X hits on this document

PDF document

KEYWORDS: Copepods; UVB; Visible light; Life cycle; Feeding - page 10 / 16

46 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 16

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH

j

VOLUME 32 j

NUMBER 4 j

PAGES 441456 j 2010

Fig. 4. The vertical distribution of the species, % of total species number, of different food, temperature and light preferences in the photic and aphotic layers: (a) all the species; (b) only herbivorous. Phototaxis (light response) pattern: þ, positive; 2, negative; 0, indifferent.

species. Almost all boreal herbivorous species present in the photic layer during the warm period have positive phototaxis (Fig. 4b). However, this pattern changes slightly for the Arctic herbivores, which could include up to 40% indifferent to and light avoiding.

The UV effect on the light response

Three species were tested, Acartia spp. (boreal, omnivor- ous), P. minutus (arctic, predominantly herbivorous) and O. borealis (arctic, with unknown food preferences). Acartia spp. (photic layer) and P. minutus (aphotic layer) showed positive phototaxis in August (Table II). Mature

and older copepodites (CIV-CV) of P. minutus increased their positive response to the UV light after 24 h acclimation to red light. The same was observed for mature females of Acartia spp.

In March, P. minutus copepods also showed positive UV phototaxis. Furthermore, 24 h and longer periods of starvation (keeping animals in filtered water) increased their light responses. However, animals sampled from different water layers or acclimated at different light conditions did not significantly change their behavior. The interaction between the ’light’ and ’food’ factors was not significant, ANOVA: F(1, 128) ¼ 0.001; P ¼ 0.97. Oncaea borealis was indifferent to UV

450

Downloaded from http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 11, 2015

Document info
Document views46
Page views46
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 11:30:49 UTC 2017
Pages16
Paragraphs557
Words9738

Comments