The current understanding of Arctic ecosystems is deeply rooted in the classical view of a bottom-up controlled system with strong physical forcing and seasonality in primary-production regimes. Consequently, the Arctic polar night is commonly disregarded as a time of year when biological activities are reduced to a minimum due to a reduced food supply. Here, based upon a multidisciplinary ecosystem-scale study from the polar night at 79°N, we present an entirely different view. Instead of an ecosystem that has entered a resting state, we document a system with high activity levels and biological interactions across most trophic levels. In some habitats, biological diversity and presence of juvenile stages were elevated in winter months compared to the more productive and sunlit periods. Ultimately, our results suggest a different perspective regarding ecosystem function that will be of importance for future environmental management and decision making, especially at a time when Arctic regions are experiencing accelerated environmental change [1].

Phylogenetic relationships and the timing of evolutionary events are essential for understanding evolution on longer time scales. Cheilostome bryozoans are a group of ubiquitous, species-rich, marine colonial organisms with an excellent fossil record but lack phylogenetic relationships inferred from molecular data. We present genome-skimmed data for 395 cheilostomes and combine these with 315 published sequences to infer relationships and the timing of key events among c. 500 cheilostome species. We find that named cheilostome genera and species are phylogenetically coherent, rendering fossil or contemporary specimens readily delimited using only skeletal morphology. Our phylogeny shows that parental care in the form of brooding evolved several times independently but was never lost in cheilostomes. Our fossil calibration, robust to varied assumptions, indicates that the cheilostome lineage and parental care therein could have Paleozoic origins, much older than the first known fossil record of cheilostomes in the Late Jurassic.

Pattern generation by foundation species (FS) is a primary structuring agent in marine and terrestrial communities. Prior research, focused on single-species or guild-dominated habitats, stressed the role of facilitation in maintaining community structure. However, many habitats are developed by multiple FS from different guilds. Competition between these FS may provide an additional agent potentially responsible for spatial and temporal patterns. In the White Sea, epibenthic patches formed by barnacles (Balanus crenatus) and solitary ascidians (mainly Styela spp. and Molgula spp.) on small stones and empty bivalve shells (mainly Serripes groenlandicus) produce microhabitats for different sessile taxa. We hypothesized that: (1) several FS would provide habitats for most of other species in the community; (2) different FS promote different assemblages of sessile organisms; (3) the interplay of facilitation and competition best explains observed patterns of abundance and demography in FS; and (4) these interactions shape the whole community, increasing the diversity compared to less heterogeneous patches constituted by single FS. We examined 459 patches and the results generally supported this hypothesis. The number of FS in a patch positively affected species diversity. Most sessile species (72% of individuals) resided on barnacles, ascidians and red algae, except barnacles that dominated the primary substrate. The size structure of barnacles (live individuals and empty shells) and ascidians were interrelated, suggesting long-term patch dynamics whereby ascidians regularly replace barnacles. Following this replacement, we expect consequent changes to the entire dependent assemblage. Evidence for these changes exists in the spatial pattern: most sessile and motile taxa demonstrated significant associations with either FS. Our results indicate that the small-scale patterns observed in patches formed by multiple FS are primarily generated by facilitation of dependent taxa by FS, and facilitation and competition between different FS.

Based on morphological evidence, Bryozoa together with Phoronida and Brachiopoda are traditionally combined in the group Lophophorata, although this view has been recently challenged by molecular studies. The core of the concept lies in the presence of the lophophore as well as the nature and arrangement of the body cavities. Bryozoa are the least known in this respect. Here, we focused on the fine structure of the body cavity in 12 bryozoan species: 6 gymnolaemates, 3 stenolaemates and 3 phylactolaemates.In gymnolaemates, the complete epithelial lining of the body cavity is restricted to the lophophore, gut walls, and tentacle sheath. By contrast, the cystid walls are composed only of the ectocyst-producing epidermis without a coelothelium, or an underlying extracellular matrix; only the storage cells and cells of the funicular system contact the epidermis. The nature of the main body cavity in gymnolaemates is unique and may be considered as a secondarily modified coelom. In cyclostomes, both the lophophoral and endosaccal cavities are completely lined with coelothelium, while the exosaccal cavity only has the epidermis along the cystid wall. In gymnolaemates, the lophophore and trunk cavities are divided by an incomplete septum and communicate through two pores. In cyclostomes, the septum has a similar location, but no openings. In Phylactolaemata, the body cavity is undivided: the lophophore and trunk coeloms merge at the bases of the lophophore arms, the epistome cavity joins the trunk, and the forked canal opens into the arm coelom. The coelomic lining of the body is complete except for the epistome, lophophoral arms, and the basal portions of the tentacles, where the cells do not interlock perfectly (this design probably facilitates the ammonia excretion). The observed partitioning of the body cavity in bryozoans differs from that in phoronids and brachiopods, and contradicts the Lophophorata concept. K E Y W O R D SBryozoa, coelom, excretion, Lophophorata, nutrient transport

No abstract