School of Engineering and Science - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER III in words and deeds. Many thanks to the technical department of the BAH for all the perfect “short notice” solutions and to Arne Malzahn for his technical support. Special thanks also to the “Copepod Hunter” Katherina Schoo for catching and sorting out all the copepods for our experiments. Furthermore thanks to the crews of the research vessels Uthörn and Aade, Kristine Carstens, Silvia Janisch and last but not least the whole team of the AWI Food Web Project. APPENDIX Table 1: Microzooplankton grazing g [d -1 ] and phytoplankton growth rates k [d -1 ] determined in four dilution experiments for each prey category. Food saturation marked with gray background. Instantaneous growth rate values µ 0 [d -1 ] from bottles without added nutrients. Percentage of initial stock P i [%] and potential production grazed P p [%]. Negative P i and P p values resulting from negative g (P i ) or µ 0 (P p ) and were set to zero. The same was done for positive P p values resulting from negative g and µ 0 . MMC = mean microzooplankton carbon biomass. P-values from linear regression analysis of apparent phytoplankton growth against dilution factor (n = 36). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001. Table 2: Microzooplankton carbon specific filtration rates F c [L µgC predator -1 d -1 ] and carbon specific ingestion rates I c [µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 ], total filtration rates F [L d -1 ], total ingestion rates I [µgC prey L -1 d -1 ] and electivity E* [-] for each prey category. Positive selection marked with gray background. MMC = mean microzooplankton carbon biomass. P-values are the same as for the grazing rates of microzooplankton. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001. Table 3 a+b: Temora longicornis grazing g [d -1 ], phytoplankton and microzooplankton growth rates k [d -1 ] determined in four grazing experiments for each prey category. Instantaneous growth rate values µ 0 [d -1 ] from dilution experiment bottles without added nutrients. Percentage of initial stock P i [%] and potential production grazed P p [%]. Negative P i and P p values resulting from negative g (P i ) or µ 0 /k (P p ) were set to zero. The same was done for positive P p values resulting from negative g and µ 0 /k. TC = Total T. longicornis carbon biomass. P-values derived from t-tests against zero.* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001. Table 4 a+b: Temora longicornis carbon specific filtration rates F c [L µgC predator -1 d -1 ] and carbon specific ingestion rates I c [µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 ], total filtration rates F [L d -1 ], total ingestion rates I [µgC prey L -1 d -1 ] and electivity E* [-] for each prey category. Positive selection marked with gray background. TC = Total T. longicornis carbon biomass. P-values derived from t-tests against zero.* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001. 94
CHAPTER III Table 1 Microzooplankton Experiment 1 - (MMC 30.33 µg L -1 ) Experiment 2 - (MMC 74.47 µg L -1 ) Phytoplankton k p g p µ 0 P i P p k p g p µ 0 P i P p Pseudonitzschia spp. (120 µm) 0.43 *** 0.62 ** 0.31 86 172 0.87 **** 1.04 **** 1.52 183 83 Pseudonitzschia spp. (80 µm) 0.14 0.29 -0.46 34 0 0.57 *** 0.66 * 0.85 93 84 Pseudonitzschia spp. (60 µm) 0.44 1.08 0.51 195 164 0.99 **** 0.88 * 0.50 142 148 Navicula spp. (40 µm) 0.66 * 0.39 * 0.16 48 220 0.98 **** 1.35 **** 1.62 285 92 Navicula spp. (20 µm) 0.08 -0.21 -0.28 0 74 0.20 0.52 * 0.23 68 199 Navicula spp. (10 µm) -0.32 * -0.50 -0.39 0 135 0.24 * 0.44 * 0.16 56 237 Chaetoceros