Abstract
Marine ecosystems on continental shelves face multiple challenges due to anthropogenic disturbances, many of which can change the seawater stoichiometry (C:N:P) and consequently elemental ratios of phytoplankton. This change in food quality may not be tolerated by all grazers and predators. Gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton (GZ) might be more resilient to such changes. We sampled GZ species in neritic and oceanic waters of the Northeast Pacific off British Columbia, Canada, determined their phosphorus (P) content and elemental ratios (C/P, N/P), and analysed intraspecific variability associated with size and ontogeny. P content was measured for twelve GZ taxa. P % DW (dry weight) decreased with size for the hydrozoan Aequorea sp., scyphozoans Aurelia labiata, Cyanea capillata, and the thaliacean Salpa aspera, and differed significantly for two development stages of the salp S. aspera. While C/P and N/P were mostly size and stage independent, they were highly variable. C/P values of GZ were generally higher than values of crustacean zooplankton, indicating that GZ represent poor-quality prey for non-GZ predators, and that GZ may have a higher resilience towards P-limited (low quality) prey. Changing ocean conditions and nutrient stoichiometry of prey may favour GZ, although large variability in P dynamics among GZ taxa and uncertainty about future ocean stoichiometry changes make generalisations difficult.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Nutrient stoichiometry, particularly the ratios between carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) of marine primary producers are highly variable, with potential repercussions for higher trophic levels (Boersma et al., 2008). Especially the ratio between carbon and phosphorus (C/P) has been used extensively as a descriptor of food quality, particularly in freshwater systems (Sterner et al., 1998), but increasingly also in the marine (coastal) realm, as many areas show increasing P limitation (Peňuelas et al., 2012). Manifold processes are changing the nutrient stoichiometry of ocean waters and are simultaneously at work. For instance, the increase in atmospheric CO2 leading to ocean acidification impacts coastal organisms (Haigh et al., 2015), and through an increase in C availability can change nutrient stoichiometry of primary producers (Schoo et al., 2013; Cripps et al., 2016). Many coastal areas are experiencing ongoing changes in nutrient concentrations through, for example, eutrophication, as well as declines in P availability resulting from mitigation efforts of industrial countries (Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Le Fur et al., 2019). Changes in seawater C and P concentrations are reflected in altered C/P values of phytoplankton (van de Waal et al., 2010). Shifts away from the Redfield ratio (C:N:P = 106:16:1; Redfield, 1934) are known to affect the growth rate of phytoplankton and influence their nutritional quality. Altered elemental ratios of seawater may also favour phytoplankton assemblages with a broader nutrient tolerance (e.g. Shangguan et al., 2017). Evidently, there are a number of changes that warrant a close analysis of effects on consumers.
The effect of P limitation on phytoplankton growth and primary consumers has been studied extensively (Sterner & Elser, 2002). However, knowledge of the effect of P limitation on secondary consumers is limited, especially for gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton (GZ; Malzahn et al., 2010; Schoo et al., 2010; Lesniowski et al., 2015; Chen & Li, 2017). Although GZ abundances may be increasing regionally (Richardson et al., 2009; Brotz et al., 2012; Condon et al., 2012; 2013) and have the potential to alter existing food webs (Boero et al., 2008), knowledge gaps still exist with respect to their interactions with other species, contribution to predator diets (Hays et al., 2018), and roles in nutrient cycling (Plum et al., 2020). The GZ include diverse taxonomic and functional groups but with several common traits. These include often transparent tissues/bodies, high water contents facilitating near neutral buoyancy, fast growth, generally large size of adults, and often a lack of hard structures making them fragile and difficult to sample (Madin & Harbison, 2001). Therefore, it is difficult to obtain accurate measurements of their nutrient stoichiometry, and even the predictions of nutrient contents and demands of GZ are not straightforward (Lüskow et al., 2021).
The ‘growth rate hypothesis’ (GRH; Sterner & Elser, 2002) predicts that fast-growing organisms should contain high concentrations of P-rich ribosomes, and thus, have high P contents and low C/P and N/P ratios. Therefore, as GZ generally have high growth rates, we can postulate that they should have relatively high P contents and, thus, low C/P and N/P values. Interestingly, GZ blooms often occur in areas experiencing eutrophication (Richardson et al., 2009; Haraldsson et al., 2012). This not only may indicate bloom-formation dependence on high P (and potentially N) but also reflect a response to shifts in the food web structure (Sommer et al., 2002). Furthermore, behavioural traits may confer an advantage, e.g. GZ taxa are often tactile predators and, therefore, can be more successful in highly turbid waters compared to visually foraging fish species (Richardson et al., 2009; Haraldsson et al., 2012).
Alternatively, the body of many GZ species, and specifically the mesoglea of jellyfish (i.e. cnidarian medusae), consists mainly of ribosome-free and relatively C-rich tissue (glycoproteins and carbohydrates), which may increase the C/P of these animals. Some studies suggest that as a result, GZ may be less susceptible to P limitation (Malzahn et al., 2010; Schoo et al., 2010; Chen & Li, 2017) and may thrive in both low-nutrient and nutrient-limited ecosystems (Parsons & Lalli, 2002). It is also unclear whether GZ taxa with different primary feeding modes (herbivorous versus carnivorous) are similarly resilient to potential P limitation. Hence, the P requirements of GZ are unclear, including their nutrient stoichiometry.
