School of Engineering and Science - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER III Table 3: Temora longicornis grazing g [d -1 ], phytoplankton and microzooplankton growth rates k [d -1 ] determined in four grazing experiments for different prey groups. 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. Before the bloom (Experiment 1) T. longicornis filtered 0.17 L d -1 (F) and ingested 17.87 µgC L -1 d -1 of the phytoplankton community at a carbon specific ingestion rate I c of 0.17 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 (Table 4) leading to 18% reduction of P i and 100% of P p (Table 3). Due to the lower biomass of microzooplankton prey, T. longicornis reached a higher F (0.40 L d -1 ) and it ingested 9.58 µgC L -1 d -1 (I) of the microzooplankton community at an I c of 0.09 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 , leading to a 49% decrease of P i and 174% of P p (Table 3). Only at the bloom peak (Experiment 2), electivity for microzooplankton prey was insignificant. T. longicornis ingested the highest amount of biomass during our experiments (57.50 µgC L -1 , phytoplankton + microzooplankton) and filtered 0.34 L d -1 for phytoplankton and 0.43 L d -1 for microzooplankton, at carbon specific ingestion rates I c of 0.31 and 0.24 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 , respectively (Table 4). Copepods grazed 40% of phytoplankton P i (highest value for T. longicornis) and 54% of its P p and 53% of the microzooplankton P i and 147% of its P p . In the early post bloom phase (Experiment 3) the total amount of I dropped again to 38.22 µgC L -1 d -1 (Table 4 phytoplankton + microzooplankton). T. longicornis cleared 0.10 L d -1 of phytoplankton and 0.38 L d -1 (F) of microzooplankton at an I c of 0.09 and 0.28 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 , respectively (Table 4). The impact on the phytoplankton community was once again lower with 11% of P i and 20% of P p grazed. On the other hand T. longicornis grazed 46% of microzooplankton P i and 478% of its P p . During the late post-bloom (Experiment 4) I of T. longicornis further dropped to 21.8 µgC L -1 d -1 (Table 4 phytoplankton + microzooplankton). While the copepods filtered only 0.05 L d -1 (F) of phytoplankton at a carbon specific ingestion rate I c of 0.04 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 , they cleared 0.78 L d -1 (F) of microzooplankton at an I c of 0.17 µgC prey µgC predator -1 d -1 (Table 4). This led in turn to a reduced impact on the 84
CHAPTER III phytoplankton community (P i : 6%, P p : 13%) and an even more pronounced impact on the microzooplankton biomass (P i : 118%, P p : not defined). Temora longicornis (TC 103.26 µg L -1 ) Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Phytoplankton F c p I c p E* p F c p I c p E* p Chaetoceros spp. 3.28E-09 *** 0.0424 ** -0.21 4.56E-09 * 0.0351 * -0.03 Rhizosolenia spp. 1.26E-09 * 0.0448 * -0.57 ** 1.97E-09 0.0725 -0.30 Thalassiosira spp. 1.99E-09 ** 0.0725 ** -0.40 ** 5.38E-09 * 0.1879 * -0.01 Flagellates 4.46E-10 0.0034 -0.65 ** 7.46E-10 0.0065 -0.61 ** other Diatoms -5.23E-10 -0.0024 -0.80 *** 2.02E-10 0.0029 -0.62 ** TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 1.63E-09 *** 0.1730 *** -0.28 ** 3.29E-09 * 0.3130 * -0.28 RELATED TO TOTAL TEMORA CARBON F 0.17 I 17.87 F 0.34 I 32.32 Microzooplankton Gyrodinium spp. 1.07E-08 ** 0.0277 ** 0.18 2.61E-09 *** 0.0348 *** -0.19 Protoperidinium spp. 1.28E-08 *** 0.0084 **** 0.38 ** 3.17E-09 ** 0.0097 * -0.19 other athecate dinoflagellates 1.74E-09 0.0022 -0.48 ** 2.57E-09 * 0.0028 * -0.23 other thecate dinoflagellates -2.48E-10 -0.0022 -0.89 **** 1.97E-09 * 0.0144 * -0.39 * Strombidium spp. 1.14E-08 *** 0.0264 **** 0.36 ** 7.66E-09 **** 0.1159 **** 0.38 **** Strobilidium spp. 8.87E-09 * 0.0044 * 0.05 3.45E-09 ** 0.0201 ** -0.10 Cyclotrichids 9.17E-09 ** 0.0189 **** 0.25 ** 1.57E-09 0.0054 -0.31 Haptorids 9.03E-09 * 0.0007 * -0.06 3.38E-09 0.0002 -0.12 other Ciliates 3.42E-10 -0.0002 -0.36 5.63E-09 * 0.0010 * 0.02 thecate amoeba sp. 3.13E-09 *** 0.0064 *** -0.26 2.27E-09 * 0.0150 * -0.27 Rotifers - - - - - - TOTAL MICROZOOPLANKTON 3.87E-09 **** 0.0927 **** 0.15 ** 4.14E-09 **** 0.2438 **** 0.04 RELATED TO TOTAL TEMORA CARBON F 0.40 I 9.58 F 0.43 I 25.18 Experiment 3 Experiment 4 Phytoplankton F c p I c p E* p F c p I c p E* p Chaetoceros spp. 2.20E-09 * 0.0268 * -0.34 1.99E-09 0.0139 -0.45 ** Rhizosolenia spp. 2.44E-10 0.0062 -0.68 *** 1.10E-09 0.0245 -0.57 * Thalassiosira spp. -2.97E-10 -0.0273 -0.71 ** 2.06E-09 * 0.0450 * -0.32 Flagellates 2.25E-09 ** 0.0320 ** -0.26 -2.36E-09 *** -0.0465 *** -1.00 other Diatoms 3.84E-09 * 0.0046 * -0.27 2.05E-09 * 0.0020 * -0.36 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON 9.83E-10 0.0912 -0.45 * 5.23E-10 0.0390 -0.74 *** RELATED TO TOTAL TEMORA CARBON F 0.10 I 9.42 F 0.05 I 4.02 Microzooplankton Gyrodinium spp. 2.07E-09 *** 0.0337 *** -0.23 * 6.35E-09 ** 0.0456 **** 0.15 Protoperidinium spp. 7.38E-09 ** 0.0108 ** 0.23 5.11E-09 ** 0.0071 * 0.07 other athecate dinoflagellates 2.15E-09 0.0002 -0.55 - - - other thecate dinoflagellates 1.37E-09 0.0007 -0.29 6.45E-10 0.0002 -0.58 * Strombidium spp. 1.44E-09 -0.0179 -0.52 3.08E-09 - - Strobilidium spp. 2.13E-09 0.0090 -0.33 3.90E-09 0.0001 -0.17 Cyclotrichids 5.70E-09 * 0.0056 0.07 4.74E-09 -0.0007 -0.08 Haptorids 5.23E-09 ** 0.1175 -0.08 2.40E-08 0.0209 0.23 other Ciliates 4.31E-09 0.0004 0.01 9.88E-10 0.0031 -0.58 ** thecate amoeba sp. 1.22E-09 * 0.0049 * -0.44 * 2.44E-09 *** 0.0041 *** -0.29 Rotifers 3.22E-09 0.0050 -0.16 1.78E-08 *** 0.0744 *** 0.55 ** TOTAL MICROZOOPLANKTON 3.69E-09 *** 0.2789 ** 0.18 * 7.54E-09 **** 0.1722 **** 0.28 **** RELATED TO TOTAL TEMORA CARBON F 0.38 I 28.80 F 0.78 I 17.78 85
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 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 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?