Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T20:48:16.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Large-Scale Enclosed Water-Column Ecosystems an Overview of Foodweb I, the Final CEPEX Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. D. Grice ,
R. P. Harris ,
M. R. Reeved ,
J. F. Heinbokel  and
C. O. Davis
G. D. Grice
Affiliation:
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, U.S.A.
R. P. Harris
Affiliation:
The Laboratory, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth
M. R. Reeved
Affiliation:
University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.
J. F. Heinbokel
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University, Chesapeake Bay Institute, Charles & 34th Sts, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, U.S.A.
C. O. Davis
Affiliation:
San Francisco State University, Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Box 855, Tiburon, California 94920, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Enclosures of various sizes and configurations have been employed to maintain natural planktonic communities and to examine their responses to pollutants (e.g. Menzel & Steele, 1978; Steele, 1979). Studies on feeding, growth, and mortality of larval fishes, at times conducted in conjunction with pollution experiments, have also been successfully conducted in large enclosures (Koeller & Parsons, 1977). Implicit in these and other comparable studies has been the expectation (or hope) that a balance could be achieved between the advantages and difficulties inherent in more traditional field and laboratory studies. Field studies offer the realism of working with the natural assemblage with its many interacting components and links, but also suffer the disadvantage associated with a turbulent and advective system, which generally makes the repetitive sampling of the same populations impossible. Laboratory studies reverse the balance; control and definition of the components are gained at the expense of realism. The use of large containers represents a hybrid approach characterized by a partial control over a moderately realistic ecosystem. In the ideal case, the use of large containers allows sufficient control to permit experimental manipulation of (and the testing of hypotheses concerning) planktonic assemblages which are sufficiently realistic to permit extension of the experimental results to the ‘real world’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , May 1980 , pp. 401 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beers, J. R., Stewart, G. L. & Hoskins, K. D., 1977. Dynamics of microzooplankton populations treated with copper: controlled ecosystem pollution experiment. Bulletin of Marine Science, 27, 66–79.Google Scholar
Daley, R. J. & Hobbie, J. E., 1975. Direct counts of aquatic bacteria by a modified epifluorescence technique. Limnology and Oceanography, 20, 875–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furhman, J. A. & Azam, F., 1980. Bacterioplankton secondary production estimates for coastal waters of British Columbia, Antarctica and California. Applied and Environmental Micro-biology. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, V. R. & Grice, G. D., 1978. The developmental stages of a species of Corycaeus (Cope-poda: Cyclopoida) from Saanich Inlet, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 56, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, W. & Parsons, T. R., 1977. Photosynthesis and fish production: hypothetical effects of climatic change and pollution. Helgoländer wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 30, 666–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, G. D., Reeve, M. R., Koeller, P. & Menzel, D. W., 1977. The use of large volume, transparent, enclosed sea-surface water columns in the study of stress on plankton eco-systems. Helgoländer wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 30, 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, P. J. & Davis, C. O., 1979. The use of outdoor phytoplankton continuous cultures to analyze factors influencing species selection. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 41, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm-Hansen, O., 1973. Determination of total microbial biomass by measurement of adenosine triphosphate. In Estuarine Microbial Ecology (ed. Stevenson, L. H. and Colwell, R. R.), pp. 73–89. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
King, K. R., Hollibaugh, J. T. & Azam, F., 1980. Predator-prey interactions between the larvacean Oikopleura dioica and bacterioplankton in enclosed water columns. Marine Biology. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeller, P. & Parsons, T. R., 1977. The growth of young salmonids (Onchorhynchus keta): controlled ecosystem pollution experiment. Bulletin of Marine Science, 27, 114–118.Google Scholar
Kovala, P. E. & Larrance, J. D., 1966. Computation of phytoplankton cell numbers, cell volume, cell surface, and plasma volume per liter, from microscope counts. Special Report. Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, no. 38, 21 pp.Google Scholar
Lampitt, R. S., 1978. Carnivorous feeding by a small marine copepod. Limnology and Oceanography, 23, 1228–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, D. W., 1977. Summary of experimental results: controlled ecosystem pollution experiment. Bulletin of Marine Science, 27, 142–145.Google Scholar
Menzel, D. W. & Steele, J. H., 1978. The application of plastic enclosures to the study of pelagic marine biota. Rapport etproces-verbaux des réunions. Conseil international pour l'exploration de la mer, 173, 5–6.Google Scholar
Paffenhofer, G.-A., 1976. On the biology of Appendicularia of the south eastern North Sea. In Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Marine Biology, vol. 2 (ed. Persoone, G. and Jaspers, E.), pp. 437–455. Wetteren, Belgium: Universa Press.Google Scholar
Pingree, R. D., Holligan, P. M. & Head, R. N., 1977. Survival of dinoflagellate blooms in the Western English Channel. Nature, London, 265, 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P., Armstrong, R. & Goldman, C. R., 1970. Contemporaneous disequilibrium, a new hypothesis to explain the ‘paradox of the plankton’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 67, 1710–1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, W. O. Jr, & Barber, R. T., 1979. A carbon budget for the autotrophic ciliate Mesodinium rubrum. Journal of Phycology, 15, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanlaw, K., Reeve, M. R. & Walter, M. A., 1980. The larval life history of ctenophores: a review of recent research. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Coelenterate Conference (ed. Tardent, P.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Steele, J. H., 1979. The uses of experimental ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B), 286, 583–595.Google ScholarPubMed
Steele, J. H. & Frost, B. W., 1977. The structure of plankton communities. Philosophical Trans-actions of the Royal Society (B), 280, 485–534.Google Scholar
Strathmann, R. R., 1967. Estimating the organic carbon content of phytoplankton from cell volume or plasma volume. Limnology and Oceanography, 12, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, M., Thomas, W. H., Seibert, D. L. R., Beers, J., Koeller, P. & Parsons, T. R., 1975. The replication of biological events in enclosed water columns. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 76, 5–23.Google Scholar
Turpin, D. H. & Harrison, P. J., 1979. Limiting nutrient patchiness and its role in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 39, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar