In a comfort zone and beyond—Ecological plasticity of key marine mediators

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Application of artificial neural network to estimate the quality of little auks' potential foraging grounds on Spitsbergen

“…copepodite stages should be incorporated into more advanced models in the near future, which is in accordance with the study of Renaud et al (2018) who defined size as the main proxy of calorific content of this genus. Species identification based exclusively on morphometry (prosome length), commonly used in the last decades of Arctic zooplanktonology (e.g., Kwasniewski et al 2003) may not correctly classify species, since some individuals described as C. finmarchicus were actually smaller individuals of C. glacialis, which was underlined during research of Balazy et al (2019) and confirmed by the recent molecular studies (Renaud et al 2018;Trudnowska et al 2020).…”

Red Pigmentation Can Be Used to Reliably Distinguish Between Live Calanus finmarchicus and Calanus glacialis Females in the Fram Strait

“…Despite the fundamentally similar role that the different Calanus species play in the marine ecosystem, their size, lipid content, life cycles and phenology all differ, albeit to different extents (Swalethorp et al, 2011;Trudnowska et al, 2020). For example, C. glacialis is recognised as a capital breeder (Hirche and Kattner, 1993) and is more lipid rich than C. finmarchicus, which is considered to be an income breeder, with the potential for capital breeding when food conditions are poor (Plourde and Runge, 1993;Mayor et al, 2009).…”

“…An easier method of identification is based on prosome length, since C. glacialis are typically larger than C. finmarchicus (Unstad and Tande, 1991;Hirche et al, 1994;Weydmann and Kwasniewski, 2008). However, this approach is also limited because of prosome length overlap of these congeners in regions such as the Greenland Sea, the Irminger Basin, Svalbard and the Norwegian coast (Lindeque et al, 2006;Parent et al, 2011;Gabrielsen et al, 2012;Nielsen et al, 2014;Choquet et al, 2018;Trudnowska et al, 2020). When morphological variation cannot unambiguously identify species, genetic variation may be used for taxonomic discrimination.…”

“…Calanus species exhibit considerable base-sequence divergence in the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene (Bucklin et al, 1995). Molecular techniques have been used for the identification of copepods from the genus Calanus including species-specific PCR (Hill et al, 2001); amplification of a region of the 16S rRNA gene using PCR followed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of the amplified product (Lindeque et al, 1999;Lindeque et al, 2004;Lindeque et al, 2006); nuclear microsatellite markers (Provan et al, 2009;Parent et al, 2012;Choquet et al, 2017;Trudnowska et al, 2020) and nuclear insertion/deletion markers (Smolina et al, 2014). The method developed by Lindeque et al (1999Lindeque et al ( , 2004 has provided a definitive method to unambiguously identify any developmental stage of Calanus to species, and has been successfully used in multiple, large-scale studies (Lindeque et al, 2004;Lindeque et al, 2006;Gabrielsen et al, 2012;Parent et al, 2012;Tarling et al, 2022).…”

No evidence for hybridization in Calanus: Reply to the comment by Parent et al.

“…Overall, despite extensive spatiotemporal sampling, no hybrids were ever detected with InDels in a total of 6467 Calanus spp. individuals genetically analyzed across various studies (Nielsen et al 2014; Choquet et al 2017 a , 2020; Daase et al 2018; Basedow et al 2019; Trudnowska et al 2020). In addition, we also investigated the question of hybridization with > 37 k genome‐wide SNPs, in a limited number of samples from three sympatric locations, and no sign of introgression (genetic signature of hybridization) was detected (Choquet et al 2019).…”