Figures
Abstract
An 0-group fish survey is conducted annually in the Barents Sea in order to estimate fish population abundance. Data on jellyfish by-catch have been recorded since 1980, although this dataset has never been analysed. In recent years, however, the ecological importance of jellyfish medusae has become widely recognized. In this paper the biomass of jellyfish (medusae) in 0–60 m depths is calculated for the period 1980–2010. During this period the climate changed from cold to warm, and changes in zooplankton and fish distribution and abundance were observed. This paper discusses the less well known ecosystem component; jellyfish medusae within the Phylum Cnidaria, and their spatial and temporal variation. The long term average was ca. 9×108 kg, with some years showing biomasses in excess of 5×109 kg. The biomasses were low during 1980s, increased during 1990s, and were highest in early 2000s with a subsequent decline. The bulk of the jellyfish were observed in the central parts of the Barents Sea, which is a core area for most 0-group fishes. Jellyfish were associated with haddock in the western area, with haddock and herring in the central and coastal area, and with capelin in the northern area of the Barents Sea. The jellyfish were present in the temperature interval 1°C<T<10°C, with peak densities at ca. 5.5°C, and the greatest proportion of the jellyfish occurring between 4.0–7.0°C. It seems that the ongoing warming trend may be favourable for Barents Sea jellyfish medusae; however their biomass has showed a recent moderate decline during years with record high temperatures in the Barents Sea. Jellyfish are undoubtedly an important component of the Barents Sea ecosystem, and the data presented here represent the best summary of jellyfish biomass and distribution yet published for the region.
Citation: Eriksen E, Prozorkevich D, Trofimov A, Howell D (2012) Biomass of Scyphozoan Jellyfish, and Its Spatial Association with 0-Group Fish in the Barents Sea. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033050
Editor: Graeme Clive Hays, University of Wales Swansea, United Kingdom
Received: November 2, 2011; Accepted: February 9, 2012; Published: March 22, 2012
Copyright: © 2012 Eriksen et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The authors would like to acknowledge support provided by the Barents Sea Research programme at IMR (Institute of Marine Research), Menu II (NFR contract number 190286) and BarEcoRe (NFR contract number 200796/S41). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
It has been suggested that the abundance of gelatinous zooplankton varies considerably in many marine ecosystems around the globe and that the abundance fluctuates with climate [1], [2], [3]. Kogosek et al. [4] investigated 200 years of jellyfish data, and showed periodic jellyfish blooms in the northern Adriatic. Several anthropogenic changes capable of promoting increased jellyfish biomass have been identified, including e.g. climate change, eutrophication, pollution, overfishing, and species introductions [1], [2], . One of the main concerns is that the affected ecosystems may switch to an alternative, jellyfish dominated regime, from which it may be difficult to revert [3], [8]. Such regime shifts seem to have taken place in the Benguela current [5], [9], the Black and Caspian Seas [10], [11], and some fjords in western Norway, such as Lurefjord (e.g. [12]). However, due to the scarcity of long time series on jellyfish abundance, quantitative data verifying global increases remain scarce [2], [13], [14].
Many jellyfish are generalist predators, and often exhibit large year-to-year variations in abundance [5], [8], [15]. Major fluctuations in abundance can be linked to climatic oscillations [5], [8], [16], global warming [5] and overfishing [8], [14]. However, few long time-series from complex marine ecosystems exist. Climatic (sea surface temperature, salinity and atmospheric variability) and biological factors (e.g. density dependence, prey availability) were found to be important for the fluctuation of the abundance and distribution of scyphozoan jellyfish in the North Sea [5], [6], [8], [17], in the Irish Sea [18] and in the Bering Sea [19].
Abundant jellyfish can significantly impact the pelagic community through direct predation and competition for food (reviewed by [15], [20]–[22]), as well as through cascading effects [23]–[25]. Fish can be negatively affected through predation on fish eggs and larvae, as well as through competition for zooplankton prey (reviewed by [7], [20], [26]). Conversely, young gadoid fish (cod, haddock, Pollock, saithe and whiting) shelter among the jellyfish tentacles to avoid predation [17], [19], [27].
The Barents Sea is a high-latitude, arctoboreal shallow shelf sea, where the circulation is dominated by the Norwegian Atlantic Current entering through the Bear Island Trench in the centre of the Barents Sea (Figure 1). South of the Atlantic inflow, the extension of the Norwegian Coastal Current flows along the northern Norwegian coast and becomes the Murman Coastal Current [28]. In the northern Barents Sea, cold Arctic water generally flows south-westward [29].
The Fugløya-Bear Island (FB) section is shown by yellow line.
