Tables
Table 1. Standing stocks (in mmol C m-2 as mean ± standard deviation) of the food web compartments for the upper, middle and lower section of the Nazaré canyon. See “Methods – Data availability for description. References are: 1) Garcia and Thomson (2008), 2) Pusceddu et al., In Press), 3) Epping et al. (2002), 4) Danovaro (unpub. data), 5) biomass is Danovaro et al. (unpub. data), but biodiversity analysis in Danovaro et al. (2009), 6) Tyler et al. (2009) and 7) Cunha et al. (unpub. data).
Compartment
|
Upper
|
Middle
|
Lower
|
Ref
|
Labile detritus (lDet)
|
35.8 ± 19.8
|
46.9 ± 16.4
|
10.9 ± 6.7
|
1
|
Semi-labile detritus (sDet)
|
5393 ± 2419
|
5114 ± 2692
|
4761 ± 2384
|
2
|
Refractory detritus (rDet)
|
66137
|
66661
|
50211
|
3
|
Prokaryotes (Pro)
|
4.84 ± 0.08
|
3.14 ± 0.11
|
2.79 ± 0.09
|
4
|
Selective feeding meiofauna (MeiSF)
|
6.80 ± 1.98
|
2.32 ± 0.77
|
2.34 ± 2.00
|
5
|
Non-selective feeding meiofauna (MeiNF)
|
12.42 ± 3.62
|
2.46 ± 0.82
|
0.96 ± 0.83
|
5
|
Predatory+omnivore meiofauna (MeiPO)
|
2.42 ± 0.70
|
0.63 ± 0.21
|
0.34 ± 0.29
|
5
|
Surface deposit feeding macrofauna (MacSDF)
|
0.86
|
0.52 ± 0.56
|
0.40 ± 0.71
|
6, 7
|
Deposit feeding macrofauna (MacDF)
|
0.39
|
2.28 ± 0.82
|
0.32 ± 0.42
|
6, 7
|
Suspension feeding macrofauna (MacSF)
|
0.04
|
0.73 ± 0.17
|
0.82 ± 1.01
|
6, 7
|
Predatory+scavenging macrofauna (MacPS)
|
17.6
|
1.02 ± 0.30
|
2.00 ± 3.57
|
6, 7
|
Surface deposit feeding megafauna (MegSDF)
|
|
21.35 ± 10.43
|
|
6, 7
|
Deposit feeding megafauna (MegDF)
|
|
494.7 ± 703.0
|
|
6, 7
|
Table 2. Equality and inequality constraints on processes implemented for the food web models of Nazaré canyon. Values designated as single number implies that the data are implemented as equality and values designated between “[,]” indicates [minimum value, maximum value] and are implemented as inequalities. Value in italic implies it was modified to allow the model to be solved (see Results and Discussion)References are: 1) Epping et al. (2002) and references therein, 2) Danovaro et al. (unpub. data),3) del Giorgio and Cole (1998), 4) Middelboe and Glud (2006), 5) Danovaro et al. (2008), 6) Van Oevelen et al. (2006b) and references therein, 7) Hendriks (1999), 8) Tenore (1982), 9) Ruhl (2007), 11) Burdige et al. (1999).
