Zooplankton of the open Baltic: Extended Atlas - IOW
Zooplankton of the open Baltic: Extended Atlas - IOW
Zooplankton of the open Baltic: Extended Atlas - IOW
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
3.5. Biomass determination<br />
Information about numbers <strong>of</strong> organisms in a certain volume <strong>of</strong> water<br />
does not provide knowledge about <strong>the</strong>ir body mass which is essential for <strong>the</strong><br />
analyses <strong>of</strong> trophic webs, energy balance calculations and zooplankton<br />
productivity estimation. The calculation <strong>of</strong> biomass is a way to overcome this<br />
problem if suitable individual biomass factors or proper morphometric<br />
approaches are applied (for reviews see: Table 4.12 in Postel et al., 2000;<br />
Telesh & Heerkloss, 2002, 2004). Such biomass determination is zooplankton<br />
specific, in contrast to quantifying <strong>the</strong> biovolume or o<strong>the</strong>r sum biomass<br />
parameters <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire sample by volumetric or o<strong>the</strong>r procedures (for details<br />
see Postel et al., 2000). The advantage <strong>of</strong> determining zooplankton biomass<br />
using <strong>the</strong> conversion factors or length/mass correlations is in clear results that<br />
can not be falsified by phytoplankton and detritus.<br />
For zooplankton monitoring purposes in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> Sea area, biomass<br />
factors were recommended according to Hernroth (1985). This compilation<br />
includes individual wet mass <strong>of</strong> six copepod and three cladoceran taxa basing<br />
on volume calculations by morphometric approaches, for example, <strong>of</strong><br />
Chojnacki and Jankowski (1982), Chojnacki (1983), and Chojnacki (1986)<br />
and <strong>the</strong> successive conversion to wet mass. The compilation was<br />
supplemented by literature data for rotifers, chaetognaths, appendicularians<br />
and some copepods. Seasonal and regional differences were considered;<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> data was sufficient. Coarse conversion factors were<br />
used to reach comparability. Rough factors may produce significant errors<br />
when multiplied by large individual numbers. Therefore, factors and length to<br />
mass ratios based on direct measurements should be preferably used. There<br />
are some <strong>of</strong> those available from <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn <strong>Baltic</strong> Sea (Kankaala &<br />
Johansson, 1986; Kankaala, 1987; Tanskanen, 1994); <strong>the</strong>y are based on <strong>the</strong><br />
kryo-conservation technique (Latja & Salonen, 1978; Salonen, 1979).<br />
Currently, <strong>the</strong> Monitoring and Assessment Group <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Helsinki<br />
Commission (HELCOM MONAS) is going to include length to carbon ratios<br />
and individual carbon factors for <strong>the</strong> major mesozooplankton species as a<br />
standard procedure in <strong>the</strong> Manual for Marine Monitoring<br />
(http://www.helcom.fi/groups/monas/CombineManual/AnnexesC/en_GB/ann<br />
ex7/) basing on <strong>the</strong> rapid kryo-conservation technique (c.f. Postel et al.,<br />
2007).<br />
32