Skip Navigation



JPR Advance Access published online on June 9, 2004
Journal of Plankton Research, doi:10.1093/plankt/fbh090
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/9/983    most recent
fbh090v1
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 Schwamborn, R.
Right arrow Articles by Neumann-Leitão, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Schwamborn, R.
Right arrow Articles by Neumann-Leitão, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received July 23, 2003
Accepted February 21, 2004

Article

Mesozooplankton grazing under conditions of extreme eutrophication in Guanabara Bay, Brazil

R. Schwamborn 1*, S. L. C. Bonecker 2, I. B. Galvão 3, T. A. Silva 1, S. Neumann-Leitão 1

1 Dept. Oceanografia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 50730-540 Recife, Brazil
2 Dept. Zoologia, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3 Institut für Meereskunde, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany


  Abstract

The objective of the present study was to quantify mesozooplankton grazing in the eutrophic waters of Guanabara Bay. Mesozooplankton (>200µm) was dominated by the copepods Acartia lilljeborgi, A. tonsa, Parvocalanus crassirostris, and Paracalanus furcatus. Dinoflagellates, specifically the species Prorocentrum triestinum, were an important group for mesozooplankton nutrition, being ingested in significant amounts during all experiments. On average, 12.3 ± 2.9 cells of P. triestinum were ingested copepod-1 min.-1 (other dinoflagellates: 11 ± 8 cells copepod-1 min.-1). Filamentous cyanophyceae and nannoplankton were ingested in one experiment each, but the mesozooplankton community generally preferred dinoflagellates over these groups, which were always abundant in the water column. Euglenophyceae were not ingested, although they dominated in one experiment. Mesozooplankton ingested, on average, only 0.2 % of the nanno- and microplankton biomass per day. The results suggest that grazing was not a controlling process for the nanno- and microplankton community in the study area. Addition of zoea larvae of Chasmagnatus granulata (Decapoda: Brachyura: Grapsidae) in one experiment had a significant effect on the mortality of adult copepods, probably due to a predator-prey relationship.


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
S. C. Marques, U. M. Azeiteiro, J. C. Marques, J. M. Neto, and M. A. Pardal
Zooplankton and ichthyoplankton communities in a temperate estuary: spatial and temporal patterns
J. Plankton Res., March 1, 2006; 28(3): 297 - 312.
[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.