Studying the P demands of GZ is not just of interest from an academic point of view. In general, dominant taxa in an ecosystem determine the availability of major nutrients, because consumers typically excrete those nutrients they take up in excess (Elser et al., 1996; van de Waal et al., 2010; Meunier et al., 2018). Hence, depending on the nutrient demands of GZ, they may either excrete excess N, P, or even C. As a result, GZ are becoming increasingly recognised for their critical roles in biogeochemical cycling, not only because of their impact as predators (e.g. cnidarians and ctenophores), but also via the excretion of dissolved products and fast-sinking faecal pellets (especially from salps; Henschke et al., 2019; Plum et al., 2020). In this latter role, GZ may structure microbial communities (Blanchet et al., 2015) and provide important pathways for the transport of C, N, and P to the seafloor (Guy-Haim et al., 2020). For instance, Plum et al. (2020) showed, using long-term data from the Western Antarctic Peninsula, which changes in key metazoan grazer populations, Salpa thompsoni Foxton, 1961 versus Euphausia superba Dana, 1850, had measurable effects on the dynamics of dissolved N and P and may affect the phytoplankton composition (Finkel et al., 2010). Therefore, to better represent the functional diversity of GZ in food web and biogeochemical models (e.g. Wright et al., 2021), extending data on their stoichiometry is a crucial step.
One of the caveats of studying stoichiometry is the assumption that what is measured in an organism is a characteristic of that organism and not of the environment. In other words, the organisms need to show homeostasis when it comes to nutrients (Meunier et al., 2014). Unfortunately, there is little information on this for GZ as, out of necessity, these data come from laboratory studies where nutrients can be controlled. Schoo et al. (2010) showed that the C/P value of the ctenophore Pleurobrachia pileus (Müller, 1776) was independent of its feeding environment and that the species showed a considerable degree of homeostasis. Furthermore, Malzahn et al. (2010) observed some variability in the C/P values of the limnomedusa Gonionemus vertens Agassiz, 1862, but this variability was relatively small. Thus, as indicated by experimental studies (Schoo et al., 2010; Chen & Li, 2017), we assume that GZ maintain some level of homeostasis; hence, measurements of nutrient ratios from field samples can be attributed to species or development stages, rather than to external conditions.
The aims of the present study were (i) to present species-specific P data and elemental ratios (C/P, N/P) for hydro- and scyphomedusae, pelagic gastropods, ctenophores, and salps that may be used as a basis for GZ group-specific parameterisations in biogeochemical models, and (ii) to analyse intraspecific variability of these values related to size and ontogeny, assuming no, or only minor, influence from the external environment (Malzahn et al., 2010; Schoo et al., 2010; Chen & Li, 2017). Previous studies (e.g. Lüskow et al., 2021) have shown that C and N contents per dry weight decrease with size, while elemental ratios (i.e. C/N) are mostly size independent. Based on these findings, we expected GZ taxa to have low weight-specific P content, but high C/P and N/P values compared to crustacean zooplankton, show decreasing weight-specific P content with size, and an independence of C/P and N/P values with size and development stage.
Materials and methods
Study area and specimen collection
In this study, gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton (GZ) were defined to include cnidarian (i.e. Hydrozoa, Scyphozoa), ctenophore (i.e. Nuda, Tentaculata), pelagic gastropod, and tunicate (i.e. Doliolida, Pyrosomida, Salpida) species. All GZ samples were collected in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Between 2014 and 2020, several cruises and land-based collections were carried out in this area (46.36°–54.57° N, 123.07°–147.50° W) between February and October, including the Southern Gulf of Alaska, Queen Charlotte Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, west coast of Vancouver Island, Strait of Georgia, and Juan de Fuca Strait. GZ specimens were obtained from zooplankton samples collected using various gears (i.e. Bongo net, Multinet, dip net, pelagic trawl) during numerous cruises and shore-based collection events. Removal of guts and gut contents while in the field, especially for smaller specimens, was not feasible and, thus, was not performed, to ensure consistency among samples. Contents of gastrovascular systems and guts may have influenced the phosphorus (P) content data. The decision to accept this potential source of error was in line with earlier studies (Hays et al., 2018). GZ specimens were separated by species and measured individually (umbrella diameter in the case of medusae and total length for ctenophores, salps, and pelagic gastropods). Measurements were taken of maximum extent to the nearest millimetre, and individuals were immediately frozen at − 80 °C until further analysis. For details on the locations and specimen collections, see Lüskow et al. (2021).
Elemental content determination
Before the elemental analysis, all samples (sub-samples for large scyphozoans; entire specimens for all other taxa) were freeze dried to constant weight. Individual dry weight (DW) was determined using an analytical balance (Mettler Toledo; 10 µg precision) before homogenisation with pestle and mortar. Between 5 and 20 mg of the dried and homogenised samples were weighed and analysed for their P content as orthophosphate after acidic oxidative hydrolysis with 5% H2SO4 at the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Germany (Grasshoff et al., 1999). Calibration curves for the appropriate ranges were established and always had a R2 = 0.99. The variation between measurements was typically less than 20%. All analyses were carried out in duplicates. The carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) data were previously reported in Lüskow et al. (2021). C/P and N/P were expressed as molar ratios and were only calculated for specimens with known C, N, and P contents, i.e. elemental ratios were calculated only for specimens with known elemental composition, whereas element contents were not assumed to be equal for all specimens of a species. Size dependencies of C and N, as well as C/N data, are published in a companion study by Lüskow et al. (2021).