The climate of the Barents Sea can be characterised as being relatively cold during the period 1900–1920 to generally warm in 1930–1950, and cold again in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The water temperature has generally increased from the late 1980s, with a peak in 2006. The inflow of Atlantic Water is of crucial importance for the physical and ecological conditions of the Barents Sea [29]. The Fugløya-Bear Island (FB) section across the western entrance to the Barents Sea is representative of the climatic variations in the Atlantic inflow [30]. The annual water temperature at 50–200 m depth from 1980 to 2008 varied between 4.6°C and 6.4°C (http://www.imr.no/sjomil). Due to the importance of the Barents Sea as a commercial fishery area and a foraging area for fish, numerous studies have been published on the fish species [31]–[36], 0-group fish [37] and mesozooplankton stocks [38], [39], [40]. Recruitment (5–8 month old fish) of commercially and ecologically important fish species, such as including Barents Sea capelin (Mallotus villosus), Norwegian spring spawning herring (Clupea harengus), Northeast Arctic cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) have varied considerably between years, depending on a combination of many factors, both physical and biological [41]. In contrast, jellyfish in the Barents Sea remain poorly studied, and the overlap with 0-group fish is unknown.
The strata system is taken from that used in the 0-group fish abundance and biomass calculation [37], [50], and stratas were combined into the larger the northern, western, central, eastern and coastal areas. The 0-group survey coverage area is shown by dots. In addition, mean number of stations (N) with standard deviation (SD) per each area are shown.
In this paper, we use data from thousands of survey stations in August-September over the period 1980–2010 in the Barents Sea to explore the following questions: What is the jellyfish biomass, and how has it varied spatially and temporally? What is thermal habitat for jellyfish medusae in the Barents Sea? Furthermore, we investigate how variation in the distributions and biomasses of jellyfish medusae are related to variation in 0-group fish of capelin, haddock, cod and herring and temperature.
Cold years are shown in blue (up), average in yellow (middle) and warm years in red (bottom). Circle size indicates biomass; stations with no jellyfish are shown with the smallest circle size, 0.0003–0.29 g/m2 with the medium circle, and with more than 0.29 g/m2 jellyfish shown with the largest circle size.
Materials and Methods
Study species
Two species of scyphozoan jellyfish commonly occur in the Barents Sea: the lion’s mane jelly Cyanea capillata and the moon jelly Aurelia aurita [42]–[44]. Cyanea capillata is a northern boreal species [44]–[45], while Aurelia is a cosmopolitan genus, particularly abundant in the coastal waters, although occurring also in the open ocean [44]. Both C. capillata and A. aurita typically exhibit large year-to-year variations in abundance [43], [46], [47]. In the Barents Sea during summer and autumn, both C. capillata and A. aurita abundance varies greatly, and their biomass or abundance indicators give early warning signals with respect to climate change [43]. In the Northeast Atlantic strobilation (asexual budding of jellyfish ephyrae from benthic polyps) of C. capillata takes place in the late winter and spring [46], [48], although there seems to be differences in the timing of reproductive events between populations [7], [47], [49]. The timing of reproductive events in the Barents Sea area is currently not known.
Survey
A Joint Norwegian-Russian 0-group survey has been carried out annually in August-September in 1965–2003. Since 2004 the 0-group investigations have continued as part of a Joint Norwegian-Russian ecosystem survey (here referred to as O-group survey). The survey provides data for the estimation of 0-group fish abundance indices for the most important commercial fish species. By-catch, including jellyfish medusae within the Phylum Cnidaria, (hereafter call jellyfish), has only been weighed and not identified to species level. The trawling procedure consists of tows on predetermined positions 46–65 km apart along the survey track. At each station a pelagic “Harstad” trawl is towed at 3 or more depths, with the head-line at 0 m, 20 m and 40 m depths and each depth tow of ca 900 m with a trawling speed of 5.56 km/h. Additional tows at 60 and 80 m, also of ca 900 m, were made when dense fish concentrations were recorded deeper than 40 m depth on the echo-sounder, but the number of such deeper stations is low. The pelagic “Harstad trawl” has a 20 m×20 m mouth opening, and consists of 7 panels and a cod end. The mesh size varied from 100 mm in the first panel to 30 mm in the last. The cod end consisted of a 30 m long capelin net with 20 mm meshes for catching pelagic fish, and a 14 m long inner net with 7 mm meshes for catching 0-group fish. Therefore, we believe that larger C. capillata may be captured by all panels, while smaller and less robust species, such as A. aurita are also probably sieved through trawl meshes. It is likely they are only reliably captured by the last panel, and probably partially or totally destroyed in the cod end.
The joint Norwegian-Russian fish database has recently been corrected and updated for the period 1980–2006 [50]. The data for jellyfish were missing from the electronic database; therefore, the first task of the present study was to update the database for the period 1980–2010 to include jellyfish data. These data have not been previously analysed and published.
Biotic data
Jellyfish.
