Skip to main content

IMIS

A new integrated search interface will become available in the next phase of marineinfo.org.
For the time being, please use IMIS to search available data

 

[ report an error in this record ]basket (0): add | show Print this page

Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands)
Escaravage, V.; Soetaert, K. (1995). Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia 311(1-3): 103-114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00008574
In: Hydrobiologia. Springer: The Hague. ISSN 0018-8158; e-ISSN 1573-5117, more
Related to:
Escaravage, V.; Soetaert, K. (1995). Secondary production of the brackish copepod communities and their contribution to the carbon fluxes in the Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands), in: Heip, C.H.R. et al. Major biological processes in European tidal estuaries. Developments in Hydrobiology, 110: pp. 103-114, more
Peer reviewed article  

Available in  Authors 

Keywords
    Aquatic communities
    Biological production > Secondary production
    Cycles > Chemical cycles > Geochemical cycle > Biogeochemical cycle > Nutrient cycles > Carbon cycle
    Water bodies > Coastal waters > Coastal landforms > Coastal inlets > Estuaries
    Copepoda [WoRMS]
    ANE, Netherlands, Westerschelde [Marine Regions]
    Brackish water
Author keywords
    SECONDARY PRODUCTION; COPEPOD; ESTUARY; WESTERSCHELDE

Authors  Top 

Abstract
    The zooplankton community of the brackish part of the Westerschelde estuary (November 1989-October 1990) was dominated by two calanoid copepods, Eurytemora affinis and Acartia tonsa. Eurytemora was present during a longer period of the year and was much more important in terms of total abundances and biomasses than Acartia. The secondary production of these species was estimated by means of the growth rate method, using weight-specific growth rates obtained from laboratory cultures (Eurytemora) or from the literature (Acartia). Due to the substantially higher growth rates of Acartia compared to Eurytemora, total yearly productions of both communities were comparable, notwithstanding the large discrepancies in biomass. They amounted to about 5 and 6 g C m-2 y-1 by Acartia and Eurytemora respectively. The food needed to realise this production was estimated to be about 14 and 17 g C m-2 y-1 by Acartia and Eurytemora respectively. Provided that the copepods are able to selectively ingest the phytoplankton, in situ net production provides sufficient carbon for zooplankton demands for a short period of the year only. As phytoplankton standing stock is very low and net phytoplankton productivity is negative from late fall to early spring, nutritional demands of the copepods have to be fulfilled by other than algal food at least during this period of the year. Although the copepods in the brackish part can have an important impact on some food items, their contribution to total carbon fluxes in the brackish zone is negligible: each year some 6% of all consumed carbon in the brackish part of the estuary passes through the copepod food web.

All data in the Integrated Marine Information System (IMIS) is subject to the VLIZ privacy policy Top | Authors