Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:38:51.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on Spatial Heterogeneity of Surface Chlorophyll in one and two Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

J. W. Horwood
J. W. Horwood
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I trust that I will not be criticized for saying that, in general, the argument between Hensen and Haeckel has been resolved. Hensen (1887, 1895) believed that true spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the plankton could be resolved by careful measurement and analyses of variance. Haeckel (1893) thought these analyses might give more information than the data possessed. Our present understanding of spatial heterogeneity, and its analysis, does not lead us to disagree with either. Investigations carried out by a number of marine ecologists have shown large-scale spatial variations in phytoplankton. Amongst many others, this feature can be seen in studies off the northeast coast of England (Cushing, 1955), in the English Channel and Celtic Sea (Cushing, 1957; Pingree et al. 1976), off Scotland (Adams, Baird & Dunn, 1975,1976) and off the coast of the Netherlands (Gieskes & Kraay, 1975). Nevertheless the statistics of sampling heterogeneous distributions is far from simple, estimates of density for instance can be greatly influenced by the sample size (e.g. Greig-Smith, 1964; Cassie, 1963). Bainbridge (1957) summarized his review by saying that patches occurred on all scales from a few feet to as much as 30 or 40 miles by 120 or 180 miles. Our present understanding of the nature of turbulence in the sea would reduce his few feet to centimetres.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , May 1978 , pp. 487 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1978