Data for scyphozoan jellyfish were collected from pelagic trawl catches during the 0-group survey in the Barents Sea. Over the study period (1980–2010) 9529 pelagic trawl stations, each with 3 trawl depths or more, were sampled. We used these data to estimate biomass indices of jellyfish in the Barents Sea for the period 1980–2010, and to examine spatial overlap with 0-group fish for the shorter period (1980–2008) due to missing temperature data in the database.
0-group fish (cod, haddock, herring and capelin).
Fish data were collected from pelagic catches during the 0-group survey in the Barents Sea (1980–2008). We used these data to calculate fish density (individuals per m2) for each trawl haul with regard to catch and trawl haul data (depth interval, effective opening and distance trawled). The method is described by Dingsør [51] and Eriksen et al. [50]. Eriksen et al. [41] described several areas in the Barents Sea (the coastal, central, eastern, western, north-western and northern), based mostly on bathymetric and water features. To make our results comparable with this early study we use a similar spatial division (Figure 1), except for the north-western and northern areas, which we combined due to limited fish and jellyfish catches there. This combined area we hereafter call the northern area.
Abiotic data
The water temperature data are from CTD (Conductivity, Temperature and Depth sensors) samples taken at each 0-group trawl station. The CTD profiles were taken either before or after trawling, and in this study we used the temperatures aggregated to standard depths (5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 40 m). Over the study period (1980–2008), 7089 CTD stations were conducted. We used these data to define temperature ranges for jellyfish.
Temperature (and since 1997, volume inflow) of Atlantic Water to the Barents Sea has been measured monthly at the standard oceanographic section Fugløya-Bear Island (70°30′ and 20°00′ to 74°15′ and 19°10′, Figure 1) by the Institute of Marine Research (IMR, Norway,). The water temperature was measured by CTD at standard depths at predetermined stations along the FB. Here we use a time series of annual temperature at 50–200 m depth taken from the path of Atlantic inflow. The annual mean temperature from 1980 to 2008 was 5.5°C, and years were categorized into three similar groups: average (long term mean temperature ±16% of the long term mean value), cold (below average) and warm (above average).
Data treatment
We calculated the following:
Biomass indices.
Biomass indices for the period 1980–2010 using the stratified sample mean method of swept area estimates [51]. For jellyfish biomass estimation, the Barents Sea 0-group strata system, which consists of 23 strata, was used (Figure 2). The biomass (g/m2), bs, at each station, s, was estimated by the equation(1)
where ws is the catch (g) at station s, wsp is the effective wingspread of the trawl (20 m), (m) the total distance trawled at station s, and
is the number of depth layers at station s. If the number of depth layers at station, s, is 1, it means that the trawl was towed for ca 900 m at the surface (0 meter depth) covering the water layer between 0 and 20 m. If the number of depth layers at station, s, is 2, it means that trawl was towed for ca 900 m covering 0–20 m and ca 900 m at 20–40 m, and so on.
For each of the strata the total biomass, B, was calculated by(2)
where N is the number of strata, Ai is the area covered in the i-th stratum, and is the average biomass in stratum i given by
(3)
where ni is the number of stations in stratum i, and bs is biomass (g/m2), at each station, s.
The estimated variance of the B is given by(4)
A biomass estimate (109 kg) for each area (the coastal, central, eastern, western, and northern) was calculated as the sum of the stratified swept area biomass estimates (B) of all strata within the area (see Figure 2). Jellyfish biomasses were not interpolated to the whole strata/area, and represent only the covered area. The estimated jellyfish biomass is likely to be conservative, since smaller individuals may have passed through the larger mesh sizes, and some of jellyfish species distribute deeper than the sampled depths (0–60 m) or outside the covered area. Consequently, the estimated biomasses may be interpreted as minimum biomass.
The fish density.
The fish density (individuals/m2) for each trawl haul was calculated using catch and trawl data (depth intervals, effective opening and distance trawled). The method is further described by Dingsør [51] and Eriksen et al. [50].
Statistical modelling
We investigated relationships between jellyfish, 0-group fish of cod, haddock, herring and capelin, and temperature for the period 1980–2008. We used a GAM (Generalized Additive Model) in the R (version 2.12.2) package mgcv [52]. To study associations between the biomass of jellyfish (JFB) and densities of 0-group capelin (CapD), haddock (HadD), cod (CodD), herring (HerD) and temperature in sample (i.e. station) i were fitted to the covariate according to the following models:(6)
where the additive effect included the smoothed fits (s) of variables of sample i. Year was included as a factor in the model (Equation 6), ei denotes the error for sample i. Separate models were constructed for the coastal, central, eastern, western, and northern areas. We used backward selection to identify the best model based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) and genuine cross validation (GCV).