Literature research
A literature search in the Web of Science and Google Scholar using the search keywords ‘gelatinous zooplankton’, ‘jellyfish’, ‘ctenophore’, ‘salp’, ‘elemental composition’, and ‘elemental ratio’ was performed. Although most literature was included, some articles (likely early studies) may have been unavailable to the search engines. Seventeen studies reporting species-specific information were found and used, together with results from the present study, in a conceptual comparison among several trophic groups (see below). P % DW, C/P, and N/P were then compared with values from our laboratory analyses and generalised to the taxonomic class level. Elemental ratios were given in the literature either in molar units or by mass. For comparability reasons, elemental ratios given by mass were converted to molar units.
Statistical analyses
Generalised linear models (GLMs) were used to explore significant (α level of 0.05) effects of size (i.e. diameter or length) on P content, C/P, or N/P (Gamma error structure, inverse-link) in the R package ‘lme4’ (Bates et al., 2015). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey-HSD post hoc tests for pairwise comparison were used to investigate differences in P % DW, C/P, and N/P between taxonomic classes or development stages of salps. P % DW, C/P, and N/P data showed heteroscedasticity and the residuals were non-normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk normality test and Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance). To meet the assumptions of the ANOVA (i.e. normality of data, homoscedasticity of variances, independence of data), data were log10-transformed. We could not assess seasonal differences in any of the variables (collection occurred from February to October) because of the small sample size. All statistical analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, 2021) version 3.6.0.
Results
Phosphorus contents, C/P, and N/P
The specimens ranged in size from 35 to 770 mm (Fig. 1). Phosphorus (P) contents were determined for twelve species from five taxonomic classes (Table 1, Fig. 2). Significant differences between taxonomic classes were evident for some class pairs, but should be considered with caution given the small sample sizes (Table 2). Mean P contents (expressed as per cent of dry weight, DW) encompassed a wide range from 0.02 ± 0.01 P % DW in Beroe cucumis Fabricius, 1780 to 0.26 P % DW in Thetys vagina Tilesius, 1802. The P contents of gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton (GZ) were positively correlated with carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) contents (Fig. 3, Table 3). Large differences in C/P and N/P occurred among species, with Aurelia labiata Chamisso & Eysenhardt, 1821 having the lowest (151.7 and 36.6, respectively) and B. cucumis having the highest (657.3 and 167.0, respectively) ratios. As a result of the large variation between species, C/P and N/P shown in Table 1 were not significantly different among taxonomic classes (Table 2), except for C/P between Nuda and Scyphozoa (P = 0.04) and N/P between Nuda and Thaliacea (P = 0.02). All N/P values were clearly above the Redfield ratio (16:1), and hence, all studied taxa were P-poor. Values from the literature and this study are summarised in Table 4 and are generally consistent with each other. Herbivorous GZ (i.e. pelagic thaliaceans) species did not have systematically higher C/P than carnivorous GZ (i.e. cnidarians, ctenophores, pelagic gastropods) species (F1,9 = 0.05, P = 0.82). Averaged over all groups, the C/P value for GZ was 208.2 ± 168.7 and the N/P value was 40.1 ± 29.7.
Size and stage dependency of P % DW, C/P, and N/P
Size dependency of these chemical constituents was investigated for Aequorea sp. Péron & Lesueur, 1810, A. labiata, Cyanea capillata (Linnaeus, 1758), and Salpa aspera Chamisso, 1819. Unfortunately, sample sizes of other species were too small to test for size effects. The P content (P % DW) decreased significantly with size for A. labiata, C. capillata, and S. aspera (p ≤ 0.03, R2 = 0.23–0.33), but not for Aequorea sp. (Fig. 4A–D; P = 0.15, R2 = 0.11). The C/P and N/P values of GZ were not significantly related to size (Fig. 4E–L, P ≥ 0.05, R2 = 0.01–0.34), except for a significant effect for C/P of C. capillata (Fig. 4G; P = 0.049, R2 = 0.34).
The P content of a salp species was stage specific as shown for S. aspera (Fig. 5). Salpa aspera blastozooids (i.e. aggregate stage) had significantly higher P contents than oozooids (i.e. solitary stage; P = 0.01), while the C/P and N/P values did not differ significantly between stages (P ≥ 0.17). Overall, trends depicted in Figs. 4 and 5 showed that differences not only occurred among species, but were also intraspecific.
