Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:14:05.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, Reproduction, Respiration and Carbon Utilization of the Sand-Dwelling Harpacticoid Copepod, Asellopsis Intermedia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Reuben Lasker ,
J. B. J. Wells  and
A. D. McIntyre
Reuben Lasker
Affiliation:
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fishery-Oceanography Center, La Jolla, California Research Fellow, Natural History Department, University of Aberdeen 1966-67.
J. B. J. Wells
Affiliation:
Natural History Department, Marischal College, Aberdeen
A. D. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The copepod Asellopsis intermedia (T. Scott) is a conspicuous member of the meiobenthos in sand on a small exposed beach at Firemore, in Loch Ewe, Scotland, and is the only species of this genus so far recorded interridally from the area. Length of adults does not exceed 0.65 mm in females and 0.55 mm in males. Although it lives below the sand surface, it is not an interstitial form since it burrows by displacing the sand grains rather than by moving freely in the interstitial spaces.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1970 , pp. 147 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1970

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

REFERENCES

Barnett, P. R. O., 1966. The comparative development of two species of Platychelipus Brady (Harpacticoida). In Some Contemporary Studies in Marine Science, pp. 113–127. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Boisseau, J.-P., 1957. Technique pour l'étude quantitative de la faune interstitielle des sables. C. r. Congr. Soc. sav., Bordeaux, 1957, pp. 117–19.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. & Steele, J. H., 1968. The ecology of O-group plaice and common dabs at Loch Ewe. I. Population and food. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol., Vol. 2, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar
Fowler, G. H., 1909. Biscayan plankton, part 12. Ostracoda. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., Ser. 2, Vol. 10, pp. 219–336.Google Scholar
Fraser, J. H., 1936. The occurrence, ecology and life history of Tigriopus fulvus (Fisher). J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 20, 523–36.Google Scholar
Lang, K., 1948. Monographie der Harpacticiden, Vol., 2, pp. 899–1682. Lund: Hakan Ohlsson.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. D. & Eleftheriou, A., 1968. The bottom fauna of a flatfish nursery ground. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 48, pp. 113–42.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. D., Munro, A. L. S. & Steele, J. H., 1970. Energy flow in a sand ecosystem. In Marine Food Chains, ed. Steele, J. H.. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Mullin, M. M. & Brooks, E. R., 1967. Laboratory culture, growth rate, and feeding behaviour of a planktonic marine copepod. Limnol. Oceanogr., Vol. 12, pp. 657–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, E. J., 1958. The food relationships of the microbenthos, with particular reference to that found at Whitstable, Kent. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 13, Vol. 1, pp. 64–7.Google Scholar
Scholander, P. F., Claff, C. L. & Sveinsson, S. L., 1952. Respiratory studies of single cells. I. Methods. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole, Vol. 102, pp. 157–77.Google Scholar
Sewell, R. B. S., 1912. Notes on the surface-living copepods of the Bay of Bengal. I and II. Rec. Indian Mus., Vol. 7, pp. 313–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. H. & Baird, I. E., 1968. Production ecology of a sandy beach. Limnol. Oceanogr., Vol. 13, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar
Willey, A., 1931. Copepod phenology. Observations based on new material from Canada and Bermuda. Archo zool. ital., Vol. 16, pp. 601–17.Google Scholar
Wolf, E., 1905. Die Fortpflanzungsverhältnisse unserer einheimischen Copepoden. Zool. Jb. (Syst.), Bd. 22, pp. 101–280.Google Scholar