4.3 Review

Seasonal Variability in Plankton Food Web Structure and Trophodynamics in the Neritic Area of Sagami Bay, Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 757-779

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10872-009-0064-2

关键词

Plankton food web structure; trophodynamics; carbon flow; transfer efficiency; Sagami Bay, Japan

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The plankton food web structure and trophodynamics in the neritic area of Sagami Bay were investigated from January 2003 to December 2005, based on abundance, biomass, production rate and nutritional requirements of pico- (0.2-2 mu m), nano- (2-20 mu m), micro- (20-200 mu m) and mesoplankton (>200 mu m: mainly copepods CI-CVI) at 0-10 m depth. The average carbon biomass of the total plankton community was higher in spring and summer (1.452 and 1.466 g C m(-2), respectively) than in winter and autumn (0.676 and 0.686 g C m(-2), respectively). The average values of primary production and of production rate and food requirement of heterotrophic organisms were higher in summer than in other seasons. During the study period the biomass, production rate and food requirement of small heterotrophs (i.e. bacteria: BA; heterotrophic nanoflagellates: HNF; microzooplankton: MZ) were much higher than those of copepod secondary (CSP) and tertiary producers (CTP), indicating that the microbial food web was the main route of carbon flow from phytoplankton (PP) to CSP and CTP, rather than the grazing food chain. In particular, during summer and autumn the biomass of pico- and nano-size PP plus BA was greater than that of micro-size PP, suggesting the high prevalence of the microbial food web (pico-/nanophytoplankton/BA-HNF/MZ-copepods). During winter and spring, the biomass of micro-size PP was greater than that of pico- and nano-size PP plus BA, suggesting that the indirect route (microphytoplankton-MZ-copepods) probably prevailed, while the microbial food web might be important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据