Grazing by the jellyfish, <i>Aurelia aurita</i>, on microzooplankton

Stoecker, Diane K.; Michaels, Ann E.; Davis, Linda H.

doi:10.1093/plankt/9.5.901

Cited by 131 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Until then, the subumbrellar surface (Southward 1955b), the exumbrellar surface (Bailey & Batty 1983) and the tentacles (Fraser 1969, Heeger & Möller 1987 had been identified as the primary body surface used to capture prey, mainly mesozooplankton, but also fish larvae, hydromedusae, and microzooplankton (e.g. Heeger & Möller 1987, Stoecker et al 1987, Båmstedt 1990. Costello & Colin (1994) examined the mechanics of prey capture by the common jellyfish Aurelia aurita using video methods to record body and fluid motions.…”

Section: Scyphomedusaementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Aurelia aurita medusa begins planktonic life as an ephyra, which is typically <10 mm in diameter and lacks tentacles. The A. aurita ephyrae capture a variety of prey (Stoecker et al 1987, Båmstedt 1990, Olesen et al 1994, Sullivan et al 1994, Hansson 2006), but size, escape speed, and surface properties of prey strongly influence the capture efficiency. Thus, using video observations of free-swimming ephyrae and their prey, Sullivan et al (1997) observed that the capture efficiencies of ephyrae feeding on large prey (barnacle nauplii, brine shrimp, hydromedusae) were 4 to 12 times greater than for small items (rotifers, copepod nauplii), and furthermore, that capture efficiencies for prey of equal sizes differed, indicating that factors in addition to size influence the predator-prey interaction: brine shrimp Artemia salina nauplii and rotifers continue to swim after entrainment and are captured more often than copepod nauplii of equal size, which cease normal swimming ('play dead').…”

Section: Scyphomedusaementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Riisgård¹,

Larsen²

2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

204

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large number of suspension-feeding aquatic animals (e.g. bivalves, polychaetes, ascidians, bryozoans, crustaceans, sponges, echinoderms, cnidarians) have specialized in grazing on not only the 2 to 200 µm phytoplankton but frequently also the 0.5 to 2 µm free-living bacteria, or they have specialized in capturing larger prey, e.g. zooplankton organisms. We review the different particle capture mechanisms in order to illustrate the many solutions to the common problem of obtaining nourishment from a dilute suspension of microscopic food particles. Despite the many differences in morphology and living conditions, particle capture mechanisms may be divided into 2 main types. (1) Filtering or sieving (e.g. through mucus nets, stiff cilia, filter setae), which is found in passive suspension feeders that rely on external currents to bring suspended particles to the filter, and in active suspension feeders that themselves produce a feeding flow by a variety of pump systems. Here the inventiveness of nature does not lie in the capture mechanism but in the type of pump system and filter pore-size. (2) A paddle-like flow manipulating system (e.g. cilia, cirri, tentacles, hair-bearing appendages) that acts to redirect an approaching suspended particle, often along with a surrounding 'fluid parcel', to a strategic location for arrest or further transport. Examples include (1) sieving (e.g. by microvilli in sponge choanocytes, mucus nets in polychaetes, acidians, and salps among others), filter setae in crustaceans, 'ciliary sieving' by stiff laterofrontal cilia in bryozoans and phoronids; and (2) 'cirri trapping' in mussels and other bivalves with eu-laterofrontal cirri, ciliary 'catch-up' in bivalve and gastropod veliger larvae, some polychaetes, entroprocts, and cycliophores. These capture mechanisms may involve contact with a particle, and possibly mechanoreception or chemoreception, or may include redirection of particles by the interaction of multiple currents (e.g. in scallops and other bivalves without eu-laterofrontal cirri). Based on the review, we discuss the current physical and biological understanding of the capture process and suggest a number of specific problems related to particle capture, which may be solved in the future using advanced theoretical, computational and experimental techniques.

show abstract

Section: Scyphomedusaementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scyphomedusaementioning

confidence: 99%

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Riisgård¹,

Larsen²

2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

204

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mortality rates for phytoplankton were increased in the spring and fall to account for sinking and sedimentation following the spring bloom (Malone et al, 1996(Malone et al, , 1988 and mixing of the water column associated with the fall overturn (Boicourt, 1992). Mortality rates for zooplankton were increased during the summer and early fall to reflect high seasonal predation by ctenophores (Stoecker et al, 1987) and the jellyfish Chrysaora quinquecirrah (Baird and Ulanowicz, 1989;Purcell, 1992). Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovies, other filter-feeding fish, and larval fish may also exert high predation pressure on both phytoplankton (mostly menhaden predation) and zooplankton at different times of the year (Baird and Ulanowicz, 1989;Hartman et al, 2004;Lewis and Peters, 1994).…”

Section: Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the seasonal autochthonous sources of dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in the upper Chesapeake Bay

Keller

Hood

2011

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn this paper we investigate the seasonal autochthonous sources of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrogen (DON) in the euphotic zone at a station in the upper Chesapeake Bay using a new mass-based ecosystem model. Important features of the model are: (1) carbon and nitrogen are incorporated by means of a set of fixed and varying C:N ratios; (2) dissolved organic matter (DOM) is separated into labile, semi-labile, and refractory pools for both C and N; (3) the production and consumption of DOM is treated in detail; and (4) seasonal observations of light, temperature, nutrients, and surface layer circulation are used to physically force the model. The model reasonably reproduces the mean observed seasonal concentrations of nutrients, DOM, plankton biomass, and chlorophyll a. The results suggest that estuarine DOM production is intricately tied to the biomass concentration, ratio, and productivity of phytoplankton, zooplankton, viruses, and bacteria. During peak spring productivity phytoplankton exudation and zooplankton sloppy feeding are the most important autochthonous sources of DOM. In the summer when productivity peaks again, autochthonous sources of DOM are more diverse and, in addition to phytoplankton exudation, important ones include viral lysis and the decay of detritus. The potential importance of viral decay as a source of bioavailable DOM from within the bulk DOM pool is also discussed. The results also highlight the importance of some poorly constrained processes and parameters. Some potential improvements and remedies are suggested. Sensitivity studies on selected parameters are also reported and discussed.

show abstract

“…A few studies have suggested that micro-zooplankton, e.g. ciliates may be prey items for A. aurita (Stoecker et al 1987, Båmstedt 1990, Olesen 1995, but little is known about the role of ciliates in the diet of A. aurita.…”

Section: Growth and Predation Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%