Light‐emission characteristics of
Abstract
Three experiment series on the ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi and Beroe ovata bioluminescence variability investigation were conducted: (1) depending on ctenophores size and ontogeny stage; (2) depending on temperature conditions and (3) depending on season. The ctenophores luminescence was registered using the laboratory complex “Svet” by methods of mechanical and chemical stimulation. Ctenophores light‐emission characteristics are changing in the process of ontogenesis and rising proportionally to the organism mass growth. Seasonal dynamics of the ctenophore‐aliens light‐emission characteristics has been revealed: the highest indices of M. leidyi and B. ovata bioluminescence are observed in the summer period and minimal indices for both species were registered in the winter‐spring period. Environment temperature affects considerably at the amplitude‐temporal characteristics of the ctenophores light‐emission. The bioluminescence reaction optimum for M. leidyi is achieved under the temperature of 26 ± 1°C, and for B. ovate—under the temperature of 22 ± 1°C, while its minimum for both ctenophores was registered under the temperature of 10 ± 1°C. Thus, results of the investigations have detected the opportunity to use ctenophores M. leidyi and B. ovata light‐emission characteristics as an index for their physiological state estimation.
Keywords
- light‐emission characteristics
- ecological-physiological indices
- Mnemiopsis leidyi
- Beroe ovata
- the Black Sea
1. Introduction
Bioluminescence as a manifestation of an organism life activity in a form of electric‐magnetic radiation in the visible region of spectrum is the most important ecological factor of marine environment [1]. Quite recently, they considered that microplankton—bacteria and dinoflagellates—makes the main contribution into formation of the Black Sea bioluminescence field [2–5]. But for a number of the World ocean regions, another fraction of plankton community makes the major contribution into bioluminescence field formation, in particular jelly‐fish macroplankton [3, 6, 7]. For instance, ctenophores
There are totally about 150 species of ctenophores, of them in 46 species, living in wide range of temperatures, bioluminescent ability has been registered reliably [8, 9]. For the past 30 years, the Black Sea ctenophore fauna became considerably more rich: Until 1980, it has been presented by one species of pleurobrachia (
Ctenophores—aliens not only reached the list of the Black Sea macroplankton but they also considerably influenced structure dynamics of its ecosystem, thus attracting great attention to them. The climate warming and increasing of the anthropogenic eutrophication led in a number of cases to considerable growth of not only ctenophores populations but jelly‐fish as well, which influenced condition of the marine communities and effected human economic activity: fishing nets and water canals were blocked, obstacles for marine bathing were created, and in the Black Sea anchovy fishing sharply decreased with the first flash of the mnemiopsis mass development [11–13].
At present time, there is quite great number of works devoted to physiology and ecology of different ctenophores species, including the Black Sea populations [12, 14–20]. From 1980, they conduct intensive studies of the ctenophores—aliens in the Black Sea: they reveal features of their distribution by the sea regions in connection with depth, temperature and salinity; they also study peculiarities of nutrition, breathing and reproduction. As for mnemiopsis, they revealed effect of the environment temperature on such characteristics as population vertical distribution in pelagial [13, 21–23], reproduction rate [24], metabolism intensity [25, 26] and some peculiarities of luminescence under experimental conditions [27, 28]. The same data were received for beroe as well [28–30].
But such important ecological characteristic of the ctenophores as bioluminescence still remains to be not much studied. In particular, the studies of the light‐emission parameters in the Black Sea populations of
In connection with the above mentioned, we consider it to be extremely important to continue investigation of the light‐emission in the Black Sea alien ctenophores, to reveal an influence of different factors on them and to evaluate accordance of their functional state with variability of the bioluminescence parameters.
