiments. It was found to be linear at prey densities typical of UK coastal waters, although the linear relationship appeared to break down at low and high prey densities.

Feeding rate data forSagitta elegans were obtained from gut content analysis and published laboratory derived estimates of digestion time. Of the 1,789 individuals examined 198 (11.1%) had food remains in the gut. A linear relationship betweenSagitta length and prey size was established and the daily feeding rate ofSagitta elegans was estimated to be 0.4 prey items d−1 ind−1.

For comparative purposes, the proportion of the copepod standing stock removed bySagitta elegans, Pleurobrachia pileus andThemisto gaudichaudi was estimated for each month of the year. From this model it was shown thatThemisto applied the most predation pressure, andSagitta elegans applied the least predation pressure of the three planktonic predators considered. The impact ofPleurobrachia will be to a large extent offset due to its peak of seasonal abundance coinciding with the zooplankton peak in the summer.

Keywords

ctenophore Pleurobrachia pileus chaetognath Sagitta elegans predation functional response seasonal impact 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALLDREDGE, A.L., 1984. The qualitative significance of gelatinous zooplankton as pelagic consumers. In: M.J.R. Fasham, Ed., Flows of energy and nutrients in marine ecosystems, Plenum Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. BISHOP, J.W., 1967, Feeding rates in the ctenophoreMnemiopsis leidyi. Chesapeake Sci., 8: 259–261.Google Scholar
  3. BISHOP, J.W., 1968. A comparative study of the feeding of tentaculate ctenophores. Ecology, 49: 996–997.Google Scholar
  4. BUCHANAN, J.B. and J.J., MOORE, 1986. Long term studies at a station off Northumberland. Hydrobiologia, 142: 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CONNELL, J.H., 1974. Ecology field experiments. In: R.N. Mariscal, Ed., Experimental marine biology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 21–54.Google Scholar
  6. CONOVER, R.J., 1957. Notes on the seasonal distribution of zooplankton in Southampton Water, with special reference o the genusAcartia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 12, 10: 63–67.Google Scholar
  7. DUNBAR, M.J., 1962. The life cycle ofSagitta elegans in arctic and sub-arctic seas, and the modifying effects of hydrographic differences in the environment. J. Mar. Res., 20: 76–91.Google Scholar
  8. DURBIN, E.G. and A.G. DURBIN, 1978. Length weight relationships ofAcartia clausi from Narragansett Bay, R.I. Limnol. Oceanogr., 23: 958–969.Google Scholar
  9. EVANS, F., 1977, Seasonal density and production estimates of the commoner planktonic copepods of Northumberland coastal waters. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci., 5: 223–241.Google Scholar
  10. EVANS, F., 1985. The marine fauna of the Cullercoats district. 16. Zooplankton. Report of the Dove Marine Laboratory, Cullercoats, Northumberland, (series 3) no. 29, 119 pp.Google Scholar
  11. EVANS, F. and A.J. EDWARDS, 1993. Changes in the zooplankton community off the coast of Northumberland between 1969 and 1988, with notes on changes in the phytoplankton and benthos. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 172: 11–29.Google Scholar
  12. FEIGENBAUM, D.L., 1979. Daily ration and specific daily ration ofSagitta enflata. Mar. Biol., 54: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEIGENBAUM, D.L. and R.C. MARIS, 1984. Feeding in the chaetognatha. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., 22: 343–392.Google Scholar
  14. FRANK, K.T., 1986. Ecological significance of the ctenophorePleurobrachia pileus off southwestern Nova Scotia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 211–222.Google Scholar
  15. FRASER, J.H., 1962. The role of ctenophores and salps in zooplankton production and standing crop. Rapp. P.v. Réun. Cons. Mer., 153: 121–123.Google Scholar
