Zooplankton community size-structure change and mesh size selection under the thermal stress caused by a power plant in a semi-enclosed bay
-
Abstract: Zooplankton samples were collected using 505, 160 and 77 μm mesh nets around a power plant during four seasons in 2011. We measured total length of zooplankton and divided zooplankton into seven size classes in order to explore how zooplankton community size-structure might be altered by thermal discharge from power plant. The total length of zooplankton varied from 93.7 to 40 074.7 μm. The spatial distribution of meso-zooplankton (200 −2 000 μm) populations were rarely affected by thermal discharge, while macro- (2 000 −10 000 μm) and megalo-zooplankton (>10 000 μm) had an obvious tendency to migrate away from the outfall of power plant. Thus, zooplankton community tended to become smaller and biodiversity reduced close to power plant. Moreover, we compared the zooplankton communities in three different mesh size nets. Species richness, abundance, evenness index and Shannon−Wiener diversity index of the 505 µm mesh size were significantly lower than those recorded from the 160 and 77 µm mesh size. Average zooplankton abundance was highest in the 77 µm mesh net ((27 690.0±1 633.7) ind./m3), followed by 160 µm mesh net ((9 531.1±1 079.5) ind./m3), and lowest in 505 µm mesh net ((494.4±104.7) ind./m3). The ANOSIM and SIMPER tests confirmed that these differences were mainly due to small zooplankton and early developmental stages of zooplankton. It is the first time to use the 77 µm mesh net to sample zooplankton in such an environment. The 77 µm mesh net had the overwhelming abundance of the copepod genus Oithona, as an order of magnitude greater than recorded for 160 µm mesh net and 100% loss through the 505 μm mesh net. These results indicate that the use of a small or even multiple sampling net is necessary to accurately quantify entire zooplankton community around coastal power plant.
-
Key words:
- zooplankton /
- coastal power plant /
- temperature elevation /
- size class /
- community structure /
- mesh size selection
-
Figure 1. Geographical position of the Guohua Power Plant (square frame in a) in the Xiangshan Bay and the location of sampling stations (points in b) near the Guohua Power Plant. Star in b represents the position of outfall of Guohua Power Plant. The four sections are labelled with black lines in b.
Figure 2. Variations of increment of temperature (Δt) at each sampling stations and the minimum and mean temperature (mean±SD) in four seasons.
Figure 3. Annual average zooplankton abundance of four sampling sections in different size-class (20−200 μm, 200−500 μm, 500−1 000 μm, 1 000 −2 000 μm, 2 000−5 000 μm, 5 000−10 000 μm, >10 000 μm and 20− >10 000 μm). D2, D7, D12 and D20 stand for sections at a distance of 0.2, 0.7, 1.2 and 2 km away from the outfall of the power plant, respectively.
Figure 4. Size frequency distribution of zooplankton in three different mesh size nets.
Figure 5. Abundance of dominant species (Centropages abdominalis, Acartia clausi, Centropages tenuiremis, Paracalanus crassirostris, Paracalanus parvus, Oithona brevicornis, Oithona fallax, Oithona similis) identified in three different mesh size nets.
Table 1. Mean salinity of sampling months in four sections (mean±SD)
Month Month average Section D2 D7 D12 D20 February 28.3±0.3 28.4±0.1 28.2±0.2 28.3±0.5 28.3±0.3 May 25.7±1.6 26.5±0.1 25.6±1.8 26.0±0.7 25.0±2.1 August 22.8±0.4 22.9±0.2 22.8±0.2 22.7±0.2 22.8±0.5 November 24.7±0.3 25.1±0.3 24.9±0.2 24.7±0.2 24.6±0.2 Note: D2, D7, D12 and D20 stand for sections at a distance of 0.2, 0.7, 1.2 and 2 km away from the outfall of the power plant, respectively. 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2. Main species of different size-class zooplankton
Size class Main species 20−200 μm Tintinnopsis butschlii, Difflugia sp., Trochophore 200−500 μm copepods nauplius larva, eggs, Oithona brevicornis 500−1 000 μm copepods larva, Oithona fallax, Paracalanus aculeatus 1 000−2 000 μm Centropages abdominalis, Centropages tenuiremis, Oikopleura dioica 2 000−5 000 μm Eucalanus crassus, Calanus sinicus, Eucalanus subcrassus 5 000−10 000 μm Zonosagitta bedoti, Pseudeuphausia sinica, Acanthomysis brevirostris >10 000 μm Zonosagitta nagae, Abyssisagitta pulchra, Acetes japonicus Note: In the same size group, species are listed in descending order according to abundance, and only the top 3 species are listed.
