长江口强壮箭虫和肥胖箭虫的丰度变化对环境变暖的响应

根据1959年和2002年在长江口28°00′～32°00′N,122°00′～123°30′E海域4个季节8个航次海洋调查资料,分析强壮箭虫(Sagitta crassa)和肥胖箭虫(Sagitta enflata)丰度的平面分布和季节变化特征,并结合同步的温度资料分析不同生态类群的强壮箭虫和肥胖箭虫对环境变暖的响应.结果表明:长江口水域春、夏、秋3季强壮箭虫平均丰度均小于1.00 ind/m3,出现率低,无集群性.1959年冬季平均丰度达3.24 ind/m3,出现率较高,有明显的集群性,而2002年冬季平均丰度锐减为0.001 ind/m3,几无分布.肥胖箭虫夏季平均丰度、出现率和集聚强度明显高于其它季节.2002年夏季平均丰度达16.06 ind/m3,较1959年增加3.71 ind/m3,且分布区明显扩大.可见,暖温种强壮箭虫和暖水种肥胖箭虫对长江口海域变暖的响应不同,可作为长江口海洋变暖长期变化的重要指示种.     

舟山渔场及邻近海域浮游动物数量分布特征

依据2006年8月(夏)、2007年1月(冬)、5月(春)和11月(秋)在舟山渔场及其邻近海域(29°30′-31°30′N,124°30′E以西)开展海洋生态系统综合调查时,用浅水Ⅰ型浮游生物网采集的浮游动物样本资料,分析了浮游动物总丰度及中华哲水蚤(Calanus sinicus)、精致真刺水蚤(Euchaeta concinna)、百陶箭虫(Sagitta bedoti)、肥胖箭虫(Sagitta enflata)等主要种类的数量分布和季节变化特征。结果表明:调查海域浮游动物平均丰度季节变化明显,春季(555.87ind./m3)夏季(270.87ind./m3)秋季(138.39ind./m3)冬季(127.70ind./m3);其水平分布呈现南部高、北部低的特点。中华哲水蚤为广温广盐种,春季数量最大且分布均匀,大部分海域丰度≥100.00ind./m3;夏季丰度急剧下降,主要分布在30°00′N以南海域;秋、冬季丰度较低,无明显高密集区。精致真刺水蚤为热带种,以夏、冬季丰度较高,主要分布在沿岸水与外海高盐水交汇区和调查海域的南北两端;春、秋季丰度较低且分布均匀。百陶箭虫、肥胖箭虫分别属于暖水种和热带大洋性种,冬、春季丰度都很低,无明显密集区,夏、秋季丰度较大。百陶箭虫主要分布在盐度梯度较大、外海高盐水与沿岸水的交汇区,肥胖箭虫则主要分布在外海高盐水与沿岸水交汇区的靠高温高盐水一侧,其分布与外海高温高盐水的消长有密切关系,可作为暖流指示种。温盐和水系消长变化是影响舟山渔场及邻近海域浮游动物丰度水平分布的重要因素。     

舟山海域夏、秋季浮游动物的分布特征及其与环境因子的关系

为更好地了解舟山海域浮游动物的群落结构、生物量和丰度的时空分布特征及其与主要环境因子的关系,分别于2014年7月和10月进行了夏季、秋季两次生态综合调查,并用多维尺度分析法、典范对应分析法对浮游动物群落结构进行了研究。结果表明:夏季舟山海域调查的浮游动物有13类,64种,优势种为背针胸刺水蚤(Centropages dorsispinatus)、圆唇角水蚤(Labidocera rotunda)、中华哲水蚤(Calanus sinicus)、精致真刺水蚤(Euchaeta concinna)、百陶带箭虫(Zonosagitta bedoti)和真刺唇角水蚤(Labidocera euchaeta);秋季鉴定到浮游动物12类,45种,优势种为背针胸刺水蚤(Centropages dorsispinatus)、百陶带箭虫(Zonosagitta bedoti)、双生水母(Diphyes chamissonis)、瓜水母(Beroёcucumis)和中华哲水蚤。夏季浮游动物平均丰度及平均生物量(144.0 ind/m3和176.3 mg/m~3)都分别高于秋季(21.4个/m3和86.3 mg/m3);Shannon-Wiener多样性指数夏季(3.03)高于秋季(2.82),Pielou均匀度指数则是秋季(0.83)高于夏季(0.64);夏季不同区域浮游动物群落之间具有明显的差异,而秋季大部分站位群落之间差异不显著;温度、盐度、叶绿素a浓度和营养盐含量是影响舟山海域浮游动物分布的主要环境因子;与历史资料相比,舟山海域浮游动物丰度及生物量呈下降趋势,其优势种保持较稳定。     

