Copepod swarms: Attributes and role in coral reef ecosystems

Hamner, William M.; Carleton, John

doi:10.4319/lo.1979.24.1.0001

Cited by 170 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each experiment was preceded by a reference sampling (T 0 ) in order to define the natural species composition and variability in the adjacent, potential source pool, namely the natural bare sandy sediments (T 0 SED), the natural macrophytodetritus (T 0 MPD), the adjacent P. oceanica canopy (T 0 POS) and the water column 1 m above the site (T 0 WC). These four habitats were sampled with, respectively, sediment meiocores (De Troch et al 2001), detritus-cores (Mascart et al 2015), plastic bags (Lepoint et al 2006;Mascart et al 2013) and 50-µm-mesh hand towed horizontal plankton nets (Hamner and Carleton 1979), respectively.…”

Section: Experimental Design and Sampling Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

How do harpacticoid copepods colonize detrital seagrass leaves?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment was carried out investigating the colonization ability and specific pattern of copepods towards a provisional benthic habitat. Since copepods are known to disperse passively and actively, the experiment aimed to investigate the pool of colonizers of macrophytodetritus and the species-specific active colonization pathways. The experiment was performed in a Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica meadow on defaunated macrophytodetritus accumulations (mainly dead seagrass leaves) for two time intervals (24 h and 96 h). Active colonization by copepods, independently of their adjacent potential source pool habitat (bare sandy sediments, P. oceanica canopy, water column and macrophytodetritus) occurred within 24 h. Natural densities (as in the control treatments) were only reached by active colonization through the water column. Both neither diversities nor species composition of natural macrophytodetritus were ever reached by one single migratory pathway, therefore only a combination of interstitial migration and water column migration can explain the species occurrence under natural condition. Moreover, every potential adjacent source pool habitat, contributed species to the newly colonized macrophytodetritus. However, the main colonizers were mostly species with good swimming capabilities. The diverse pool of species present in the newly colonized macrophytodetritus underlines the complex communities and dispersion capabilities of copepods. Hence, macrophytodetritus possesses the potential ability to be a colonizer source pool for every adjacent habitat and thus behaves as a copepod hub for the entire seagrass ecosystem

show abstract

Section: Experimental Design and Sampling Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

How do harpacticoid copepods colonize detrital seagrass leaves?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They can accumulate at interfaces such as the benthic boundary layer, the air^sea interface (neuston), or oxycline, between tidal fronts or within windrows (Alldredge et al 1984;Wishner & Winn 1987;Wishner et al 1988;Mackas et al 1993). As a group, zooplankters can also avoid areas of high turbulence (Hwang et al 1994), and aggregate in spaces where they can tolerate the ambient £uid motion, such as behind coral heads in tranquil eddies (Hamner & Carleton 1979;Ueda et al 1983). Some zooplankters avoid areas in which their predators (Bollens & Frost 1989), or odours of their predators (Larsson 1996) are present, and thereby aggregate in areas of relative safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fluid physics of signal perception by mate-tracking copepods