Discussion
Phosphorus content, elemental ratios, and the ‘growth rate hypothesis’
According to the ‘growth rate hypothesis’ (GRH; Sterner & Elser, 2002), the high growth rates of GZ should correspond with high P contents and low C/P and N/P values. We found that generally our P % DW values fell within published ranges for their respective taxonomic classes and were one order of magnitude lower than crustacean zooplankton (typically 0.05–0.25 for GZ versus 0.8–2.5% DW for crustacean zooplankton; Beers, 1966; Vijverberg & Frank, 1976). This difference is significant, because DWs of GZ, unlike crustaceans, may retain a considerable amount of water (9–23%) and salt due to osmoconformity (Larson, 1986; Hirst & Lucas, 1998). While this may lead to an underestimation of P content in GZ (relative to the DW), even with correction, their relative P content is expected to be substantially lower than non-GZ zooplankton (Beers, 1966; Vijverberg & Frank, 1976). The question of why GZ have low P content and accordingly high C/P and N/P values, combined with high growth rates, contradicting the GRH, remains open but is most likely related to the P-poor and C-rich soft structures, typical for these organisms. Interestingly, Touratier et al. (2003) reported on large differences in C/N values between the body (C/N = 6.2) and the discarded house (C/N = 291.7) of the appendicularian Oikopleura dioica Fol, 1872, indicating a strong bias towards C in these structures. Unfortunately, no data on P were reported. Herbivorous GZ (i.e. pelagic thaliaceans) species did not have systematically higher C/P compared to their carnivorous counterparts (i.e. cnidarians, ctenophores, pelagic gastropods). One exception may be the class Nuda, which was the only investigated GZ class with significantly higher C/P and N/P values and very low P % DW compared to Scyphozoa and Thaliacea. While very low P % DW was also recorded for Beroe sp. Muller, 1776 (0.090; Table 4) by Ikeda & Mitchell (1982), B. abyssicola Mortensen, 1927 (our study) and B. cucumis in the coastal temperate Atlantic had P % DW more similar to species in other classes (Curl, 1962). This stoichiometric uncertainty cannot currently be resolved due to small sample sizes and only a few literature values available for this group.
Similar to C and N contents and C/N (Lüskow et al., 2021), P % DW changed with specimen size and, in case of S. aspera, also with the development stage. Indeed, P % DW decreased with size in Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775) and S. thompsoni oozooids (Malej et al., 1993; Iguchi & Ikeda, 2004), as did values for Aequorea sp., Aurelia labiata, Cyanea capillata, and S. aspera examined in our study. The opposite pattern was found, however, by Iguchi et al. (2017) for Nemopilema nomurai Kishinouye, 1922. The paucity of published P % DW and elemental ratios does not allow us to conclude whether the size-specific trends reported by Iguchi et al. (2017) were an exception or due to different trends among species. When comparing P % DW of S. thompsoni blastozooids and oozooids in the same DW range, no stage specificity was found (Iguchi & Ikeda, 2004).
All N/P values were above the Redfield ratio (16:1), and hence, all studied taxa need to be considered P-poor. Furthermore, all N/P values in our study were higher than those reported for crustacean zooplankton, ranging typically between 13 and 27 (Beers, 1966). Including N/P values derived from the literature (presented in Table 4), 80% of GZ taxa had values greater than the Redfield ratio, indicating that GZ were poor in P relative to their N content. These data suggest that GZ represent poor-quality prey for non-GZ predators.
Filter feeders such as appendicularians, doliolids, pyrosomes, and salps can utilise the entire prey spectrum because of their low P demand, whereas crustacean zooplankton only thrive on low C/P prey (van de Waal et al., 2010). This is a clear advantage for GZ. Pelagic tunicates have no selective filtration or ingestion like raptorial feeders. However, they may selectively digest prey to meet their nutritional demands and let prey of unwanted size or nutritional value pass through the digestive tract (Conley et al., 2018; Dadon-Pilosof et al., 2019). A lower P requirement allows some species (like pelagic tunicates) to survive in low-nutrient (e.g. open ocean) environments with lower maximum growth performance according to the GRH (Sterner & Elser, 2002). However, the opposite is true for many GZs that show high growth rates and high, mostly size-independent, C/P values compared to crustacean zooplankton (e.g. Ikeda, 1984; Masuzawa et al., 1988). This raises the question of whether the GRH is valid for GZ.
Gelatinous and soft-bodied plankton in a conceptual C/P trophic group comparison
Taking into consideration species, size, and stage specificity of C/P values, we can sketch a conceptual comparison among several trophic groups (Fig. 6), with data taken from the present study (Table 1) and the literature (GZ and other taxa). This can be used to understand food quality (C/P stoichiometry) aspects among idealised trophic levels. Usually, trophic transfer efficiency increases with decreasing C/P value, implying a higher likelihood of match between prey elemental stoichiometry and predator demand at low C/P values. Further, C excretion increases with trophic level (represented by the primary feeding mode of groups), indicating that carnivorous zooplankton and planktivorous fish need to consume more prey items (and, thus, excrete surplus C; lower C/P) to meet their limiting nutrient needs (e.g. P; Fig. 6). Adding GZ data to the conceptual comparison among several trophic groups show that especially carnivorous GZ are different from previously reported zooplankton taxa.
