Skip Navigation



JPR Advance Access published online on August 17, 2005
Journal of Plankton Research, doi:10.1093/plankt/fbi051
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/8/775    most recent
fbi051v1
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 Jakobsen, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Visser, A. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jakobsen, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Visser, A. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Received February 2, 2005
Accepted July 27, 2005

Article

Effects of prey motility and concentration on feeding in Acartia tonsa and Temora longicornis: the importance of feeding modes

Hans Henrik Jakobsen 1*, Elisabeth Halvorsen 2, Benni Winding Hansen 3, and André W. Visser 1

1 Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Dept. of Marine and Coastal Ecology. Kavalergården 6, DK-2920 Charlottenlund, Denmark
2 Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
3 Department of Life Sciences and Chemistry, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Box 260, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hans Henrik Jakobsen, E-mail: hhj{at}dfu.min.dk


  Abstract

Feeding experiments were conducted with the ambush-feeding copepod Acartia tonsa and the feeding-current-generating copepod Temora longicornis. The copepods were offered a mixed diet of the dinoflagellate Heterocapsa triquetra and the ciliate Balanion comatum of similar cell size. The dinoflagellate was offered at a constant concentration of 10-15 cells mL-1, whereas the ciliate was offered at a variety of concentrations, ranging from 7 to 57 cells mL-1. Copepods with different feeding modes possess different mechanisms for prey detection, suggesting that the two copepods would respond differently to the two prey types. Both copepods had significantly higher clearance rates on the highly motile ciliate than on the less motile dinoflagellate. In encounters between A. tonsa and its prey, we argue that this is due to the higher hydromechanical signal generated by the ciliate. The advection feeding copepod T. longicornis fed on the two prey according to their relative concentrations; in this case we suggests that although B. comatum is capable of detecting feeding-current-generating predators, the feeding current velocity generated by T. longicornis is greater than the escape velocity of this ciliate.

Communicating Editor: KJ Flynn
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
I. Gismervik
Top-down impact by copepods on ciliate numbers and persistence depends on copepod and ciliate species composition
J. Plankton Res., May 1, 2006; 28(5): 499 - 507.
[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.