Mean weight and total biomass of zooplankton as a core indicator of biodiversity of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an example of the Gulf of Riga

M. Simm, J. Kotta, H. Jänes
{"title":"Mean weight and total biomass of zooplankton as a core indicator of biodiversity of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an example of the Gulf of Riga","authors":"M. Simm, J. Kotta, H. Jänes","doi":"10.3176/ECO.2014.4.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION The value of zooplankton as an indicator of ecological processes arises from its position in various food webs. Zooplankton acts as a middle point between top-down (fishes) and bottom-up (phytoplankton) regulators (Jeppesen et al., 2011). Thereby, zooplankton indirectly indicates trophic interactions between phytoplankton/bacterioplankton and zooplankton as well as zooplankton and fishes, hence, eutrophication as well as fish predation on zooplankton (Haberman, 1996). Direct predation pressure from fish can significantly impact on zooplankton communities. For example, predation-induced mortality leads to a high percentage of overall mortality in copepods (Hirst and Kiorboe, 2002; Tang et al., 2006; Martinez et al., 2014). Larger individuals of zooplankton are normally consumed in case of high rates of fish predation, which leads into a situation where domination within zooplankton communities is given to smaller individuals (Haberman, 1996; Brucet et al., 2010; Jeppesen et al., 2011). In addition to the size of zooplankton, top-down predation pressure is also affected by the morphology of various life history stages of zooplankton (Brooks and Dodson, 1965; Otto et al., 2014). A common assumption is that marine zooplankton is bottom-up controlled. Thus, it could be used as an indicator of climate change effects in the open ocean where anthropogenic impact on top of the food chain is considered to be negligible (Adrian et al., 2006; Barton et al., 2013; Daewel et al., 2014). Nevertheless, recently species on lower trophic levels have shown cascading effects in various marine ecosystems due to the overfishing of top-down predators (Casini et al., 2008, 2014). Various studies have focused on long-term dynamics of zooplankton in relation to hydro-climatic conditions in the adjacent sea (Viitasalo et al., 1995; Mollmann et al., 2000, 2008; Kotta et al., 2009). It is common in aquatic ecosystems that hierarchic response takes place along trophic levels, i.e. the intensity of response to eutrophication can vary among trophic levels (Hsieh et al., 2011; Lewandowska et al., 2014). Surprisingly, mesozooplankton has not been included into the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) as a quality element. The importance of mesozooplankton in terms of ecological environmental assessment has been demonstrated in rivers and lakes, and the necessity of including mesozooplankton in the WFD has been outlined (Jeppesen et al., 2011). However, mesozooplankton is included into the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). On the basis of work carried out by the MSFD HELCOM zooplankton working group, a core indicator of food web structure based on mesozooplankton, i.e. the average size or weight of a zooplankter, was proposed by Gorokhova et al. (2013a). The indicator is also supported by total values of zooplankton abundance and biomass. Thus, the measure captures both zooplankton community structure (by mean weight) and the stock size (by biomass or abundance). In the current study we analysed the use of this indicator of good environmental status in the northeastern Gulf of Riga based on zooplankton data collected mainly from Parnu Bay. The effect of zooplankton as a food source affecting fish growth was evaluated. Seasonal and interannual variation of total abundance and biomass of zooplankton together with mean weight of a zooplankter was analysed based on both seasonal and long-term data. MATERIAL AND METHODS Field data were collected from the northeastern Gulf of Riga, mainly from Parnu Bay, between 1957 and 2013. In total 6746 quantitative samples of mesozooplankton were used (of these 3067 were collected from June to August). Zooplankton sampling and analysis followed the HELCOM recommendations (1988). Samples were collected with a Juday type plankton net (mouth opening 0.1 [m.sup.2]; mesh size 90 [micro]m) with vertical hauls from the seabed up to the surface. …","PeriodicalId":262667,"journal":{"name":"Estonian Journal of Ecology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Estonian Journal of Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ECO.2014.4.