It may be suggested that a high body C/P indicates a high organismal resilience towards P limitation, whereas low C/P values reflect a high susceptibility to nutrient limitation. Typically, the C/P value decreases from one to the next trophic level (Sterner et al., 1998; van de Waal et al., 2010). For example, phytoplankton have highly variable C/P values among environments, species, and growth conditions, therefore, a wide C/P range, while crustacean zooplankton generally exhibit less variable C/P values and have a narrower C/P range (van de Waal et al., 2010). The diversity of GZ C/P can be compared schematically with C/P values of crustacean zooplankton and pelagic fish, using data from this study and literature sources (Fig. 6). Generally, GZ showed wider ranges of C/P values than crustacean zooplankton and fish, despite considerable overlap between these three groups at the lower end of the C/P range. This is contradictory to the general tendency of lower C/P values, while moving up trophic levels (van de Waal et al., 2010). High GZ taxonomic and functional diversity may explain this. Herbivorous GZ (only salps in this study) tended to have C/P values ranking at the lower end of the C/P value range of their carnivorous counterparts, which may indicate higher nutritional quality. However, the difference in C/P values of both groups was not statistically significant. We need to remember that functional groups (herbivorous versus carnivorous) in this case are also represented by different taxonomic groups (Thaliacea versus all other classes). The tendentially higher nutritional quality of herbivorous GZ is in line with their higher protein and slightly elevated lipid contents compared to carnivorous GZ such as medusae and ctenophores (e.g. Youngbluth et al., 1988; Lucas, 1994; Dubischar et al., 2012). It appears that herbivorous as well as carnivorous GZ have high C/P values in contrast to their crustacean counterparts and potentially are more tolerant to changes in their prey elemental composition. Conversely, crustacean zooplankton and planktivorous fish are more selective (or more efficient in regulating C/P values) and rely more on low-C/P prey to sustain their high protein demands. Hypothetically, if phytoplankton were to have higher C/P values, as may be expected in a warming ocean, crustacean zooplankton and fish may be at a disadvantage, thereby providing an opportunity for an increase of GZ (van de Waal et al., 2010). Unlike crustacean zooplankton, the higher resilience of GZ to nutrient-deficient prey may enable them to endure unfavourable periods and dominate pelagic food webs (e.g. Boero et al., 2008; Plum et al., 2020). Ultimately, increases in GZ with changing ocean conditions will also depend on other factors such as predation and parasitism (e.g. Henschke et al., 2016; Hays et al., 2018). However, this remains a hypothesis, and more nutrient content data are required for confirmation.
Potential implications and future perspectives
Intraguild predation, i.e. consumption of species that share similar feeding and stoichiometric traits, is especially frequent in GZ (Purcell, 1991). This may be due to the nutrient requirements of some GZ taxa. From a stoichiometric perspective, GZ with high C/P values may be more suitable prey for other GZ than for other pelagic organisms. Maybe this is a reason why they are avoided by many predators. However, this needs to be tested experimentally, especially in light of confirming/disproving multiple suggested hypotheses explaining predation on GZ (Thiebot & McInnes, 2020). Manifold feeding interactions among GZ species can be summarised as the ‘jelly web’ (Robison, 2004). These GZ feeding interactions can be diverse, with a recent study in the eastern tropical Atlantic showing that GZ covered most of the isotopic niche space of an entire planktonic food web (Chi et al., 2021). Trophic interactions among GZ species are still poorly understood but likely are more common than currently appreciated, and increasingly more research is dedicated to resolving intraguild GZ predatory interactions and the ‘jelly web’ (Arai & Jacobs, 1980; Choy et al., 2017; Chi et al., 2021). Under changing ocean conditions (warming, water column stratification, change in seawater stoichiometry), these interactions may become more important.
GZ stoichiometric values, and hence their nutrient requirements, are different from crustacean zooplankton, allowing them to co-exist. However, if the conditions for the classical food web, where large calanoid copepods and euphausiids provide a direct link between phytoplankton and fish, deteriorate, e.g. due to a mismatch between the elemental composition of prey and their own demands, conditions may become more suitable for many GZ taxa. Multiple factors such as rising pCO2, ocean warming, water column stratification, and eutrophication impact the seawater stoichiometry in coastal and open ocean regions such as the Northeast Pacific and are changing. This may affect the shape of food webs and the role of GZ, potentially converting their low P content (and thus demand) into a competitive advantage compared to other metazoans. Decreasing seawater pH as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 may indirectly favour certain GZ species (Chuard et al., 2019) due to altered phyto- and zooplankton compositions and changed nutrient stoichiometry of prey promoting less nutrient-demanding species. However, only a few experimental studies exist on direct effects of ocean acidification (reviewed by Chuard et al., 2019) and stoichiometric changes in prey (Malzahn et al., 2010; Schoo et al., 2010; Lesniowski et al., 2015; Chen & Li, 2017) on GZ fitness. Future studies will help to elucidate nutritional requirements, resilience capability to potential nutrient limitations, and competitive strengths of GZ taxa in globally changing ocean environments.
Data availability
Raw data have been deposited in PANGAEA (https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.933356).
References
Arai, M. N. & J. R. Jacobs, 1980. Interspecific predation of common Strait of Georgia planktonic Coelenterates: laboratory evidence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 120–123.
Bates, D. M., M. Maechler, B. Bolker & S. Walker, 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.
Beers, J. R., 1966. Studies on the chemical composition of the major zooplankton groups in the Sargasso Sea off Bermuda. Limnology and Oceanography 11(4): 520–528.
Blanchet, M., O. Pringault, M. Bouvy, P. Catala, L. Oriol, J. Caparros, E. Ortega-Retuerta, L. Intertaglia, N. West, M. Agis, P. Got & F. Joux, 2015. Changes in bacterial community metabolism and composition during the degradation of dissolved organic matter from the jellyfish Aurelia aurita in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 13638–13653.