  16. FRASER, J.H., 1970. The ecology of the ctenophorePleurobrachia pileus in Scottish waters. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer., 33: 149–168.Google Scholar
  17. GREENE, C.H., M.R. LANDRY and B.C. MONGER, 1986. Foraging behavior and prey selection by the ambush, entangling, predatorPleurobrachia bachei, Ecology, 67: 1493–1501.Google Scholar
  18. GREVE, W., 1972. Okologische untersuchungen anPleurobrachia pileus: II Laboratoriumsunterssuchungen. Helgolander Wiss. Meeresunters. 23: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GREVE, W., 1981, Invertebrate predator control in a coastal marine ecosystem: The significance ofBeröe gracilis (Ctenophora). In: G. Rheinheimer, H. Flaegal, J. Lenz and B. Zeitschel, Eds., Lower organisms and their role in the food web. Proc. 15th Eur. Mar. Biol. Symp. p. 211–217.Google Scholar
  20. GRICE, G.D., R.P. HARRIS, M.R. REEVE, J.F. HEINBOKEL and C.O. DAVIS, 1980. Large scale enclosed water column ecosystems: an overview of foodwebs 1, the final CEPEX experiment. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK, 60: 401–414.Google Scholar
  21. GRICE, G.D. and M.R. REEVE, Eds., 1982. Marine mesocosms: Biological and chemical research in experimental ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  22. HALL, S.J., D. RAFFAELLI and W.R. TURRELL, 1991. Predator caging experiments in marine systems: a re-examination of their value. Am. Nat., 136: 657–672.Google Scholar
  23. HARBISON, G.R., 1983. The structure of pelagic communities. In: P.g. Brewer, Ed., Oceanography: the present and future, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 17–33.Google Scholar
  24. HARRIS, R.P., 1987. Spatial and temporal organisation in marine plankton communities. In: Gee, J.H.R. and P.S. Giller, Eds., Organization of communities: past and present. Blackwell, Oxford, p. 327–346.Google Scholar
  25. HARRIS, R.P., M.R. REEVE, G.D. GRICE, G. T. EVANS, V.R. GIBSON, J.R. BEERS and B.K. SULLIVAN, 1982. Tropic interactions and production processes in natural zooplankton communities in enclosed water columns. In: G.D. Grice, and M.R. Reeve, Eds., Marine mesocosms: Biological and chemical research in enclosed ecosystems. Springer-verlag. New York, p. 353–387.Google Scholar
  26. HIROTA, J., 1974. Quantitative natural history ofPleurobrachia bachei in La Jolla Bight. US Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Fish. Bull., 72: 295–335.Google Scholar
  27. HOLLING, C.S., 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent., 91: 385.Google Scholar
  28. KREMER, P., 1976. Population dynamics and ecological energetics of a pulsed zooplankton predator, the ctenophoreMnemiopsis leidyi. In: M. Wiley, Ed., Estuarine Processes Vol. 1 uses, stresses and adaptation to the estuary, Academic Press, New York, p. 197–215.Google Scholar
  29. KREMER, P., 1979. Predation by the ctenophoreMnemiopsis leidyi in Narragansett Bay. Rhode Island. Estuaries, 2: 97–105.Google Scholar
  30. KREMER, P. and NIXON, S., 1976. Distribution and abundance of the ctenophore,Mnemiopsis leidyi in Narragansett Bay. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci., 4: 627–639.Google Scholar
  31. KÜHL, W., 1932. Rippenquallen beim Beutefang. Natur. Mus., Frankf., 62: 130–133.Google Scholar
  32. LARSON, R.J., 1987a. Trophic ecology of planktonic gelatinous predators in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia: diets and prey selection. J. Plank. Res., 9: 811–820.Google Scholar
  33. LARSON, R.J., 1987b. Daily ration and predation by medusae and ctenophores in Saanich Inlet, B.C., Canada. Neth. J. Sea Res., 21: 35–44.Google Scholar
  34. LARSON, R.J., 1988. Feeding and functional morphology of the lobate ctenophoreMnemiopsis mccradyi. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci., 27: 495–502.Google Scholar
  35. McLAREN, I.A., 1969. Population and production ecology of zooplankton in Ogac Lake, a landlocked fjord in Baffin Island. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 26: 1485–1559.Google Scholar
