Zooplankton functional groups on the continental shelf of the yellow sea

Zooplankton plays a vital role in marine ecosystems. Variations in the zooplankton species composition, biomass, and secondary production will change the structure and function of the ecosystem. How to describe this process and make it easier to be modeled in the Yellow Sea ecosystem is the main purpose of this paper. The zooplankton functional groups approach, which is considered a good method of linking the structure of food webs and the energy flow in the ecosystems, is used to describe the main contributors of secondary produciton of the Yellow Sea ecosystem. The zooplankton can be classified into six functional groups: giant crustaceans, large copepods, small copepods, chaetognaths, medusae, and salps. The giant crustaceans, large copepods, and small copepods groups, which are the main food resources for fish, are defined depending on the size spectrum. Medusae and chaetognaths are the two gelatinous carnivorous groups, which compete with fish for food. The salps group, acting as passive filter-feeders, competes with other species feeding on phytoplankton, but their energy could not be efficiently transferred to higher trophic levels. From the viewpoint of biomass, which is the basis of the food web, and feeding activities, the contributions of each functional group to the ecosystem were evaluated; the seasonal variations, geographical distribution patterns, and species composition of each functional group were analyzed. The average zooplankton biomass was 2.1 g dry wt m(-2) in spring, to which the giant crustaceans, large copepods, and small copepods contributed 19, 44, and 26%, respectively. High biomasses of the large copepods and small copepods were distributed at the coastal waters, while the giant crustaceans were mainly located at offshore area. In summer, the mean biomass was 3.1 g dry wt m(-2), which was mostly contributed by the giant crustaceans (73%), and high biomasses of the giant crustaceans, large copepods, and small copepods were all distributed in the central part of the Yellow Sea. During autumn, the mean biomass was 1.8 g dry wt m(-2), which was similarly constituted by the giant crustaceans, large copepods, and small copepods (36, 33, and 23%, respectively), and high biomasses of the giant crustaceans and large copepods occurred in the central part of the Yellow Sea, while the small copepods were mainly located at offshore stations. The giant crustaceans and large copepods dominated the zooplankton biomass (2.9 g dry wt m(-2)) in winter, contributing respectively 57 and 27%, and they, as well as the small copepods, were all mainly located in the central part of the Yellow Sea. The chaetognaths group was mainly located in the northern part of the Yellow Sea during all seasons, but contributed less to the biomass compared with the other groups. The medusae and salps groups were distributed unevenly, with sporadic dynamics, mainly along the coastline and at the northern part of the Yellow Sea. No more than 10 species belonging to the respective functional groups dominated the zooplankton biomass and controlled the dynamics of the zooplankton community. The clear picture of the seasonal and spatial variations of each zooplankton functional group makes the complicated Yellow Sea ecosystem easier to be understood and modeled. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

不同干扰条件下社会认知偏离者两半球协同功能研究

Previous studies have witnessed some psychological or behavioral deviation (such as aggressive behavior) might have an association with cerebral hemisphere cooperative dysfunction, however, it is still unclear whether there is an association between individuals with social cognitive bias and their hemispheric cooperative functions especially while the interhemisphere cooperative processing is under the conditions of emotional interferences. The purpose of this study is to explore the differences between the social cognitive bias group and the normal group’s interhemispheric cooperative functional activity under the conditions of with or without interferences. Methods: According to Dodge’s (1993) model of “social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression”, a 51 items of “social cognitive bias scale” was created and was used to screen the high score group. 20 male subjects was composed of high score group and other 23 matched the control group. Stimulus tachistoscopically presented to the bilateral visual field and compared with the central. Both group’s interhemispheric cooperative functional activity were observed and compared under the conditions of without interference- i.e. base level and with the emotional interferences of white noise level and negative evaluative feedback speech level while finishing: experiment one: Chinese word-figure Stroop analogue task; experiment two: two single Chinese Characters combination task. Heart rate and respiratory rate were simultaneously recorded as index of emotional changes. Results: ① The high score group showed a decrease in processing accuracy compared with the normal group under the condition of white noise interference level in experiment one. ② Still under the condition of white noise interference level, there were more reaction time and more errors were observed in high score group than normal in experiment two. ③ Both groups showed speed up effect and the strategic processing tendency of speed-accuracy trade-off effect under the condition of white noise interference level in both experiments. ④ Between group differences of interhemipheric cooperative function were not observed under the conditions of base level and the negative evaluative feedback speech level within both experiments. Conclusion: The results suggested that interhemispheric cooperative functional differences exists between the two groups, characterized as ① differences existed in interhemispheric cooperative processing strategy between the two groups, with the high score group presented “hierarchic” deficiency strategy. ② the appearance of the differences between the two groups were condition specified , and in this research it was only under the white noise interference condition. ③ the features of the differences between the two groups were the differences on multidimensional performances and with a deficit orientation in high score group. ④ the varieties of the differences were changing with cooperative tasks, as in this research the high score group performed worse in complementary cooperative task. In addition, both group adjusted the processing strategy respectively under the condition of white noise evoked emotional interference implied that the interaction between the interhemisphere cooperative processing and emotion might exist.

