1570
I. Siokou-Frangou et al.: Mediterranean plankton
spring blooms, i.e., in the Gulf of Lion, Ligurian Sea, and
North Aegean Sea (Andersen et al., 2001a; Siokou-Frangou
et al., 2004; Calbet et al., 2007). This distribution indicates
a rather modest adaptability of C. typicus to fluctuations in
food availability (Calbet et al., 2007), despite its capacity of
feeding on a wide spectrum of prey types.
Given the oligotrophic status of the MS, prey availability
can affect mesozooplankton. Food limitation is suggested to
occur in the Catalan Sea, since mesozoooplankton ingestion
rates correlate with food availability but are lower than in ex-
perimental studies (Saiz et al., 2007). Food limitation may
lead to competition among mesozooplankters in the open
MS. However, the ability to exploit different food sources
may overcome this problem and allow the co-occurrence of
various and numerous taxa. This is suggested by grazing
experiments conducted in the coastal Catalan Sea, where
doliolids, small copepods and cladocerans show clear food
niche separation (Katechakis et al., 2004).
5.7
Grazing impact
The prey preference of copepods could significantly affect
ciliate abundance, exerting a strong top down control on their
populations. This control has been hypothesized as the ma-
jor factor for the low standing stock of ciliates across the en-
tire MS (Dolan et al., 1999; Pitta et al., 2001). Additionally,
in situ measurements indicate that mesozooplankton graz-
ing impact on phytoplankton can be significant. Namely, in
the Gulf of Lion, the percentage of primary production re-
moved by zooplankton grazing was estimated to be impor-
tant in both winter (47%) and spring (50%) (Gaudy et al.,
2003). Previous estimations in the area suggested that half
of the phytoplankton loss from March to April should be
due to zooplankton grazing (Nival et al., 1975). In the very
oligotrophic South Aegean Sea, copepods grazed 14% (in
March) to 35% (in September) of the primary production
from cells >3 µm (Siokou-Frangou et al., 2002). The graz-
ing impact would be even higher had these estimates in-
cluded copepod nauplii and small copepodites as well as
groups with high growth rates such as appendicularians (Saiz
et al., 2007). In the North-East Aegean Sea, small copepods
(Oncaea spp., small Clausocalanus species, Paracalanus
parvus) showed a considerably higher grazing impact on
phytoplankton production (almost 100% during September)
as compared to larger copepods (C. helgolandicus, C. typ-
icus) (Zervoudaki et al., 2007). The above results are in
agreement with the statement by Calbet et al. (2001) that zoo-
plankton should exert a tighter control on autotrophs in olig-
otrophic environments than in productive systems. However,
data available for the open MS are still too few to provide
conclusive evidence.
Experiments providing information on the grazing im-
pact of other mesozooplankton groups (e.g., appendicular-
ians, doliolids, salps, ostracods) on autotrophs and micro-
heterotrophs are lacking for the open MS. As for the rare
studies on the feeding impact of carnivorous zooplankton,
the predation pressure exerted by chaetognaths on copepod
standing stocks appeared overall negligible in the Catalan
Sea (Dur´o and Saiz, 2000, <1%), whereas it varied between
0.3 and 7.8% in several areas of the EMS (Kehayias, 2003).
A good coupling between mesozooplankters and their prey
is suggested by the horizontal patterns of mesozooplankton
in the open MS, which match those of autotrophic biomass
and production (e.g., the west-to-east decrease) and, to a
lesser extent, those of microheterotrophs. This coupling also
occurs at a smaller scale, in the frontal areas of the Lig-
urian, Catalan and North Aegean Seas (Saiz et al., 1992;
Alcaraz et al., 1994; Pinca and Dallot, 1995; Alcaraz et al.,
2007; Zervoudaki et al., 2007). However, occasionally the
areas of the maximum zooplankton abundance do not coin-
cide with those of the highest phytoplankton concentration
(Calbet et al., 1996, e.g., in the Catalan Sea,), and this con-
trast might be attributed to factors other than nutrition, such
as zooplankton mortality due to predation.
5.8
Predation by fish
Mesozooplankton is the major prey of small pelagic fish
(both larvae and adults) in the MS. Diet and diel feeding of
anchovy larvae in the WMS suggest that their distribution is
trophically-driven and closely connected to the occurrence
of DZM in summer (Sabat´es et al, 2007). Indeed, in the Al-
gerian basin, the Catalan Sea and the Gulf of Lion, larvae
of Engraulis encrasicolus feed mostly on copepods (C. typ-
icus,
T. stylifera,
M. rosea,
Clausocalanidae-Paracalanidae)
and, to a lesser extent, on molluscs, cladocerans, other crus-
taceans and appendicularians (Tudela and Palomera, 1995,
1997; Plounevez and Champalbert , 2000; Bacha and Amara,
2009). In particular, copepod nauplii and copepodites are
the major prey items of anchovy and sardine larvae in the
Adriatic Sea and in the WMS (Tudela and Palomera, 1995;
Stergiou et al., 1997; Tudela and Palomera, 1997; Plounevez
and Champalbert , 2000; Coombs et al., 2003; Bacha and
Amara, 2009; Morote et al., 2010). In the Adriatic Sea, sar-
dine adults and larvae seem to feed on phytoplankton too
(Rasoanarivo et al., 1991), while sprats feed on copepods,
decapod larvae, cladocerans and chaetognaths (Ticina et al,
2000). Borme et al. (2009) report that the principal prey of
all size classes of E. encrasicolus in the NW Adriatic Sea
are small-sized copepods (0.2–0.6 mm in prosome length),
such as Euterpina acutifrons and Oncaea spp. These au-
thors comment that the observed preference of anchovy for
these few copepod species might be related to their abun-
dance, but also to species-specific behavioural (e.g., swim-
ming patterns, patchy distribution) and/or physical charac-
teristics (e.g., colour, bioluminescence) of the prey.
The constant and important presence of copepods in the
diet of anchovies and clupeids reported above, and the rel-
evant portion (20%) of total zooplankton production esti-
mated to be consumed by adult anchovies in the Catalan Sea
Biogeosciences, 7, 1543–1586, 2010
www.biogeosciences.net/7/1543/2010/