Results
The estimated jellyfish biomass the Barents Sea varied considerably from year to year (Table 1 and Figure 3). Jellyfish biomass was generally low during the 1980s, moderately high in the 1990s, and high in 2000s, and the mean biomass (106 kg) was about 330 (SE = 68; SD = 216), 540 (SE = 147; SD = 465) and 1700 (SE = 390; SD = 1295) respectively. Estimated jellyfish biomass varied from 19×106 in 1997 to ca. 5×109 kg in 2001, with a long term mean for the period 1980–2010 of around 1×109 kg (SE = 184; SD = 1023). The long term mean biomass of jellyfish was approximately 0.78 g/m2 (SE = 0.16; SD = 0.87). The highest biomasses occurred during 2001–2003, when mean biomass was 2.4–4.1 g/m2 and station specific biomass ranged as high as 44.3 g/m2. There has been a decrease in biomass since 2009 (Figure 3).
The spatial distribution of jellyfish biomass varied between years with different temperature conditions. The most restricted distribution and generally low catches were observed during cold years, while during average and warm years jellyfish occupied almost whole of the Barents Sea, and catches were very high (Figure 4). Jellyfish biomass also varied between different areas in the Barents Sea. The central and eastern areas contributed most of the total jellyfish biomass. Their average contribution over the study period was about 49% and 31% respectively (Figure 5), although the proportion of jellyfish in these areas showed considerable variability. The eastern area, in particular, showed highly varied levels of jellyfish biomass. A high proportion of the total biomass was found in the eastern area during years with unusually high total biomasses (1999–2003 and to a lesser extent 1990–1993), whereas in the lowest years (1986–1989) there was little or no jellyfish reported from the eastern area (Figure 5). In years with low estimated biomass the relative importance of the coastal area increased, although the average jellyfish density in the coastal area over the study period was approximately half of that in the central area, at 81.6 g/m2 in the coastal region compared with 131.2 g/m2 in the central area. Averaged over the whole period (1980–2010), the contribution from the coastal, western and northern areas were low, and these areas contribute only 11%, 2% and 7% of total jellyfish biomass, respectively. However, the coastal area contained a relatively stable population, in contrast to the marked variability in the other areas (Figure 5).
Jellyfish were associated with 0-group cod, haddock, herring and capelin in the areas where fish were abundant, and these relationships varied between areas (Table 2, Figure 6). Jellyfish biomass was positively correlated with haddock (coastal and western areas) and herring (central, eastern and coastal area) and cod (eastern area). In the central area we found no association between jellyfish and 0-group cod, and the association with haddock was non-linear. In the northern area, dominated by 0-goup capelin, jellyfish was associated only with capelin, and the association was non-linear.
Jellyfish biomass shows at y-axis, while prognostic factors at x-axis. Separate models were performed for the coastal, central, eastern, western, and northern areas codes are shown: 0.001 as “***”, 0.01 as”**”, 0.05 as ”*”, 0.1 as”.”, and not significant means as Ns.
The jellyfish were present in the temperature interval 1°C<T<10°C (Figure 6). The CTH, was bounded in a temperature band around the maximum between 4.0–7.0°C, indicating that jellyfish associated with Atlantic water masses. However, the jellyfish showed a dome shaped distribution with temperature in the central and coastal areas, with maximum biomass at ca. 5.5°C and 6.5°C, respectively (Figure 6). In the coastal and western area, jellyfish were positively correlated with temperature (Figure 6).
Discussion
The Barents Sea is a productive ecosystem, with more than 200 fish species, thousands of benthic invertebrate species, and diverse communities of plankton, seabirds and marine mammals which inhabit or visit the area [53]. Only a few fish species, including cod, haddock, saithe, capelin, redfish, Greenland halibut, and polar cod are of commercial interest. Nonetheless, these form the basis of one of the largest fisheries in the world [54]. Historically, scientific surveys focused on monitoring commercially important fish stocks, although after a strong decrease of the cod fishery in the Barents Sea, and a near collapse in herring fishery in the Norwegian Sea, an 0-group fish survey was started in order to give early signals of fish recruitment and further stock development. Gelatinous zooplankton have not been the focus of research until recent decades. Recent trends, including some of the old fish recruitment “rules of thumb” ceasing to apply, a strong increase of the temperature in the Barents Sea [41], [50], and an increasing focus on the impacts of rising populations gelatinous zooplankton in other ecosystems [1], [2], [5]–[7] has changed this. Understanding jellyfish distributions and interactions with other species is increasingly seen as important in order to avoid having a “black box” in our understanding of the ecosystem. In order to gain an insight into jellyfish presence and especially their relationship with 0-group fish, we have used available trawl data from 0-group fish survey.