下载: 导出CSV
Table 3. Individual mean length, Shannon−Wiener index and evenness index in four sections
Section D2 D7 D12 D20 Individual mean length/μm 600.7 659.1 672.5 726.2 Shannon−Wiener index 1.27±0.16a 1.56±0.32a 1.57±0.44a 1.43±0.24a Evenness index 0.51±0.09a 0.61±0.12a 0.60±0.14a 0.57±0.08a Note: Diversity indices with same letters (a) among sections in the superscript mean no significant difference at 0.05 levels. D2, D7, D12 and D20 stand for sections at a distance of 0.2, 0.7, 1.2 and 2 km away from the outfall of the power plant, respectively.
下载: 导出CSV
Table 4. Differences (mean±SD) among three different mesh size nets in the annual average abundance (ind./m3) and diversity indices (species richness, evenness index and Shannon−Wiener diversity index)
Mesh size Abundance Species richness Evenness Shannon−Wiener net I 494.4±104.7c 42±0.3c 0.5±0.3b 1.1±0.7b net II 9531.1±1079.5b 47±0.4b 0.7±0.1a 1.9±0.4a net III 27690.0±1633.7a 61±0.4a 0.6±0.1a 2.0±0.5a Note: Mean values with different letters (a, b, c) in the superscript are significantly different at the 0.05 level among mesh, net I = 505 µm mesh size, net II = 160 µm mesh size, and net III = 77 µm mesh size.
下载: 导出CSV
Table 5. Dominant species, dominance and abundance reductions (AR, %) recorded from each mesh size net (net I=505 μm mesh size, net II=160 μm mesh size, and net III=77 μm mesh size)
Dominant species net I net II net III AR nII–nI AR nIII–nI AR nIII–nII Centropages abdominalis 0.49 – – –77.1 –39.5 62.2 Acartia clausi – 0.03 – 100 100 –63.9 Centropages tenuiremis – 0.02 – 100 100 –84.5 Paracalanus crassirostris – 0.03 0.04 100 100 70.2 Paracalanus parvus – 0.06 – 100 100 –89.6 Oithona brevicornis – – 0.05 100 100 92 Oithona fallax – – 0.06 100 100 97.2 Oithona similis – – 0.03 100 100 82.5
下载: 导出CSV
Table 6. ANOSIM and SIMPER showing the differences in zooplankton communities among three different mesh size nets
net I, net II net I, net III net II, net III ANOSIM R 0.7 0.8 0.4 p 0.001 0.001 0.001 SIMPER Average dissimilarity/% 90.7 94.8 62.3 Discriminating species 1 copepod larvae copepod larvae copepod nauplius larvae Contribution/% 9.9 8.2 6.5 Discriminating species 2 Oithona brevicornis copepod nauplius larvae Oithona fallax Contribution/% 5.3 8.1 4.1 Discriminating species 3 eggs Oithona brevicornis copepod larvae Contribution/% 5.3 5.2 3.8 Note: Six discriminating species are listed in the table (net I = 505 µm mesh size, net II = 160 µm mesh size, and net III = 77 µm mesh size).
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Alden R W. 1979. Effects of a thermal discharge on the mortality of copepods in a subtropical estuary. Environmental Pollution, 20(1): 3–19. doi: 10.1016/0013-9327(79)90049-1 [2] Antacli J C, Hernández D, Sabatini M E. 2010. Estimating copepods’ abundance with paired nets: Implications of mesh size for population studies. Journal of Sea Research, 63(1): 71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2009.09.004 [3] Bamber R N. 1995. The influence of rising background temperature on the effects of marine thermal effluents. Journal of Thermal Biology, 20(1–2): 105–110. doi: 10.1016/0306-4565(94)00038-K [4] Bernhard M, Möller F, Nassogne A, et al. 1973. Influence of pore size of plankton nets and towing speed on the sampling performance of two high-speed samplers (Delfino I and II) and its consequences for the assessment of plankton populations. Marine Biology, 20(2): 109–136. doi: 10.1007/BF00351450 [5] Chew L L, Chong V C, Wong R C S, et al. 2015. Three decades of sea water abstraction by Kapar power plant (Malaysia): What impacts on tropical zooplankton community?. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101(1): 69–84. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.022 [6] Clarke K R, Gorley R N, Somerfield P J, et al. 2014. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth, UK: Primer-E Ltd, 256 [7] Cushing D H, Humphrey G F, Banse K, et al. 1958. Report of the committee on terms and equivalents. Rapp P-V. Réun Cons Int Explor Scient Mer Méditerr, 144: 15–16 [8] Davies R M, Jensen L D. 1975. Zooplankton entrainment at three mid-Atlantic power plants. Journal-Water Pollution Control Federation, 47(8): 2130–2142 [9] Du Xiuning, Wang Yunlong, Chen Tao, et al. 2013. Seasonal variation of zooplankton copepod community in Xiangshan Bay of East China. Chinese Journal of Ecology (in Chinese), 32(10): 2756–2763 [10] Du Xiuning, Wang Yunlong. 2014. Inter-annual and seasonal changes of zooplankton biomass and species in the specific region of the Xiangshan Bay. Marine Science Bulletin (in Chinese), 33(3): 293–298 [11] Du Ping, Xu Xiaoqun, Liu Jingjing, et al. 2015. Spatial heterogeneity of macro-and meso-zooplankton in Xiangshan Bay in spring and summer. Acta Ecologica Sinica (in Chinese), 35(7): 2308–2321. doi: 10.5846/stxb201306091487 [12] Du Ping, Xu Xiaoqun, Xu Xudan, et al. 2017. Effects of three different aquaculture activities on zooplankton community in Xiangshan Bay. Journal of Fisheries of China (in Chinese), 41(11): 1719–1733 [13] Dussart B M. 1965. Les différentes catégories de plancton. Hydrobiologia, 26(1): 72–74. doi: 10.1007/BF00142255 [14] Evans M S, Warren G J, Page D I. 1986. The effects of power plant passage on zooplankton mortalities: Eight years of study at the Donald C. Cook nuclear plant. Water Research, 20(6): 725–734. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(86)90096-5 [15] Gallienne C P, Robins D B. 2001. Is Oithona the most important copepod in the world’s oceans?. Journal of Plankton Research, 23(12): 1421–1432. doi: 10.1093/plankt/23.12.1421 [16] Hwang J S, Kumar R, Dahms H U, et al. 2007. Mesh size affects abundance estimates of Oithona spp. (Copepoda, Cyclopoida). Crustaceana, 80(7): 827–837. doi: 10.1163/156854007781363169 [17] Jiang Zhibing, Zeng Jiangning, Chen Quanzhen, et al. 2009. Potential impact of rising seawater temperature on copepods due to coastal power plants in subtropical areas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 368(2): 196–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.10.016 [18] Jiang Zhibing, Chen Quanzhen, Zeng Jiangning, et al. 2012. Phytoplankton community distribution in relation to environmental parameters in three aquaculture systems in a Chinese subtropical eutrophic bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 446: 73–89. doi: 10.3354/meps09499 [19] Jones K J, Gowen R J. 1990. Influence of stratification and irradiance regime on summer phytoplankton composition in coastal and shelf seas of the British Isles. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 30(6): 557–567. doi: 10.1016/0272-7714(90)90092-6 [20] Laws E A, Falkowski P G, Smith Jr W O, et al. 2000. Temperature effects on export production in the open ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 14(4): 1231–1246. doi: 10.1029/1999GB001229 [21] Liu Zilin, Cai Yuming, Ning Xiuren. 