2. Materials and methods
Experimental investigations were conducted in the Biophysical Ecology Department of the A.O. Kovalevsky Institute of Marine Biological Research (IMBR) from 2007 to 2012. Ctenophores with sizes of 35–40 mm (oral‐aboral length for
The investigation of
The investigation of
It is known that at natural conditions calanoid copepods, dominating in mesozooplankton composition in the second half of the summer season make the main part of the Black Sea mnemiopsis feeding [35]. That is why we used calanoid copepods
For estimation of variability of luminescence biophysical characteristics in the ctenophores in ontogenesis, they were divided into four groups: (1) freshly caught in the sea specimens of 40 mm length before gonads formation, adapted to the conditions of experiment under complete darkness during 2 h; (2) ctenophores of 40 mm length with matured gonads, formed as a result of experimental nutrition during 5–6 h after catching; (3) eggs, spawned out by the second group ctenophores, 0.40–0.50 mm diameter; (4) developed from the ctenophores eggs larvae, 0.25–0.30 mm diameter. To receive eggs and then larvae, the freshly caught adult ctenophores were isolated in 5 l vessels with filtered water, where they were fed by copepods. Eggs clutched by ctenophores were collected by filtration of all the water volume through 100 µm sieve. Eggs collected on the sieve were washed into 200 ml glass cylinder, and the number of eggs was calculated in all the volume under microscope. Size of eggs and larvae were measured with accuracy of 0.01 mm under microscope. The measurements of the bioluminescence characteristics were conducted in 15–20 specimens of each experimental group and repeated three times. Before light‐emission stimulation ctenophores were kept in the filtered marine water with 24 ± 2°C temperature. The given temperature conditions are optimal for quick eggs spawning by ctenophores and further larvae development [25].
For investigation of temperature variability, uni‐sized (35–40 mm length) ctenophores were divided in the laboratory into five groups and contained in different temperature conditions: (1) 10 ± 1°C; (2) 16 ± 1°C; (3) 22 ± 1°C; (4) 26 ± 1°C and (5) 30 ± 1°C.
The main parameters: amplitude, energy and bioluminescence duration of the alien‐ctenophore under the different temperature conditions were compared. For research of seasonal dynamics, bioluminescence uniform‐sized samples group (40 mm) of ctenophores were taken. The adaptive period before experiments on ctenophore bioluminescence was 2 h. Experiments on ctenophore bioluminescence characteristics registration on the laboratory complex—luminescope “Svet” [31] were conducted after the adaptive period. Special cuvette for mechanical, chemical and electrical stimulation of the plankton organisms, made of transparent organic glass, in which experimental organisms were placed, was set into the luminescope dark chamber. Biophysical characteristics of the ctenophore light‐emission were investigated by mechanical and chemical stimulation in our experiments. Mechanical stimulation method, the most adequate to the natural stimuli, chemical stimulation by ethyl alcohol give more prolonged and bright signals with maximal values [32, 33].
3. Results
3.1. Seasonal dynamics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi bioluminescence
The studies conducted had revealed in
The average luminescence amplitude (260.94 ± 13.04·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2) was registered in June. The light‐emission characteristics rise with peak in August and make 841.97 ± 42.09·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2. It is related with ctenophores reproduction in July–August.
The luminescence amplitude of
Thus, minimal energy values of
3.2. Seasonal variability of the B. ovata bioluminescence characteristics
The typical luminescence signal of
The beroe luminescence has significant seasonal differences [31]. Thus, several weak signals may be observed for ctenophore, luminous in the winter period (Figure 4), followed by the flash of negligible intensity with the greatest amplitude (56.7 ± 2.83·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2).
The ctenophore bioluminescence is depressed even more in the spring period, with the minimal values in May: one to two weak signals are observed with the amplitude up to 35.96 ± 1.79·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2. The bioluminescence intensity increases up to 537.6 ± 26.88·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2 which is registered in summer.
Low energy values of ctenophores are observed in winter‐spring period with minimum in May.
More prolonged signals are registered in July and September, making 2.54–2.86 s, the shortest luminescent signals of
Thus, seasonal variability of ctenophores light‐emission parameters was established. Our investigations showed that maximal bioluminescence values for mnemiopsis are registered in August, whereas beroe maximal bioluminescence is observed twice—in July and in September. Light‐emission minimal values for both ctenophores were observed in the winter‐spring period [31].