Sampling jellyfish is problematic, due to an extremely patchy distribution and fragile nature, making both standard fisheries gear and conventional plankton nets of limited value [55]. Several studies have used by-catch of jellyfish from fisheries surveys [14], [56], [57], but the large mesh size of the gear typically used in such surveys is not well suited to catching jellyfish. Our data were collected by small “Harstad” trawl with small mesh size (see above). This trawl is smaller than standard fisheries trawls gear used in previous studies, and therefore has increased catchability and decreased chance of damage to jellyfish within the trawl net. This sampling gear is also larger than conventional plankton nets and therefore i) better able catch larger jellyfish, C. capillata, due to larger effective opening and faster trawling speed, but ii) less able to catch smaller jellyfish, A. aurita, which is sieved through trawl meshes or partially or totally destroyed in the cod end [53]. Therefore, our results consist mostly of C.capillata, and the biomass presented must be interpreted as minimum for the total jellyfish biomass in the Barents Sea. Nonetheless, long term monitoring of the Barents Sea using this standard sampling procedure and standard regular station grid makes data comparable between vessels, areas and years.
The biomass of Barents Sea jellyfish varied considerable between years and higher jellyfish biomasses were generally found in the beginning of 1990s, and high or record high during the 2000s, with a moderate decrease in the end of 2000s (Table 1, Figure 5). In the Bering Sea an increase of jellyfish catches was observed during the 1990s, with a maximum in 2000, moderate amounts during period 2001–2007, and decreased amount in 2008 [57]. Both Lynam et al. [18] and Brodeur [57] found that a warming trend favouring many species of jellyfish in other seas. During the period studied here, temperature conditions changed from cold during the 1980s, to moderate in the 1990s, and to warm during the last decade. It seems that, at least up to a certain point, a warming trend is also favourable for the Barents Sea jellyfish. Warmer temperature conditions in the Barents Sea are associated with increased inflow of Atlantic water, bringing more zooplankton from the Norwegian Sea into the Barents Sea [58] and better feeding conditions for plankton feeders from larvae to adult [58], [59], [60]. The highest biomasses of jellyfish were found in the temperature range of 4–7.0°C, indicating that i) an increase of temperature may not lead to further increases in jellyfish biomass in the Barents Sea, and ii) the greater proportion of jellyfish are resident in water masses of Atlantic origin (i.e. waters having temperatures above 3°C, [61]), with a lesser proportion distributed in the mixed water masses (i.e. waters having temperatures between 0°C and 3°C [61]). Spatial distribution of jellyfish varied between years and was widest during the 2000s (Figure 4). The greater proportion of jellyfish occurred in the central area throughout the time series. The highest plankton biomass was observed during the summer at the entry of the Barents Sea due to the ocean currents, making this area the core nursery area for 0-group fish [41], [62]. In the central area, jellyfish overlapped mostly with cod, haddock and herring, although a statistically significant relationship was only found with haddock. This relationship was dome-shaped, with low jellyfish biomasses where there was a low or high density of fish, while the highest jellyfish biomasses overlapped with averaged values of haddock. During the 2000s, a substantial increase in areas with mixed water has been observed in the Barents Sea [61], and such redistribution of water masses seems likely to impact the jellyfish distribution by extending of the area with suitable living conditions (Figure 4). A similar redistribution has been observed for 0-group capelin, suggesting sufficient feeding conditions in the eastern and northern areas [41]. Our results showed significant overlap between jellyfish and 0-group capelin in the eastern and northern areas, however jellyfish biomass and 0-group density were much lower than in the central area and varied considerable between years.
In contrast, the coastal areas acted as a reserve area for the jellyfish, with relatively constant biomasses over time. Scyphozoan jellyfish success in the coastal waters is determinate by morphological, behavioural and life history characteristics [63]. This rich coastal environment seems to have led to a stable jellyfish population in this area, resulting in it forming a significant fraction of the population during low biomass years. In the coastal area jellyfish significantly overlapped with 0-group of haddock and herring, and higher biomasses of jellyfish were observed with higher fish densities and increasing temperature. The complex physical structure of coast supports zooplankton productivity [64], [65], [66], and may impact positively on amount of jellyfish and 0-group fish there.
During years with extremely high amounts of jellyfish (2001–2003), no strong fish year classes occurred. These years were characterized by average or high spawning stock biomass of cod, haddock, herring and capelin (except cod, in 2001 SSB was lower than average) and warmer temperature conditions as proxy for better feeding conditions and successful recruitment of cod, haddock and herring. One might therefore expect the occurrence of average or strong year classes during this period. It seems that jellyfish was positively related with 0-group herring (the central and coastal areas), cod (eastern), and 0-group haddock (western), indicating that they inhabited similar water masses. It is possible, therefore, that the large stock of biomass played a role in preventing the occurrence of large year classes during this period. However, the relationship between jellyfish and 0-group fishes is complex and depends on many factors both physical and biological (reviewed by [15], [20], [21], [22]), making it difficult to separate influence of different factors and combination of them. Thus, diet studies of both 0-group fish and jellyfish are needed to understand spatial overlap between them, and we recommend to prioritize species identification of jellyfishes onboard during this survey to minimize uncertainties surround the biomass indices calculation.
