Meso- and macrozooplankton communities in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica

The present paper describes composition and abundance of meso- and macrozooplankton in the epipelagic zone of the Weddell Sea and gives a systematic review of encountered species regarding results of earlier expeditions. Material was sampled from 6 February to 10 March 1983 from RV Polarstern with a RMT 1+8 m (320 and 4500 μm mesh size). In agreement with topography and water mass distribution three distinct communities were defined, clearly separated by cluster analysis: The Southern Shelf Community has lowest abundances (approx. 9000 ind./1000 m3). Euphausia crystallorophias and Metridia gerlachei are predominating. Compared with the low overall abundance the number of regularly occurring species is high (55) due to many neritic forms. Herbivores and omnivores are dominating (58% and 35%). The North-eastern Shelf Community has highest abundances (about 31 000 ind./1000 m3). It is predominated by copepodites I–III of Calanus propinquus and Calanoides acutus (61%). The faunal composition is characterized by both oceanic and neritic species (64). Fine-filter feeders are prevailing (65%). The Oceanic Community has a mean abundance of approximately 23 000 ind./1000 m3, consisting of 61 species. Dominances are not as pronounced as in the shelf communities. Apart from abundant species like Calanus propinquus, Calanoides acutus, Metridia gerlachei, Oithona spp. and Oncaea spp. many typical inhabitants of the Eastwind Drift are encountered. All feeding types have about the same importance in the Oceanic Community

A review of cnidarians and ctenophores feeding on competitors in the plankton

Predation among pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores is reviewed. The diets of semaeostome scyphomedusae and hydromedusae commonly include other gelatinous zooplanktivores. However, few species of siphonophores and ctenophores are known to consume other gelatinous species. Most of these species can be said to exhibit intraguild predation, since they consume species that potentially compete with them for food. In addition, some hydromedusan and ctenophore species may consume other gelatinous zooplanktivores exclusively. Characteristics of cnidarians and ctenophores as predators and as prey of other gelatinous species are discussed

Zooplankton grazing on Phaeocystis: A quantitative review and future challenges

The worldwide colony-forming haptophyte phytoplankton Phaeocystis spp. are key organisms in trophic and biogeochemical processes in the ocean. Many organisms from protists to fish ingest cells and/or colonies of Phaeocystis. Reports on specific mortality of Phaeocystis in natural plankton or mixed prey due to grazing by zooplankton, especially protozooplankton, are still limited. Reported feeding rates vary widely for both crustaceans and protists feeding on even the same Phaeocystis types and sizes. Quantitative analysis of available data showed that: (1) laboratory-derived crustacean grazing rates on monocultures of Phaeocystis may have been overestimated compared to feeding in natural plankton communities, and should be treated with caution; (2) formation of colonies by P. globosa appeared to reduce predation by small copepods (e.g., Acartia, Pseudocalanus, Temora and Centropages), whereas large copepods (e.g., Calanus spp.) were able to feed on colonies of Phaeocystis pouchetii; (3) physiological differences between different growth states, species, strains, cell types, and laboratory culture versus natural assemblages may explain most of the variations in reported feeding rates; (4) chemical signaling between predator and prey may be a major factor controlling grazing on Phaeocystis; (5) it is unclear to what extent different zooplankton, especially protozooplankton, feed on the different life forms of Phaeocystis in situ. To better understand the mechanisms controlling zooplankton grazing in situ, future studies should aim at quantifying specific feeding rates on different Phaeocystis species, strains, cell types, prey sizes and growth states, and account for chemical signaling between the predator and prey. Recently developed molecular tools are promising approaches to achieve this goal in the future. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V