Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T14:37:10.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Apparent Lack of Response By Metazoan Meiofauna to Phytodetritus Deposition in the Bathyal North-Eastern Atlantic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A.J. Gooday ,
O. Pfannkuche  and
P.J.D. Lambshead
A.J. Gooday
Affiliation:
Southampton Oceanographic Centre, Empress Dock, Southampton, S014 3ZH.
O. Pfannkuche
Affiliation:
Forschungszentrum für Marine Geowissenschaften, GEOMAR, Universität Kiel, Wischhofstrasse 1–3, 24148 Kiel, Germany.
P.J.D. Lambshead
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Metazoan meiofauna were studied in replicated multiple-corer samples obtained at a bathyal site (1320–1360 m depth) in the Porcupine Seabight (51°36′N 13°00′W) before (April) and after (July) the delivery to the seafloor of a phytodetrital pulse originating from the 1982 spring bloom. In all samples the metazoan meiofauna was dominated by nematodes; harpacticoid copepods and their nauplii were the second most abundant taxon. Population densities and biomass were very similar in both sample sets, the only significant differences being in the numbers of ostracods (higher in April) and nauplii (higher in July). Furthermore, vertical distribution patterns in the top 5 cm of sediment indicate that the meiofauna did not migrate towards the sediment surface following the phytodetrital pulse. The lack of a metazoan meiofaunal response contrasts with published evidence, based on the same samples, for a substantial increase in the foraminiferal abundance following the sedimentation event. Thus our results suggest that metazoans (as a whole) fail to exploit and utilize phytodetritus as rapidly as foraminifera. This probably reflects the energetic expense of egg production coupled with frequently slower rates of somatic growth among metazoans. In addition, foraminifera may outcompete metazoans for detrital food because they possess extremely efficient food-gathering organelles (granuloreticulate pseudopodia) and are able to raise their levels of metabolic activity very rapidly. However, metazoan responses at the species level, or over longer time periods (>3 months), would not have been detected and so remain a possibility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 297 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

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

Altenbach, A.V., 1992. Short term processes and patterns in the foraminiferal response to organic flux rates. Marine Micropaleontology, 19, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, P.R.O., Watson, J. & Connelly, D., 1984. A multiple corer for taking virtually undisturbed samples from shelf, bathyal and abyssal sediments. Oceanologica Acta, 7, 399–408.Google Scholar
Bernard, J.M. & Bowser, S.S., 1992. Bacterial biofilms as a trophic resource for certain benthic foraminifera. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 83, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bett, B.J. et al., 1994. Sampler bias in the quantitative study of deep-sea meiobenthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 104, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billett, D.M.S., Lampitt, R.S., Rice, A.L. & Mantoura, R.F.C., 1983. Seasonal sedimentation of phytoplankton to the deep-sea benthos. Nature, London, 302, 520–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomqvist, S., 1991. Quantitative sampling of soft-bottom sediments: problems and solutions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 72, 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowser, S.S., Alexander, S.P., Stockton, W.L. & Delaca, T.E., 1992. Extracellular matrix augments mechanical properties of pseudopodia in the carnivorous foraminiferan Astrammina rara: role in prey capture. Journal of Protozoology, 39, 724–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedhagen, T., 1993. Taxonomy and feeding biology of some benthic rhizopods, mainly foraminiferans (Protozoa). PhD thesis, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Decho, A.W., 1986. Water-cover influences on diatom ingestion rates by meiobenthic copepods. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 33, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decho, A.W. & Fleeger, J.W., 1988. Microscale dispersion of meiobenthic copepods in response to food-resource patchiness. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 118, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckelbarger, K.L., 1994. Diversity of metazoan ovaries and vitallogenic mechanisms: implications for life history theory. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 107, 193–218.Google Scholar
Faubel, A., Hartwig, E. & Thiel, H., 1983. On the ecology of the benthos of sublittoral sediments, Fladen Ground, North Sea I. Meiofauna standing stock and estimation of production. Meteor Forschungs-Ergebnisse, Reihe D, 36, 35–48.Google Scholar
Fenchel, T., 1987. Ecology of Protozoa. The biology of free-living phagotrophic protists. Madison, Wisconsin: Science Tech Publishers.Google Scholar
Fleeger, J.W. & Shirley, T.C., 1990. Meiofaunal responses to sedimentation from an Alaskan spring bloom. II. Harpacticoid population dynamics. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 59, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleeger, J.W., Shirley, T.C. & Ziemann, D.A., 1989. Meiofaunal responses to sedimentation from an Alaskan spring bloom. I. Major taxa. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 57, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gage, J.D., 1991. Biological rates in the deep sea: a perspective from studies on processes in the benthic boundary layer. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences, 5, 49–100.Google Scholar