Inequality description
|
Upper
|
Middle
|
Lower
|
Unit
|
Reference
|
Temperature limitation (Tlim)
|
0.54
|
0.35
|
0.30
|
-
|
See text
|
Degradation rate of lDet1
|
[2.74·10-3,3.29·10-2]
|
[2.74·10-3,3.29·10-2]
|
[2.74·10-3,3.29·10-2]
|
d-1
|
1
|
Degradation rate of sDet1
|
[8.21·10-4, 1.51·10-2]
|
[8.21·10-4, 1.51·10-2]
|
[8.21·10-4, 1.51·10-2]
|
d-1
|
1
|
Degradation rate of rDet1
|
[2.27·10-6, 8.22·10-4]
|
[2.27·10-6, 8.22·10-4]
|
[2.27·10-6, 8.22·10-4]
|
d-1
|
1
|
Prokaryotic C production
|
[1.44, 7.20]
|
[0.25, 1.25]
|
[0.49, 2.44]
|
mmol C m-2 d-1
|
2
|
Prokaryotic growth efficiency2
|
[0.05, 0.45]
|
[0.05, 0.45]
|
[0.05, 0.45]
|
-
|
3
|
Viral lysis of prokaryotic production
|
[0.40, 1.00]
|
[0.40, 1.00]
|
[0.40, 1.00]
|
-
|
4, 5
|
Faunal maintenance respiration
|
Tlim·0.01·Stock
|
Tlim·0.01·Stock
|
Tlim·0.01·Stock
|
mmol C m-2 d-1
|
6
|
Assimilation efficiency of labile sources Mei3
|
[0.57, 0.77]
|
[0.57, 0.77]
|
[0.57, 0.77]
|
-
|
6, 7
|
Assimilation efficiency of semi-labile detritus Mei3
|
[0.29, 0.39]
|
[0.29, 0.39]
|
[0.29, 0.39]
|
-
|
6, 7
|
Net growth efficiency Mei4
|
[0.60, 0.90]
|
[0.60, 0.90]
|
[0.60, 0.90]
|
-
|
7
|
Production rate Mei5
|
Tlim·[0.05, 0.20]
|
Tlim·[0.05, 0.20]
|
Tlim·[0.05, 0.20]
|
d-1
|
7
|
Mortality rate Mei5
|
Tlim·[0, 0.20]
|
|
|
d-1
|
7
|
Feeding preference MeiSF, MacSDF and MegSDF6
|
[50, 100]
|
[50, 100]
|
[50, 100]
|
-
|
See text
|
Feeding preference MeiNSF, MacDF and MegDF6
|
[1, 10]
|
[1, 10]
|
[1, 10]
|
-
|
See text
|
Feeding preference MeiPO, MacPS and MegPS7
|
[0.75, 1.00]
|
[0.75, 1.00]
|
[0.75, 1.00]
|
-
|
See text
|
Assimilation efficiency of labile sources of Mac and Meg3
|
[0.40, 0.75]
|
[0.40, 0.75]
|
[0.40, 0.75]
|
-
|
6, 7
|
Assimilation efficiency of semi-labile detritus of Mac and Meg3
|
[0.20, 0.38]
|
[0.20, 0.38]
|
[0.20, 0.38]
|
-
|
See text
|
Net growth efficiency Mac and Meg4
|
[0.50, 0.70]
|
[0.50, 0.70]
|
[0.50, 0.70]
|
-
|
6, 7
|
Production rate Mac5
|
Tlim·[0.01, 0.05]
|
Tlim·[0.01, 0.05]
|
Tlim·[0.01, 0.05]
|
d-1
|
7, 8
|
Mortality rate Mac5
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.05]
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.05]
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.05]
|
d-1
|
7, 8
|
Production rate Meg5
|
Tlim·[0.0027, 0.0137]
|
Tlim·[0.0027, 0.0137]
|
Tlim·[0.0027, 0.0137]
|
d-1
|
9
|
Mortality rate Meg5
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.0137]
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.0137]
|
Tlim·[0.0, 0.0137]
|
d-1
|
9
|
Prokaryotic respiration as fraction of respiration by Bac, Mei and Mac
|
[0.60, 1.00]
|
[0.60, 1.00]
|
[0.30, 1.00]
|
|
1, see Text
|
Respiration of Bac, Mei and Mac
|
[1.02, 4.91]
|
[0.75, 2.3]
|
[0.36, 0.90]
|
mmol C m-2 d-1
|
1
|
Carbon deposition from lDet_w, sDet_w, rDet_w and by MacSF
|
[0.96, 9.4]
|
[0.64, 3.9]
|
[0.31, 1.3]
|
mmol C m-2 d-1
|
1
|
Burial efficiency
|
[0.15, 0.48]
|
[0.08, 0.43]
|
[0.11, 0.36]
|
-
|
1
|
DOC Efflux from sediment relative to total POC input
|
[0, 0.10]
|
[0, 0.10]
|
[0, 0.10]
|
-
|
11
|
Share with your friends: |
