Chesapeake Science

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 59–74 | Cite as

Production of a calanoid copepod,Acartia tonsa, in the Patuxent River estuary

  • Donald R. Heinle


Acartia tonsa Dana was found to be the most abundant copepod during 7 months of the year in a 10-mile segment of the Patuxent River estuary. Densities up to 100,000 copepods per cubic meter were observed during the warmer months, and as low as 1,500 during the colder months. The summer population was composed mainly of immature stages and the winter population mainly of adults. Production was calculated by dividing population biomass by turnover times. Turnover times were calculated from instaneous death rates of nauplii and copepodids. Instantaneous death rates were estimated from observed population age structures in the field and development times in containers of estuary water.

Growth ofA. tonsa from egg to egg required 7, 9, and 13 days at 25.5° C, 22.4° C, and 15.5° C respectively. Production for a 2-month summer period was estimated to be 2.51 to 2.77 mg/m3hr. Assuming an average depth of 3 m for the study area, production is 1.61 to 1.78 1b/acre day. In consideration of the possible sources of error the estimates of production are probably somewhat conservative.

At least half of the planktonic primary production in the Patuxent estuary is consumed byA. tonsa during the summer months. Production ofA. tonsa in the Patuxent estuary compares favorably with the production of herbivorous fish in fertilized ponds.


Turnover Time Naupliar Stage Estuary Water Instantaneous Death Rate Summer Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barlow, J. P. 1955. Physical and biological processes determining the distribution of zooplankton in a tidal estuary.Biol. Bull. 109:211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, L. C. 1948. The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population.Jour. Anim. Ecol. 17:15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman, T. E. 1961. The copepod genusAcartia in Chesapeake Bay.Ches. Science 2:206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breuer, J. P. 1957. An ecological survey of Baffin and Alazaur Bay, Texas.Pub. Inst. Mar. Science Univ. Texas 4:134–155.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, G. L. andD. F. Bumpus. 1950. The plankton sampler—an instrument for quantitative plankton investigation.Amer. Soc. Limnol. and Oceanogr. Sp. Publ. No. 5: 1–8.Google Scholar
  6. Comita, G. W. 1956. A study of a calanoid copepod population in an aretic lake.Ecol. 37: 576–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conover, R. J. 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound. VI Biology ofAcartia clausi andA. tonsa.Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 15:156–233.Google Scholar
  8. —. 1959. Regional and seasonal variation in respiratory rate of marine copepods.Limnol. and Oceanogr. 4:259–268.Google Scholar
  9. Cory, R. L. 1965 Installation and operation of a water quality data collection system in the Patuxent River estuary, Maryland.Ocean Science and Ocean Engineering, Trans. of the Joint Conference and Exhibit, Mar. Tech. Soc. and Amer. Soc. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 2:728–736.Google Scholar
  10. Cronin, L. E., J. C. Daiber, andE. M. Hulbert. 1962. Quantitative seasonal aspects of zooplankton in the Delaware River estuary.Ches. Science 3:63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, C.C. 1944. On four species of copepods new to Chesapeake Bay, with a description of a new variety ofParacalanus crassirostris Dahl.Ches. Biol. Lab. Publ. 61: 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Deevey, G. B. 1948 The zooplankton of Tisbury Great Pond.Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 12: 1–44.Google Scholar
  13. Edmondson, W. T. 1960. Reproductive rates of rotifers in natural populations.Mem. Ist. Ital. di Idrobiol. 12:21–77.Google Scholar
  14. —,G. W. Comita, andG. C. Anderson. 1962. Reproductive rate of copepods in nature and its relation to phytoplankton population.Ecol. 43: 625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flemminger, A. andR. I. Clutter. 1965. Avoidance of towed nets by zooplankton.Limnol. and Oceanogr. 10:96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, J. H. 1961. The role of ctenophores and salps in zooplankton production and standing crops.Rapp. Proc.-Verb. Des Reunions 153:121–123.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, D. J. 1964. An experimental approach to the dynamics of a natural population ofDaphnia galeata mendotae.Ecol. 45:94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinle, D. R. 1965a Growth rate, turnover time, and production ofAcartia tonsa Dana (abstract).Ocean Science and Ocean Engineering, Trans. of the Joint Conference and Exhibit, Mar. Tech. Soc. and Amer. Soc. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 1:98–99.Google Scholar
  19. —. 1965b. A screen for excluding jellyfish and ctenophores from Clarke-Bumpus plankton samples.Ches. Science 6: 231–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mansueti, R. J. 1955. The sea nettle, Chesapeake Bay's troublesome summer jellyfish. Extract from:Maryland Tidewater News 12(3): Suppl. 7, Aug. 1955.Google Scholar
  21. — 1961. Movements, reproduction, and mortality of the white perch,Roccus americanus, in the Patuxent estuary, Maryland.Ches. Science 2:142–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marshall, J. S. 1962. The effects of continuous gamma radiation on the intrinsic rate of natural increase ofDaphnia pulex.Ecol. 43:598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marshall, S. M. andA. P. Orr 1955. The biology of a marine copepodCalanus finmarchicus (Gunnerus).Oliver and Boyd, Londoni-vi, 1–188.Google Scholar
  24. Nash, C. B. 1947. Environmental characteristics of a river estuary.Ches. Biol. Lab. Publ. 64:147–174.Google Scholar
  25. Nelson, T. C. 1925. On the occurrence and food habits of ctenophores in New Jersey inland coastal waters.Biol. Bull. 48:92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Odum, E. P. 1959. Fundamentals of ecology, 2nd ed.W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, i-xvii, 1–546.Google Scholar
  27. Pritchard, D. W. 1955. Estuarine circulation patterns.Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. 81:1–11.Google Scholar
  28. Raymont, J. E. G. andR. S. Miller. 1962. Production of marine zooplankton with fertilization in an enclosed body of sea water.Int. Rev. Gesam. Hydrobiol. 47:169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ricker, W. E. 1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish populations.Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Bull. 119:1–300.Google Scholar
  30. Slobodkin, L. B. 1960. Ecological energy relationships at the population level.Amer. Nat. 94: 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smyly, W. J. P. 1961. The life cycle of the freshwater copepod,Cyclops leuckarti Claus, in Estwaite Water.Jour. Anim. Ecol. 30:153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stross, R. G., J. C. Neess, andA. D. Hasler. 1961. Turnover time and production of the planktonic crustacea in limed and reference portion of a bog lake.Ecol. 42:237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. —, andJ. R. Stottlemyer. 1965. Primary production in the Patuxent River.Ches. Science 6:125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, C. B. 1932. The copepod crustaceans of Chesapeake Bay.Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 80:1–54.Google Scholar
  35. Winsor, C. P. andG. L. Clarke 1940. A statistical study of variation in the catch of plankton nets.Jour. Mar. Res. 3:1–34.Google Scholar
  36. Woodmansee, R. A. 1958. The seasonal distribution of the zooplankton off Chicken Key in Biscayne Bay, Florida.Ecol. 39:247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yablonskaya, E. A. 1961. A study of the seasonal population dynamics of the plankton copepods as a method of determining their production.Proc.-Verb. Des Reunions 153:224–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald R. Heinle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations