Bridging the gap between marine biogeochemical and fisheries sciences; configuring the zooplankton link

Exploring climate and anthropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems requires an understanding of how trophic components interact. However, integrative end-to-end ecosystem studies (experimental and/or modelling) are rare. Experimental investigations often concentrate on a particular group or individual species within a trophic level, while tropho-dynamic field studies typically employ either a bottom-up approach concentrating on the phytoplankton community or a top-down approach concentrating on the fish community. Likewise the emphasis within modelling studies is usually placed upon phytoplankton-dominated biogeochemistry or on aspects of fisheries regulation. In consequence the roles of zooplankton communities (protists and metazoans) linking phytoplankton and fish communities are typically under-represented if not (especially in fisheries models) ignored. Where represented in ecosystem models, zooplankton are usually incorporated in an extremely simplistic fashion, using empirical descriptions merging various interacting physiological functions governing zooplankton growth and development, and thence ignoring physiological feedback mechanisms. Here we demonstrate, within a modelled plankton food-web system, how trophic dynamics are sensitive to small changes in parameter values describing zooplankton vital rates and thus the importance of using appropriate zooplankton descriptors. Through a comprehensive review, we reveal the mismatch between empirical understanding and modelling activities identifying important issues that warrant further experimental and modelling investigation. These include: food selectivity, kinetics of prey consumption and interactions with assimilation and growth, form of voided material, mortality rates at different age-stages relative to prior nutrient history. In particular there is a need for dynamic data series in which predator and prey of known nutrient history are studied interacting under varied pH and temperature regimes.

Are Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum (Dinophyceae, Prorocentrales), the same species? An integration of morphological and molecular data.

The taxonomic assignment of Prorocentrum species is based on morphological characteristics; however, morphological variability has been found for several taxa isolated from different geographical regions. In this study, we evaluated species boundaries of Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and Prorocentrum belizeanum based on morphological and molecular data. A detailed morphological analysis was done, concentrating on the periflagellar architecture. Molecular analyses were performed on partial Small Sub-Unit (SSU) rDNA, partial Large Sub-Unit (LSU) rDNA, complete Internal Transcribed Spacer Regions (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2), and partial cytochrome b (cob) sequences. We concatenated the SSU-ITS-LSU fragments and constructed a phylogenetic tree using Bayesian Inference (BI) and maximum likelihood (ML) methods. Morphological analyses indicated that the main characters, such as cell size and number of depressions per valve, normally used to distinguish P. hoffmannianum from P. belizeanum, overlapped. No clear differences were found in the periflagellar area architecture. Prorocentrum hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum were a highly supported monophyletic clade separated into three subclades, which broadly corresponded to the sample collection regions. Subtle morphological overlaps found in cell shape, size, and ornamentation lead us to conclude that P. hoffmanianum and P. belizeanum might be considered conspecific. The molecular data analyses did not separate P. hoffmannianum and P. belizeanum into two morphospecies, and thus, we considered them to be the P. hoffmannianum species complex because their clades are separated by their geographic origin. These geographic and genetically distinct clades could be referred to as ribotypes: (A) Belize, (B) Florida-Cuba, (C1) India, and (C2) Australia.