Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 65–70 | Cite as

Particle-Size-dependent maximum grazing rates for Temora longicornis fed natural particle assemblages

  • H. B. O'ConnorsJr.
  • D. C. Biggs
  • D. V. Ninivaggi
Article

Abstract

The hypothesis that lower retention efficiencies of filter-feeding copepods for small particles should result in different ingestion rate versus food concentration curves for different-sized foods was tested using Temora longicornis (Müller) fed natural phytoplankton. The copepods were fed different natural phytoplankton assemblages, which varied in their species and size distribution. Volume ingestion rates were an asymptotic function of food concentration, with maximum ingestion rates measured at food concentrations exceeding 5 to 10x 106 μm3 ml-1, which were less than those occurring in the natural waters in which the copepods and phytoplankton were collected. Maximum volume ingestion rates increased linearly by a factor of 3.5, as the diameter of the particle forming the peak in the food size distribution increased fron 5 μm (primarily microflagellates) to 30 μm (mostly large diatoms). These results suggest that natural and pollutant-induced size reductions in natural phytoplankton could markedly decrease the volume of food consumed by filter-feeding copepods.

Keywords

Phytoplankton Food Concentration Ingestion Rate Maximum Ingestion Grazing Rate 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Boyd, C. M.: Selection of particle sizes by filter feeding copepods: a plea for reason. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21, 175–179 (1976)Google Scholar
  2. Bowman, M. J. and W. E. Esaias: Fronts, jets and phytoplankton patchiness. In: Bottom turbulence: proceedings of the 8th Liege International Colloquium on ocean hydrodynamics, pp 255–268. Ed. by J. Nihoul. New York: Elsevier 1977. (Oceanographic Series, No. 19)Google Scholar
  3. Dennis, J. E., Jr.: A brief survey of convergence results for quasi-Newton methods. In: Nonlinear programming, SIAM-ASM proceedings, Vol IX, pp 185–199.Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematics Society 1976Google Scholar
  4. Dubois, D. and P. Mayzaud: Experimental and theoretical modeling of the production and transformation of organic matter in a semi-enclosed basin. Proc. 10th Eur. mar. Biol. Symp. 2, 231–245 (1976). (Ed. by G. Persoone and E. Jaspers. Wetteren, Belgium: Universa Press)Google Scholar
  5. Dunstan, W. M., L. P. Atkinson and J. Natoli: Stimulation and inhibition of phytoplankton growth by low molecular weight hydrocarbons. Mar. Biol. 31, 305–310 (1975)Google Scholar
  6. Frost, B. W.: Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 805–815 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. Greve, W. and T. R. Parsons: Photosynthesis and fish production: hypothetical effects of climatic change and pollution. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters. 30, 662–672 (1977)Google Scholar
  8. Landry, M. R.: A review of important concepts in the trophic organization of pelagic ecosystems. Helgoländer wiss. Meeresunters 30, 8–17 (1977)Google Scholar
  9. Mayzaud, P. and S. A. Poulet: The importance of the time factor in the response of zooplankton to varying concentrations of naturally occurring particulate matter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 1144–1154 (1978)Google Scholar
  10. Mullin, M. M.: Some factors affecting the feeding of marine copepods of the genus Calanus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 8, 239–250 (1963)Google Scholar
  11. Mullin, M. M., E. F. Stewart and F. J. Fuglister: Ingestion by planktonic grazers as a function of concentration of food. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 259–262 (1975)Google Scholar
  12. Nival, P. and S. Nival: Particle retention efficiencies of a herbivorous copepod, Acartia clausi (adults and copepodite stages): effects on grazing. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21, 24–28 (1976)Google Scholar
  13. O'Connors, H. B., L. F. Small and P. L. Donaghay: Particle size modification by two size classes of the estuarine copepod Acartia clausi. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21, 300–308 (1976)Google Scholar
  14. O'Connors, C. F. Wurster, C. D. Powers, D. C. Biggs and R. G. Rowland: Polychlorinated biphenyls may alter marine trophic pathways by reducing phytoplankton size and production. Science, N.Y. 201, 737–739 (1978)Google Scholar
  15. Osborne, M. R.: Some aspects of nonlinear least squares calculations. In: Numerical methods for nonlinear optimization, pp 171–189. Ed. by F. A. Lootsma. New York: Academic Press 1972Google Scholar
  16. Paffenhöfer, G.-A. and S. C. Knowles: Feeding of marine planktonic copepods on mixed phytoplankton. Mar. Biol. 48, 143–152 (1978)Google Scholar
  17. Parsons, T. R. and R. J. LeBrasseur: The availability of food to different trophic levels in the marine food chain. In: Marine food chains, pp 325–343. Ed. by J. H. Steele. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd 1970Google Scholar
  18. Parsons, T. R., R. J. LeBrasseur and J. D. Fulton: Some observations on the dependence of zooplankton grazing on the cell size and concentration of phytoplankton blooms. J. oceanogr. Soc. Japan 23, 10–17 (1967)Google Scholar
  19. Robertson, S. B. and B. W. Frost: Feeding by an omnivorous planktonic copepod Aetideus divergens Bradford. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 29, 231–244 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryther, J. H.: Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Science, N.Y. 166, 72–76 (1969)Google Scholar
  21. Strathmann, R. R.: Estimating the organic carbon content of phytoplankton from cell volume or plasma volume. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12, 411–418 (1967)Google Scholar
  22. Woodwell, G. M. and E. V. Pecan. Flax Pond: an estuarine marsh. Publs Brookhaven natn. Lab. (BNL), N.Y. 50397, 1–7 (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. B. O'ConnorsJr.
    • 1
  • D. C. Biggs
    • 2
  • D. V. Ninivaggi
    • 1
  1. 1.Marine Sciences Research CenterState Universityof New York at Stony BrookLong IslandUSA
  2. 2.Department of OceanographyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations