Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:55:35.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sampling estuarine copepods at different scales and resolutions: a study in Rio de la Plata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

Sourav Paul  and
Danilo Calliari
Sourav Paul*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India
Danilo Calliari
Affiliation:
Functional Ecology of Aquatic Systems Group, Universidad de la República, Rocha, Uruguay Faculty of Sciences, Universidad de la República, Rocha, Uruguay
*
Author for correspondence: Sourav Paul, E-mail: spzoo@caluniv.ac.in; souravpaul4@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Rio de la Plata salinity, temperature, chlorophyll a (chl a), and densities (ind. m−3) of the copepods Acartia tonsa and Paracalanus parvus were measured from January to November in 2003 by following a nested weekly and monthly design. Such sampling yielded two separate datasets: (i) Yearly Dataset (YD) which consists of data of one sampling effort per month for 11 consecutive months, and (ii) Seasonal Weekly Datasets (SWD) which consists of data of one sampling effort per week of any four consecutive weeks within each season. YD was assumed as a medium-term low-resolution (MTLR) dataset, and SWD as a short-term high-resolution (STHR) dataset. The hypothesis was, the SWD would always capture (shorter scales generally captures more noise in data) more detail variability of copepod populations (quantified through the regression relationships between temporal changes of salinity, temperature, chl a and copepod densities) than the YD. Analysis of both YD and SWD found that A. tonsa density was neither affected by seasonal cycles, nor temporal variability of salinity, temperature and chl a. Thus, compared to STHR sampling, MTLR sampling did not yield any further information of the variability of population densities of the perennial copepod A. tonsa. Analysis of SWD found that during summer and autumn the population densities of P. parvus had a significant positive relationship to salinity but their density was limited by higher chl a concentration; analysis of YD could not yield such detailed ecological information. That hints the effectiveness of STHR sampling over MTLR sampling in capturing details of the variability of population densities of a seasonal copepod species. Considering the institutional resource limitations (e.g. lack of long-term funding, manpower and infrastructure) and the present hypothesis under consideration, the authors suggest that a STHR sampling may provide useful complementary information to interpret results of longer-term natural changes occurring in estuaries.