黄河口邻近海域浮游动物群落时空变化特征

利用2012年12月—2013年9月4个季度的现场调查资料研究了黄河口邻近海域浮游动物群落的时空分布特征。研究表明,黄河口邻近海域共鉴定出浮游动物70种,包括浮游幼虫19类。浮游动物优势种主要由夜光虫(Noctiluca scintillans)、小拟哲水蚤(Paracalanus parvus)、双刺纺锤水蚤(Acartia bifilosa)、拟长腹剑水蚤(Oithona similis)、强额拟哲水蚤(Paracalanus crassirostris)、近缘大眼剑水蚤(Corycaeus affinis)、强壮箭虫(Sagitta crassa)、双壳类幼体(Bivalvia larvae)、多毛类幼体(Polychaeta larvae)等种类。黄河口邻近海域浮游动物丰度夏季最高(60620个/m~3),春季(31228个/m~3)和秋季(21540个/m~3)次之,冬季最低(7594个/m~3)。不同季节浮游动物丰度的空间分布具有差异性,春季浮游动物丰度呈现出从近岸到外海降低的趋势;夏季浮游动物形成两个高丰度区,分别位于河口邻近海区和河口东部海区;秋季和冬季浮游动物丰度高值区均位于河口东部海区。浮游动物生物多样性指数均呈现从河口到外海升高的趋势,低值区位于黄河口入海口附近海区。相关性分析显示,黄河口邻近海域浮游动物丰度与海水温度显著正相关(r=0.212,P0.05),表明温度为影响黄河口邻近海域浮游动物丰度变化的主要因素。     

海州湾海域浮游动物种类组成与丰度的季节变化

根据2015年冬(3月)、春(5月)、夏(8月)、秋(11月)季4个航次对海州湾海域的浮游动物进行的调查采样,分析了浮游动物的种类组成、丰度、生物量、优势种、生物多样性以及不同季节的变化特点。结果表明:本次调查共鉴定到浮游动物47种(不含浮游幼体17种),种类数夏季(31种)秋季(29种)春季(27种)冬季(17种);平均丰度为117.31ind·m~(-3),春季(256.24 ind·m~(-3))秋季(89.81 ind·m~(-3))冬季(74.93 ind·m~(-3))夏季(48.26 ind·m~(-3));平均生物量为249 mg·m~(-3),秋季(369 mg·m~(-3))冬季(274 mg·m~(-3))春季(214 mg·m~(-3))夏季(140 mg·m~(-3));主要优势种为中华哲水蚤(Calanus sinicus)、真刺唇角水蚤(Labidocera euchaeta)和强壮箭虫(Sagitta crassa);生物多样性指数(H)、均匀度(J)和丰富度(d)都是夏季最高,分别为2.81、0.73、3.21;中华哲水蚤对海州湾海域浮游动物丰度贡献最大;本海域浮游动物具有明显的季节性和南北过渡性;温度在大尺度范围内影响浮游动物时空分布,下行效应在小尺度范围内直接控制浮游动物的空间分布格局。     

北黄海秋、冬季浮游动物多样性及年间变化

2009年秋、冬季在北黄海全海域121°30'-124°00'E、37°30'-40°00'N范围开展了浮游动物多样性监测及年间变化研究,探讨浮游动物多样性对海流及全球变化的指示。共鉴定出浮游动物8大类28种(不含6大类浮游幼虫和鱼卵仔鱼),类群组成以暖温性近岸种和广温广盐种为主,兼有少量冷温性和暖水性外海种。聚类分析将浮游动物群落划分为:北黄海高盐水团群落、北黄海混合水团群落、北黄海沿岸低盐水团群落。2009年秋、冬季在北黄海均监测到暖水种小齿海樽和肥胖箭虫,前者形成秋季浮游动物优势种,但1959年调查显示它们向北分布不能抵达北黄海,这些暖水种的向北扩布可能预示着黄海暖流的增强。2009年秋、冬季北黄海主要暖温种中华哲水蚤和强壮箭虫丰度也较1959年同期有所升高。研究表明全球变化影响下温带海域北黄海浮游动物暖水种种类增加、分布北移,暖温种丰度升高,这与亚热带海域东海浮游动物对气候变暖的响应模式不同,能够为浮游动物对全球变暖的区域响应机制研究提供参考资料。     

