2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.02.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in zooplankton communities from epipelagic to lower mesopelagic waters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
3
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The animal component of our eDNA results declined with depth, and this result is consistent with Stefanoudis et al (2019), who, in a survey extending to 800 m depth based on specimen identifications from net tows, showed that zooplankton abundance decreased substantially below 200 m. In our study, the observed decline was approximately coincident with the pycnocline (which was located in the 0-200 m depth interval in Stefanoudis et al (2019)). While the pycnocline can be a barrier for animal dispersal (Suzuki et al, 2018), Closek et al (2019) found no significant difference in fish taxa identified from eDNA above and below the pycnocline off of the central California coast.…”
Section: Biodiversity Detectionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The animal component of our eDNA results declined with depth, and this result is consistent with Stefanoudis et al (2019), who, in a survey extending to 800 m depth based on specimen identifications from net tows, showed that zooplankton abundance decreased substantially below 200 m. In our study, the observed decline was approximately coincident with the pycnocline (which was located in the 0-200 m depth interval in Stefanoudis et al (2019)). While the pycnocline can be a barrier for animal dispersal (Suzuki et al, 2018), Closek et al (2019) found no significant difference in fish taxa identified from eDNA above and below the pycnocline off of the central California coast.…”
Section: Biodiversity Detectionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The lower frequencies that we used (18 and 38 kHz) were more informative for our sampling as they penetrate to deeper depths. These frequencies also tend to detect gas-bearing organisms such as siphonophores and fish with swim bladders (Lavery et al, 2007) although deep scattering layers may contain a wide range of animal taxa (Stefanoudis et al, 2019). While the relationship between eDNA concentration and abundance or biomass is often not direct (Andruszkiewicz et al, 2017b), biomass indicated by acoustic backscatter has been correlated with eDNA signals.…”
Section: Biomass and Edna Sampling Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, all stomach of A. affinis collected at night had food content, while those sampled at daytime were mostly empty. Additionally, the major prey taxa recovered in the stomachs of this species were fish larvae (13 mm) and ostracods (3.3-4.5 mm), organisms typically found in higher densities in epipelagic waters (especially at night) (Parra et al, 2019;Stefanoudis et al, 2019). The nightly ascension of these species has also been reported in the western Indian…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Indeed, species of Myctophidae are amongst the most important epipelagic zooplankton consumers, feeding up to 30% of their daily stocks 61,62 . Likewise, most of the euphausiids species undergo diel vertical migrations, where they move upwards at night, usually in the layer of maximum chlorophyll concentration, seeking a high density of prey 63,64 . We thus deduce that most viperfish prey are epipelagic migrants that forage on surface waters.…”
Section: Trophic Ecology Differences On the Vertical Distribution Almentioning
confidence: 99%