热带海洋学报
熱帶海洋學報
열대해양학보
JOURNAL OF TROPICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
2013年
3期
33-39
,共7页
连喜平%谭烨辉%刘永宏%黄良民%陈清潮%周林滨
連喜平%譚燁輝%劉永宏%黃良民%陳清潮%週林濱
련희평%담엽휘%류영굉%황량민%진청조%주림빈
浮游生物网%浮游动物%南海北部
浮遊生物網%浮遊動物%南海北部
부유생물망%부유동물%남해북부
plankton nets%zooplankton%northern South China Sea
浮游动物大小不一,采用不同网目孔径的浮游生物网采样得到的浮游动物种类组成和丰度有差别。为了了解使用不同网具采样对南海北部浮游动物分析的影响,于2007年8月在南海北部采用网目孔径为505μm(大网)和160μm(中网)两种网具进行了浮游动物采样。虽然两种网具对个体较大的浮游动物(水母类、磷虾类、毛颚类等)的捕获率差别不显著,但是大型网捕获的个体较大的浮游动物种类数较中型网捕获的多;对于个体较小的浮游动物,尤其是小型桡足类,大型网的捕获效率远远低于中型网,差异显著;其中对于13种主要小型桡足类[锥形宽水蚤(Temora turbinata)、瘦拟哲水蚤(Paracalanus gracilis)、丽隆水蚤(Oncaea venusta)等]种群,其中网捕获的丰度之和为大网之和的11倍之多。由此可见,两种网具是可以互补的。聚类分析结果表明,尽管两种网具捕获的浮游动物种类组成不同,但浮游动物的群落结构相似,即无论大型网或是中型网采集的浮游动物,都能被分为近岸和远岸两个类群。
浮遊動物大小不一,採用不同網目孔徑的浮遊生物網採樣得到的浮遊動物種類組成和豐度有差彆。為瞭瞭解使用不同網具採樣對南海北部浮遊動物分析的影響,于2007年8月在南海北部採用網目孔徑為505μm(大網)和160μm(中網)兩種網具進行瞭浮遊動物採樣。雖然兩種網具對箇體較大的浮遊動物(水母類、燐蝦類、毛顎類等)的捕穫率差彆不顯著,但是大型網捕穫的箇體較大的浮遊動物種類數較中型網捕穫的多;對于箇體較小的浮遊動物,尤其是小型橈足類,大型網的捕穫效率遠遠低于中型網,差異顯著;其中對于13種主要小型橈足類[錐形寬水蚤(Temora turbinata)、瘦擬哲水蚤(Paracalanus gracilis)、麗隆水蚤(Oncaea venusta)等]種群,其中網捕穫的豐度之和為大網之和的11倍之多。由此可見,兩種網具是可以互補的。聚類分析結果錶明,儘管兩種網具捕穫的浮遊動物種類組成不同,但浮遊動物的群落結構相似,即無論大型網或是中型網採集的浮遊動物,都能被分為近岸和遠岸兩箇類群。
부유동물대소불일,채용불동망목공경적부유생물망채양득도적부유동물충류조성화봉도유차별。위료료해사용불동망구채양대남해북부부유동물분석적영향,우2007년8월재남해북부채용망목공경위505μm(대망)화160μm(중망)량충망구진행료부유동물채양。수연량충망구대개체교대적부유동물(수모류、린하류、모악류등)적포획솔차별불현저,단시대형망포획적개체교대적부유동물충류수교중형망포획적다;대우개체교소적부유동물,우기시소형뇨족류,대형망적포획효솔원원저우중형망,차이현저;기중대우13충주요소형뇨족류[추형관수조(Temora turbinata)、수의철수조(Paracalanus gracilis)、려륭수조(Oncaea venusta)등]충군,기중망포획적봉도지화위대망지화적11배지다。유차가견,량충망구시가이호보적。취류분석결과표명,진관량충망구포획적부유동물충류조성불동,단부유동물적군락결구상사,즉무론대형망혹시중형망채집적부유동물,도능피분위근안화원안량개류군。
Zooplankton is a categorization spanning a wide range of organism sizes. Different mesh sizes of the plankton net used in zooplankton research can lead to different results. In order to understand whether the zooplankton community structure has been altered by different mesh sizes of the plankton net in the northern South China Sea, we investigated the catching efficiency in August 2007 using two plankton nets of different mesh sizes. The mesh sizes of large and medium nets are 505 and 160 μm, respectively. The results show that the capture efficiencies of the two nets are not significantly different for large size zooplankton, such as medusae, euphausiids, chaetognathes, and so on. Species of larger zooplankton caught by the large net are higher than those by the medium net. The difference between the two plankton nets was mainly due to the loss of small-size copepods in the samples collected by the 505 μm mesh net. The abundance of 13 dominant small copepods (Temora turbinate, Paracalanus gracilis, Oncaea venusta, and so on) caught by the medium net was 11 times of that by the large net. It suggested that two plankton nets can compensate each other. In addition, although species composition of zooplankton differed in samples collected by nets of different mesh sizes, the zooplankton communities from the two nets are similar under cluster analysis. Zooplankton communities from both nets can be divided into onshore and offshore groups, either with large or medium size plankton net.