Gage, J.D., 1994. Recruitment ecology and age structure of deep-sea invertebrate populations. In Reproduction, larval biology, and recruitment of the deep-sea benthos (ed. C.M., Young and K.J., Eckelbarger), pp. 223–242. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, O., 1993. Meiobenthology – the microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gooday, A.J., 1986a. Meiofaunal foraminiferans from the bathyal Porcupine Seabight (north-east Atlantic): size structure, standing stock, taxonomic composition, species diversity and vertical distribution in the sediment. Deep-Sea Research, 33, 1345–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J., 1986b. Soft-shelled Foraminifera in meiofaunal samples from the bathyal north-east Atlantic. Sarsia, 71, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J., 1988. A response by benthic Foraminifera to the deposition of phytodetritus in the deep sea. Nature, London, 332, 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J., 1993. Deep-sea species which exploit phytodetritus: characteristic features and controls on distribution. Marine Micropaleontology, 22, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J. & Lambshead, P.J.D., 1989. Influence of seasonally deposited phytodetritus on benthic foraminiferal populations in the bathyal northeast Atlantic: the species response. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 58, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, A.J. & Turley, C.M., 1990. Responses by benthic organisms to inputs of organic material to the ocean floor: a review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 331, 119–138.Google Scholar
Graf, G., 1989. Benthic-pelagic coupling in a deep-sea benthic community. Nature, London, 341, 437–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, G., 1992. Benthic-pelagic coupling: a benthic view. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 30, 149–190.Google Scholar
Graf, G., Bergtsson, W., Diesner, U., Schultz, R. & Theede, H., 1982. Benthic response to sedimentation of a spring phytoplankton bloom: process and budget. Marine Biology, 67, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, G., Bergtsson, W., Faubel, A., Meyer-Reil, L.-A., Schultz, R., Theede, H. & Thiel, H., 1984. The importance of the spring phytoplankton bloom for the benthic system of Kiel Bight. Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions. Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer. Copenhague, 183, 136–143.Google Scholar
Graf, G., Schultz, R., Peinert, R. & Meyer-Reil, L.-A., 1983. Benthic response to sedimentation events during autumn to spring at a shallow-water station in the western Kiel Bight. I. Analysis of processes on a community level. Marine Biology, 77, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heip, C., Vincx, M. & Vranken, G., 1985. The ecology of marine nematodes. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 23, 399–489.Google Scholar
Hicks, G.R.F. & Coull, B.C., 1983. The ecology of marine meiobenthic harpacticoid copepods. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 21, 67–175.Google Scholar
Jensen, P., 1987. Feeding ecology of free-living aquatic nematodes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 35, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambshead, P.J.D. & Gooday, A.J., 1990. The impact of seasonally deposited phytodetritus on epifaunal and shallow infaunal benthic foraminiferal populations in the bathyal northeast Atlantic. Deep-Sea Research, 37, 1263–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambshead, P.J.D. & Hodda, M., 1994. The impact of disturbance on measurements of variability in marine nematode populations. Vie et Milieu, 44, 21–27.Google Scholar
Lampitt, R.S., 1985. Evidence for the seasonal deposition of detritus on the deep-sea floor and its subsequent resuspension. Deep-Sea Research, 32, 885–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linke, P., 1992. Metabolic adaptations of deep-sea benthic foraminifera to seasonally varying food input. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 81, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linke, P., Altenbach, A. V., Graf, G. & Heeger, T., 1995. Response of deep-sea benthic Foraminifera to a simulated sedimentation event. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 25, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochte, K., 1992. Bacterial standing stock and consumption of organic carbon in the benthic boundary layer of the abyssal North Atlantic. In Deep-seafood chains and the global carbon cycle (ed. G.T., Rowe and V., Pariente), pp. 1–10. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [NATO ASI Series.]Google Scholar
Meyer-Reil, L.-A., 1983. Benthic response to sedimentation events during autumn to spring at a shallow station in the western Kiel Bight. II. Analysis of benthic bacterial populations. Marine Biology, 77, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C.G. & Bett, B.J., 1989. The use of meiofauna in marine pollution impact assessment. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 96, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfannkuche, O., 1985. The deep-sea meiofauna of the Porcupine Seabight and abyssal plain (NE Atlantic): population structure, distribution, standing stocks. Oceanologica Ada, 8, 343–353.Google Scholar