1998. The distribution of chlorophyll a and primary productivity in the middle and west of Xiangshan Bay. Donghai Marine Science (in Chinese), 16(3): 18–24 [22] Liu Zhensheng, Wang Chunsheng, Yang Junyi, et al. 2004. Distribution of zooplankton in the Xiangshangang Bay in winter. Donghai Marine Science (in Chinese), 22(1): 34–42 [23] Lloyd P, Plagányi É E, Weeks S J, et al. 2011. Ocean warming alters species abundance patterns and increases species diversity in an African sub-tropical reef-fish community. Fisheries Oceanography, 21(1): 78–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2011.00610.x [24] Mäkinen K, Vuorinen I, Hänninen J. 2017. Climate-induced hydrography change favours small-bodied zooplankton in a coastal ecosystem. Hydrobiologia, 792(1): 83–96. doi: 10.1007/s10750-016-3046-6 [25] Miao Qingsheng, Zhou Liangming, Deng Zhaoqing. 2010. Numerical simulation and in-situ measurement for heat discharge from Xiangshangang power plant Into Sea. Coastal Engineering, 29(4): 1–11 [26] Nielsen T G, Sabatini M. 1996. Role of cyclopoid copepods Oithona spp. in North Sea plankton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 139: 79–93. doi: 10.3354/meps139079 [27] Pansera M, Granata A, Guglielmo L, et al. 2014. How does mesh-size selection reshape the description of zooplankton community structure in coastal lakes?. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 151: 221–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2014.10.015 [28] Porter K G. 1973. Selective grazing and differential digestion of algae by zooplankton. Nature, 244(5412): 179–180. doi: 10.1038/244179a0 [29] Riccardi N. 2010. Selectivity of plankton nets over mesozooplankton taxa: implications for abundance, biomass and diversity estimation. Journal of Limnology, 69(2): 287–296. doi: 10.4081/jlimnol.2010.287 [30] Rice E, Dam H G, Stewart G. 2015. Impact of climate change on estuarine zooplankton: surface water warming in long island sound is associated with changes in copepod size and community structure. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1): 13–23. doi: 10.1007/s12237-014-9770-0 [31] Stabeno P J, Kachel N B, Moore S E, et al. 2012. Comparison of warm and cold years on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf and some implications for the ecosystem. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 65–70: 31–45. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.020 [32] Şundri M I, Gomoiu M T. 2009. Qualitative and quantitative structure of zooplankton asociations in the Danube thermal discharge area of Nuclear Power Plant Cernavoda. Geoecomarina, 15: 123–130 [33] Tseng L C, Dahms H U, Hung J J, et al. 2011. Can different mesh sizes affect the results of copepod community studies?. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 398(1–2): 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2010.12.007 [34] Tunowski J. 2009. Changes in zooplankton abundance and community structure in the cooling channel system of the Konin and Pątnów power plants. Fisheries & Aquatic Life, 17(4): 279–289. doi: 10.2478/v10086-009-0020-1 [35] Turner J T. 2004. The importance of small planktonic copepods and their roles in pelagic marine food webs. Zoological Studies, 43(2): 255–266 [36] Vannucci M. 1968. Loss of organisms through the meshes. In: Tranter D J, ed. Zooplankton Sampling. UNESCO Monographs on Oceanographic Methodology. Paris: UNESCO Press, 77–86 [37] Wang Chunsheng, Liu Zhensheng, He Dehuai. 2003. Seasonal dynamics of zooplankton biomass and abundance in Xiangshan Bay. Journal of Fisheries of China (in Chinese), 27(6): 595–599 [38] Wang Xiaobo, Qiu Wusheng, Qin Mingli, et al. 2009. Studies on ecological community distribution of zooplankton in Xiangshan Bay. Marine Environmental Science (in Chinese), 28(1): 62–64 [39] Wang Yangcai, Wu Xiongfei, Shi Huixiong, et al. 2011. Study on zooplankton communities near coastal power plants in Xiangshan Bay. Journal of Ningbo University (Natural Science & Engineering Edition) (in Chinese), 24(3): 5–10 [40] Xu Zhaoli, Chen Yaqu. 1989. Aggregated intensity of dominant species of zooplankton in autumn in the East China Sea and Yellow Sea. Journal of Ecology (in Chinese), 8(4): 13–15 [41] Yvon-Durocher G, Montoya J M, Trimmer M, et al. 2011. Warming alters the size spectrum and shifts the distribution of biomass in freshwater ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 17(4): 1681–1694. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02321.x [42] Zheng Zhong, Li Song, Li Shaojing, et al. 1982. Pelagic Copepoda in China Seas (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 1–162 [43] Zheng Zhong, Li Shaojing, Xu Zhenzu, et al. 1984. Marine Planktology (in Chinese). Beijing: China Ocean Press, 1–653 -
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(6)
计量
- 文章访问数: 266
- HTML全文浏览量: 82
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