Yen

Weissburg

Doall

1998

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within laboratory-induced swarms of the marine copepod Temora longicornis, the male exhibits chemically mediated trail-following behaviour, concluding with £uid mechanical provocation of the mate-capture response.The location and structure of the invisible trail were determined by examining the speci¢c behaviour of the female copepods creating the signal, the response of the male to her signal, and the £uid physics of signal persistence. Using the distance of the mate-tracking male from the ageing trail of the female, we estimated that the molecular di¡usion coe¤cient of the putative pheromonal stimulant was 2.7 Â10 À5 cm 2 s À1 , or 1000 times slower than the di¡usion of momentum. Estimates of signal strength levels, using calculations of di¡usive properties of odour trails and attenuation rates of £uid mechanical signals, were compared to the physiological and behavioural threshold detection levels. Males ¢nd trails because of strong across-plume chemical gradients; males sometimes go the wrong way because of weak along-plume gradients; males lose the trail when the female hops because of signal dilution; and mate-capture behaviour is elicited by suprathreshold £ow signals. The male is stimulated by the female odour to accelerate along the trail to catch up with her, and the boundary layer separating the signal from the chemosensitive receptors along the copepod antennule thins. Di¡usion times, and hence reaction times, shorten and behavioural orientation responses can proceed more quickly. While`perceptive' distance to the odour signal in the trail or the £uid mechanical signal from the female remains within 1^2 body lengths (55 mm), the`reactive' distance between males and females was an order of magnitude larger. Therefore, when nearest-neighbour distances are 5 cm or less, as in swarms of 10 4 copepods m À3 , mating events are facilitated. The strong similarity in the structure of mating trails and vortex tubes (isotropic, millimetre^centimetre scale, 10:1 aspect ratio, 10 s persistence), indicates that these trails are constrained by the same physical forces that in£uence water motion in a low Reynolds number £uid regime, where viscosity limits forces to the molecular scale. The exploratory reaches of mating trails appear inscribed within Kolmogorov eddies and may represent a measure of eddy size. Biologically formed mating trails, however, are distinct in their £ow velocity and chemical composition from common small-scale turbulent features; and mechanoreceptive and chemoreceptive copepods use their senses to discriminate these di¡erences. Zooplankton are not aimless wanderers in a featureless environment. Their ambit is replete with clues that guide them in their e¡orts for survival in the ocean.

show abstract

“…abundance. Other calanoid copepods such as Acartia have been observed swarming around massive boulder corals, sometimes even mimicking the shape of the coral rock as a means of avoiding predators and also for maintaining their position within reefs by hiding from currents (Hamner and Carleton 1979). Different copepod species prefer different substrates for seeking refuge, and although other copepod species may like to hide around branching coral or massive boulder coral, Labidocera spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most copepods drift with the currents; however, some copepods are demersal or live residential to a localized area and are able to maintain their position within a given area by seeking refuge in substrates (Alldredge and King 1977), swimming against currents (Genin et al 2005), swarming behind seafloor structures to prevent being swept away (Hamner and Carleton 1979), or sometimes utilizing the ebb and flow of tides to stay within a coastal region (Kimmerer et al 1998;Chew et al 2015). Copepods that live residential to specific benthic environments emerge only temporarily into the water column, typically during the night (Ohlhorst 1982;Mauchline 1988), taking advantage of the sheltering darkness to forage for food while avoiding visual predators (Zaret and Suffern 1976;Alldredge and King 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neustonic copepods (Labidocera spp.) discovered living residentially in coral reefs

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pontellid copepods are archetypical representatives of the neuston-the highly specialized community living in the top 5-10 cm of the ocean surface. Their deep blue pigmentation and large eyes are unique adaptations to surface irradiation and carnivory, but poor prerequisites for survival in the transparent waters beneath the sea surface. Here, we report the discovery of three reef-associated representatives of this group-Labidocera bataviae A. Scott, 1909; L. pavo Giesbrecht, 1889; and Labidocera sp.-living residential in coral reefs. We (1) document the presence of Labidocera spp. for two separate coral reefs on two expeditions to Papua New Guinea, (2) describe their migration behavior and substrate preference, and (3) quantify the effects of benthic reef community composition on their abundance. All life stages of Labidocera spp. were 43 to 94 times as abundant at the reef sites as in offshore sites. Although pontellids are generally considered non-migrators, Labidocera spp. showed discernible diel vertical migrations: living in reef substrates during the day, emerging into the water column at night (sometimes more than once), and returning to the substrate at dawn. Labidocera spp. showed a pronounced substrate preference for coral rubble, microalgae, and turf, over branching coral, massive boulder coral, and sand.

show abstract

Copepod swarms: Attributes and role in coral reef ecosystems

Abstract: Monospecificaggregations of copepods were observed and sampled from eleven coral reefs, two sea grass habitats, and several marine lakes in

Cited by 170 publications

References 12 publications

How do harpacticoid copepods colonize detrital seagrass leaves?

How do harpacticoid copepods colonize detrital seagrass leaves?

The fluid physics of signal perception by mate-tracking copepods

Neustonic copepods (Labidocera spp.) discovered living residentially in coral reefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About