Boero, F., J. Bouillon, C. Gravili, M. P. Miglietta, T. Parsons & S. Piraino, 2008. Gelatinous plankton: irregularities rule the world (sometimes). Marine Ecology Progress Series 356: 299–310.
Boersma, M., N. Aberle, F. M. Hantzsche, K. Schoo, K. H. Wiltshire & A. M. Malzahn, 2008. Nutritional limitation travels up the food chain. International Review of Hydrobiology 93: 479–488.
Borodkin, S. O. & L. I. Korzhikova, 1991. The chemical composition of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its role in the nutrient transformation in the Black Sea. Okeanologiya 31(5): 754–758.
Brotz, L., W. W. L. Cheung, K. Kleisner, E. A. Pakhomov & D. Pauly, 2012. Increasing jellyfish populations: trends in Large Marine Ecosystems. Hydrobiologia 690: 3–20.
Chen, L. & C. Li, 2017. Different tolerances of jellyfish ephyrae (Aurelia sp.1) and fish larvae (Paralichthys olivaceus) to nutrient limitations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 569: 1–13.
Chi, X., J. Dierking, H.-J.T. Hoving, F. Lüskow, A. Denda, B. Christiansen, U. Sommer, T. Hansen & J. Javidpour, 2021. Tackling the jelly web: trophic ecology of gelatinous zooplankton in oceanic food webs of the eastern tropical Atlantic assessed by stable isotope analysis. Limnology and Oceanography 66(2): 289–305.
Choy, C. A., S. H. D. Haddock & B. H. Robison, 2017. Deep pelagic food web structure as revealed by in situ feeding observations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284: 20172116.
Chuard, P. J. C., M. D. Johnson & F. Guichard, 2019. Ocean acidification causes mortality in the medusa stage of the cubozoan Carybdea xaymacana. Scientific Reports 9: 5622.
Condon, R. H., M. W. Graham, C. M. Duarte, K. A. Pitt, C. H. Lucas, S. H. D. Haddock, K. R. Sutherland, K. L. Robinson, M. N. Dawson, M. B. Decker, C. E. Mills, J. E. Purcell, A. Malej, H. W. Mianzan, S.-I. Uye, S. Gelcich & L. P. Madin, 2012. Questioning the rise of gelatinous zooplankton in the world’s oceans. BioScience 62(2): 160–167.
Condon, R. H., C. M. Duarte, K. A. Pitt, K. L. Robinson, C. H. Lucas, K. R. Sutherland, H. W. Mianzan, M. Bogeberg, J. E. Purcell, M. B. Decker, S.-I. Uye, L. P. Madin, R. D. Brodeur, S. H. D. Haddock, A. Malej, G. D. Parry, E. Eriksen, J. Quinones, M. Acha, M. Harvey, J. M. Arthur & W. M. Graham, 2013. Recurrent jellyfish blooms are a consequence of global oscillations. PNAS 110(3): 1000–1005.
Conley, K. R., F. Lombard & K. R. Sutherland, 2018. Mammoth grazers on the ocean’s minuteness: a review of selective feeding using mucous meshes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 285: 20180056.
Cripps, G., K. J. Flynn & P. L. Lindeque, 2016. Ocean acidification affects the phyto-zooplankton trophic transfer efficiency. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0151739.
Curl, H., Jr., 1962. Standing crops of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus and transfer between trophic levels, in continental shelf waters of New York. Rappt. Proces-Verbaux Reunions, Conseil Perm. Intern. Exploration Mer 153: 183–189.
Dadon-Pilosof, A., F. Lombard, A. Genin, K. R. Sutherland & G. Yahel, 2019. Prey taxonomy rather than size determines salp diets. Limnology and Oceanography 64(5): 1996–2010.
Diaz, R. J. & R. Rosenberg, 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321(5891): 926–929.
Dubischar, C. D., E. A. Pakhomov, L. von Harbou, B. P. V. Hunt & U. V. Bathmann, 2012. Salps in the Lazarev Sea, Southern Ocean: II. Biochemical composition and potential prey value. Marine Biology 159(1): 15–24.
Elser, J. J., D. R. Dobberfuhl, N. A. Mackay & J. H. Schampel, 1996. Organism size, life history, and N: P stoichiometry. BioScience 46(9): 674–684.
Emadodin, I., T. Reinsch, A. Rotter, M. Orlando-Bonaca, F. Taube & J. Javidpour, 2020. A perspective on the potential of using marine organic fertilizers for the sustainable management of coastal ecosystem services. Environmental Sustainability 3: 105–115.
Finkel, Z. V., J. Beardall, K. J. Flynn, A. Quigg, T. A. V. Rees & J. A. Raven, 2010. Phytoplankton in a changing world: cell size and elemental stoichiometry. Journal of Plankton Research 32(1): 119–137.
Grasshoff, K., K. Kremling & M. Ehrhardt, 1999. Methods of Seawater Analysis, Wiley, New York:
Guy-Haim, T., M. Rubin-Blum, E. Rahav, N. Belkin, J. Silverman & G. Sisma-Ventura, 2020. The effects of decomposing invasive jellyfish on biogeochemical fluxes and microbial dynamics in an ultra-oligotrophic sea. Biogeosciences 17: 5489–5511.
Haigh, R., D. Ianson, C. A. Holt, H. E. Neate & A. M. Edwards, 2015. Effects of ocean acidification on temperate coastal marine ecosystems and fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0117533.