The Barents Sea is an important commercial fishery area, currently containing the largest cod and capelin stocks in the world, and in 2010 the fish and shrimp catches were reported to be close to 2.9×109 kg [67]–[69]. Marine mammals are also harvested, although on a smaller scale. Removal of top-predators such as demersal fish through fisheries might cause trophic cascades and abrupt changes in ecosystem state [70]. Despite a high level of exploitation of demersal and pelagic fish, high jellyfish biomass (such as 5×109 kg in 2001) and a trend of increasing temperatures, no dramatic shifts have been reported from the Barents Sea. However, many of the long established relationships and mechanisms in the Barents Sea seem to be changing.
This study provides i) basic information about the spatial and temporal distributions of jellyfish biomass in the Barents Sea, ii) indicates the complexity of an ecosystem including jellyfish, rather simple ecological effect on 0-group fish or whole system, and iii) suggests a possible jellyfish core temperature habitat in the Barents Sea. This study is based on long term (and ongoing) monitoring, and gives a insight into the Barents Sea ecosystem which may be useful for ecosystem modellers, researches within plankton, ecology and fisheries biology and fisheries managers around the world.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to K.A. Pitt, G.C. Hays, M. Lilley, J. Houghton and A. Hosia for constructive comments which greatly improved the quality of the paper.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: EE DP. Performed the experiments: EE DP. Analyzed the data: EE DP. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: EE DP AT DH. Wrote the paper: EE DP AT DH.
References
- 1. Mills CE (2001) Jellyfish blooms: are populations increasing globally in response to changing ocean conditions? Hydrobiologia 451: 55–68.
- 2. Purcell JE (2005) Climate effects on formation of jellyfish and ctenophore blooms. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85: 461–476.
- 3. Richardson AJ, Bakun A, Hays GC, Gibbons MJ (2009) The jellyfish joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trend Ecol Evol 24: 312–322.
- 4. Kogovsek T, Bogunovic B, Malej A (2010) Recurrence of bloom-forming cyphomedusae: wavelet analysis of a 200-year time series. Hydrobiologia 645: 81–96.
- 5. Lynam CP, Hay S, Brierley AS (2005) Jellyfish abundance and climatic variation: contrasting responses in oceanographically distinct regions of the North Sea, and possible implications for fisheries. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85: 435–450.
- 6. Lynam CP, Attrill MJ, Skogen MD (2009) Climatic and oceanic influences on the abundance of gelatinous zooplankton in the North Sea. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 90: 1153–1159.
- 7. Arai MN (2009) The potential importance of podocysts to the formation of scyphozoan blooms: a review. Hydrobiologia 616: 241–246.
- 8. Hay S (2006) Marine Ecology: Gelatinous Bells May Ring Change in Marine Ecosystems. Curr Biol 16: R679–R682.
- 9. Utne-Palm AC, Salvanes AGV, Currie B, et al. (2010) Trophic Structure and Community Stability in an Overfished Ecosystem. Science 329: 333–336.
- 10. Daskalov GM, Grishin AN, Rodionov S, Mihneva V (2007) Trophic cascades triggered by overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. P Natl A Sci 104: 10518–10523.
- 11. Roohi A, Kideys AE, Sajjadi A, Hashemian A, Pourgholam R, et al. (2010) Changes in biodiversity of phytoplankton, zooplankton, fishes and macrobenthos in the Southern Caspian Sea after the invasion of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis Leidyi. Biological Invasions 12: 2343–2361.
- 12. Sørnes TA, Aksnes DL, Bamstedt U, Youngbluth MJ (2007) Causes for mass occurrences of the jellyfish Periphylla periphylla: a hypothesis that involves optically conditioned retention. J Plank Res 29: 157–167.
- 13. Pauly D, Graham W, Libralato S, Morissette L, Palomares MLD (2009) Jellyfish in ecosystems, online databases, and ecosystem models. Hydrobiologia 616: 67–85.
- 14. Lilley MKS, Beggs SE, Doyle TK, Hobson VJ, Stromberg KHP, et al. (2011) Global patterns of epipelagic gelatinous zooplankton biomass. Mar Biol 158: 2429–2436.
- 15. Purcell JE, Arai MN (2001) Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with fish: a review. Hydrobiologia 451: 27–44.
- 16. Lynam CP, Gibbons M, Axelsen B, Sparks CAJ, Coetzee J, et al. (2006) Jellyfish overtake fish in a heavily fished ecosystem. Curr Biol 16: 492–493.
- 17. Lynam CP, Brierley AS (2007) Enhanced survival of 0-group gadoid fish under jellyfish umbrellas. Mar Biol 150: 1397–1401.
- 18. Lynam CP, Lilley MKS, Bastian T, Doyle T, Beggs SE, et al. (2011) Have jellyfish in the Irish Sea benefited from climate change and overfishing? Global Change Biology 17: 767–782.
- 19. Brodeur RD (1998) In situ observations of the association between juvenile fishes and scyphomedusae in the Bering Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 163: 11–20.
