Nanoplankton and picoplankton in the Western English Channel: abundance and seasonality from 2007–2013

The nano- and picoplankton community at Station L4 in the Western English Channel was studied between 2007 and 2013 by flow cytometry to quantify abundance and investigate seasonal cycles within these communities. Nanoplankton included both photosynthetic and heterotrophic eukaryotic single-celled organisms while the picoplankton included picoeukaryote phytoplankton, Synechococcus sp. cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria. A Box–Jenkins Transfer Function climatology analysis of surface data revealed that Synechococcus sp., cryptophytes, and heterotrophic flagellates had bimodal annual cycles. Nanoeukaryotes and both high and low nucleic acid-containing bacteria (HNA and LNA, respectively) groups exhibited unimodal annual cycles. Phaeocystis sp., whilst having clearly defined abundance maxima in spring was not detectable the rest of the year. Coccolithophores exhibited a weak seasonal cycle, with abundance peaks in spring and autumn. Picoeukaryotes did not exhibit a discernable seasonal cycle at the surface. Timings of maximum group abundance varied through the year. Phaeocystis sp. and heterotrophic flagellates peaked in April/May. Nanoeukaryotes and HNA bacteria peaked in June/July and had relatively high abundance throughout the summer. Synechococcus sp., cryptophytes and LNA bacteria all peaked from mid to late September. The transfer function model techniques used represent a useful means of identifying repeating annual cycles in time series data with the added ability to detect trends and harmonic terms at different time scales from months to decades.

Questioning the role of phenology shifts and trophic mismatching in a planktonic food web

In a warming climate, differential shifts in the seasonal timing of predators and prey have been suggested to lead to trophic ‘‘mismatches’’ that decouple primary, secondary and tertiary production. We tested this hypothesis using a 25-year time-series of weekly sampling at the Plymouth L4 site, comparing 57 plankton taxa spanning 4 trophic levels. During warm years, there was a weak tendency for earlier timings of spring taxa and later timings of autumn taxa. While this is in line with many previous findings, numerous exceptions existed and only a few taxa (e.g. Gyrodinium spp., Pseudocalanus elongatus, and Acartia clausi) showed consistent, strong evidence for temperature-related timing shifts, revealed by all 4 of the timing indices that we used. Also, the calculated offsets in timing i.e. ‘‘mismatches’’) between predator and prey were no greater in extreme warm or cold years than during more average years. Further, the magnitude of these offsets had no effect on the ‘‘success’’ of the predator, in terms of their annual mean abundance or egg production rates. Instead numerous other factors override, including: inter-annual variability in food quantity, high food baseline levels, turnover rates and prolonged seasonal availability, allowing extended periods of production. Furthermore many taxa, notably meroplankton, increased well before the spring bloom. While theoretically a chronic mismatch, this likely reflects trade-offs for example in predation avoidance. Various gelatinous taxa (Phaeocystis, Noctiluca, ctenophores, appendicularians, medusae) may have reduced these predation constraints, with variable, explosive population outbursts likely responding to improved conditions. The match–mismatch hypothesis may apply for highly seasonal, pulsed systems or specialist feeders, but we suggest that the concept is being over-extended to other marine systems where multiple factors compensate.