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

Adams, J. A.Baird, I. E. & Dunn, J. 1975. Chlorophyll a and zooplankton standing stock surveys from Aberdeen in 1973. Annales biologiques, 30, 67–68.Google Scholar
Adams, J. A.Baird, I. E. & Dunn, J. 1976. Chlorophyll a and zooplankton standing stock surveys from Aberdeen in 1974. Annales biologiques, 31, 66–67.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, R. 1957. The size, shape and density of marine phytoplankton concentrations. Biological Reviews, 32, 91ndash;115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassie, R. M. 1963. Microdistribution of plankton. In Oceanography and Marine Biology, vol. 1 (ed. H. Barnes), pp 223–252. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Corner, E. D. S. 1973. Phosphorus in marine zooplankton. Water Research, 7, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, D. H. 1955. Production and a pelagic fishery. Fishery Investigations. Ministry of Agri-culture, Fisheries and Food, Series 2, 18 (7), 104 pp.Google Scholar
Cushing, D. H. 1957. The number of pilchards in the Channel. Fishery Investigations. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Series 2, 21 (5), 27 pp.Google Scholar
Denman, K. L. 1976. Covariability of chlorophyll and temperature in the sea. Deep-sea Research, 23. 539–550.Google Scholar
Denman, K. L. & Platt, T. 1975. Coherences in the horizontal distributions of phytoplankton and temperature in the upper ocean. Mémoires de la Société royale des sciences de Liege, Series VI, 8, 19–30.Google Scholar
Denman, K. L. & Platt, T. 1976. The variance spectrum of phytoplankton in a turbulent ocean. Journal of Marine Research, 34, 593–601.Google Scholar
Fasham, M. J. R.Angel, M. W. & Roe, H. S. J. 1974. An investigation of the spatial pattern of zooplankton using the Longhurst-Hardy plankton recorder. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 16, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasham, M. J. R. & Pugh, P. R. 1976. Observations on the horizintal coherence of chlorophyll a and temperature. Deep-Sea Research, 23, 527–538.Google Scholar
Folkard, A. R. & Harding, D. 1973. Hydrographic investigations in the southern North Sea, January-June 1971. Annales biologiques, 28, 40–44.Google Scholar
Frost, B. W. 1972. Effect of size and concentration of food particles in the feeding behaviour of the maritime planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 805–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, B. W. 1975. A threshold feeding behaviour in Calanus pacificus. Limnology and Oceanography, 20, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieskes, W. W. C. & Kraay, G. W. 1975. The phytoplankton spring bloom in Dutch coastal waters of the North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 9, 166–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss-Custard, J. D. 1977. Predator responses and prey mortality in the redshank, Tringa totanus (L.), and a preferred prey Corophium volutator (Pallas). Journal of Animal Ecology, 46, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greig-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 256 pp. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. 1893. Planktonic studies: a comparative investigation of the importance and constitution of the pelagic fauna and flora. (Translated by G. W. Field.) Report of the Commissioner of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1889–1891, 565–641.Google Scholar
Hensen, V. 1887. Uber die bestimmung der planktons, oder der im meere treibenden materials un pflanzen und thieren. Bericht der Kommission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel, 1882–1886, No. 5, 1–108.Google Scholar
Hensen, V. 1895. Methodik der Untersuchungen. Ergebnisse der Plankton-Expedition der Humbolt Stiftung. 200 pp. Keil und Leipzig: Lipsius und Tischer.Google Scholar
Horwood, J. W. 1976a. A model of primary and secondary production in Loch Strivan and its stability. In Proceedings of the 10th European Marine Biology Symposium, vol. 2, Ostend, 1975 (ed. G. Persoone and E. Jaspers), pp. 297–307. Wetteren, Belgium: Universa Press.Google Scholar
Horwood, J. W. 1976b. A critical investigation of small scale variability in phytoplankton. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (CM. Papers and Reports), L. 7, 6 pp. [Mimeo.]Google Scholar
Houghton, A. 1973. Chlorophyll measurements made on RV ’Corella‘ cruises in the North Sea in 1971. Annales biologiques, 28, 67–68.Google Scholar
Lincoln, A. 1975. The Use of a Fluorometer to Measure Standing Stock of Marine Phytoplankton. M.Phil. Thesis, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, C. J. 1971. Continuity in the distribution of surface chlorophyll. Journal du Conseil, 34, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcallister, C. D. 1970. Zooplankton relations, phytoplankton mortality and the estimation of marine production. In Marine Food Chains (ed. J. H. Steele), pp. 419–457. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Pingree, R. D.Holligan, P. M.Mardell, G. T. & Head, R. N. 1976. The influence of physical stability on spring, summer and autumn phytoplankton in the Celtic Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56, 845–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, T. & Denman, K. L. 1975. Spectral analysis in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 6, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, T. M.Richardson, T. J.Dillon, T. M.Agee, B. A.Dozier, B. J.Godden, D. A. & Myrup, L. O. 1975. Spatial scales of current speed and phytoplankton biomass fluctuations in Lake Tohoe. Science, New York, 189, 1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, G. 1977. A model of plankton patchiness. Limnology and Oceanography, 21, 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royama, T. 1971. Evolutionary significance of predators’ response to local differences in prey density: a theoretical study. In Dynamics of Populations. Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute, Oosterbeck 1970 (ed. P. J. den Boer and G. R. Gradwell), pp 344–357. Wageningen: Centre for Agriculture Publications and Documentation.Google Scholar
Steele, J. H. 1974a. The Structure of Marine Ecoystems. 128 pp. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. H. 1974b. Spatial heterogeneity and population stability. Nature, London, 248, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. H. & Henderson, E. W. 1978. Plankton patches in the northern North Sea. In Fisheries Mathematics (ed. J. H. Steele.) (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Walsh, J. J. 1975. A spatial simulation model of the Peru upwelling ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research, 22, 201–236.Google Scholar
Whittle, P. 1962. Topographic correlation, power, low covariance functions and diffusion. Biometrika, 49, 3 and 4, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wroblewski, J. S. 1976. A model of the spatial structure and productivity of phytoplankton populations during variable upwelling off the coast of Oregon. Technical Report, Mesoscale Air-Sea Interaction Group, 116 pp.Google Scholar
Wroblewski, J. S.O'Brien, J. J. & Platt, T. 1975. On the physical and biological scales of phytoplankton patchiness in the ocean. Memoires Société royale des sciences de Liéege, Series VI, 7, 43–57.Google Scholar
Zaret, T. M. & Suffern, J. S. 1977. Vertical migration in zooplankton as a predator avoidance mechanism. Limnology and Oceanography, 21, 804–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar