Copepod and appendicularian grazing experiments using naturally occurring planktonic assemblages from a coastal embayment (Mejillones Bay, northern Chile upwelling system at 23º S) were conducted between October 2000 and October 2001. Total carbon ingestion rates based on sizefractioned chlorophyll data showed that dominant copepods (Acartia tonsa, Centropages brachiatus, Oithona similis and Paracalanus parvus) ingested between 2 and 8 µg C ind.-1 d -1, while appendicularians (Oikopleura dioica and O. longicauda) ingested ~3 to 4 µg C ind.-1 d -1 . Even when most copepods were feeding on larger cells (> 23 µm) at high rates, the smaller copepods also grazed at similar rates on nanoplankton (5 to 23 µm) and picoplankton (< 5 µm). In contrast, chain-forming diatoms were cleared at very low rates by copepods. Bacteria were cleared only by appendicularians (~170 tõ 400 ml ind.) but not by any copepod, while heterotrophic protists constituted a substantial proportion in the diet of both copepods and appendicularians (~10 to 100% body carbon d -1 ), particularly during austral spring. Occasionally, copepod C-specific ingestion on heterotrophs was similar to that on autotrophic cells. Large ciliates and dinoflagellates were cleared but not ingested by the appendicularian O. dioica, suggesting a mechanism of trapping large cells in their houses and implying a rapid export of fresh material. Since heterotrophs are a common component in the diet of these 2 groups (omnivory by copepods and bacterophagy by appendicularians), they can potentially affect microbial food webs in this upwelling system and thus carbon export.KEY WORDS: Carbon flux · Omnivory · Microzooplankton · Clearance rate · Copepods · Appendicularians
Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherAquat Microb Ecol 34: [151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164] 2004 Acartia (e.g. Gonzalez et al. 2000, Grünewald et al. 2002. It is often assumed that copepods feed mostly on phytoplankton, mainly diatoms; therefore, trophic coupling between copepods and protists such as ciliates, dinoflagellates and heterotrophic nanoflagellates has been less thoroughly examined in this region. Predation by omnivorous copepods on other components of the phytoplankton and microzooplankton, especially small heterotrophic nanoflagellates and ciliates, may be important. For other coastal areas it has been suggested that protists occasionally constitute the main food source for calanoid and cyclopoid copepods (Kleppel et al. 1991, Pierce & Turner 1992, Levinsen et al. 2000, which would have important implications for food web dynamics.On the other hand, some attention has been given to the role of large-sized microphages, e.g. appendicularian tunicates. Appendicularians may play an important role in channeling carbon from bacteria and small-sized phytoplankton into downward export (Fortier et al. 1994). In contrast with copepods, which have long been considered the major component of secondary production in the ...