Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:43:10.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Seasonal and interannual variation of decapod larval abundance from two coastal locations in Scotland, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Maria Pan*
Affiliation:
INRB–IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasilia s/n, 1449-006, Lisbon, Portugal
Graham J. Pierce
Affiliation:
Oceanlab, University of Aberdeen, Main Street, Newburgh, Aberdeenshire, AB41 6AA, United Kingdom
Carey O. Cunningham
Affiliation:
INRB–IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasilia s/n, 1449-006, Lisbon, Portugal
Steve J. Hay
Affiliation:
INRB–IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasilia s/n, 1449-006, Lisbon, Portugal
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: M. Pan, INRB–IPIMAR, Avenida de Brasilia s/n, 1449-006, Lisbon, Portugal email: pan.mariac@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The patterns of decapod larvae occurrence and abundance were studied from weekly time-series data of 8 years from Stonehaven (north-east Scotland) and 4 years and 8 months from Loch Ewe (north-west Scotland). The annual cycle observed was similar in the two locations and characterized by abundance peaks, the first in spring and another in the summer, extending into autumn. During the coldest months (December to February) decapod larvae were virtually absent in the plankton. Differences in abundance and occurrence of decapod larvae between locations and the influence of temperature, salinity and chlorophyll-a in the patterns observed, were analysed by generalized least-square functions. The results showed significant differences in the abundance of decapod larvae between locations, with higher larval abundances and an earlier appearance in the plankton in Loch Ewe (west coast). In Stonehaven (east coast), from 2003 onwards, a general increasing trend in the abundance of decapod larvae was observed, related to the increasing temperatures recorded at that site. The data demonstrate the high variability of decapod larval abundance on an annual basis and the high importance of temperature and chlorophyll-a to the occurrence and abundance of decapod larvae.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the study areas. Inset figure in the map represents Loch Ewe. Black dots indicate sampling sites.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of Stonehaven and Loch Ewe data. The mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values registered and missing values for the decapod larval abundance and the environmental variables used in the analyses are indicated: temperature and salinity measured at 1 m and at 35 m in Loch Ewe and at 45 m in Stonehaven and chlorophyll-a (Chla) concentration (N, number of samples analysed).

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of the response and explanatory variables used in the analyses, their units and the codes employed.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Decomposition of total abundance data (ind m−2) of decapod larvae from Stonehaven. Monthly averages were used. From top to bottom: raw data; seasonal component; trend component; remainder component (residuals from the seasonal plus trend fit).

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Decomposition of total abundance data (ind m−2) of decapod larvae from Loch Ewe. Monthly averages were used. From top to bottom: raw data; seasonal component; trend component; remainder component (residuals from the seasonal plus trend fit).

Figure 5

Fig. 4. From top to bottom: chlorophyll-a values (mg m−3); temperature (°C) at surface (squares) and at 35 m (dotted line with triangles); and salinity (‰) at surface (squares) and at 35 m (dotted line with triangles) in Stonehaven. Weekly measurements were taken from January 1999 until December 2006.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. From top to bottom: decapod larval abundance (ind m-2); chlorophyll-a values; temperature (°C) at surface (squares) and at 35 m (dotted line with triangles); and salinity (‰) at surface (squares) and at 35 m (dotted line with triangles) in Loch Ewe. Weekly measurements were taken from April 2002 until December 2006.

Figure 7

Table 3. Numerical output from the optimal models obtained for: Stonehaven data; Loch Ewe data; and Stonehaven–Loch Ewe data comparison. Significant variables at the 5% level appear in bold.