1568
I. Siokou-Frangou et al.: Mediterranean plankton
Table 7. Mean values (range) of egg production rates (EPR) and estimated copepod (CP) or mesozooplankton (MZP) production in areas of
the Mediterranean Sea.
Area
Period
Species
EPR (eggs f
−
1
d
−
1
)
Production (mg C m
−
2
d
−
1
)
Reference
Gulf of Lion
Winter 1999
19 (MZP)
Gaudy (1985)
Spring 1998
54 (MZP)
Catalan sea
March 1999
C. typicus
105
Calbet et al. (2002)
A. clausi
15
C. lividus
14
Catalan Sea
June 1995
C. typicus
5
Saiz et al. (1999)
T. stylifera
7
C. lividus
4
Catalan Sea
Annual mean
(20–40) (MZP)
Saiz et al. (2007)
Adriatic Sea
Annually
(0.6–3) (MZP)
Fonda Umani (1996)
N Aegean Sea
March 1997
5 (CP)
Siokou-Frangou et al. (2002)
September 1997
15 (CP)
NE Aegean Sea
March 1997
41 (CP)
Siokou-Frangou et al. (2002)
September 1997
58 (CP)
S Aegean Sea
March 1997
5 (CP)
Siokou-Frangou et al. (2002)
September 1997
6 (CP)
NE Aegean Sea
April 2000
C. typicus
(7–49)
36 (CP)
Zervoudaki et al. (2007)
C. helgolandicus
(3–24)
A. clausi
(1–25)
P. parvus
(9–25)
O. similis
(0.3–9)
A. clausi
(1–25)
September 1999
T. stylifera
(1–128)
15 (CP)
C. furcatus
(2–15)
P. parvus
(3–8)
O. media
(3–7)
physiological activity of zooplankton and particularly of the
growth and reproduction rates of most copepods (Gaudy
et al., 2003). In the Alboran Sea during winter, zooplankton
respiration rates are significantly lower in the Mediterranean
water mass than in the Almeria-Oran front or in the water of
Atlantic origin (Gaudy and Youssara, 2003). The patterns of
carbon demand from zooplankton estimated from measure-
ments of electron transport system (ETS) activity indicate
spatial and day/night variations in the MS. Demand is signif-
icantly lower in the western (mean 290 µg C g wet wt
−
1
d
−
1
)
than in the eastern (mean 387 µg C g wet wt
−
1
d
−
1
) sector
(Minutoli and Guglielmo, 2009). The increasing west-east
gradient observed for both day and night is not due to struc-
tural properties of zooplankton communities but likely re-
lated to zooplankton ETS activity and seawater temperature.
In the Catalan Sea during the summer and autumn months,
routine zooplankton metabolism requires between 20% and
63% of the carbon fixed by primary producers (Alcaraz,
1988; Calbet et al., 1996).
Reviewing zooplankton metabolic rates in the Cata-
lan Sea,
Alcaraz et al. (2007) show that the spe-
cific excretion rates NH
4
-N in summer-autumn (average
0.111 d
−
1
) are slightly higher but not statistically dif-
ferent from those in winter-spring (0.082 d
−
1
).
Sim-
ilarly,
PO
4
-P excretion rates do not differ statisti-
cally between summer (0.0069 µg P µg C
−
1
zoo
d
−
1
) and winter
(0.0022 µg P µg C
−
1
zoo
d
−
1
) periods. Nevertheless, the higher
C:N metabolic ratios in winter (average 20.85) suggest either
that zooplankton metabolism in this season is based on lipids
or carbohydrates, or that the community is composed of a
higher proportion of herbivores than in summer, when the
C:N metabolic ratios are lower (average 12.01). The increase
of ammonium excretion indicates a more intense catabolism
of proteins by zooplankton, as it is observed in spring in the
Gulf of Lion (Gaudy et al., 2003). Although no clear trends
appear when comparing the average metabolic activities of
zooplankton for the different hydrographic structures in the
Catalan Sea, the variability is higher at the front (Alcaraz
et al., 2007). Six times more nitrogen is excreted in coastal
and frontal waters than offshore (Alcaraz et al., 1994). Dur-
ing the stratification period, zooplankton excretion could pro-
vide up to 16.8% of the N (as ammonia) and 76.6% of the
P requirements for primary production, values that seem to
be low in comparison with data from other oligotrophic ar-
eas (Alcaraz, 1988). In the Gulf of Lion, the excretion of
nitrogen and phosphorus by zooplankton was estimated to
account, respectively, for 31% and 16% of the primary pro-
duction requirements in spring and for 10% and 27% in win-
ter (Gaudy et al., 2003). Furthermore, excretion by cope-
pods migrating to the surface during the night may fuel the
Biogeosciences, 7, 1543–1586, 2010
www.biogeosciences.net/7/1543/2010/
I. Siokou-Frangou et al.: Mediterranean plankton
1569
regenerated production in the layer above the DCM (Saiz and
Alcaraz, 1990) and enhance bacterial production (Christaki
et al., 1998).