danicus 1.14 ** 1.11 **** 0.65 203 141 0.40 ** 0.16 0.30 18 58 Chaetoceros spp. (40 µm) 0.72 ** 1.16 ** 0.62 220 149 1.07 **** 0.91 ** 1.25 150 84 Chaetoceros spp. (30 µm) 0.48 ** 0.77 ** 0.86 116 93 0.59 *** 0.54 * 0.93 71 69 Chaetoceros spp. (20 µm) 0.41 0.55 * 0.40 72 129 1.60 **** 1.69 **** 1.70 443 100 Chaetoceros spp. (10 µm) 0.71 * 1.19 * 0.73 230 135 1.34 *** 0.75 0.66 113 109 Rhizosolenia styliformis/hebetata 0.32 0.35 ** 0.03 42 1063 0.53 **** 0.61 **** 0.62 85 99 Rhizosolenia pungens/setigera -0.58 * -0.73 * 0.05 0 0 1.09 **** 1.02 **** 1.03 177 99 Thalassiosira nordenskioeldii 0.50 *** 0.50 * 0.33 65 141 0.66 **** 0.39 * 0.63 47 69 Thalassiosira rotula 0.56 **** 0.68 ** 0.64 96 104 -0.14 -0.29 0.16 0 0 Flagellates (25 µm) 0.54 0.68 * 0.83 98 88 0.49 * 0.74 * 0.78 110 97 Flagellates (20 µm) 0.11 0.02 -0.12 2 0 0.07 0.47 * -0.06 60 0 Flagellates (15 µm) -0.52 ** -0.36 -0.47 0 0 0.53 *** 0.91 *** 0.69 149 119 Flagellates (10 µm) 0.49 * 0.31 ** -0.23 36 0 0.46 ** 0.66 ** 0.58 94 109 Flagellates (5 µm) 0.24 0.28 ** -0.61 32 0 0.79 **** 1.21 *** 1.42 236 93 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 0.41 * 0.43 * 0.17 53 223 0.80 **** 0.66 *** 0.77 93 90 Experiment 3 - (MMC 93.82 µg L -1 ) Experiment 4 - (MMC 33.12 µg L -1 ) Phytoplankton k p g p µ 0 P i P p k p g p µ 0 P i P p Pseudonitzschia spp. (120 µm) 0.38 *** 0.41 * 0.46 51 91 0.78 **** 0.44 **** 0.75 55 67 Pseudonitzschia spp. (80 µm) 0.91 **** 0.94 *** 1.26 156 85 1.08 **** 1.14 *** 1.82 213 81 Pseudonitzschia spp. (60 µm) 1.63 **** 2.04 **** 2.02 666 100 1.02 *** 1.22 ** 1.46 239 92 Navicula spp. (40 µm) 1.35 **** 1.62 **** 0.16 404 541 0.20 0.50 * -0.20 66 0 Navicula spp. (20 µm) 0.15 0.52 0.45 68 111 -0.18 0.18 0.18 19 96 Navicula spp. (10 µm) 0.30 0.62 * 0.23 85 223 1.32 ** 1.43 * 2.18 316 86 Chaetoceros danicus -0.03 -0.07 -0.02 0 0 -0.28 -0.11 0.21 0 0 Chaetoceros spp. (40 µm) 1.09 **** 1.42 *** 1.72 313 92 1.18 **** 1.00 ** 1.67 173 78 Chaetoceros spp. (30 µm) 0.45 * 0.34 0.50 40 73 1.17 **** 0.84 **** 1.66 131 70 Chaetoceros spp. (20 µm) 0.27 * 0.51 * 0.08 66 515 0.64 **** 0.16 0.68 18 31 Chaetoceros spp. (10 µm) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rhizosolenia styliformis/hebetata 0.41 **** 0.47 **** 0.73 61 73 0.50 **** 0.36 ** 0.65 43 63 Rhizosolenia pungens/setigera 0.64 ** 0.66 * 0.74 93 92 0.33 0.28 0.06 32 409 Thalassiosira nordenskioeldii 0.17 ** 0.49 **** 0.49 63 99 0.62 **** 0.58 **** 0.73 79 85 Thalassiosira rotula 0.51 *** 0.87 ** 1.14 138 85 0.86 **** 0.70 *** 1.20 102 72 Flagellates (25 µm) 1.34 * 1.92 * 2.36 584 94 1.33 1.33 3.04 278 77 Flagellates (20 µm) 0.43 1.03 * 0.76 180 121 0.66 * 0.98 * 0.73 165 121 Flagellates (15 µm) 0.84 **** 1.38 **** 0.72 299 146 0.28 0.50 0.68 65 79 Flagellates (10 µm) 0.82 **** 0.99 **** 0.95 169 102 -0.49 -0.12 -0.59 0 0 Flagellates (5 µm) 0.57 **** 0.54 ** 0.76 72 79 0.007 0.26 * -0.33 30 0 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 0.39 **** 0.54 **** 0.65 72 87 0.41 **** 0.39 *** 0.52 48 80 95
Page 1 and 2:
The role of heterotrophic dinoflage
Page 3:
“What we know is a drop, what we
Page 7 and 8:
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Understan
Page 9 and 10:
INTRODUCTION flagellates) and metaz
Page 11 and 12:
INTRODUCTION The remaining species
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTION Figure 4: Diplopsalis
Page 15 and 16:
INTRODUCTION compared to dinoflagel
Page 17:
INTRODUCTION “seawater dilution t
Page 20 and 21:
RESEARCH AIMS Apart from the pure g
Page 22 and 23:
OUTLINE OF THE THESIS the two diffe
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER I CHAPTER I Dinoflagellates
