School of Engineering and Science - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DISCUSSION 1986, Tillmann, 2004) consisting mainly of flagellates (Kivi & Setälä, 1995). Apart from obvious exceptions, ciliates can thus be classified as rapid reaction food specialists and dinoflagellates more as generalists with longer response times but greater persistence. These ecological strategies were confirmed by succession patterns visible during my spring bloom experiments (Chapter III). The observed seasonality of both groups in the monitoring data (Chapter I) also supported this to a certain extent. Ciliates played a key role during spring (Riegman et al., 1993) as they responded more quickly to increasing phytoplankton concentrations (flagellates) and formed an earlier peak than dinoflagellates. These in turn displayed longer lasting biomass maxima especially during the summer months. Let us apply these findings to a simplified situation in the field shortly before a bloom of different phytoplankton species, e.g., small flagellates and different diatoms. Furthermore let us neglect top down control of dinoflagellates and ciliates and ask the question: Concerning the different features of dinoflagellates and ciliates, what would be the effect of both grazer groups on bloom formation? The resulting scenario could be as follows: The phytoplankton constituting the preferred food of the ciliates, e.g. flagellates, would be eaten before being able to form a bloom due to the effective grazing of their fastgrowing ciliate predators. Ciliates therefore would prevent their preferred prey from blooming. The other phytoplankters would not be controlled by ciliates. They would be able to grow faster as they would be grazed by their more slowly growing dinoflagellate predators. These phytoplankton species, e.g. different diatoms, would be the bloomforming species. Although this depiction is an oversimplification of the real mechanisms that drive phytoplankton blooms a similar scenario has been observed during the spring bloom experiments reported in this study (Chapter III). Such sizedifferential grazing control promoting diatom spring blooms has also been reported from other studies (Riegman et al., 1993, Brussaard et al., 1995) in the North Sea. Interactions between microzooplankton predators The relationships and interactions between species are of fundamental interest in ecology (Begon et al., 2006). Although the interactions of microzooplankton with other members of the marine food web, especially phytoplankton and mesozooplankton (Calbet, 2008), have been investigated in some detail, studies on the interactions between members of the microzooplankton are rare (Stoecker & Evans, 1985, Jakobsen & Hansen, 1997). Due to the wide range of members of different taxonomic groups and 134
DISCUSSION a high diversity of nutritional strategies in the microzooplankton (Sherr & Sherr, 2002), interactions between microzooplankters can be as variable as the players themselves comprising different nuances of competition as well as predation or neutralism. Investigations on possible interactions are made difficult by problems with culturing microzooplankton, particularly ciliates (Gifford, 1985). During one part of this thesis I focused on the interactions between small heterotrophic dinoflagellates and large ciliates and succeeded in taking them into culture. The experimental organisms, according to the monitoring data “key” model species at Helgoland Roads, were isolated from North Sea samples and cultures were established. As a result of their preferred prey size, small heterotrophic dinoflagellates potentially compete with bigger planktonic ciliates for prey (Jakobsen & Hansen, 1997). The system I investigated included the possibility of intraguild predation realized when the ciliate preys on the smaller dinoflagellate. Other studies with the same interactive conditions of the predators have dealt with two competing ciliates (Stoecker & Evans, 1985) or with a ciliate and a dinoflagellate species (Jakobsen & Hansen, 1997). Unlike such studies, results presented in Chapter IV of this study showed that interactions between intraguild prey and predator are more complex and not just a combination of competition and predation between the predators. Diehl & Feissel (2000) developed a theoretical framework for three-level food chains including omnivory. One fundamental condition in this is that the intraguild prey must be the superior resource competitor, otherwise it will be outcompeted by the intraguild predator. My experiments with both predators as single grazers suggested that the intraguild predator was the superior competitor. Against all expectations and theoretical suggestions (Diehl & Feissel, 2000, Diehl & Feissel, 2001) no negative effect on the intraguild prey was detected in the three-species treatments conducted during my thesis. The small heterotrophic dinoflagellate grew even faster in the presence of its competing intraguild predator. Looking closer into the interactive patterns I found a kind of commensalistic relationship preceding other possibilities of interaction. The small dinoflagellate was promoted by pre-conditioned prey items produced by the ciliate and showed the same growth rates as its competitor. Due to a faster growing predator biomass this led to a more efficient use of the resource in the system. Theoretical assumptions suggest that the promotion of the intraguild prey is of such magnitude that it can potentially favor a stable coexistence of both predators which is of further relevance as both predators co-occur in the same environment. 135
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 100 and 101: CHAPTER III in words and deeds. Man
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 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?