西北太平洋亚热带海域浮游动物种类组成与分布

为了解西北太平洋亚热带海域浮游动物群落结构,根据2019年3月“淞航号”调查船在西北太平洋(28°—35° N,147°—154° E)44个站点进行渔业资源调查期间采集的浮游动物样本,分析了浮游动物的种类组成与分布。结果表明: 该海域共鉴定出浮游动物456种(含浮游幼体和未定种),属于14个类群8个门类,其中桡足类163种,为最优势类群。优势种包括9种暖水种: 螺旋尖角水母、瘦新哲水蚤、瘦乳点水蚤、肥胖箭虫、邦海樽、六鳍箭虫、喙真胖水蚤、小哲水蚤、细角间哲水蚤,以及1种温带种捷氏哲水蚤。暖流指示种六鳍箭虫和寒流指示种捷氏哲水蚤均是优势种并同时出现在亚热带海域,表明亲潮和黑潮对该海域浮游动物的多样性和时空分布具有重要影响。各站点平均生物量为(31.64±23.81) mg·m^-3,平均丰度为(22.2±17.6) ind·m^-3。单纯度指数(C)、均匀度指数(J)、Shannon多样性指数(H)、丰富度指数(D)均值分别为0.09±0.10、0.76±0.10、4.88±0.71、23.53±8.08。4种指数空间分布不均匀,呈现斑块状。研究期间,西北太平洋浮游动物种类组成丰富,物种分布不均匀,群落结构稳定。     

象山港海域细菌的分布特征及其环境影响因素

本文于2007年的7月(夏季)、11月(秋季) 与2008年的1月(冬季)、4月(春季)用高保真、无扰动重力柱状取样器替代常规抓斗式采样,首次系统研究了象山港海域的水样(表层海水和上覆水)及沉积物中细菌丰度的时空分布特征,并采用主成分分析及多元逐步回归分析方法研究了影响细菌丰度时空分布的主要环境因素,结果表明：调查期间象山港海域的细菌的丰度较高,象山港海域的富营养化较严重。调查期间象山港海域水样及沉积物样品中细菌丰度实测值的变化范围为1.50105 ― 9.781010cells/ml (cells/g),总均值为2.76109cells/ml(cells/g);季节分布特征为夏季(7月)极显著高于其他季节,赤潮的暴发导致春季(4月)的调查结果最低。浮游细菌丰度表现为底层均大于表层的垂直分布特征;平面分布特征均为从港顶到港口递减、养殖区高于非养殖区、电厂附近海域出现较高值的趋势,近岸人类的工农业活动造成的陆源污染及海水增养殖活动造成的养殖污染是造成此分布特征的主要原因。多元统计结果表明：溶解氧、水温、营养盐(N、P)、pH以及有机质污染等是影响该海域细菌丰度的最主要因素。     

杭州湾南岸海域春秋季浮游动物分布特征与主要环境因子的关系

2011年9月(秋季)和2012年5月(春季)对杭州湾南岸附近海域(121.60°E—121.85°E,29.95°N—30.24°N)进行了2个航次的海洋综合调查,分析了杭州湾南岸附近海域浮游动物的群落结构、生物量和丰度的分布特征及与主要环境因子的关系。结果表明:该海域浮游动物存在明显的季节变化,春季鉴定到8大类18种,优势种为虫肢歪水蚤(Tortanus vermiculus)、中华华哲水蚤(Sinocalanus sinensis)、中华哲水蚤(Calanus sinicus)、短额刺糠虾(Acanthomysis brevirostris);秋季鉴定到7大类25种,优势种为左突唇角水蚤(Labidocera sinilobata)、百陶箭虫(Sagitta bedoti)、真刺唇角水蚤(Labidocera euchaeta)、刺尾角水蚤(Pontella spinicauda);多样性指数(H')为秋季(1.60)略高于春季(1.56),生物量和丰度为秋季(580.58 mg·m-3和578.88 ind·m-3)远高于春季(61.82 mg·m-3和41.61 ind·m-3);总生物量和总丰度的空间分布由优势种决定,春季总生物量从湾外向湾内近岸增加,秋季沿湾外向湾内近岸一侧和湾外东部水域增加;而总丰度在春季同样表现为从湾外向湾内近岸递增,秋季为向湾内近岸和湾外东部水域增加。逐步回归分析表明,温度和盐度为影响春秋季杭州湾南岸浮游动物分布的主要环境因子。     

刺参养殖池塘水体中浮游病毒的丰度

运用荧光显微技术,于2007年3～11月,对大连市附近4个地区的刺参养殖池塘及相应的海域进行了浮游病毒丰度的监测和分析,对刺参养殖池塘生态系统的浮游病毒丰度在时间、空间分布上的变化进行了探讨。荧光显微观察结果显示,刺参养殖池塘浮游病毒在时间和空间分布上均存在极显著差异（P〈0.01）,8月中旬平均丰度达到峰值,为2.54×10^10个/L,7月下旬浮游病毒的平均丰度最低,为1.43×10^9个/L。复州湾海域的浮游病毒丰度显著高于其他地区,该地区浮游病毒丰度平均达到1.17×10^10个/L,夏家河子地区浮游病毒丰度最低,平均为3.89×10^9个/L。同一刺参养殖池塘中部区域的浮游病毒丰度高于进水和排水口。刺参养殖池塘水体中浮游病毒丰度与养殖池塘所处的海区位置、养殖池塘的密度密切相关。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor