|
|
|
Peter Franks (SIO), Changsheng Chen (UMassD),
James Pringle, Jeff Runge (UNH), Ted Durbin (URI), Wendy Gentleman
(Dalhousie) |
|
|
|
|
To improve our mechanistic understanding of the
possible influences of climate variation on the population dynamics and
production of the target zooplankton species through its effects on
advective transport, temperature, food availability, and predator fields |
|
|
|
|
Calanus is a more opportunistic, highly fecund,
broadcast spawner |
|
Pseudocalanus and Oithona carry their eggs in
egg sacs (an adaptation thought to reduce egg mortality), and have lower
maximum egg production rates |
|
C. finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus exhibit
different depth preferences and different susceptibilities to food
limitation and predation |
|
Also appear to have different source regions,
although this is poorly understood |
|
|
|
|
The role of advection |
|
|
|
Population dynamics of zooplankton on GB and the
GOM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advective supply of Calanus finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus
spp. copepodites to GB during January-April and the role of winds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modelling studies suggest that the eastern GOM
(strong influence of SS and/or Slope water) a major source of near-surface
copepods to the NEP |
|
Western GOM populations supply the crest of GB
during winter wind-driven flows |
|
These studies used climatological winds - do not
capture variability in 2-15 d band, or interannual variability |
|
|
|
|
|
What are the candidate source regions for the
three species? |
|
How do these change through the season? |
|
How does physical variability affect these
advective supplies and the relative importance of different advective
pathways? |
|
Does interannual variability in January-February
mean winds control the origin of copepods transported onto the bank? |
|
|
|
|
Winter and early spring cross-isobath transport
of copepods is largely caused by locally and event-forced surface Ekman
fluxes. |
|
Transport paths differ between species and vary
seasonally. |
|
Interannual variability in the source and number
of copepods delivered to GB in January and February will be directly
related to the interannual variability in the winds over those two months. |
|
Near-surface copepods will be deposited on GB
because of the reduction in the Ekman velocity caused by the sudden
deepening of the mixed layer there through tidal mixing. |
|
|
|
|
Advective supply and loss of Calanus finmarchicus
to GOM basin diapausing populations during June-January |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are GB copepods endogenous to GOM or exogenous
(SS, Slope water)? |
|
Deep-water circulation affects supply/loss to
basins: |
|
retaining and/or concentrating animals in the
basin gyres |
|
advectively connecting the basin populations
residing above the shallowest closed isobath |
|
advecting Slope Water animals into the GOM
through the NEC |
|
Exchange of slope and basin copepod populations
profoundly affected by strongly interannually varying winds |
|
Turnover of diapausing populations in late
summer/fall |
|
|
|
|
How long will animals in the deep GOM waters
remain in the GOM, i.e. what is the residence time of the deep water? |
|
To what
extent does the deep-water flow move the basin populations to other basins? |
|
Do some basins retain diapausers more
efficiently than others? |
|
How sensitive are the answers to variations in
the circulation (e.g., driven by interannually varying winds, and
ultimately by the NAO)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large-scale geostrophic wind-driven currents
will be strong for isobaths which are not closed. |
|
Wilkinson and Jordan Basins (which have closed
isobaths) will retain diapausers efficiently, while Georges Basin (which
does not have a closed 200 m isobath) may lose or gain organisms through
the NEC to and from the shelf/slope and the MAB. |
|
Deep-water circulation may cause some loss of
animals out through the GSC. |
|
The counterclockwise gyre circulation in the
basins may drive a bottom Ekman current that can concentrate diapausers in
the deep basins. |
|
|
|
|
Role of advection for copepod populations on GB |
|
|
|
|
Fronts have implications for the relative
importance of local vs. exchange processes, and the environmental
conditions experienced by the plankton on GB |
|
Animals
on the crest are generally retained on GB (Gentleman, 2000), and experience
high food and predation levels |
|
Animals on the lower-food SF are generally
advected off GB in winter-spring, but may be advected northward, and
possibly even back to the NEP in late spring |
|
|
|
|
How do the time scales of advection change with
interannual and/or event-level variations in the physical flow? |
|
Will inclusion of physical variability influence
copepod loss rates more than incorporation of the details of swimming
behaviors of copepod life stages? |
|
|
|
|
Inclusion of physical variability will have a
greater effect on copepod loss rates from GB and on different regions of
the bank than incorporation of the details of behavior |
|
Particles with certain behaviors may be retained
on GB more than passive particles, however most of the loss will be caused
by variability in physical forcing |
|
|
|
|
Stratification and variability in food supply:
the role of food limitation |
|
|
|
|
Food limitation period of Calanus egg production
varies from year to year |
|
Regional timing of blooms varies in space, and
type of food resource varies in space and time |
|
Copepod developmental rates correlated with
chlorophyll, but chlorophyll likely a proxy for other food sources |
|
|
|
|
How does interannual variability in heat fluxes
and horizontal freshwater fluxes modify the onset of stratification and
subsequent primary production in the GOM and SF? |
|
What is the relationship between stratification
and the strength and timing of copepod food limitation? |
|
How does the timing and location of the winter
bloom over the GOM affect the population structure of copepods coming onto
GB? |
|
Can food limitation and the absence of deep
resting stage explain why Pseudocalanus are not observed over the Central
GOM? |
|
|
|
|
Changes in abundance and size-class structure of
the plankton are caused by changes in stratification. |
|
Timing of blooms over GOM and GB controlled by
surface turbulence/cooling vs. solar heating/advection of buoyant SS water. |
|
Early winter bloom over GOM leads to enhanced
copepod abundance on GB. |
|
Low total food on the SF in April is a recurrent
but predictably variable feature, arising from a combination of changing
stratification levels and increased grazing pressure by copepods. |
|
|
|
|
Mortality and invertebrate predation |
|
|
|
|
Calanus mortality varies spatially and
temporally on GB; losses due to mortality > advective losses |
|
Invertebrate predators include Centropages, Metridia,
Temora, Sagitta, and Pleurobrachia |
|
High consumption of all copepod life stages by
the hydroid Clytia gracilis, particularly on the crest; predator
populations peak there in April-May |
|
Cannibalistic feeding by C. finmarchicus may
lead to density- dependent mortality. |
|
|
|
|
How much of the heterogeneity of observed trends
in abundance of the target species on GB can be explained by differential
mortality? |
|
What is the relationship between mortality rate
and predator abundance? |
|
What are the mechanisms that cause all regions
to exhibit low naupliar abundances in April-May? |
|
|
|
|
Variation in mortality rate is an important
source of variation in abundance of the target copepod species. |
|
This variation is linked to climate by its
influence on advection of females and late copepodite stages from the GOM. |
|
Mortality of Calanus egg and naupliar stages is
an important loss of prey for fish larvae feeding on the SF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical models: |
|
2D ECOM-si GB model |
|
3D ECOM-si GOM /GB model |
|
3D FVCOM GOM /GB |
|
Particle tracking: |
|
106 passive particles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological models: |
|
Ecosystem models (NPZ, mass-stratified models) |
|
Copepod population dynamics (stage-structured
IBM) |
|
food limitation effects on different aspects of
the vital rates |
|
individual variability in development and
reproduction |
|
age-within-stage-dependent mortalities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concentrate on 1995, 1998, 1999 (most complete
data sets) |
|
Begin working in parallel - physical
models/particle tracking, ecosystem models, copepod models |
|
Perform idealized studies |
|
Collate data |
|
Subsequently begin coupling models - 3D
physical-ecosystem, ecosystem-copepod, etc. |
|
Explore coupled model behaviors, begin
hypothesis testing |
|
Ultimate synthesis would be coupled
3D-physical-ecosystem-IBM model over annual cycle |
|
Explore interannual variability, influence of
large-space/time scale forcing |
|