社会困境中的行为决策――社会身份与地位的影响

Social dilemmas are defined as such situations in which short-term individual and long-term collective interests are at odds (Hardin, 1968; Messick & Brewer, 1983). Severe social problems lead more and more researchers to pay attention to the issue of social dilemmas. Until now, research has widely examined the factors influencing cooperation in social dilemmas, and provided solutions to social dilemmas. In the need of theory development, previous research generally simplified the situation of realistic social dilemmas. Therefore, few studies have explored the issue of cooperation in social dilemmas in an intergroup situation. On the other hand, there has been little empirical attention for such issues in countries outside of United States and Western Europe. To meet this gap, the present study grounded itself in social identity theories and examined the effect of unequal group status on behavioral decision making in social dilemmas. To this end, the study designed three experiments to examine how individuals with different group status response psychologically and behaviorally to cooperation in intragroup and intergroup social dilemmas. In experiment 1, the study examined how independent and interdependent self- construals affect cooperative behavior in an intragroup social dilemma. The results showed that when individuals were primed with interdependent (as opposed to independent) self-construal, they consistently contributed highly, regardless of context manipulation. In contrast, those primed with independent self-construal contributed less in the investment game but only when placed in a context where group members were encouraged to think about their individual (versus shared) fate. Results supported the idea that independent self-construal in a low interdependent context produces the most competitive behavior and that this effect was partially mediated by the feeling of interaction within a group. In experiment 2, the study examined how the effect of group status on different level of cooperation in a nested social dilemma was moderated by individual status, and what roles ingroup and superordinate identifications played in the above effect. Results found that individuals in higher status groups tended to allocate more to private account and less to subgroup account compared to those in lower status group; individuals in higher status groups allocated more to higher level accounts than to private account, whereas those in lower status acted in a reverse way. The results indicated that group status (compared to individual status) exerted a positive influence on behavioral decision making in social dilemmas, with higher group status contributing more to subgroup as well as collective interests. Results also found that the effect of group status and/or individual status on cooperation in social dilemmas was moderated by sex. As for individual status, results showed that the effect of individual status on subgroup interest was significantly moderated only by the combination of higher ingroup identification and lower superordinate identification. In experiment 3, the study explored how group stability and cognitive categorization interactively influenced the relationship between group status and behavioral decision making in a social dilemma. Results did not support the prediction that group status and stability interactively affected behavioral decision-making in social dilemmas. However, it was found that this relationship was moderated by which level individuals categorized themselves at. When categorization at the individual level was salient, individuals in high status group contributed more to subgroup account than those in low status group if they perceived a stable status hierarchy; whereas they contributed more to private account and less to collective account if they perceived that the status was instable. On the other hand, when categorization at the subgroup level was salient, individuals in high status group contributed less to collective account than those in low status group if they perceived that the status was stable; whereas they contributed less to private account and more to subgroup account if they perceived an instable status relation. In summary, the present study suggests that cooperation with ingroup forms the basis of social harmony, and higher status for everyone in any given group is a necessary for social development. On the other hand, individuals in higher status group tend to be more selfish once they realize that their current status hierarchy is unstable. However, activating their collective identity will to some degree increase the level of their cooperation with the collective. The study thus provides psychological explanations on how to construct group harmony and management suggestions on how to solve social conflicts.