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER I Dinoflagellates and cilia
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Marine resea
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER I counted out at 200-fold m
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER I Dinoflagellates closely f
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER I Figure 3: Biomass [µgC L
Page 37 and 38:
CHAPTER I prevents confusion with o
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER I Figure 6: Comparison of c
Page 41:
CHAPTER I should therefore occur on
Page 44 and 45:
CHAPTER II 38
Page 46 and 47:
CHAPTER II ABSTRACT Grazing experim
Page 48 and 49:
CHAPTER II application, the alterna
Page 50 and 51: CHAPTER II Experiment 2 Experiment
Page 52 and 53: CHAPTER II Ciliates The three most
Page 54 and 55: CHAPTER II Experiment 2 Microzoopla
Page 56 and 57: CHAPTER II Asterisk * 1 symbolizes
Page 58 and 59: CHAPTER II DISCUSSION Transfer tech
Page 60 and 61: CHAPTER II bottles when siphoning w
Page 62 and 63: CHAPTER II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This st
Page 64 and 65: CHAPTER III 58
Page 66 and 67: CHAPTER III ABSTRACT Mesocosm exper
Page 68 and 69: CHAPTER III the prey (Cowles et al.
Page 70 and 71: CHAPTER III The mesocosms were stir
Page 72 and 73: CHAPTER III Net growth of plankton
Page 74 and 75: CHAPTER III prior to the experiment
Page 76 and 77: CHAPTER III incubation bottles with
Page 78 and 79: CHAPTER III Data analysis To monito
Page 80 and 81: CHAPTER III General development of
Page 82 and 83: CHAPTER III Ciliate community After
Page 84 and 85: CHAPTER III Other microzooplankton
Page 86 and 87: CHAPTER III Microzooplankton Experi
Page 88 and 89: CHAPTER III Figure 6: (6a) General
Page 90 and 91: CHAPTER III Table 3: Temora longico
Page 92 and 93: CHAPTER III Table 4: Temora longico
Page 94 and 95: CHAPTER III The comparison of mesoc
Page 96 and 97: CHAPTER III Flagellates contributed
Page 98 and 99: CHAPTER III The effort to capture,
Page 102 and 103: CHAPTER III Table 2 Microzooplankto
Page 104 and 105: CHAPTER III Table 3b Temora longico
Page 106 and 107: CHAPTER III Table 4b Temora longico
Page 108 and 109: CHAPTER IV 102
Page 110 and 111: CHAPTER IV ABSTRACT The intra-speci
Page 112 and 113: CHAPTER IV Hansen, 1997). In turn,
Page 114 and 115: CHAPTER IV out in F/2 medium over 7
Page 116 and 117: CHAPTER IV the same patterns in G.
Page 118 and 119: CHAPTER IV Figure 1: General develo
Page 120 and 121: CHAPTER IV Favella ehrenbergii (Fig
Page 122 and 123: CHAPTER IV (24, 48, 72 hours of inc
Page 124 and 125: CHAPTER IV Growth response of G. do
Page 126 and 127: CHAPTER IV due to pre-conditioning
Page 128 and 129: CHAPTER IV This was also confirmed
Page 130 and 131: 124
Page 132 and 133: DISCUSSION described by competition
Page 134 and 135: DISCUSSION to know who they are. Th
Page 136 and 137: DISCUSSION Microzooplankton grazers
Page 138 and 139: DISCUSSION Figure 1: A rather simpl
Page 140 and 141: DISCUSSION 1986, Tillmann, 2004) co
Page 142 and 143: DISCUSSION To my knowledge similar
Page 144 and 145: DISCUSSION transported around the w
Page 146 and 147: 140
Page 148 and 149: SUMMARY by its larger competitor. T
Page 150 and 151:
REFERENCES Buskey, E.J. & Stoecker,
Page 152 and 153:
REFERENCES Gentsch, E., Kreibich, T
Page 154 and 155:
REFERENCES Jeong, H.J., Yoo, Y.D.,
Page 156 and 157:
REFERENCES Montagnes, D.J.S., 2003.
Page 158 and 159:
REFERENCES Rose, J.M. & Caron, D.A.
Page 160 and 161:
REFERENCES Teixeira, I.G. & Figueir
Page 162 and 163:
156
Page 164 and 165:
158
show all

School of Engineering and Science - Jacobs University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?