Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-2bdfx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-10T11:16:08.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of zooplankton in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2020

V. Venkataramana Open the ORCID record for V. Venkataramana [Opens in a new window] ,
N. Anilkumar ,
K. Swadling ,
R.K. Mishra ,
S.C. Tripathy ,
A. Sarkar ,
Soares Melena Augusta ,
P. Sabu  and
Honey U.K. Pillai
V. Venkataramana*
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
N. Anilkumar
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
K. Swadling
Affiliation:
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems, Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia
R.K. Mishra
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
S.C. Tripathy
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
A. Sarkar
Affiliation:
Kuwait Institute of Scientific Research, Safat, 13109, Kuwait
Soares Melena Augusta
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
P. Sabu
Affiliation:
National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Goa-403804, India
Honey U.K. Pillai
Affiliation:
Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053, India
*
venkat@ncaor.gov.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The community composition of zooplankton with an emphasis on copepods was assessed in the frontal zones of the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean (SO) during summer 2013. Copepods were the dominant group in both the bongo net and multiple plankton sampler across the entire region. High zooplankton abundance was recorded along each transect in the Polar Front (PF). Community structure in this front was dominated by common taxa, including Ctenocalanus citer, Clausocalanus spp., Calanoides acutus, Calanus propinquus, Calanus australis and Rhincalanus gigas, which together accounted for > 62% of the total abundance. Calocalanus spp., Neocalanus tonsus and C. propinquus were indicator species in the Sub-Tropical Front (STF), Sub-Antarctic Front and PF, respectively. A strong contrast in population structure and biovolume was observed between then PF and the STF. The community structure of smaller copepods was associated with the high-temperature region, whereas communities of larger copepods were associated with the low-temperature region. Thus, it seems probable that physical and biological characteristics of the SO frontal regions are controlling the abundance and distribution of zooplankton community structure by restricting some species to the warmer stratified zones and some species to the well-mixed zone.

Keywords

chlorophyll acopepodsmultiple plankton samplernutrientsSouthern Ocean fronts

Information

Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 168 - 179
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2020

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atkinson, A. 1998. Life cycle strategies of epipelagic copepods in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Marine Systems, 15, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A. & Sinclair, J.D. 2000. Zonal distribution and seasonal vertical migration of copepod assemblages in the Scotia Sea. Polar Biology, 23, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A., Shreeve, R.S., Pakhomov, E.A., Priddle, J., Blight, S.P. & Ward, P. 1996. Zooplankton response to a phytoplankton bloom near South Georgia, Antarctica. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 144, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, P.W., Crossley, A.C., DiTullio, G.R., Griffiths, F.B., Hutchins, D.A., Queguiner, B., Sedwick, P.N. & Trull, T.W. 2001. Control of phytoplankton growth by iron supply and irradiance in the subantarctic Southern Ocean: experimental results from the SAZ project. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 31573–31583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewin, R.J.W., Sathyendranath, S., Hirata, T., Lavender, S., Baraciela, R.M. & Hardman-Mountford, N. 2010. A three-component model of phytoplankton size class for the Atlantic Ocean. Ecological Modeling, 221, 1472–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlotti, F., Thibault-Botha, D., Nowaczyk, A. & Lefevre, D. 2008. Zooplankton community structure, biomass and role in carbon fluxes during the second half of a phytoplankton bloom in the eastern sector of the Kerguelen Shelf (January–February 2005). Deep-Sea Research II, 55, 720–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlotti, F., Jouandet, M.P., Nowaczyk, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M., Lefèvre, D., Richard, P. et al. 2015. Mesozooplankton structure functioning during the onset of the Kerguelen phytoplankton bloom during the KEOPS2 survey. Biogeosciences, 12, 4543–4563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K. & Sommer, U. 2009. Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 12788–12793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deacon, G.E.R. 1982. Physical and biological zonation in the Southern Ocean. Deep-Sea Research A, 29, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deibel, D. 1998. Feeding and metabolism of appendicularians. In Bone, Q., ed. The biology of pelagic tunicates. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–149.Google Scholar
Deppeler, S.L. & Davidson, A.T. 2017. Southern Ocean phytoplankton in a changing climate. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 10.3389/fmars.2017.00040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froneman, P. & Perissinotto, R. 1996. Microzooplankton grazing in the Southern Ocean: implications for the carbon cycle. Marine Ecology, 17, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, L.I., Codispoti, L., Jennings, J.C. Jr, Millero, F.J., Morrison, J.M. & Sweeney, C. 2000. Seasonal evolution of hydrographic properties in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, 1996–1997. Deep-Sea Research II, 47, 3095–3117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasshoff, K., Ehrhardt, K. & Kremiling, K. 1983. Methods of seawater analysis. Weinhem: Verlag Chemie, 317 pp.Google Scholar
Hirata, T., Aiken, J., Hardman-Mountford, N., Smyth, T.J. & Barlow, R. 2008. An absorption model to determine phytoplankton size classes from satellite ocean colour. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 3153–3159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, A.G. & Kiørboe, T. 2002. Mortality of marine planktonic copepods: global rates and patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 230, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, B.P.V. & Hosie, G.W. 2003. The continuous plankton recorder in the Southern Ocean: a comparative analysis of zooplankton communities sampled by the CPR and vertical net hauls along 140°E. Journal of Plankton Research, 24, 1561–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, B.P.V. & Hosie, G.W. 2006a. The seasonal succession of zooplankton in the Southern Ocean south of Australia, part I: the seasonal ice zone. Deep-Sea Research I, 53, 1182–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, B.P.V & Hosie, G.W. 2006b. The seasonal succession of zooplankton in the Southern Ocean south of Australia, part II: the Sub-Antarctic to Polar Frontal zones. Deep-Sea Research I, 53, 1203–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICES 2000. Zooplankton methodology manual. California, CA: Academic Press, 684 pp.Google Scholar
Kiørboe, T. 2011. How zooplankton feed: mechanisms, traits and trade-off. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 86, 311–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koubbi, P., Hulley, P.A., Raymond, B., Penot, F., Gasparini, S., Labat, J.P. et al. 2011. Estimating the biodiversity of the subantarctic Indian part for ecoregionalisation: part I. Pelagic realm of CCAMLR areas 58.5.1 and 58.6. CCAMLR selected scientific papers, WS-MPA-11/10. Brest: CCAMLR, 39 pp.Google Scholar
Laakmann, S., Stumpp, M. & Auel, H. 2009. Vertical distribution and dietary preferences of deep-sea copepods (Euchaetidae and Aetideidae; Calanoida) in the vicinity of the Antarctic Polar Front. Polar Biology, 32, 679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letterio, G. & Ianora, A. 1995. Atlas of marine zooplankton: Straits of Magellan. Berlin: Springer, 279 pp.Google Scholar
Martin, J.H. & Fitzwater, S.E. 1990. Iron deficiency limits phytoplankton growth in Antarctic waters. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 4, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.K. & Abbott, M.R. 2002. Surface chlorophyll concentrations in relation to the Antarctic Polar Front: seasonal and spatial patterns from satellite observations. Journal of Marine Systems, 37, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, A.L & Woods, H.A. 2012. Why might they be giants? Towards an understanding of polar gigantism. Journal of Experimental Biology, 215, 1995–2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naik, R.K., Jenson, V.G., Melena, A.S., Asha, Devi, Anilkumar, N., Rajdeep, R., et al. 2015. Phytoplankton community structure at the juncture of the Agulhas return front and subtropical front in the Indian Ocean sector of Southern Ocean: bottom-up and top-down control. Deep-Sea Research II, 118, 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.01.002.Google Scholar
Pakhomov, E.A., Froneman, P.W. & Perissinotto, R. 2002. Salps/krill interactions in the Southern Ocean: spatial segregation and implications for the carbon flux. Deep-Sea Research II, 49, 1881–1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serebrennikova, Y.M. & Fanning, K.A. 2004. Nutrients in the Southern Ocean GLOBEC region: variations, water circulation, and cycling. Deep-Sea Research II, 51, 1981–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, U. 1986. Nitrate- and silicate-competition among Antarctic phytoplankton. Marine Biology, 91, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadling, K.M., Penot, F., Vallet, C., Rouyer, A., Gasparini, S., Mousseau, L. et al. 2011. Interannual variability of zooplankton in the Dumont d′Urville sea (139°E–146°E), East Antarctica, 2004–2008. Polar Science, 5, 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, K.T., Hosie, G.W., McLeod, D.J. & Kitchener, J.A. 2011. Surface zooplankton distribution patterns during austral summer in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean, south of Australia. Polar Science, 5, 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, K.T., Kawaguchi, S., Hosie, G.W., Toda, T., Naganobu, M. & Fukuchi, M. 2010a. Surface zooplankton distribution in the Drake Passage recorded by continuous plankton recorder (CPR) in the austral summer of 2000. Polar Science, 3, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, K.T., Hosie, G.W., Kitchener, J.A., McLeod, D.J., Odate, T. & Fukuchi, M. 2010b. Comparison of zooplankton distribution patterns between four seasons in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. Polar Science, 4, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO 1994. Protocols for the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS). Manual and guides 29. Paris: UNESCO, 170 pp.Google Scholar
Van Heukelem, L. 2000. HPLC phytoplankton pigments: sampling, laboratory methods, and quality assurance procedures. In Mueller, J. & Fargion, G., eds. Ocean optics protocols for satellite ocean colour sensor, revision 3, volume 2, chapter 16, NASA technical memorandum 2002–2004. Greenbelt, MD: NASA, 258–268.Google Scholar
Vidussi, F., Clustre, H., Manca, B.B., Luchetta, A. & Marty, J.C. 2001. Phytoplankton pigment distribution in relation to upper thermocline circulation in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during winter. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 19939–19956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. & Shreeve, R.S. 2001. The deep-sea copepod fauna of the Sothern Ocean: patterns and process. Hydrobiologia, 453, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiker, H. & John, H.-Ch. 1981. Experiences with a modified Bé multiple opening–closing plankton net. Journal of Plankton Research, 3, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Venkataramana et al. supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Venkataramana et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 102 KB