- 20. Purcell JE (1985) Predation on fish eggs and larvae by pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores. Bull Mar Sci 37: 739–755.
- 21. Purcell JE (1991) A review of cnidarians and ctenophores feeding on competitors in the plankton. Hydrobiologia 216/ 217: 335–342.
- 22. Purcell JE (1997) Pelagic cnidarian and ctenophores as predators: selective predation, feeding rates, and effects on prey populations. Annales de l'Institut Océanographique 73: 125–137.
- 23. Lindahl O, Hernroth L (1983) Phyto-zooplankton community in coastal waters of western Sweden - and ecosystem off balance? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10: 119–126.
- 24. Schneider G, Behrends G (1998) Top-down control in a neritic plankton system by Aurelia aurita medusae - A summary. Ophelia 48: 71–82.
- 25. Pitt KA, Welsh DT, Condon RH (2009) Influence of jellyfish blooms on carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and plankton production. Hydrobiologia 616: 133–149.
- 26. Purcell JE, Brown ED, Stokesbury KDE, Haldorson LH, Shirley TC (2000) Aggregations of the jellyfish Aurelia labiata: abundance, distribution, association with age-0 walleye pollock, and behaviors promoting aggregation in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 195: 145–158.
- 27. Mansueti R (1963) Symbiotic behavior between small fishes and jellyfishes, with new data on that between the Stromateid, Peprilus alepidotus, and the Scyphomedusa, Chrysaora quinquecirrha. Copeia 1: 40–90.
- 28. Ådlandsvik B, Loeng H (1991) A study of the climatic system in the Barents Sea. Pol Res 10: 45–49.
- 29.
Ozhigin V, Ingvaldsen RB, Loeng H, Boitsov V, Karsakov A (2011) Introduction to the Barents Sea. In: Jakobsen T, Ozhigin V, editors. The Barents Sea ecosystem, resources, management. Half a century of Russian-Norwegian cooperation. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press. pp. 39–76.
- 30. Ingvaldsen R, Loeng H, Ottersen G, Ådlandsvik B (2003) Climate variability in the Barents Sea during the 20th century with focus on the 1990s. ICES Marine Science Symposia, 219: 160–168.
- 31. Bergstad OA, Jørgensen T, Dragesund O (1987) Life history and ecology of gadoid resources of the Barents Sea. Fish Res 5: 119–161.
- 32. Hamre J (1994) Biodiversity and exploitation of the main fish stocks in the Norwegian–Barents Sea ecosystem. Biodivers Conser 3: 392–473.
- 33. Gjøsæter H (1998) The population biology and exploitation of capelin (Mallotus villosus) in The Barents Sea. Sarsia 83: 453–76.
- 34. Hallfredsson EH, Pedersen T (2007) Effects of predation from pelagic 0-group cod (Gadus morhua) on mortality rates of capelin (Mallotus villosus) larvae in the Barents Sea. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64(12): 1710–1722.
- 35.
Hylen A, Nakken O, Nedreaas K (2008) Northeast Arctic cod: fisheries, life history, fluctuations and management. In: Nakken O, editor. Norwegian spring-spawning herring and Northeast Arctic cod – 100 Years of Research and Management. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press. pp. 83–118.
- 36. Hjermann DØ, Bogstad B, Dingsør GE, Gjøsæter H, Ottersen G, et al. (2010) Trophic interactions affecting a key ecosystem component: a multi-stage analysis of the recruitment of the Barents Sea capelin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67: 1363–1375.
- 37. Eriksen E, Bogstad B, Nakken O (2011) Ecological significance of 0-group fish in the Barents Sea ecosystem. Pol Biol 34: 647–657.
- 38.
Dalpadado P, Bogstad B, Gjøsæter H, Mehl S, Skjoldal HR (2002) Zooplankton-fish interactions in the Barents Sea. In: Sherman K, Skjoldal R, editors. Large marine ecosystems of the North Atlantic. Elsevier. pp. 269–291.
- 39. Dalpadado P, Bogstad B, Eriksen E, Rey L (2009) Distribution and diet of 0-group cod and haddock in the Barents Sea in relation to food availability. Pol Biol 32: 1583–1596.
- 40. Eriksen E, Dalpadado P (2011) Long term changes in Krill biomass and distribution in the Barents Sea. Are the changes mainly related to capelin stock size and temperature conditions? Pol Biol 34(9): 1399–1409.
- 41. Eriksen E, Ingvaldsen R, Stiansen JE, Johansen GO (2012) Thermal habitat for 0-group fishes in the Barents Sea; how climate variability impacts their density, length and geographical distribution. ICES J Sci. Available: doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr210. First published: 2012 Jan 31:
- 42.
Naumov DV (1960) Hydroids and hydromedusae in the marine, brackish and fresh waters of the USSR. Academic press of USSR. 1–585. (in Russian).
