Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands)
Escaravage, V.; Soetaert, K. (1995). Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia 311(1-3): 103-114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00008574
In: Hydrobiologia. Springer: The Hague. ISSN 0018-8158; e-ISSN 1573-5117, meer
Is gerelateerd aan:Escaravage, V.; Soetaert, K. (1995). Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands), in: Heip, C.H.R. et al. Major biological processes in European tidal estuaries. Developments in Hydrobiology, 110: pp. 103-114, meer
|  |
| Trefwoorden |
Aquatic communities
Biological production > Secondary production
Cycles > Chemical cycles > Geochemical cycle > Biogeochemical cycle > Nutrient cycles > Carbon cycle
Water bodies > Coastal waters > Coastal landforms > Coastal inlets > Estuaries
Copepoda [WoRMS]
ANE, Nederland, Westerschelde [Marine Regions]
Brak water |
| Author keywords |
SECONDARY PRODUCTION; COPEPOD; ESTUARY; WESTERSCHELDE |
| Abstract |
The zooplankton community of the brackish part of the Westerschelde estuary (November 1989-October 1990) was dominated by two calanoid copepods, Eurytemora affinis and Acartia tonsa. Eurytemora was present during a longer period of the year and was much more important in terms of total abundances and biomasses than Acartia. The secondary production of these species was estimated by means of the growth rate method, using weight-specific growth rates obtained from laboratory cultures (Eurytemora) or from the literature (Acartia). Due to the substantially higher growth rates of Acartia compared to Eurytemora, total yearly productions of both communities were comparable, notwithstanding the large discrepancies in biomass. They amounted to about 5 and 6 g C m-2 y-1 by Acartia and Eurytemora respectively. The food needed to realise this production was estimated to be about 14 and 17 g C m-2 y-1 by Acartia and Eurytemora respectively. Provided that the copepods are able to selectively ingest the phytoplankton, in situ net production provides sufficient carbon for zooplankton demands for a short period of the year only. As phytoplankton standing stock is very low and net phytoplankton productivity is negative from late fall to early spring, nutritional demands of the copepods have to be fulfilled by other than algal food at least during this period of the year. Although the copepods in the brackish part can have an important impact on some food items, their contribution to total carbon fluxes in the brackish zone is negligible: each year some 6% of all consumed carbon in the brackish part of the estuary passes through the copepod food web. |
|
