How well does the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) sample zooplankton? A comparison with the Longhurst Hardy Plankton Recorder (LHPR) in the northeast Atlantic

The Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey has collected data on basin- scale zooplankton abundance in the North Atlantic since the 1930s. These data have been used in many studies to elucidate seasonal patterns and long-term change in plankton populations, as well as more recently to validate ecosystem models. There has, however, been relatively little comparison of the data from the CPR with that from other samplers. In this study we compare zooplankton abundance estimated from the CPR in the northeast Atlantic with near-surface samples collected by a Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder (LHPR) at Ocean Weather Station India (59 degree N, 19 degree W) between 1971 and 1975. Comparisons were made for six common copepods in the region: Acartia clausi, Calanus finmarchicus, Euchaeta norvegica, Metridia lucens, Oithona sp. and Pleuromamma robusta. Seasonal cycles based on CPR data were similar to those recorded by the LHPR. Differences in absolute abundances were apparent, however, with the CPR underestimating abundances by a factor of between 5 and 40, with the exception of A. clausi. Active avoidance by zooplankton is thought to be responsible. This avoidance is species specific, so that care must be taken describing communities, as the CPR emphasises those species that are preferentially caught, a problem common to many plankton samplers.

Comparison of Zooplankton Sampling Performance of Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder and Bongo Nets

Data on the abundance and biomass of zooplankton off the northwestern Portuguese coast, separately estimated with a Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder (LHPR) and a Bongo net, were analysed to assess the comparative performance of the samplers. Zooplankton was collected along four transects perpendicular to the coast, deployments alternating between samplers. Total zooplankton biomass measured using the LHPR was significantly higher than that using the Bongo net. Apart from Appendicularia and Cladocera, abundances of other taxa (Copepoda, Mysidacea, Euphausiacea, Decapoda larvae, Amphipoda, Siphonophora, Hydromedusae, Chaetognatha and Fish eggs) were also consistently higher in the LHPR. Some of these differences were probably due to avoidance by the zooplankton of the Bongo net. This was supported by a comparative analysis of prosome length of the copepod Calanus helgolandicus sampled by the two nets that showed that Calanus in the LHPR samples were on average significantly larger, particularly in day samples. A ratio estimator was used to produce a factor to convert Bongo net biomass and abundance estimates to equate them with those taken with the LHPR. This method demonstrates how results from complementary zooplankton sampling strategies can be made more equivalent.