, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 817–824 | Cite as

Trophic Characteristics of Mnemiopsis leidyi and Its Impact on the Plankton Community in Black Sea Coastal Waters

  • G. A. FinenkoEmail author
  • B. E. Anninsky
  • N. A. Datzyk


The quantitative development of Mnemiopsis leidyi, the species structure of mesoplankton, and the food spectrum of ctenophores were studied in the shelf zone off the Crimean coast of the Black Sea during the summer seasons of 2013 and 2014. The feeding rate of the M. leidyi population and its predation pressure on the entire zooplankton community and certain species populations have been estimated from data on the diet composition, digestion time, and abundance of ctenophores. The volume of water cleared by M. leidyi varies by more than an order of magnitude depending on the systematic affiliation of the organisms consumed: it is maximum in the case of preying on Cladocera and Bivalvia veligers (up to 12 L ind.–1 h–1) and significantly lower for Copepoda (0.4–2.0 L ind.–1 h–1). The relationship between the value of the specific daily ration and carbon content in a M. leidyi body in the summer months of 2013 and 2014 is described by a parabolic equation with an exponent of –0.346 to –0.852. In 2014, the highest predation pressure, compared to other groups, was exerted on Copepoda and veligers of Bivalvia (on average 2.9 ± 1.5 and 2.2 ± 0.7% of biomass per day). The mean daily rate of predation on zooplankton in the Black Sea coastal zone was lower in 2014 (1.54 ± 0.58%) than in 2013 (3.94 ± 1.2% of zooplankton biomass) due to the low abundance of ctenophores. A comparative analysis of long-term data on the trophic role of the ctenophore in the plankton community has shown that the food spectrum, as well as the rate of predation on certain groups, varies from year to year. The low rate of predation on forage zooplankton by the M. leidyi population in recent years (2–5% of biomass per day) does not influence the interannual zooplankton dynamics in Black Sea coastal waters.



We are grateful to E.G. Arashkevich, Cand. Biol. Sci., for her assistance in work on the manuscript, which improved the original version.


  1. 1.
    B. E. Anninsky, G. A. Finenko, N. A. Datsyk, and S. M. Ignatyev, “Gelatinous macroplankton in the Black Sea in the autumn of 2010,” Oceanology (Engl. Transl.) 53, 676–685 (2013).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. A. Datsyk, Z. A. Romanova, G. A. Finenko, et al., “The structure of zooplankton community in the coastal waters of Crimea (near Sevastopol) and trophic relationships in the food chain zooplankton–Mnemiopsis in 2004–2008,” Morsk. Ekol. Zh. 11 (2), 28–38 (2012).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. S. Petia, “Average weight of the general types of zooplankton in the Black Sea,” Tr. Sevastop. Biol. Stn. 9, 39–57 (1957).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. A. Finenko and Z. A. Romanova, “Population dynamics and energetics of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in Sevastopol Bay,” Oceanology (Engl. Transl.) 40, 677–685 (2000).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. A. Finenko, Z. A. Romanova, G. I. Abolmasova, et al., “Mnemiopsis leidyi: ingestion rate of the ctenophores in the sea and predatory impact of the population on forage zooplankton,” Morsk. Ekol. Zh. 9 (1), 73–83 (2010).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. A. Finenko, G. I. Abolmasova, Z. A. Romanova, N. A. Datsyk, and B. E. Anninskii, “Population dynamics of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its impact on the zooplankton in the coastal regions of the Black Sea of the Crimean coast in 2004–2008,” Oceanology (Engl. Transl.) 53, 80–88 (2013).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. A. Finenko, G. I. Abolmasova, N. A. Datsyk, Z. A. Romanova, and B. E. Anninskii, “Effect of food composition and temperature on in situ feeding rates of ctenophore invader Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz,” Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 5, 49–55 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. A. Finenko, G. I. Abolmasova, N. A. Datsyk, and B. E. Anninsky, “The effect of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz, 1865 (Ctenophora: Lobata) on the population density and species composition of mesoplankton in inshore waters of the Crimea,” Russ. J. Mar. Biol. 41, 260–271 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. D. Baker and M. R. Reeve, “Laboratory culture of the lobate ctenophore Mnemiopsis mccradyi with notes on feeding and fecundity,” Mar. Biol. 26, 57–62 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. E. Deason, “Mnemiopsis leidyi (Ctenophora) in Narragansett Bay, 1975–1979: abundance, size composition and estimation of grazing,” Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 1, 121–134 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. A. Finenko, Z. A. Romanova, G. I. Abolmasova, et al., “Population dynamics, ingestion, growth and reproduction rates of the invader Beroe ovata and its impact on plankton community in Sevastopol Bay, the Black Sea,” J. Plankton Res. 25, 539–549 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. A. Finenko, B. E. Anninsky, G. I. Abolmasova, et al., “Functional role of the ctenophores–invaders Mnemiopsis leidyi Agassiz and Beroe ovata Mayer in inshore planktonic communities,” in Trophic Relationships and Food Supply of Heterotrophic Animals in the Pelagic Ecosystem of the Black Sea, Ed. by G. E. Shulman, B. Oztürk, A. Kideys, , (Black Sea Commission, Istanbul, 2009), pp. 165–221.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Javidpour, J. C. Molinero, A. Lehman, et al., “Annual assessment of the predation of Mnemiopsis leidyi in a new invaded environment, the Kiel Fjord (Western Baltic Sea): a matter of concern?” J. Plankton Res. 31, 729–773 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Granhag, L. Friismoller, and L. J. Hansson, “Size-specific clearance rates of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi based on in situ gut content analyses,” J. Plankton Res. 33, 1043–1052 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. J. Larson, “In situ feeding rates of the Ctenophore Mnemiopsis mccradyi,” Estuaries 10, 87–91 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. V. Madsen and H. U. Riisgard, “Ingestion-rate method for measurement of clearance rates of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi,” Aquat. Invasions 5, 357–361 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. E. McNamara, D. J. Lonsdale, and R. M. Cerrato, “Shifting abundance of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and the implications for larval bivalve mortality,” Mar. Biol. 157, 401–412 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. E. McNamara, D. J. Lonsdale, and R. M. Cerrato, “Top-down control of mesozooplankton by adult Mnemiopsis leidyi influences microplankton abundance and composition enhancing prey conditions for larval ctenophores,” Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci. 133, 2–10 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Mutlu, “Distribution and abundance of ctenophores and their zooplankton food in the Black Sea. II. Mnemiopsis leidyi,” Mar. Biol. 135, 603–613 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. E. Purcell, “Extension of methods for jellyfish and ctenophore trophic ecology to large-scale research,” Hydrobiologia 616, 23–50 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. E. Purcell and M. B. Decker, “Effects of climate on relative predation by Scyphomedusae and ctenophores on copepods in Chesapeake Bay during 1987–2000,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 376–387 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. R. Reeve, M. A. Walter, and T. Ikeda, “Laboratory studies of ingestion and food utilization in lobate and tentaculate ctenophores,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 40–51 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. A. Finenko
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. E. Anninsky
    • 1
  • N. A. Datzyk
    • 1
  1. 1.Kovalevsky Institute of Marine Biological Research, Russian Academy of SciencesSevastopolRussia

Personalised recommendations