Skip Navigation


JPR Advance Access originally published online on January 19, 2007
Journal of Plankton Research 2007 29(2):169-177; doi:10.1093/plankt/fbm004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
29/2/169    most recent
fbm004v1
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 Stehle, M.
Right arrow Articles by Queiroga, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stehle, M.
Right arrow Articles by Queiroga, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of zooplankton sampling performance of Longhurst–Hardy Plankton Recorder and Bongo nets

Maria Stehle1, Antonina dos Santos1,* and Henrique Queiroga2

1 Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas-IPIMAR, Av. Brasília s/n, 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal 2 CESAM and Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

* Corresponding Author: antonina{at}ipimar.pt

Received on July 5, 2006; accepted on November 21, 2006


  Abstract

Data on the abundance and biomass of zooplankton off the northwestern Portuguese coast, separately estimated with a Longhurst–Hardy Plankton Recorder (LHPR) and a Bongo net, were analysed to assess the comparative performance of the samplers. Zooplankton was collected along four transects perpendicular to the coast, deployments alternating between samplers. Total zooplankton biomass measured using the LHPR was significantly higher than that using the Bongo net. Apart from Appendicularia and Cladocera, abundances of other taxa (Copepoda, Mysidacea, Euphausiacea, Decapoda larvae, Amphipoda, Siphonophora, Hydromedusae, Chaetognatha and Fish eggs) were also consistently higher in the LHPR. Some of these differences were probably due to avoidance by the zooplankton of the Bongo net. This was supported by a comparative analysis of prosome length of the copepod Calanus helgolandicus sampled by the two nets that showed that Calanus in the LHPR samples were on average significantly larger, particularly in day samples. A ratio estimator was used to produce a factor to convert Bongo net biomass and abundance estimates to equate them with those taken with the LHPR. This method demonstrates how results from complementary zooplankton sampling strategies can be made more equivalent.

Communicating editor: R.P. Harris


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




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.