Keywords

Chlorophyll-apopulation densitysalinitytemperatureUruguay
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 99 , Issue 5 , August 2019 , pp. 1059 - 1064
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acha, EM, Mianzan, H, Guerrero, R, Carreto, J, Giberto, D, Montoya, N and Carignan, M (2008) An overview of physical and ecological processes in the Rio de la Plata Estuary. Continental Shelf Research 28, 1579–1588.10.1016/j.csr.2007.01.031Google Scholar
Ambler, JW, Cloern, JE and Hutchinson, A (1985) Seasonal cycles of zooplankton from San Francisco Bay. Hydrobiologia 129, 177–197.10.1007/BF00048694Google Scholar
Baker, JM and Wolff, WJ (eds) (1987) Biological Surveys of Estuaries and Coasts, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baretta, JW and Malschaert, JFP (1988) Distribution and abundance of the zooplankton of the Ems estuary (North Sea). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 22, 69–81.10.1016/0077-7579(88)90053-1Google Scholar
Berasategui, AD, Marque, SM, Gómez-Erache, M, Ramírez, FC, Mianzan, HW and Acha, EM (2006) Copepod assemblages in a highly complex hydrographic region. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66, 483–492.10.1016/j.ecss.2005.09.014Google Scholar
Calliari, D, Gómez, M and Gómez, N (2005) Biomass and composition of the phytoplankton in the Río de la Plata: large-scale distribution and relationship with environmental variables during a spring cruise. Continental Shelf Research 25, 197–210.10.1016/j.csr.2004.09.009Google Scholar
Carreto, JI, Montoya, N, Akselman, R, Carignan, MO, Silva, RI and Colleoni, DAC (2008) Algal pigment patterns and phytoplankton assemblages in different water masses of the Río de la Plata maritime front. Continental Shelf Research 28, 1589–1606.10.1016/j.csr.2007.02.012Google Scholar
Castro-Longoría, E (2003) Egg production and hatching success of four Acartia species under different temperature and salinity regimes. Journal of Crustacean Biology 23, 289–299.10.1163/20021975-99990339Google Scholar
Cervetto, G, Gaudy, R and Pagano, M (1999) Influence of salinity on the distribution of Acartia tonsa (Copepoda, Calanoida). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 239, 33–45.10.1016/S0022-0981(99)00023-4Google Scholar
Cloern, JE (1999) The relative importance of light and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth: a simple index of coastal ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment. Aquatic Ecology 33, 3–15.10.1023/A:1009952125558Google Scholar
Costa, RD, Leite, NR and Pereira, LCC (2009) Mesozooplankton of the Curuçá estuary (Amazon coast, Brazil). Journal of Coastal Research 56, 400–404.Google Scholar
David, V, Sautour, B, Chardy, P and Leconte, M (2005) Long-term changes of the zooplankton variability in a turbid environment: the Gironde estuary (France). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64, 171–184.10.1016/j.ecss.2005.01.014Google Scholar
Devreker, D, Souissi, S, Molinero, JC and Nkubito, F (2008) Trade-offs of the copepod Eurytemora affinis in mega-tidal estuaries: insights from high frequency sampling in the Seine estuary. Journal of Plankton Research 30, 1329–1342.10.1093/plankt/fbn086Google Scholar
Devreker, D, Souissi, S, Molinero, JC, Beyrend-Dur, D, Gomez, F and Forget-Leray, J (2010) Tidal and annual variability of the population structure of Eurytemora affinis in the middle part of the Seine Estuary during 2005. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 89, 245–255.Google Scholar
González, JG (1974) Critical thermal maxima and upper lethal temperatures for the calanoid copepods Acartia tonsa and A. clausi. Marine Biology 27, 219–223.Google Scholar
Green, RH (1979) Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, MS (2004) Decadal change in zooplankton seasonal succession in the Bahía Blanca estuary, Argentina, following introduction of two zooplankton species. Journal of Plankton Research 26, 181–189.Google Scholar
Hubareva, E, Svetlichny, L, Kideys, A and Isinibilir, M (2008) Fate of the Black Sea Acartia clausi and Acartia tonsa (Copepoda) penetrating into the Marmara Sea through the Bosphorus. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76, 131–140.Google Scholar
Jang, MC, Shin, K, Hyun, B, Lee, T and Choi, KH (2013) Temperature-regulated egg production rate, and seasonal and inter-annual variations in Paracalanus parvus. Journal of Plankton Research 35, 1035–1045.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D, Valiela, I and Tomasky, G (2004) Estuarine calanoid copepod abundance in relation to season, salinity, and land-derived nitrogen loading, Waquoit Bay, MA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 61, 547–557.Google Scholar
Livingston, RJ (1987) Field sampling in estuaries: the relationship of scale to variability. Estuaries and Coasts 10, 194–207.10.2307/1351848Google Scholar
Mauchline, J (1998) The biology of calanoid copepods. Advances in Marine Biology 33, 176–218.Google Scholar
Millard, SP and Lettenmaier, DP (1986) Optimal design of biological sampling programs using the analysis of variance. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 22, 637–656.Google Scholar
Montú, M (1980) Zooplâncton do estuário da Lagoa dos Patos. I. Estrutura e variações temporais e espaciais da comunidade. Atlântica 4, 53–72.Google Scholar
Montú, M, Duarte, AKI and Gloeden, M (1997) Environment and biota of the Patos Lagoon estuary. 4.9. Zooplankton. In Seeliger, U, Odebrecht, C and Castello, JP (eds), Subtropical Convergence Environments: The Coast and Sea in the Southwestern Atlantic. Berlin: Springer, pp. 40–43.Google Scholar
Morales, CE, Bedo, A, Harris, RP and Tranter, PRG (1991) Grazing of copepod assemblages in the North-east Atlantic: the importance of the small size fraction. Journal of Plankton Research 13, 455–472.Google Scholar
Paul, S, Wooldridge, T and Perissinotto, R (2016) Evaluation of abiotic stresses of temperate estuaries by using resident zooplankton: a community vs population approach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 170, 102–111.Google Scholar
Paul, S, Castiglioni, R, Cervetto, G and Calliari, D (2017) Time variability of prevalent mesozooplankton at Montevideo coast, Río de la Plata and its relationship with physico-chemical drivers. Pan American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 12, 273–281.Google Scholar
Taylor, CJL (1987) The zooplankton of the Forth, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences 93, 377–388.Google Scholar
Taylor, CJL (1993) The zooplankton of the Forth Estuary. Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology 27, 87–99.Google Scholar
Warwick, RM, Ashman, CM, Brown, AR, Clarke, KR, Dowell, B, Hart, B, Lewis, RE, Shillabeer, N, Somerfield, PJ and Tapp, JF (2002) Inter-annual changes in the biodiversity and community structure of the macrobenthos in Tees Bay and the Tees estuary, UK, associated with local and regional environmental events. Marine Ecology Progress Series 234, 1–13.10.3354/meps234001Google Scholar
Weglenska, T (1976) A review of some problems in zooplankton production studies. Norwegian Journal of Zoology 24, 419–456.Google Scholar