5.6
Feeding
The dominant copepod species in the MS are extremely di-
verse not only in terms of taxonomy and morphology but
also in life history traits and behaviour, greatly affecting their
modes of interacting with prey and predators (Mazzocchi and
Paffenh¨ofer, 1998). For example, Calocalanus and Cteno-
calanus cruise slowly and create feeding currents, likely col-
lecting more efficiently non-moving phytoplankton cells, as
reported for Paracalanus (Paffenh¨ofer, 1998) that has simi-
lar swimming behavior. By contrast, Clausocalanus moves
continuously without creating feeding currents and it cap-
tures cells that enter a restricted volume just in front of its
head (Mazzocchi and Paffenh¨ofer, 1998; Paffenh¨ofer, 1998;
Uttieri et al., 2008). Oithonids stand motionless for most
of the time perceiving hydromechanical signals from mov-
ing prey with their rich array of long setae (Paffenh¨ofer,
1998; Svensen and Kiørboe, 2000; Paffenh¨ofer and Mazzoc-
chi, 2002). Oncaeids and corycaeids swim primarily with a
jerky forward motion (Hwang and Turner, 1995) and have
peculiar mouth appendages that allow them to scrape food
items from particle aggregates, such as discharged appen-
dicularian houses and marine snow (Alldredge, 1976; Oht-
suka et al., 1993). The comparison of individual activity
and motion behavior between the autumnal C. furcatus and
O. plumifera has revealed substantial differences in their sen-
sory and feeding performances, which apparently allow them
to coexist (Paffenh¨ofer and Mazzocchi, 2002). All these dis-
tinct behaviours point to a different functional roles in the
epipelagos, with the occupation of distinct niches even in ap-
parently homogeneous waters. The overall picture emerging
from the diversified characters of the small copepods prevail-
ing in the open MS indicates that they may efficiently exploit
the whole spectrum of resources available in the open olig-
otrophic waters.
Though their natural diet and feeding performances have
been measured only rarely in the open MS, copepods are
likely to prefer ciliates over autotrophic food, as reported
for various regions of the world oceans (reviewed by Calbet
and Saiz, 2005) and in the coastal MS (Wiadnyana and Ras-
soulzadegan, 1989). Indeed in the North-East Aegean Sea in
April, clearance rates of some copepods (C. helgolandicus,
C. typicus, P. parvus, O. similis, Oncaea spp.) were one or-
der of magnitude higher on ciliates than on chl a–containing
cells. Moreover, copepods seemed to consume almost the
entire ciliate production, but only part of the available pri-
mary production, probably suggesting that not all autotrophs
provided adequate food supply in terms of quality and/or size
(Zervoudaki et al., 2007).
Rare measurements of feeding rates in the open MS seem
to confirm the results of studies conducted in the laboratory
or in coastal areas, i.e., the ingestion rates depend on food
quantity and quality. During the spring bloom in the Albo-
ran Sea, copepod ingestion rates on natural particle mixtures
varied between 0.5 and 5.8×10
6
µm
3
particles mg
−
1
zoo-
plankton dry weight h
−
1
and the highest value was recorded
in the layer with chl a maximum concentration (Gaudy and
Youssara, 2003). Most of the in situ studies have provided
evidence that mesozooplankton feeding can change in rela-
tion to the prevailing type of food and that copepod feed-
ing can be selective even when a homogeneous food assem-
blage is available. For example, at the DYFAMED site, cope-
pod filtration rates rose from 0.54 to 1.89 ml copepod
−
1
h
−
1
when the diet switched from mixotrophic to heterotrophic
nanociliates (Per´ez et al., 1997). In offshore waters of the
NW MS, communities dominated by the same four cope-
pod genera (Clausocalanus, Paracalanus, Oithona, and Cen-
tropages) fed on phytoplankton in June, when cells >10 µm
occurred, whilst relying on microzooplankton or detritus in
October, when small cells (<10 µm) were most abundant, or
under strong oligotrophic conditions (Van Wambeke et al.,
1996). In the Gulf of Lion, the mesozooplankton communi-
ties were very similar in taxonomic composition during win-
ter and spring, but differed in their feeding performances.
In winter, the autotrophic food was sufficient to support
low zooplankton biomass, while heterotrophic food richer
in proteins sustained the enhanced secondary production in
spring, as indicated also by the increased ammonium excre-
tion (Gaudy et al., 2003). A seasonal shift was also observed
in the Catalan Sea, where copepods were strongly coupled
with the autotrophic biomass during phytoplankton blooms
(dominated by cells >5 µm) in March, and on heterotrophs
in late spring and early summer, when autotroph abundance
was lower (Calbet et al., 2002).
Switches in feeding preferences and performances might
result from a real group/genus plasticity in response to dif-
ferent food environment. However, it is also possible that
this apparent flexibility masks neglected differences among
congeneric species that are very similar morphologically but
have different food quantity and quality needs. This sec-
ond case can be hypothesized for Clausocalanus pergens
and C. paululus by observing their distribution in different
regions of the MS and the Atlantic Ocean (Peralba, 2008;
Peralba et al., 2010). Both species are widespread in the
epipelagic waters of the open MS in late winter-spring, but
the former prevails in presence of phytoplankton blooms
(e.g., in the North Balearic Sea) and the latter in oligotrophic
regions (e.g., the Ionian Sea), suggesting a separation of their
trophic niches (Peralba, 2008; Peralba et al., 2010). Unfor-
tunately, data on the natural diet of the dominant Clauso-
calanus, Oithona, Oncaea species are almost lacking. Dif-
ferences in the trophic regimes seem to account for the vari-
ability of distribution and abundance of Centropages typi-
cus in different regions of the MS. This species is common
and abundant in coastal areas, while in open waters it con-
tributes significantly to copepod assemblages only during
www.biogeosciences.net/7/1543/2010/
Biogeosciences, 7, 1543–1586, 2010