Three Distinct Views of Deep Pelagic Community Composition Based on Complementary Sampling Approaches
Three Distinct Views of Deep Pelagic Community Composition Based on Complementary Sampling Approaches
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fmars.2022.864004
复制
发表时间：
2022-04-07
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Haddock, Steven H. D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hetherington, Elizabeth D.;Choy, C. Anela;Haddock, Steven H. D.
我们对深海群落的看法随着各种取样方法捕捉到深海生境的不同组成部分而不断演变。我们采样中层水浮游动物组合在蒙特雷湾，加州，以量化社区组成（丰度和生物量）和生物多样性（在订单水平）在三个深度范围内，和采样方法对社区参数的影响。我们收集浮游动物使用两种类型的开闭拖网[塔克拖网和多张开/闭网和环境传感系统（MOCNESS）]和视频记录从远程操作的车辆（ESTA）。我们使用天气水瓶铸型和流式细胞术量化了微生物对群落生物量的相对贡献。总体而言，中上层群落最相似的塔克拖网和拖网（相异度= 52.4%）和最不相似的MOCNESS和拖网（相异度= 65.8%）。采样方法之间的差异是由甲壳类动物和凝胶类类群的相对丰度驱动的，其中凝胶类动物（刺胞动物，栉水母，被囊动物）更丰富的调查（64.2%）和塔克拖网（46.8%）相比，MOCNESS样品（14.5%）。调查是唯一的方法，充分记录了最微妙的物理分类群（例如，physonect管水母、叶状栉水母和幼虫）。MOCNESS拖网的生物量也比Tucker拖网低一个数量级。由于这些巨大的差异，微生物对总生物量的相对贡献在塔克拖网样品中（平均值= 7.5%）比MOCNESS样品（平均值= 51%）低得多。这些结果表明，我们的观点，浮游植物的组成和社区生物量是强烈依赖于采样方法。
Our perception of deep-sea communities has evolved as various sampling approaches have captured different components of deep-sea habitats. We sampled midwater zooplankton assemblages in Monterey Bay, California to quantify community composition (abundance and biomass) and biodiversity (at the Order level) across three depth ranges, and the effects of sampling methodology on community parameters. We collected zooplankton using two types of opening-closing trawls [Tucker Trawl and Multiple Opening/Closing Net and Environmental Sensing System (MOCNESS)] and video recordings from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). We quantified the relative contributions of microbes to community biomass using synoptic water-bottle casts and flow cytometry. Overall, the pelagic community was most similar between the Tucker trawl and ROV (dissimilarity = 52.4%) and least similar between the MOCNESS and ROV (dissimilarity = 65.8%). Dissimilarity between sampling methods was driven by the relative abundances of crustaceans and gelatinous taxa, where gelatinous animals (cnidarians, ctenophores, tunicates) were more abundant in ROV surveys (64.2%) and Tucker trawls (46.8%) compared to MOCNESS samples (14.5%). ROV surveys were the only method that sufficiently documented the most physically delicate taxa (e.g., physonect siphonophores, lobate ctenophores, and larvaceans). Biomass was also one order of magnitude lower in MOCNESS trawls compared to Tucker trawls. Due to these large differences, the relative contributions of microbes to total biomass were substantially lower in Tucker trawl samples (mean = 7.5%) compared to MOCNESS samples (mean = 51%). These results illustrate that our view of planktonic composition and community biomass is strongly dependent on sampling methodology.