The CEPEX Approach and Its Implications for Future Studies in Plankton Ecology

  • Michael R. Reeve
  • George D. Grice
  • Roger P. Harris


This paper discusses the merits and disadvantages of large-scale enclosure studies from the admittedly biased viewpoints of three zooplankton workers whose primary experiences have been with the CEPEX program (Controlled Ecosystem Populations Experiment, Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada). The intention is to bridge the gap between our earlier detailed presentation of data of the first 50 days of the CEPEX Foodweb I Experiment (Harris et al., Chapter 27), and the reviews of other authors, which consider enclosures in general. We shall use Foodweb I as our major example, since it was the most recent experiment and is referred to extensively in this volume.


Food Chain Phytoplankton Population Small Copepod Copepod Population Time Stream 
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.


  1. J. D.Costlow, and R. Barber. 1980. IDOE Biology Programs. Oceanus23: 52-61.Google Scholar
  2. W.Greve, and T. R. Parsons. 1977. Photosynthesis and fish production: Hypothetical effects of climatic change and pollution. HelgoI. Wiss. Meeresunters. 30: 666-677.Google Scholar
  3. G. D.Grice, R. P. Harris, M. R. Reeve, J. F. Heinbokel, and C. O. Davis. 1980. Large scale enclosed water column ecosystems. J. Mar. Bioi. Assoc. U.K. 60: 401-413.Google Scholar
  4. P. A.Koeller, J. E. Barwell-Clark, F. Whitney, and M. Takahashi. 1979. Winter condition of marine plankton populations in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada. III. Mesozooplankton. J. Exp. Mar. Bioi. Ecol. 37: 161-174.Google Scholar
  5. D. W.Menzel 1980. Applying results derived from experimental microcosms to the study of natural pelagic marine ecosystems. In J. P. Giesy, Jr., Ed., Microcosms in ecological research. DOE Symposium Series 52, CONF-781101. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., pp. 742-751.Google Scholar
  6. C. A.Oviatt, H. Walker, and M. E. Q. Pilson. 1980. An exploratory analysis of microcosm and ecosystem behavior using multivariable techniques. Mar. Ecol. Prog, Sere 2: 179-191.Google Scholar
  7. M. R.Reeve 1980. Population dynamics of ctenophores in large scale enclosures over several years. In D. C. Smith and Y. Tiffon, Eds., Nutrition in the lower metazoa. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 73-86.Google Scholar
  8. K.Stanlaw, M. R. Reeve, and M. A. Walter. 1980. The larval life history of ctenophores: A review of recent research. In P. Tardent and R. Tardent, Eds., Developmental and cellular biology of coelenterates. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, New York, pp. 149-154.Google Scholar
  9. J. H.Steele 1974. The structure 0 fmarine ecosystems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. J. H.Steele, and B. W. Frost. 1977. The structure of plankton communities. Phi/os. Trans. R. Soc. Land. B Bioi. Sci. 280: 485-534.Google Scholar
  11. J. H.Steele, and M. M. Mullin. 1976. Zooplankton dynamics. In E. D. Goldberg, I. N. McCave, J. J. O'Brien, and J. H. Steele, Eds., The sea, vol 6: Ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 857-890.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Reeve
    • 1
  • George D. Grice
    • 2
  • Roger P. Harris
    • 3
  1. 1.Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric ScienceUniversity of MiamiMiamiU.S.A.
  2. 2.Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionWoods HoleU.S.A.
  3. 3.The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomPlymouthEngland, U.K.

Personalised recommendations