3.3. Influence of the temperature on the M. leidyi bioluminescence
The investigation results have shown considerable changes of the
Characteristics of light‐emission | Amplitude of light‐emission, quantum·s−1·cm−2 | Energy of light‐emission, quantum·cm−2 | Duration of light‐emission, s | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stimulation types | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
10 ′ 1°C | 29.52 ′ 1.47·108 | 33.52 ′ 1.67·108 | 12.47 ′ 0.62·108 | 15.51 ′ 0.77·108 | 1.82 ′ 0.09 | 1.94 ′ 0.097 |
16 ′ 1°C | 219.45 ′ 10.97·108 | 332.33 ′ 16.61·108 | 197.43 ′ 9.87·108 | 283.97 ′ 14.19·108 | 2.51 ′ 0.12 | 2.70 ′ 0.13 |
22 ′ 1°C | 545.75 ′ 27.28·108 | 632.95 ′ 31.64·108 | 407.19 ′ 20.35·108 | 417.65 ′ 20.388·108 | 2.89 ′ 0.14 | 3.48 ′ 0.17 |
26 ′ 1°C | 910.81 ′ 45.54·108 | 1432.94 ′ 71.64·108 | 725.33 ′ 36.26·108 | 894.64 ′ 44.73·108 | 3.14 ′ 0.16 | 3.53 ′ 0.17 |
30 ′ 1°C | 322.34 ′ 16.12·108 | 488.43 ′ 24.42·108 | 294.89 ′ 14.74·108 | 265.15 ′ 13.25·108 | 2.54 ′ 0.12 | 2.67 ′ 0.17 |
The temperature increases up to 30°C leads to four times decrease of ctenophore luminescence intensity, making 322.34 ± 16.1·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2.
Bioluminescence energy decreases two times (
3.4. Influence of the temperature on the B. ovata bioluminescence
Amplitude and light‐emission energy considerable changes, connected with the environment temperature change, were revealed in ctenophore
Characteristics of light‐emission | Amplitude of light‐emission, quantum·s−1·cm−2 | Energy of light‐emission, quantum·cm−2 | Duration of light‐emission, s | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stimulation types | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
10 ′ 1°C | 4.92 ′ 0.24·108 | 3.42 ′ 0.16·108 | 2.95 ′ 0.12·108 | 1.67 ′ 0.08·108 | 1.03 ′ 0.05 | 1.02 ′ 0.05 |
16 ′ 1°C | 551.14 ′ 27.55·108 | 482.89 ′ 24.14·108 | 262.22 ′ 13.11·108 | 156.12 ′ 7.8·108 | 1.91 ′ 0.09 | 1.76 ′ 0.08 |
22 ′ 1°C | 1150.36 ′ 57.51·108 | 822.03 ′ 41.10·108 | 530.19 ′ 26.51·108 | 482.65 ′ 24.13·108 | 3.03 ′ 0.15 | 2.47 ′ 0.12 |
26 ′ 1°C | 577.06 ′ 28.85·108 | 268.81 ′ 13.44·108 | 166.97 ′ 8.34·108 | 148.63 ′ 7.43·108 | 2.12 ′ 0.10 | 2.08 ′ 0.10 |
30 ′ 1°C | 49.01 ′ 2.45·108 | 29.23 ′ 1.46·108 | 14.73 ′ 0.73·108 | 13.84 ′ 0.69·108 | 1.53 ′ 0.07 | 1.49 ′ 0.07 |
Ctenophore reacts with more low light‐emission amplitude indices with the temperature rise up to 26°C, but minimal values of the luminescence amplitude are registered under the temperature of 30°C, achieving 49.01 ± 2.4·108 under the mechanical stimulation and 29.23 ± 1.46·108quantum·s−1·cm−2 under the chemical one. The
The shortest bioluminescent signals were observed under the temperature of 10°C, making 1.02 ± 0.05 s, and the most continuous under 22°C, achieving 3.03 ± 0.15 s. Ctenophore light‐emission characteristics changes, under different temperature conditions, can be explained, we believe, by these organisms physiological adaptations to the environment temperature oscillations point of view. Indeed, the most intensive
Maximal activity of the enzyme‐substrate complex, basic for the ctenophores luminescence was observed under the temperature of 30°C
3.5. Bioluminescence characteristics changes in the M. leidyi ontogenesis
After 5–6 h of experimental feeding ctenophores of 40 mm length produced from 3.0 to 4.5 thousands of viable. The spawning peak was observed at night (23–24 h), which corresponds to the data of other researchers [24]. Duration of development from eggs spawning to larvae getting out in our investigations was of 16–19 h. Typical bioluminescent signals of ctenophores