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The value of zooplankton as an indicator of ecological processes arises from its position in various food webs. Zooplankton acts as a middle point between top-down (fishes) and bottom-up (phytoplankton) regulators (Jeppesen et al., 2011). Thereby, zooplankton indirectly indicates trophic interactions between phytoplankton/bacterioplankton and zooplankton as well as zooplankton and fishes, hence, eutrophication as well as fish predation on zooplankton (Haberman, 1996). Direct predation pressure from fish can significantly impact on zooplankton communities. For example, predation-induced mortality leads to a high percentage of overall mortality in copepods (Hirst and Kiorboe, 2002; Tang et al., 2006; Martinez et al., 2014). Larger individuals of zooplankton are normally consumed in case of high rates of fish predation, which leads into a situation where domination within zooplankton communities is given to smaller individuals (Haberman, 1996; Brucet et al., 2010; Jeppesen et al., 2011). In addition to the size of zooplankton, top-down predation pressure is also affected by the morphology of various life history stages of zooplankton (Brooks and Dodson, 1965; Otto et al., 2014). A common assumption is that marine zooplankton is bottom-up controlled. Thus, it could be used as an indicator of climate change effects in the open ocean where anthropogenic impact on top of the food chain is considered to be negligible (Adrian et al., 2006; Barton et al., 2013; Daewel et al., 2014). Nevertheless, recently species on lower trophic levels have shown cascading effects in various marine ecosystems due to the overfishing of top-down predators (Casini et al., 2008, 2014). Various studies have focused on long-term dynamics of zooplankton in relation to hydro-climatic conditions in the adjacent sea (Viitasalo et al., 1995; Mollmann et al., 2000, 2008; Kotta et al., 2009). It is common in aquatic ecosystems that hierarchic response takes place along trophic levels, i.e. the intensity of response to eutrophication can vary among trophic levels (Hsieh et al., 2011; Lewandowska et al., 2014). Surprisingly, mesozooplankton has not been included into the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) as a quality element. The importance of mesozooplankton in terms of ecological environmental assessment has been demonstrated in rivers and lakes, and the necessity of including mesozooplankton in the WFD has been outlined (Jeppesen et al., 2011). However, mesozooplankton is included into the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). On the basis of work carried out by the MSFD HELCOM zooplankton working group, a core indicator of food web structure based on mesozooplankton, i.e. the average size or weight of a zooplankter, was proposed by Gorokhova et al. (2013a). The indicator is also supported by total values of zooplankton abundance and biomass. Thus, the measure captures both zooplankton community structure (by mean weight) and the stock size (by biomass or abundance). In the current study we analysed the use of this indicator of good environmental status in the northeastern Gulf of Riga based on zooplankton data collected mainly from Parnu Bay. The effect of zooplankton as a food source affecting fish growth was evaluated. Seasonal and interannual variation of total abundance and biomass of zooplankton together with mean weight of a zooplankter was analysed based on both seasonal and long-term data. MATERIAL AND METHODS Field data were collected from the northeastern Gulf of Riga, mainly from Parnu Bay, between 1957 and 2013. In total 6746 quantitative samples of mesozooplankton were used (of these 3067 were collected from June to August). Zooplankton sampling and analysis followed the HELCOM recommendations (1988). Samples were collected with a Juday type plankton net (mouth opening 0.1 [m.sup.2]; mesh size 90 [micro]m) with vertical hauls from the seabed up to the surface. …
作为海洋战略框架指令生物多样性核心指标的浮游动物平均重量和总生物量:以里加湾为例
浮游动物作为生态过程指示器的价值源于其在各种食物网中的地位。浮游动物是自上而下(鱼类)和自下而上(浮游植物)调节者之间的中间点(Jeppesen et al., 2011)。因此,浮游动物间接表明了浮游植物/细菌与浮游动物以及浮游动物与鱼类之间的营养相互作用,因此,富营养化以及鱼类捕食浮游动物(Haberman, 1996)。鱼类的直接捕食压力会显著影响浮游动物群落。例如,捕食引起的死亡导致桡足类动物总死亡率的高比例(Hirst和Kiorboe, 2002;Tang et al., 2006;Martinez et al., 2014)。较大的浮游动物个体通常在鱼类高捕食率的情况下被消耗,这导致浮游动物群落中的统治地位被较小的个体所占据(Haberman, 1996;Brucet et al., 2010;Jeppesen et al., 2011)。除了浮游动物的大小,自上而下的捕食压力还受到浮游动物各个生活史阶段形态的影响(Brooks and Dodson, 1965;Otto et al., 2014)。一个普遍的假设是,海洋浮游动物是自下而上控制的。因此,它可以作为气候变化对开放海洋影响的一个指标,在开放海洋中,人类活动对食物链顶端的影响被认为是可以忽略不计的(Adrian等人,2006;Barton et al., 2013;dawel et al., 2014)。然而,由于自上而下捕食者的过度捕捞,最近营养水平较低的物种在各种海洋生态系统中显示出级联效应(Casini et al., 2008, 2014)。各种研究集中于与邻近海域水文气候条件有关的浮游动物的长期动态(Viitasalo等人,1995年;Mollmann et al., 2000,2008;Kotta et al., 2009)。在水生生态系统中,通常沿着营养水平发生等级反应,即对富营养化的反应强度可能因营养水平而异(Hsieh et al., 2011;Lewandowska et al., 2014)。令人惊讶的是,中浮游动物并没有作为质量要素被纳入欧洲水框架指令(WFD)。中浮游动物在河流和湖泊生态环境评价中的重要性已经得到证明,并概述了将中浮游动物纳入WFD的必要性(Jeppesen et al., 2011)。然而,中浮游动物被纳入欧盟海洋战略框架指令(MSFD)。Gorokhova等人(2013a)在MSFD HELCOM浮游动物工作组工作的基础上,提出了基于中浮游动物的食物网结构核心指标,即浮游动物的平均体型或体重。该指标还得到了浮游动物丰度和生物量的总和的支持。因此,该措施既捕获了浮游动物群落结构(按平均重量计算),也捕获了种群大小(按生物量或丰度计算)。在本研究中,我们主要基于收集自帕尔努湾的浮游动物数据,分析了这一环境状况良好指标在里加湾东北部的使用情况。评价了浮游动物作为食物来源对鱼类生长的影响。根据季节和长期资料,分析了浮游动物总丰度和生物量以及浮游动物平均重量的季节和年际变化。材料与方法1957年至2013年期间,在里加湾东北部(主要来自帕尔努湾)收集了现场数据。共采集中浮游动物定量标本6746份(其中6 ~ 8月采集3067份)。浮游动物取样和分析遵循HELCOM的建议(1988年)。采用Juday型浮游生物网(开口0.1 [m.sup.2];网目尺寸为90[微]米),可从海底垂直拖至海面。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信