Haraldsson, M., K. Tönnesson, P. Tiselius, T. F. Thingstad & D. L. Aksnes, 2012. Relationship between fish and jellyfish as a function of eutrophication and water clarity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 471: 73–85.
Hays, G. C., T. K. Doyle & J. D. R. Houghton, 2018. A paradigm shift in the trophic importance of jellyfish? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33(11): 874–884.
Henschke, N., J. D. Everett, A. J. Richardson & I. M. Suthers, 2016. Rethinking the role of salps in the ocean. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31(9): 720–733.
Henschke, N., E. A. Pakhomov, L. E. Kwong, J. D. Everett, L. Laiolo, A. M. Coghlan & I. M. Suthers, 2019. Large vertical migrations of Pyrosoma atlanticum play an important role in active carbon transport. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 124: 1056–1070.
Hirst, A. G. & C. H. Lucas, 1998. Salinity influences body weight quantification in the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita: Important implications for body weight determination in gelatinous zooplankton. Marine Ecology Progress Series 165: 259–269.
Iguchi, N. & T. Ikeda, 2004. Metabolism and elemental composition of aggregate and solitary forms of Salpa thompsoni (Tunicata: Thaliacea) in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula during austral summer 1999. Journal of Plankton Research 26(9): 1025–1037.
Iguchi, N., H. Iwatani, K. Sugimoto, S. Kitajima, N. Honda & O. Katoh, 2017. Biomass, body elemental composition, and carbon requirement of Nemopilema nomurai (Scyphozoa: Rhizostomeae) in the southwestern Japan Sea. Plankton and Benthos Research 12(2): 104–114.
Ikeda, T., 1984. Sequences in metabolic rates and elemental composition (C, N, P) during the development of Euphausia superba Dana and estimated food requirements during its life span. Journal of Crustacean Biology 4(1): 273–284.
Ikeda, T. & A. W. Mitchell, 1982. Oxygen uptake, ammonia excretion and phosphate excretion by krill and other Antarctic zooplankton in relation to their body size and chemical composition. Marine Biology 71(3): 283–298.
Jankowski, T., 2000. Chemical composition and biomass parameters of a population of Craspedacusta sowerbii Lank 1880 (Cnidaria: Limnomedusa). Journal of Plankton Research 22(7): 1329–1340.
Kremer, P., 1976. Excretion and body composition of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi (A. Agassiz): Comparisons and consequences. In: 10th European Symposium on Marine Biology, Ostend, Belgium, 17–23 September, 2: 351–362.
Krishnaswami, S., M. Baskaran, S. W. Fowler & M. Heyraud, 1985. Comparative role of salps and other zooplankton in the cycling and transport of selected elements and natural radionuclides in Mediterranean waters. Biochemistry 1: 353–360.
Larson, R. J., 1986. Water content, organic content, and carbon and nitrogen composition of medusae from the northeast Pacific. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 99(2): 107–120.
Le Borgne, R., 1982. Zooplankton production in the eastern tropical Atlantic Ocean: net growth efficiency and P: B in terms of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Limnology and Oceanography 27(4): 681–698.
Le Fur, I., R. De Wit, M. Plus, J. Oheix, V. Derolez, M. Simier, N. Malet & V. Ouisse, 2019. Re-oligotrophication trajectories of macrophyte assemblages in Mediterranean coastal lagoons based on 17-year time-series. Marine Ecology Progress Series 608: 13–32.
Lesniowski, T. J., M. Gambill, S. Holst, M. A. Peck, M. Algueró-Muñiz, M. Haunost, A. M. Malzahn & M. Boersma, 2015. Effects of food and CO2 on growth dynamics of polyps of two scyphozoan species (Cyanea capillata and Chrysaora hysoscella). Marine Biology 162(6): 1371–1382.
Lucas, C. H., 1994. Biochemical composition of Aurelia aurita in relation to age and sexual maturity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 183: 179–192.
Lüskow, F., M. D. Galbraith, B. P. V. Hunt, R. I. Perry & E. A. Pakhomov, 2021. Gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: organic, elemental, and energy contents. Marine Ecology Progress Series 665: 19–35.
Madin, L. P. & G. R. Harbison, 2001. Gelatinous zooplankton. In Steele, J., S. Thorpe & K. Turekian (eds), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, Vol. 2. Academic Press, London: 1120–1130.
Malej, A., J. Faganeli & J. Pezdic, 1993. Stable isotope and biochemical fractionation in the marine pelagic food chain: the jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca and net zooplankton. Marine Biology 116(4): 565–570.
Malej, A., V. Turk, T. Kogovšek, T. Makovec, V. Onofrri, L. Chiaverano, T. Tinta, V. Flander-Putrle & D. Lučić, 2009. Aurelia sp. 5 (Scyphozoa) population in the Mljet Lake (the southern Adriatic): trophic interactions and link to microbial food web. Annales Series Historia Naturalis 19: 49–58.
Malzahn, A. M., F. Hantzsche, K. L. Schoo, M. Boermsa & N. Aberle, 2010. Differential effects of nutrient-limited primary production on primary, secondary or tertiary consumers. Oecologia 162: 35–48.