Ontogenesis stages of |
N | L (мм) | Amplitude of light‐emission (quantum·s−1·cm−2) | Energy of light‐emission (quantum·cm−2) | Duration of light‐emission, s | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stimulation types | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
Just‐caught individuals (control) | 43 | 40 | (112.16 ′ 5.61) ·108 | (144.18 ′ 7.20) ·108 | (109.68 ′ 5.48) ·108 | (143.36 ′ 7.16) ·108 | 2.39 ′ 0.12 | 2.75 ′ 0.13 |
Reproductive ctenophores | 38 | 40 | (424.46 ′ 21.22) ·108 | (470.98 ′ 23.54) ·108 | (284.76 ′ 14.23) ·108 | (311.24 ′ 15.56) ·108 | 3.28 ′ 0.16 | 3.93 ′ 0.19 |
Ctenophore eggs | 25 | 0.40–0.50 | (0.39 ′ 0.019) ·108 | (0.89 ′ 0.04) ·108 | (0.23 ′ 0.012) ·108 | (0.52 ′ 0.026) ·108 | 0.45 ′ 0.02 | 0.76 ′ 0.03 |
Ctenophore larvae | 30 | 0.25–0.30 | (1.44 ′ 0.08) ·108 | (3.13 ′ 0.15) ·108 | (0.48 ′ 0.022) ·108 | (1.07 ′ 0.05) ·108 | 1.33 ′ 0.067 | 1.86 ′ 0.11 |
The most intensive bioluminescence is observed in adult specimens (with matured gonads), in which amplitude‐time characteristics reach maximum magnitudes: amplitudes up to (470.98 ± 23.54)·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2 and duration of signal—up to 3.93 ± 0.19 s. Light‐emission amplitude in the adult specimens three times and signal energy two times (
Luminescence durations in the given ctenophore groups also differ considerably. For example, luminescence duration in the adult specimens for 1.18 s exceeds the same in control. Signal duration in the control group ctenophores three to four times exceeded those in their eggs and larvae. The weakest luminescence was registered in ctenophores eggs (Table 3), expressed in low amplitudes (less than 0.39 ± 0.019·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2) and light‐emission energy (less than 0.23 ± 0.012·108 quantum·cm−2), as well as small duration of the bioluminescent signal—up to 0.45 ± 0.02 s. Comparing bioluminescence of the ctenophore eggs and larvae, we stated that the larval stage luminescence amplitude was 3.5 and energy two to three times higher than analogous characteristics of the eggs bioluminescence. Signal durations of ctenophore larvae also two to three times exceeded analogous parameters in eggs (
It has been revealed that magnitudes of amplitude, energy and duration of the bioluminescent signals in the freshly caught ctenophores depended directly on their size. For example, luminescence intensity in
Figure 11 represents variability of the biophysical characteristics of
Having compared ctenophore bioluminescence after spawning and those in control we found that luminescence amplitude in the control group 14 times exceeded amplitude in the spawned specimens. Light‐emission energy in the spawning ctenophores with clutch reached if compared with other groups of organisms maximum magnitudes up to (139.46 ± 8.36)·108 quantum·cm−2, which 1.5 times exceeded analogous indices in specimens from the control group and 53 times (
3.6. Bioluminescence variability in the B. ovata ontogenesis
Bioluminescence energy values depend on quantity of secret, produced in the time of organism irritation. So with the increase of the ctenophore age and body mass growth, the more is secret content. Thus, luminescence intensity is a function of organism's mass, that is, A = f (W). Amplitude and bioluminescent signal duration of newly caught ctenophores directly depend on dimension, that is, on wet weight of the investigated organism (Figure 12) [33].
