Production rates of Eurytemora affinis in the Elbe estuary, comparison of field and enclosure production estimates

Peitsch, Andrea

doi:10.1007/bf00008576

Cited by 14 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the 63 µm-net plankton, nauplii, copepodites and adult Eurytemora affinis appear to be the most important grazers of autotrophs as seen in various estuaries elsewhere (Heinle & Flemer 1975, Burkill & Kendrall 1982, Peitsch 1995. Copepods are known to feed heavily on diatoms, the dominant phytoplankton group in our study, and phytoplankton is known to be the more nutritious food source compared to detritus and bacteria (Mayzaud et al 1992, Mauchline 1996, Lehman 2000, Thoumelin et al 2000.…”

Section: Effect Of Grazingmentioning

confidence: 54%

Trophic coupling across the St. Lawrence River estuarine transition zone

Winkler¹,

Dodson²,

Bertrand³

et al. 2003

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effect Of Grazingmentioning

confidence: 54%

Trophic coupling across the St. Lawrence River estuarine transition zone

Winkler¹,

Dodson²,

Bertrand³

et al. 2003

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The ability to ingest suspended sediments and detritus with their associated microfauna allows Eurytemora to prosper on the high particle concentrations in the ETM. Egg production of Eurytemora within ETM regions apparently is not food limited (Heinle & Flemer 1975, Peitsch 1995, suggesting that its high abundance and productivity within the ETM are consequences of a nutritionally favorable environment. Juvenile and adult stages of E. affinis are a dominant prey item of larvae of striped bass Morone saxatilis and white perch Morone americana in the Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine turbidity maximum systems (Setzler-Hamilton 1991, Setzler-Hamilton & Hall 1991.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal and spatial patterns of zooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum

Roman¹,

Holliday²,

Sanford³

2001

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured the distribution of hydrographic parameters, currents, phytoplankton fluorescence, suspended sediments and zooplankton in axial transects through the Chesapeake Bay estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM) seasonally (May, July and October 1996) and over tidal cycles within seasons. Zooplankton abundance was estimated with a 6-frequency, Tracor Acoustical Profiling System (TAPS-6) at the same vertical (0.25 to 0.50 m) and horizontal (0.5 to 1.5 km) resolution as hydrographic parameters and suspended sediments. The general pattern exhibited in axial transects through the Chesapeake Bay ETM is that sediments, fluorescence and zooplankton are in higher concentrations up-Bay of the salt wedge (defined as the intersection of the 1 isohaline with the bottom). The salinity front appears to trap these particles in the upper portion of Chesapeake Bay. The highest acoustically determined zooplankton biomass generally occurred near the bottom, at the toe of the salt wedge. The convergence zone associated with this feature concentrates sediments and zooplankton (primarily the copepod Eurytemora affinis). Advection appeared to dominate changes in zooplankton abundance during time series studies at a fixed station in the ETM. Zooplankton biomass at the fixed ETM station increased/decreased with the tidal excursion of the salt wedge. Water column zooplankton concentrations and the vertical distribution of zooplankton biomass appeared to be influenced by currents. We often found that during maximum ebb and flood tidal currents, zooplankton biomass and sediments in the mid and upper water column increased. Thus the hydrodynamic processes that resuspend, advect and trap suspended sediments in the ETM likely have the same effects on zooplankton. The ETM of the Chesapeake Bay appears to act as an entrapment zone for zooplankton. The lack of diel vertical migration, carrying eggs until they are ready to hatch, possible reduced predation by visual predators in the turbid waters, and the ability to consume phytoplankton, protozoa and detritus all may allow Eurytemora to persist at high concentrations in the Chesapeake Bay ETM. KEY WORDS: Zooplankton · Estuarine turbidity maximum zone · Chesapeake Bay Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 213: [215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227] 2001 to 30 km along the N/S axis of the bay (Fig. 1). The location of the ETM varies seasonally and at shorter time scales due to variations in freshwater input and wind-forcing. The ETM region of the Chesapeake Bay has a mean volume of approximately 2.63 km 3 and a mean depth of 4 m. Almost all of the freshwater input to the ETM region comes from the Susquehanna River. At the average Susquehanna River flow of 1100 m 3 s -1 , the freshwater replacement time of the ETM region is approximately 1 mo. Suspended sediment concentrations in the ETM are generally 40 to 80 mg l -1 higher than concentrations upstream or downstream of the ETM, with the largest concen...

show abstract

Major biological processes in European tidal estuaries: a synthesis of the JEEP-92 Project

Heip¹,

Herman²

1995

Major Biological Processes in European Tidal Estuaries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production rates of Eurytemora affinis in the Elbe estuary, comparison of field and enclosure production estimates

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Trophic coupling across the St. Lawrence River estuarine transition zone

Trophic coupling across the St. Lawrence River estuarine transition zone

Temporal and spatial patterns of zooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum

Major biological processes in European tidal estuaries: a synthesis of the JEEP-92 Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About