Masuzawa, T., M. Koyama & M. Terazaki, 1988. A regularity in trace element contents of marine zooplankton species. Marine Biology 97(4): 587–591.
McNamara, M. E., D. J. Lonsdale & R. C. Aller, 2013. Elemental composition of Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz 1865 and its implications for nutrient recycling in a Long Island estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 36: 1253–1264.
Meunier, C. L., A. M. Malzahn & M. Boersma, 2014. A new approach to homeostatic regulation: towards a unified view of physiological and ecological concepts. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107737.
Meunier, C. L., S. Alvarez-Fernandez, A. Ö. Cunha-Dupont, C. Geisen, A. M. Malzahn, M. Boersma & K. H. Wiltshire, 2018. The craving for phosphorus in heterotrophic dinoflagellates and its potential implications for biogeochemical cycles. Limnology and Oceanography 63(4): 1774–1784.
Parsons, T. R. & C. M. Lalli, 2002. Jellyfish population explosion: Revisiting a hypothesis of possible causes. La Mer 40: 111–121.
Peňuelas, J., J. Sardans, A. Rivas-Ubach & I. A. Janssens, 2012. The human-induced imbalance between C, N and P in Earth’s life system. Global Change Biology 18(1): 3–6.
Plum, C., H. Hillebrand & S. Moorthi, 2020. Krill vs salps: Dominance shift from krill to salps is associated with higher dissolved N: P ratios. Scientific Reports 10: 5911.
Purcell, J. E., 1991. A review of cnidarians and ctenophores feeding on competitors in the plankton. Hydrobiologia 216(217): 335–342.
R Core Team, 2021. A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Redfield, A. C., 1934. On the proportions of organic derivatives in sea water and their relation to the composition of plankton. James Johnstone Memorial Volume. University Press of Liverpool, 176–192.
Richardson, A. J., A. Bakun, G. C. Hays & M. J. Gibbons, 2009. The jellyfish joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(6): 312–322.
Robison, B. H., 2004. Deep pelagic biology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 300: 253–272.
Schneider, G., 1988. Chemische Zusammensetzung und Biomasseparameter der Ohrenqualle Aurelia aurita. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen 42: 319–327.
Schoo, K. L., N. Aberle, A. M. Malzahn & M. Boersma, 2010. Does the nutrient stoichiometry of primary producers affect the secondary consumer Pleurobrachia pileus? Aquatic Ecology 44: 233–242.
Schoo, K. L., A. M. Malzahn, E. Kraus & M. Boersma, 2013. Increased carbon dioxide availability alters phytoplankton stoichiometry and affects carbon cycling and growth of a marine planktonic herbivore. Marine Biology 160(8): 2145–2155.
Shangguan, Y., P. M. Gilbert, J. Alexander, C. J. Madden & S. Murasko, 2017. Phytoplankton assemblage response to changing nutrients in Florida Bay: results of mesocosm studies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 494: 38–53.
Sommer, U., H. Stibor, A. Katechakis, F. Sommer & T. Hansen, 2002. Pelagic food web configurations at different levels of nutrient richness and their implications for the ratio fish production:primary production. Hydrobiologia 484: 11–20.
Sterner, R. W. & J. J. Elser, 2002. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ:
Sterner, R. W., J. Clasen, W. Lampert & T. Weisse, 1998. Carbon:phosphorus stoichiometry and food chain production. Ecology Letters 1: 146–150.
Thiebot, J.-B. & J. C. McInnes, 2020. Why do marine endotherms eat gelatinous prey? ICES Journal of Marine Science 77(1): 58–71.
Touratier, F., F. Carlotti & G. Gorsky, 2003. Individual growth model for the appendicularian Oikopleura dioica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248: 141–163.
van de Waal, D. B., A. M. Verschoor, J. M. H. Verspagen, E. van Donk & J. Huisman, 2010. Climate-driven changes in the ecological stoichiometry of aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(3): 145–152.
Vijverberg, J. & H. T. Frank, 1976. The chemical composition and energy contents of copepods and cladocerans in relation to their size. Freshwater Biology 6(4): 333–345.
Wright, R. M., C. Le Quéré, E. Buitenhuis, S. Pitois & M. J. Gibbons, 2021. Role of jellyfish in the plankton ecosystem revealed using a global ocean biogeochemical model. Biogeosciences 18: 1291–1320.
Youngbluth, M. J., P. Kremer, T. G. Bailey & C. A. Jacoby, 1988. Chemical composition, metabolic rates and feeding behavior of the midwater ctenophore Bathocyroe fosteri. Marine Biology 98(1): 87–94.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ursula Ecker, Clemens Kozian-Fleck, and Julia Haafke for their help in the laboratory with phosphorus measurements. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments made on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Funding
FL was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship (International Doctoral Fellowship) from the University of British Columbia. MB acknowledges support from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), within the BIOWEB project, and the State Agency for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas Schleswig-Holstein (LLUR).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FL and EAP designed the study. FL, MDG, BPVH, RIP, and EAP performed the field sampling. MB supervised the formal sample analysis. FL analysed the data and drafted the original manuscript. All authors contributed to writing the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Handling editor: Jörg Dutz
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lüskow, F., Galbraith, M.D., Hunt, B.P.V. et al. Gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Phosphorus content and potential resilience to phosphorus limitation. Hydrobiologia 849, 1543–1557 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04758-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04758-9