Beroe light‐emission duration increased, achieving from 1.44 to 2.37 s, as body mass raised [33]. The organisms with body mass 19.53 ± 0.97 g produce 2–2.5 times more prolonged light‐emission signals than small‐sized ctenophores. Experiment's results of the ctenophore reproduction system investigations detected that bioluminescence amplitudes were maximum in ctenophores with egg clutches (Figure 14), being two to three times more (
The post‐spawning group gave the lowest energy indices until (56.77 ± 2.83)·108 quantum·cm−2. Light‐emission durations in ctenophores with eggs clutches were the same as in the control group. The lowest light‐emission time was in the post‐spawned group up to 1.51 ± 0.07 s. The
Ctenophore eggs have low luminescence indices with intensity peaks up to (0.76 ± 0.03)·108 quantum·s−1·cm−2, light‐emission energy values—up to (0.53 ± 0.02)·108 quantum·cm−2 and short bioluminescent signal—up to 0.89 ± 0.048 s. It was shown also that larvae bioluminescence intensity was eight times and energy—seven times more than eggs had (
Ontogenesis stages of |
L (мм) | Amplitude of light‐emission (quantum·s−1·cm−2) | Energy of light‐emission (quantum·cm−2) | Duration of light‐emission, s | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stimulation types | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
Just‐caught individuals (control) | 50 | (315.36 ′ 15.76) ·108 | (246.23 ′ 12.31) ·108 | (331.09 ′ 16.55) ·108 | (177.60 ′ 8.88) ·108 | 2.27 ′ 0.11 | 1.39 ′ 0.06 |
Reproductive ctenophores | 50 | (823.91 ′ 41.18) ·108 | (601.72 ′ 30.08) ·108 | (434.41 ′ 21.72) ·108 | (259.75 ′ 12.98) ·108 | 2.49 ′ 0.12 | 1.86 ′ 0.09 |
Ctenophore eggs | 0.80–0.85 | (0.76 ′ 0.03) ·108 | (0.28 ′ 0.01) ·108 | (0.53 ′ 0.02) ·108 | (0.21 ′ 0.01) ·108 | 0.89 ′ 0.04 | 0.33 ′ 0.016 |
Ctenophore larvae | 0.4–0.5 | (6.07 ′ 0.3) ·108 | (2.26 ′ 0.1) ·108 | (3.71 ′ 0.17) ·108 | (1.49 ′ 0.06) ·108 | 1.64 ′ 0.08 | 1.08 ′ 0.05 |
The same situation was observed for eggs and larvae light‐emission durations. Thus, larvae luminescence duration was two to three times more than the eggs’ one.
4. Discussion
That allows using our experiments results in different variants of the ecological monitoring of the coastal water area. Environment temperature affects considerably the amplitude‐temporal characteristics of the Black Sea alien‐ctenophore light‐emission. It was revealed that bioluminescence reaction optimum for
But at the period of intensive growth and reproduction, when fodder zooplankton biomass cannot supply needs for support and reproduction of the population, ctenophores are under deficit of food [18, 20]. That is why increase in the mnemiopsis abundance during reproduction is accompanied with a decrease of its average individual mass, first of all due to a decrease of the big size individuals share in the population [33, 39]. During the given investigations, we also observed in the zooplankton samples domination of fry, eggs and larvae of the ctenophores and to a less extent availability of matured specimens.
Undoubtedly flashes intensity depends on a number of photoprotein in photocytes and maturation of the photocytes themselves. Its content increases with age and consequently with an increase if linear sizes and body mass. Thus, light‐emission energy is a function of the organism mass, that is, E=f (W). It is also known that trophic factor effects considerably life activity and bioluminescent characteristics of ctenophores [27]. For example, according to our data, freshly caught ctenophores with full stomachs gave eggs and germs averagely in 6 h. But without feeding germs did not develop and they perished, having not reached the larval stage. In the laboratory conditions with satisfactory supply of food ctenophores are close to the conditions of the specimens
In other words, the loss of substance with sex products is quite comparable with losses of an organism for breathing. This points to domination of the generative metabolism strategy in ctenophores and explains accompanying slowing of its growing at the reproductive period [14]. As bioluminescence is closely connected with the breathing chain of organism [3], it is quite understandable that considerable change in the functional condition and metabolism in ctenophores during reproduction are reflected in the observed low indices of the bioluminescence in the spawned individuals if compared with the control. Differences in the ctenophores bioluminescence parameters we revealed at different ontogenesis stages can be also explained by changes in their biochemical composition during their individual development. For instance, according to Finenko and Anninsky, organic substance composition differs considerably in eggs and larvae from the same in the matured specimens. In particular, content of organic substance in
Due to the fact that the organic substances stock provide early survival of larvae and maximum growth rate parallel to minimum exchange more bright lighting of larvae if compared with the ctenophore eggs can be explained, as we think, by great content of organic substance in larvae. Together with this, specific content of organic substance in the ctenophore early larvae is 20–30 times higher than the corresponding magnitudes for adult specimens. Change in number of photocytes in developing individuals can present one more reason of the registered by us variability of the luminescence characteristics on the ctenophores in ontogenesis. For example at early stages of the ctenophores development, when growth of twinkling rowing plates begins in organisms we observe an increase of the photocytes cytological maturity. At more late stages, when embryo begins to feed itself we observe an increase of the photocytes number. And at last with development of the organisms, we register an increase of the photoprotein number in the photocytes tissues of the adult specimens [40].