  36. MILLER, R.J., 1970. Distribution and energetics of an estuarine population ofMnemiopsis leidyi. PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  37. ORESLAND, V., 1987. Feeding of the chaetognathsSagitta elegans andSagitta setosa at different seasons in Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 39: 69–79.Google Scholar
  38. PEARRE, S., 1980. Feeding by Chaetognatha: the relation of prey size to predator size in several species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 3: 125–134.Google Scholar
  39. PEARRE, S., 1981. Feeding by Chaetognatha: energy balance and importance of various components of the diet ofSagitta elegans. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 5: 45–54.Google Scholar
  40. RAYMONT, J.E.G., 1983. Plankton and Productivity, vol. II: Zooplankton. Pergamon Press, p. 824.Google Scholar
  41. RAYMONT, J.E.G. and B.G.A. CARRIE, 1964. The production of zooplankton in Southampton Water. Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol., 49: 185–232.Google Scholar
  42. REEVE, M.R., 1980. Comparative experimental studies on the feeding of chaetognaths and ctenophores. J. Plank. Res., 2: 381–393.Google Scholar
  43. REEVE, M.R. and L.D. BAKER, 1975. Production of planktonic carnivores (chaetognath and ctenophore) in South Florida waters. US Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Fish. Bull., 73: 238–248.Google Scholar
  44. REEVE, M.R. and M.A. WALTER, 1976. A large scale experiment on the growth and predator potential of ctenophore populations. In: G.O. Mackie, Ed., Coelenterate ecology and behaviour, Plenum Press, N.Y., p. 187–199.Google Scholar
  45. REEVE, M.R. and M.A. WALTER, 1978. Nutritional ecology of ctenophores: A review of recent research. Adv. Mar. Biol., 15: 249–287.Google Scholar
  46. REEVE, M.R., M.A. WALTER and T. IKEDA, 1978. Laboratory studies of the ingestion and food utilization in lobate and tentaculate ctenophores. Limnol. Oceanogr., 23: 740–751.Google Scholar
  47. ROFF, J.C., K. MIDDLEBROOK and F. EVANS, 1988. Long-term variability in North Sea Zooplankton off the Northumberland coast: productivity of small copepods and analysis of trophic interactions. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK, 68: 143–164.Google Scholar
  48. ROWE, M.D., 1971. Some aspects of the feeding behaviour of the ctenophorePleurobrachia pileus. MSc Diss., University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  49. SHEADER, M. and F. EVANS, 1975. Feeding and gut structure ofParathemisto gaudichaudi (Guerin) (Amphipoda, Hyperiidae). J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK, 55: 641–656.Google Scholar
  50. SIH, A., P. CROWLEY, M. MCPEEK, J. PETRANKA and K. STROHMEIER, 1985. Predation, competition and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 16: 269–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. STOECKER, D.K., P.G. VERITY, A.E. MICHAELS, and L.H. DAVIS, 1987. Feeding by larval and post-larval ctenophores on microzooplankton. J. Plank. Res., 9: 667–683.Google Scholar
  52. SULLIVAN, B.K. and M.R. REEVE, 1982. Comparison of estimates of the predatory impact of ctenophores by two independent techniques. Mar. Biol., 68: 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNESCO., 1968. Smaller mesozooplankton. Report of working party No 2. Monographs on Oceanographic methodology. 2: 153–159.Google Scholar
  54. WILLIAMS, R. and N.R. COLLINS, 1985. Chaetognaths and ctenophores in the holoplankton of the Bristol Channel. Mar. Biol., 85: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. L. J. Frid
    • 1
  • L. C. Newton
    • 1
  • J. A. Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.Dove Marine LaboratoryUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneTyne and WearUK
  2. 2.Dept. of OceanographyThe UniversitySouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations