1996
DOI: 10.2307/1352304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Zooplankton Grazing on Phytoplankton Size-Structure and Biomass in the Lower Hudson River Estuary

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
31
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, inhibitory interactions between Raphidophyceae and diatoms have previously been observed, likely due to allelopathy by both groups (Yamasaki et al 2007). Furthermore, studies have shown that both copepods and microzooplankton preferentially graze on different size classes, and each can potentially be a topdown control on phytoplankton community structure in some systems (Lonsdale et al 1996, Loder et al 2011.…”
Section: Shifting Planktonic Conditions In Western Lismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, inhibitory interactions between Raphidophyceae and diatoms have previously been observed, likely due to allelopathy by both groups (Yamasaki et al 2007). Furthermore, studies have shown that both copepods and microzooplankton preferentially graze on different size classes, and each can potentially be a topdown control on phytoplankton community structure in some systems (Lonsdale et al 1996, Loder et al 2011.…”
Section: Shifting Planktonic Conditions In Western Lismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The solid line is the empirically derived, maximum phytoplankton-growth rate as a function of temperature, from Eppley (1972) of the > 5 µm fraction (μ n ), rather than to low grazing pressure. The oft-observed dominance of large diatoms in nutrient-rich waters may have more to do with differential gross-growth rates than with size-selective grazing (see Lonsdale et al 1996a).…”
Section: Comparisons Between Phytoplankton Fractionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), or heterotrophic dinoflagellates (H. dino; Oxyrrhis marina). Dissolved metal concentrations (C w ) are from Sañudo-Wilhelmy and Gill (1999) for the Hudson River Estuary, the ingestion rate (IR) was taken from Lonsdale et al (1996) as calculated by Wang and Fisher (1998), the uptake (k u ) and efflux (k ew ) rate constants for dissolved metals, as well as the growth rate (g) and the diatom assimilation efficiencies (AE ) are from Wang and Fisher (1998). The concentrations of metals in prey (C f ) were calculated from C w using volume concentration factors (VCF) for phytoplankton from Fisher and Wente (1993) ) and Fisher and Reinfelder (1995) (Cd: 1 ϫ 10 3 ).…”
Section: Subcellular Distribution Of Metals In Prey-mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, while animals ingesting phytoplankton will only accumulate 33% of their total Ag body burden from food, copepods feeding on protozoa will accumulate an average of 64% from prey. Given the higher sensitivity of invertebrate zooplankton to metals accumulated from food (Hook and Fisher 2001a,b), copepods living in the Hudson River estuary may experience a heightened risk of sublethal toxicity (i.e., reduced egg production, hatching rate, ovary development, and egg protein content)-particularly from Ag-in the summer, when protozoa may be an important food source for copepods (Lonsdale et al 1996).…”
Section: Subcellular Distribution Of Metals In Prey-mentioning
confidence: 99%