Dust accumulation in the canopy: a potential cause of dental microwear in primates.

Dental microwear researchers consider exogenous grit or dust to be an important cause of microscopic wear on primate teeth. No study to date has examined the accumulation of such abrasives on foods eaten by primates in the forest. This investigation introduces a method to collect dust at various heights in the canopy. Results from dust collection studies conducted at the primate research stations at Ketambe in Indonesia, and Hacienda La Pacifica in Costa Rica indicate that 1) grit collects throughout the canopy in both open country and tropical rain forest environments; and 2) the sizes and concentrations of dust particles accumulated over a fixed period of time differ depending on site location and season of investigation. These results may hold important implications for the interpretation of microwear on primate teeth.

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.