Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:44:21.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Macro- and megaplanktonic cnidarians collected in the eastern part of the Weddell Gyre during summer 1979

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2019

F. Pagès ,
P.R. Pugh  and
J.-M. Gili
F. Pagès
Affiliation:
Institut de Ciències del Mar (CSIC), Passeig Nacional s/n, 08039 Barcelona, Spain.
P.R. Pugh
Affiliation:
Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley, Godalming, Surrey, GU8 5UB
J.-M. Gili
Affiliation:
Institut de Ciències del Mar (CSIC), Passeig Nacional s/n, 08039 Barcelona, Spain.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The species composition, abundance and spatial distribution of macroplanktonic cnidarians in the eastern part of the Weddell Gyre are described from a series of nekton samples collected over three depth ranges between 0 and 2000 m. On average, cnidarians contributed 52·6% to the biovolume of these samples, although the range was high (5·0–93·1%). In total 23 species of siphonophores and 20 species of medusae were identified; a number that is very high in comparison with previous studies. There was a high diversity at bathypelagic depths, with 38 species being collected below 1000 m. The most abundant siphonophores were Dimophyes arctica (up to 45 nectophores per 104 m3) and Heteropyramis crystallina (up to 22 nectophores per 104 m3). The most abundant medusa was Pantachogon haeckeli (up to 30 specimens per 104 m3). Medusae were most abundant at mesopelagic depths, reaching 46 specimens per 104 m3 in the 500–1000 m depth range. Smaller calycophoran siphonophores were concentrated in the top 500 m of the water column, with total numbers averaging 107 per 104 m3. The number of larger calycophorans in-creased with depth, being most abundant in the 1000–2000 m depth range. Although many species had a widespread geographical distribution within the sampling area, the hydrographical conditions appeared to be affecting the distribution of some.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , November 1994 , pp. 873 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1994

