Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The grazing pressure of micro-and nanozooplankton on phytoplankton was estimated in serial dilution experiments in the northwestern Arabian Sea and its adjacent areas (the Somali Current, the Somali Basin, the Gulf of Aden and the southern Red Sea) during the NE monsoon 1992-1993.Microzooplankton grazing rates @) on total phytoplankton (analyzed as chl a ) were generally exceeded by phytoplankton growth rates (g = 0.2 to 1.19 d-l, mean 0.48 d-'; p = 0.52 to 1.12 d-', mean 0.72 d-'1, resulting in an average daily consumption of 38% of the phytoplankton standing stock and 67% of the primary production.Microzooplankton grazing on 4 picophytoplankton groups (Prochlorococcus spp., Synechococcus spp., and 2 picoeukaryotes) analyzed by flow cytonletry showed growth (p = 0.27 to 0.92 d-l, mean 0.68 d") and grazing mortality rates @ = 0.26 to 0.73 d-l, mean 0.67 d-l) well in balance, with an average of 49% of the standing stock and 102% of the primary production grazed per day.Picophytoplankton growth and grazing mortality rates increased dramatically when grazers > l 0 pm were removed.These results suggest a control of the small grazers by larger ones (trophic cascade) and a close coupling between picoautotrophic prey and small grazers.The trophic cascade within the microbial food web of the nanoplankton encompasses 3 trophic levels: picoplanktonsmall HNFlarger flagellates and ciliates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reckermann et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: