CTENOPHORA IN THE ARCTIC - THE ABUNDANCE, DISTRIBUTION AND PREDATORY IMPACT OF THE CYDIPPID CTENOPHORE MERTENSIA-OVUM (FABRICIUS) IN THE BARENTS SEA

被引:33
作者
SWANBERG, N
BAMSTEDT, U
机构
[1] Department of Fisheries and Marine Biology, High Technology Centre, University of Bergen, Bergen
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1751-8369.1991.tb00669.x
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The Ctenophora Mertensia ovum and Beroe cucumis, collected using both conventional sampling gear and scuba divers, were studied in the Barents Sea east of Bjornoya and North Norway in spring 1987 and summer 1988. Among the gelatinous zooplankton, Mertensia ovum was the most consistently abundant copepod predator. Feeding experiments were conducted to evaluate the predation rate of M. ovum in various trophic regimes. This ctenophore can take prey varying in size from small copepods to amphipods and krill, but gut-content analyses from field-collected specimens as well as experimental results showed that the main food source for adults was large-sized copepods (e.g. Calanus finmarchicus, C. glacialis, C. hyperboreus. Metridia longa). The robust tentacle arrray of M, ovum makes this species effective as a predator on large prey. The high potential predation rate of this ctenophore relative to its estimated metabolic cost of only 1.7% of thc body energy content d-1 suggests that M. ovum may be able to maintain a positive energy balance even in conditions of low prey abundance. It is suggested that a single exploitation of a zooplankton patch may provide energy for survival for a very long time. The potential impact of M. ovum on Barents Sea copepod populations is estimated on the basis of the minimal observed average daily ration in experiments and from field data on gut contents. Using abundances of copepods for the area, and the actual predator biomass collected, it was estimated that an average of 0.7% of the copepod fauna per day could fall prey to this predator.
引用
收藏
页码:507 / 524
页数:18
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
Alldredge A., Abandoned larvacean houses: A unique food source in the pelagic environment., Science, 177, pp. 885-887, (1972)
[2]  
Anderson E., (1974)
[3]  
Biggs D.C., Bidigare R.R., Smith D.E., Population density of gelatinous macrozooplankton: In situ estimation in oceanic surface waters., Biol. Oceanog., 1, pp. 157-173, (1981)
[4]  
Biggs D.C., Laval P., Braconnot J.-C., Carre C., Goy J., Masson M., Morand P., (1987)
[5]  
Batedt U., Water and organic content of boreal macrozooplankton and their significance for the energy content., Sarsia, 66, pp. 59-66, (1981)
[6]  
Deason E.E., Smayda T.J., Ctenophore‐zooplankton‐phytoplankton interactions in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, U.S.A., during 1972‐1977., J. Plankton Res., 4, pp. 203-217, (1982)
[7]  
De Lafontaine Y., Legget W.C., Effect of container size on estimates of mortality and predation rates in experiments with macrozooplankton and larval fish., Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci., 44, pp. 1534-1543, (1987)
[8]  
Elliot J.M., Davison W., Energy equivalents of oxygen consumption in animal energetics., Oecologia, 19, pp. 195-201, (1975)
[9]  
Feigenbaum D., Reeve M.R., Prey detection in the Chaetognatha: Response to a vibrating probe and experimental determination of attack distance in large aquaria., Limnology and Oceanography, 22, pp. 1052-1058, (1977)
[10]  
Fraser J.H., The ecology of the ctenophore Pleurobrachia pileus in Scottish waters., ICES Journal of Marine Science, 33, pp. 149-168, (1970)