Food utilisation of pelagic mysids, Mysis mixta and M. relicta , during their growing season in the northern Baltic Sea

2000 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Viherluoto ◽  
H. Kuosa ◽  
J. Flinkman ◽  
M. Viitasalo
2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-327
Author(s):  
Monika Normant-Saremba ◽  
Joanna Hegele-Drywa ◽  
Lena Marszewska

AbstractThe effectiveness of two artificial habitat collectors, crab condo (HC1) and habitat crate (HC2), providing a refuge for small mobile fauna, was tested along with two commercial baited traps, Chinese box trap (BT1) and Gee’s Minnow trap (BT2) recommended for only single deployments under a harmonized survey of the Baltic and the North-East Atlantic. Our objective was also to determine whether a multi-deployment of baited traps in the growing season increases the diversity and abundance of collected mobile epifauna. Nineteen species of benthic mobile epifauna, including six non-indigenous species (NIS), were collected between May and October 2014 using all tested types of traps in the Port of Gdynia (southern Baltic Sea). Crustaceans, represented by 16 taxa, constituted the group with the highest diversity and abundance. Our study showed that HC1 and HC2 are more effective gear than BT1 and BT2, as both species richness (including NIS) and abundance were higher. Furthermore, the double deployment of BT1 and BT2 increased the diversity and abundance of the captured fauna. The use of artificial habitat collectors as an additional method to the already recommended baited traps for mobile epifauna monitoring in ports should be considered and the number of baited trap deployments should be increased during the growing season.


Oecologia ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sture Hansson ◽  
Lars G. Rudstam ◽  
Sif Johansson

1989 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. G. Rudstam ◽  
K. Danielsson ◽  
S. Hansson ◽  
S. Johansson

2019 ◽  
Vol 622 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Wasmund ◽  
G Nausch ◽  
M Gerth ◽  
S Busch ◽  
C Burmeister ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 1267-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Casini ◽  
Massimiliano Cardinale ◽  
Fredrik Arrhenius

Abstract No field studies have been performed on the selectivity of herring and sprat in the southern Baltic Sea in relation to their entire range of prey. Accordingly, we tested in the field the following hypotheses: (i) sprat and herring are selective feeders and (ii) sprat and herring selectivity is size- and season-dependent. The results show that (i) smaller herring and all size classes of sprat are strictly zooplanktivorous, selecting principally Temora longicornis and Bosmina maritima during the autumn and Pseudocalanus elongatus in winter; (ii) larger herring are essentially nektobenthos feeders, predating on Mysis mixta during the autumn and amphipods and polychaetes during the winter; and (iii) herring and sprat seem to avoid Acartia spp. in both autumn and winter. During the autumn, herring are zooplanktivorous up to 18–20 cm, whereas in winter herring feed on nektobenthos starting from 14–15 cm. Selectivity was not an absolute process but it was related to prey relative abundance in the sea and, possibly, to prey profitability (e.g. size, conspicuousness, and reaction time).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document