- 43. Zelickman EA (1972) Distribution and ecology of the pelagic hydromedusae, siphonophores and ctenophores of the Barents Sea, based on perennial plankton collections. Mar Biol 17: 256–264.
- 44.
Russell FS (1970) The medusae of the British Isles. In: Scyphozoa Pelagic, editor. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 45.
Zelickman EA (1970) Pelagic Coelenterata as bioindicator in the Barents Sea. PINRO Press 27: 77–89. (In Russian).
- 46. Gröndahl F, Hernroth L (1987) Release and growth of Cyanea capillata (L.) ephyrae in the Gullmar Fjord, western Sweden. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 106: 91–101.
- 47. Brewer RH (1984) The influence of the orientation, roughness, and wettability of solid surfaces on the behavior and attachment of planulae of Cyanea (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa). Biol. Bull 166: 11–21.
- 48. Spangenberg DB (1968) Recent studies of strobilation in jellyfish. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 6: 231–247.
- 49. Holst S, Jarms G (2010) Effects of low salinity on settlement and strobilation of scyphozoa (Cnidaria): Is the lion's mane Cyanea capillata (L.) able to reproduce in the brackish Baltic Sea? Hydrobiologia 645: 53–68.
- 50. Eriksen E, Prozorkevich DV, Dingsør GE (2009) An evaluation of 0-group abundance indices of the Barents Sea fish stocks. The Open Fish Science Journal 2: 6–14.
- 51. Dingsør GE (2005) Estimating abundance indices from the international 0-group fish survey in the Barents Sea. Fish Res 72: 205–218.
- 52. Wood SN, Augustin NH (2002) GAMs with integrated model selection using penalized regression splines and applications to environmental modelling. Ecological Modelling 157: 157–177.
- 53.
Stiansen JE, Korneev O, Titov O, Arneberg P (2009) Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008. Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part II – Complete report. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 3-2009. ISSN 1502-8828. 378 p.
- 54. FAO (2010) Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture – 2010. Rome, 197 p:
- 55. Purcell JE (2009) Extension of methods for jellyfish and ctenophore trophic ecology to large-scale research. Hydrobiologia 616: 23–50.
- 56. Hay S, Hislop JRG, Shanks AM (1990) North-Sea Scyphozoa - summer distribution, estimated biomass and significance particularly for O-group gadoid fish. Neth J Sea Res 25: 113–130.
- 57. Brodeur RD, Decker MB, Ciannelli L, Purcell JE, Bond NA, et al. (2008) Rise and fall of jellyfish in the eastern Bering Sea in relation to climate regime shifts. Prog Oceanog 77: 103–11.
- 58. Ottersen G, Loeng H (2000) Covariability in early growth and year-class strength of Barents Sea cod, haddock, and herring: the environmental link. ICES J Mar Sci 57: 339–348.
- 59. Sætersdal G, Loeng H (1987) Ecological adaptation of reproduction in Northeast Arctic cod. Fish Res 5: 253–70.
- 60.
Loeng H, Gjøsæter H (1990) Growth of 0-group in relation to temperature conditions in the Barents Sea during the period 1965–1989. ICES CM 1990/G: 49.. 9 p.
- 61.
Johannesen E, Ingvaldsen R, Bogstad B, Dalpadado P, Eriksen E, et al. (2012) Changes in Barents Sea ecosystem state 1970–2009: climate fluctuations, human impact and trophic interactions. ICES J Sci (in press).
- 62. Orlova EL, Boitsov VD, Dolgov AV, Rudneva GB, Nesterova VN (2005) The relationship between plankton, capelin, and cod under different temperature conditions. ICES J Sci 62: 1281–1292.
- 63.
Arai NA (1997) A functional biology of scyphozoa. Chapman & Hall, London.
- 64. Houghton JDR, Doyle TK, Wilson MW, Davenport J, Hays GC (2006) Jellyfish aggregations and leatherback turtle foraging patterns in atemperate coastal environment. Ecology 87: 1967–1972.
- 65. Doyle TK, Houghton JDR, Buckley SM, Hays GC, Davenport J (2007) The broad-scale distribution of five jellyfish species across a temperate coastal environment. Hydrobiologia 579: 29–39.
- 66. Stromberg KHP, Smyth TJ, Allen JI, Pitois S, O’Brien TD (2009) Estimation of global zooplankton biomass from satellite ocean colour. J Mar Sys 78(1): 18–27.
- 67.
ICES (2010) NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group Meeting, 20–27 October 2010. ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM: 14.. 79 p.
- 68.
ICES (2011a) Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Hamburg, 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM: 05.. 659 p.
- 69.
ICES (2011b) Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE), 23–29 August 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM: 15. 624 p.
- 70. Frank KT, Petrie B, Choi JS, Leggett WC (2005) Trophic cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science 308: 1621–1623.