Influence des conditions hivernales sur les productions phyto-et zooplanctoniques en M�diterran�e Nord-Occidentale. V. Biomasse et production zooplanctonique ? relations phyto-zooplancton

Abstract

The cruise “Mediprod I” of the R.V. “Jean Charcot” covered an area of the Mediterranean Sea situated North of the 40th parallel and West of Corsica; during two 15-day legs, the first when Winter conditions ended, in March, the second in Spring conditions, in April, a 48-station network was surveyed as to primary and secondary production, as well as hydrological conditions. The first survey revealed a higher concentration of zooplankton in hydrologically stable areas, especially in the South-East, although zooplankton values were rather low throughout the whole area surveyed. The total zooplankton per unit surface was lower at the edges of the surveyed area, where phytoplankton was scarce. An increase in zoo-plankton biomass was observed between the two surveys, mostly in the central areas and near the surface. An important difference between both legs is in the proportion of organisms of different sizes collected by the Clarke-Bumpus sampler: the-200 μ:+200 μ organisms ratio, which is around 1 during the first leg, is much lower during the second leg. Two methods were used in estimating the biomass: the +200 μ fraction of a Clarke-Bumpus sample (Cl-B towed with a 50-μ net fitted on the sampler) was collected by sieving the sample through a 200-μ mesh nylon; standard vertical WP 2 hauls were performed (200 μ mesh). Both roughly show the same zooplankton (weight per unit surface) distribution pattern. However, higher estimations of the total biomass of the volume investigated were sometimes provided by the Clarke-Bumpus method during the first leg, probably due to the distribution of the animals according to their size-classes. A graph of chlorophyll versus zooplankton for surface waters suggests that zooplankton has a limiting effect on the development of phytoplankton in April only. Apparent growth rates of cooplankton are less than those for populations in the laboratory or enclosed environments. Values of the mean secondary production vary from 18 mg C.m-2.day-1 for the first leg, to 230 mg C.m-2.day-1 for the second leg. Estimations of net efficiency for energetic transfer between phyto- and zooplankton lie between 7 and 26%. As far as our hypotheses as regards physiological coefficients are valid, we can assume that the effect of grazing relative to primary production is greater in the border areas than in the central area, thus increasing the contrast between both areas with time. Phosphorus excretion rate by zooplankton seems to be less than that measured in the Atlantic Ocean. We suggest that in Spring zooplankton excretion is not the main phosphorus recycling process. Primary productivity measurements, apparent growth coefficients, and estimated grazing rate have been used to calculate the expected mean biomass per unit area during the second leg. A 7% loss of phyto- and zooplankton from the upper 100-m layer must be assumed to explain the observed biomass variation. Vertical mixing and sinking of surface water on an isopycnal slope are responsible for such loss, which can also affect, to an undetermined degree, the phosphorus stock introduced into the surface layer by the Mediterranean deep-water formation mechanism. We suggest that nearly half the total loss of phytoplankton from March to April is attributable to animal grazing.