Pfannkuche, O., 1992. Organic carbon flux through the benthic community in the temperate abyssal northeast Atlantic. In Deep-seafood chains and the global carbon cycle (ed. G.T., Rowe and V., Pariente), pp. 183–198. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [NATO ASI Series.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfannkuche, O., 1993. Benthic response to the sedimentation of particulate organic matter at the BIOTRANS station, 47°N, 20°W. Deep-Sea Research, 40, 135–149.Google Scholar
Pfannkuche, O. & Thiel, H., 1987. Meiobenthic stocks and benthic activity on the NE-Svalbard Shelf and in the Nansen Basin. Polar Basin, 7, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfannkuche, O., Beckmann, W., Christiansen, B., Lochte, K., Rheinheimer, G., Thiel, H. & Weikert, H., 1990. BIOTRANS – Biologischer Vertikaltransport und Energiehaushalt in der bodennahen Wasserschicht der Tiefsee. Berichte aus dem Zentrum für Meeres- und Klimaforschung, Universität Hamburg, 10, 159 pp.Google Scholar
Poremba, K., 1994. Simulated degradation of phytodetritus in deep-sea sediments of the NE Atlantic (47°N, 19°W). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 105, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, A.L., Billett, D.S.M., Fry, J., John, A.W.G., Lampitt, R.S., Mantoura, R.F.C. & Morris, R.J., 1986. Seasonal deposition of phytodetritus to the deep-sea floor. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 88, 265–279.Google Scholar
Rice, A.L., Billett, D.S.M., Thurston, M.H. & Lampitt, R.S., 1991. The Institute of Oceanographic Sciences Biology Programme in the Porcupine Seabight: background and general introduction. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 71, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, A.L. & Lambshead, P.J.D., 1994. Patch dynamics in the deep-sea benthos: the role of a heterogeneous supply of organic matter. In Aquatic ecology: scale, pattern and process. The 34th symposium of the British Ecological Society with the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, University College, Cork, 1992 (ed. P.S., Giller et al.), pp. 469–497. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Rice, A.L., Thurston, M.H. & Bett, B.J., 1994. The IOSDL DEEPSEAS Programme: introduction and photographic evidence for the presence and absence of a seasonal input of phytodetritus at contrasting abyssal sites in the north-eastern Atlantic. Deep-Sea Research, 41, 1305–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romeyn, K. & Bouman, L.A., 1983. Food selection and consumption by estuarine nematodes. Hydrobiological Bulletin, 17, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnick, D.T., 1989. Time lags between the deposition and meiobenthic assimilation of phytodetritus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 50, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnick, D.T., Elmgren, R. & Frithsen, J.B., 1985. Meiofaunal prominence and benthic seasonality in a coastal marine ecosystem. Oecologia, 67, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.L. Jr & Baldwin, R.J., 1984. Seasonal fluctuations in deep-sea sediment community oxygen consumption: central and eastern North Pacific. Nature, London, 307, 624–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietjen, J., 1992. Abundance and biomass of metazoan meiobenthos in the deep sea. In Deep-sea food chains and the global carbon cycle (ed. G.T., Rowe and V., Pariente), pp. 45–62. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [NATO ASI Series.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel, H., 1983. Meiobenthos and nanobenthos of the deep sea. In Deep-sea biology (ed. G.T., Rowe), pp. 167–230. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Thiel, H. et al., 1988–1989. Phytodetritus on the deep-sea floor in a central oceanic region of the north-east Atlantic. Biological Oceanography, 6, 203–239.Google Scholar
Travis, J.L. & Bowser, S.S., 1991. The motility of Foraminifera. In Biology ofForaminifera (ed. J.J., Lee and O., Roger Anderson), pp. 91–155. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turley, C.M. & Lochte, K., 1990. Microbial response to the input of fresh detritus to the deep-sea bed. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Global and Planetary Change Section), 89, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turley, C.M., Lochte, K. & Patterson, D.J., 1988. A barophilic flagellate isolated from 4500 m in the mid-North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Research, 35, 1079–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, P.A., Campos-Creasy, L.S. & Giles, L.A., 1994. Environmental control of quasi-continuous and seasonal reproduction in deep-sea benthic invertebrates. In Reproduction, larval biology, and recruitment of the deep-sea benthos (ed. C.M., Young and K.J., Eckelbarger), pp. 158–178. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Valderhaug, V.A. & Gray, J.S., 1984. Stable macrofauna community structure despite a fluctuating food supply in subtidal soft sediments of Oslofjord, Norway. Marine Biology, 82, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincx, M. et al., 1994. Meiobenthos of the deep north-east Atlantic. Advances in Marine Biology, 30, 1–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieser, W., 1953. Beziehungen zwischen Mundhölengestalt, Ernährungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden marinen Nematoden. Archive der Zoologie, 4, 439–484.Google Scholar