Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DeVries, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Stein, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by DeVries, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Stein, R. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH | VOLUME 13 | NUMBER 1 | PAGES 53-59 | 1991
© Oxford University Press

research-article

Comparison of three zooplankton samplers: a taxon-specific assessment

Dennis R. DeVries1 and Roy A. Stein

1Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849, USA Department of Zoology and The Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210, USA2

Received on February 21, 1990; accepted on August 18, 1990

We compared densities of zooplankton captured by three common zooplankton samplers during 24 h. A tube sampler generally yielded zooplankton densities equal to or greater than those from a vertical net tow or a Schindler-Patalas trap. Exceptions included herbivorous rotifers and Diaphanosoma. Because rotifer density usually was greatest in the deepest stratum sampled (i.e. near the bottom of the tube), water loss with lifting probably accounted for reduced rotifer capture. Why the tube and the Schindler-Patalas trap were less efficient than the net for Diaphanosoma remains unclear. Because tubes sample the entire water column, providing zooplankton densities comparable with traditional gear, they are a time-saving alternative for zooplankton sampling in shallow lakes and weedy littoral zones.

2The Unit is sponsored jointly by The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University and the Wildlife Management Institute.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
K. B. Cook and G. C. Hays
Comparison of the epipelagic zooplankton samples from a U-Tow and the traditional WP2 net
J. Plankton Res., September 1, 2001; 23(9): 953 - 962.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.