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

Ainley, D.G., Fraser, W.R, Sullivan, C.W., Torres, J.J., Hopkins, T.L. & Smith, W.O., 1986. Antarctic mesopelagic micronekton: evidence from seabirds that pack ice affects ice structure. Science, New York, 232, 847–849.Google Scholar
Alldredge, A.L., 1984. The quantitative significance of gelatinous zooplankton as pelagic consumers. In Flows of energy and materials in marine ecosystems: theory and practice (ed. Fasham, M.J.R.), pp. 407–433. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Alvarino, A., 1976. Los indicadores planctónicos: distributión batimétrica de algunas medusas. In Memorias del II simposio latinoamericana sobre oceanografia biologica, pp. 163–190. Cumaná, Venezuela: Universidad de Oriente.Google Scholar
Alvariño, A., Wojtan, J.M. & Martínez, M.R., 1990. Antarctic siphonophores from plankton samples of the United States Antarctic Research Program. Antarctic Research Series, 49, 1–436.Google Scholar
Baker, A. De C., 1954. The circumpolar continuity of Antarctic plankton species. Discovery Reports, 27, 201–217.Google Scholar
Bigelow, H.B., 1913. Medusae and Siphonophorae collected by the US Fisheries Steamer ‘Albatross’ in the north-western Pacific, 1906. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 44, 1–119.Google Scholar
Biggs, D.C., Bidigare, R.R. & Smith, D.E., 1981. Population density of gelatinous macrozooplankton: in situ estimation in oceanic surface waters. Biological Oceanography, 1, 157–173.Google Scholar
Boysen-Ennen, E., Hagen, W., Hubold, G. & Piatkowski, U., 1991. Zooplankton biomass in the ice-covered Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Marine Biology, 111, 227–235.Google Scholar
Deacon, G.E.R., 1979. The Weddell Gyre. Beep-Sea Research, 26, 981–995.Google Scholar
Gouretski, V.V. & Danilov, A.I., 1993. Weddell Gyre: structure of the eastern boundary. Deep-Sea Research, 40, 561–582.Google Scholar
Hellmer, H.H., Bersch, M., Augstein, E. & Grabemann, I., 1985. ‘The Southern Ocean', a survey of oceanographic and marine meteorological research work. Berichte zur Polarforschung, 26, 1–115.Google Scholar
Hopkins, T.L., Lancraft, T.M., Torres, J.J. & Donnelly, J., 1993. Community structure and trophic ecology of zooplankton in the Scotia Sea marginal ice zone in winter (1988). Deep-Sea Research, 40, 81–105.Google Scholar
Kramp, P.L., 1959. The Hydromedusae of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters. Dana-Report, 46, 1–283.Google Scholar
Lancraft, T.M., Hopkins, T.L., Torres, J.J. & Donnelly, J., 1991. Oceanic micronektonic/macrozooplanktonic community structure and feeding in ice covered Antarctic waters during the winter (AMERIEZ 1988). Polar Biology, 11, 157–167.Google Scholar
Larson, R.J., 1986. Pelagic Scyphomedusae (Scyphozoa: Coronatae and Semaeostomae) of the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Research Series, 41, 59–165.Google Scholar
Larson, R.J., Mills, C.E. & Harbison, G.R., 1991. Western Atlantic midwater hydrozoan and scyphozoan medusae: in situ studies using manned submersibles. Hydrobiologia, 216/217, 311–317.Google Scholar
Madin, L.P., 1988. Feeding behavior of tentaculate predators, in situ observations and a conceptual model. Bulletin of Marine Science, 43, 413–429.Google Scholar
Margulis, R.Ia., 1978. The distribution of Siphonophora in the western North Atlantic. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Seriya Biologiya, 3, 1–11. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Margulis, R.Ia., 1988. Revision of the subfamily Clausophyinae (Siphonophora, Diphyidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 67, 1269–1281. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Margulis, R.Ia., 1992. Siphonophora from the Indian sector of the Antarctic. In The Antarctic. The Committee Reports (ed. Kotlyakov, V.M.), pp. 125–134. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Marr, J., 1962. The natural history and geography of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba Dana). Discovery Reports, 32, 33–464.Google Scholar
Moore, S.J., 1984. Morphological variation in the Hydromedusa Calycopsis borchgrevinki (Browne, 1910) (Coelenterata, Hydrozoa). Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 25, 245–256.Google Scholar
Orsi, A.H., Nowlin, W.D. Jr & Whitworth, T. III, 1993. On the circulation and stratification of the Weddell Gyre. Deep-Sea Research, 40, 169–203.Google Scholar
Pommeranz, T., Herrmann, C. & Kühn, A., 1982. Mouth angles of the Rectangular Midwater Trawl (RMT1+8) during paying out and hauling. Meeresforschung, 29, 267–274.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R., 1974. The vertical distribution of the siphonophores collected during the SOND cruise, 1965. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 54, 25–90.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R., 1984. The diel migrations and distributions within a mesopelagic community in the north east Atlantic. 7. Siphonophores. Progress in Oceanography, 13, 461–489.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R., 1986. Trophic factors affecting the distribution of siphonophores in the North Atlantic Ocean. In Pelagic biogeography (ed. Pierrot-Bults, A.C. et al. pp. 230–234. Paris: Unesco Technical Papers in Marine Science no. 49.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R., 1991. Co-occurrence of hippopodiid siphonophores and their potential prey. Hydrobiologia, 216/217, 327–334.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R., 1992. A revision of the sub-family Nectopyramidinae (Siphonophora, Prayidae). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (B), 335, 281–322.Google Scholar
Pugh, P.R. & Pages, F., 1993. A new species of Clausophyes (Siphonophorae, Clausophyidae), with a redescription of C. galeata and C. moserae . Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 73, 595–608.Google Scholar
Roe, H.S.J., Baker, A. De C., Carson, R.M., Wild, R. & Shale, D.M., 1980. Behaviour of the Institute of Oceanographic Science's rectangular midwater trawls: theoretical aspects and experimental observations. Marine Biology, 56, 247–259.Google Scholar
Roe, H.S.J. & Shale, D.M., 1979. A new multiple rectangular midwater trawl (RMT1+8M) and some modifications to the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences’ RMT1+8. Marine Biology, 50, 283–288.Google Scholar
Siegel, V. & Piatkowski, U., 1990. Variability in the macrozooplankton community off the Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology, 10, 373–386.Google Scholar
Smith, S.L. & Schnack-Schiel, S.B., 1990. Polar zooplankton. In Polar oceanography. Part B. Chemistry, biology and geology (ed. Smith, W.O. Jr,) pp. 527–598. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Swanberg, N., Båmstedt, U. & Madin, L.P., 1990. Assessing the role of gelatinous zooplankton in the marine environment – a critique. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (CM Papers and Reports), CM 1990/L:84,11 pp. Session V. [Unpublished manuscript.]Google Scholar
Stepanjants, S.D., 1967. Siphonophores of the seas of the USSR and the north western part of the Pacific Ocean. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim Muzeem Adademii Nauk, 96, 1–216.Google Scholar
Thurston, M.H., 1977. Depth distributions of Hyperia spinigera Bovallius, 1889 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) and medusae in the North Atlantic Ocean, with notes on the associations between Hyperia and coelenterates. In A voyage of discovery: George Deacon 70th anniversary volume (ed. Angel, M.V.), pp. 499–536. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Totton, A.K., 1954. Siphonophora of the Indian Ocean together with systematic and biological notes on related specimens from other oceans. Discovery Reports, 27, 1–162.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. & Zhang, X., 1980. Description of two deep-water siphonophores of the northern East China Sea. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Amoiensis 19, 121–125.Google Scholar