That is why it is quite explainable that quantum issue of the ctenophores bioluminescence is minimal at early stages of the organism's development and it is maximal at those late. Besides differences in the ctenophores bioluminescence parameters can be conditioned, according to our opinion, by peculiarities of the ctenophores biochemical composition, determined by their dependence on nutrition quantity and spectrum. According to the data of Anninsky et al. [14], concentration of organic substance in the ctenophore body depends considerably on their size. Protein in the ctenophore body is dominating oxidized substrate and its share in the ctenophore organic substance is of 80–85%. Correlation of concentrations of free amino acids and protein is maximal in small individuals with highly active metabolism and minimal in big organisms. There is domination in lipids of fractions, characteristic for the cell membranes: phospholipids make 35.7 ± 9.6% of general lipids. But in bigger organisms, they observe a tendency to increase number of waxes and sterine ethers. For example their content was of 4.0 ± 3.6; 5.5 ± 3.2 и 7.1 ± 4.0% in ctenophores with the size 10–20, 21–30 and 31–50 mm, correspondingly. In carbohydrates, glycogen dominated; its content grew a bit with an increase of ctenophores size and made 25 ± 4; 28 ± 5; and 36 ± 12 µg·g−1, when body length was 10, 11–20 and 31–50 mm correspondingly [42].
And at last with organisms growing hydration increases and individuals motility decreases. Thus, protein‐lipid and carbohydrate exchange effect changes in the ctenophores bioluminescence parameters. But, as it has been already marked with development of organisms’ quantity of photoprotein in the ctenophores photocytes and concentration of the substrate of the bioluminescent reaction—luciferin increase, which influence reinforcement of the bioluminescent activity in adult ctenophores [40]. Taking into consideration fermentative nature of the bioluminescent reaction, we can presume that change in the rate of fermentative processes affects duration of the bioluminescent signals. Really maximal bioluminescence is observed in small specimens with higher fermentative activity and shorter signal duration. In adult individuals, we observed decrease in metabolism and connected with this decrease in luciferase fermentative activity, which facilitates more long light‐emission [45]. Thus, development of organisms along the way of increasing body hydration and decrease of the active exchange in more big specimens, lowering of their motility and maneuver is compensated by the most important ecological characteristic: less access for predators due to more developed luminescent organs and correspondingly maximal yield of the bioluminescence energy. It gives grounds for supposition that bioluminescence protective function is the most important component in the ctenophores ecology.
Our investigations with
Accordingly, the fact that bioluminescence is closely related to biochemical processes in organism and to its physiological state [28, 47] is well substantiated by our data that the lowest ctenophore bioluminescent parameters are produced by post‐spawned individuals at reproduction period. It is revealed by us that ctenophore bioluminescent parameters dissimilarity at different reproductive stages are explained by changes of their biochemical composition in ontogenesis. The eggs and larvae composition of organic matter differed much from the adult individuals [14]. Beroe light‐emission parameters changeability in ontogenesis can be related with photocyte quantitative variability of growing individuals and their cytological maturity [40]. We suppose that ctenophore light‐emission characteristics changeability with body mass growth can be determined by specialty of their biochemical composition depending on sizes [23].
At the same time, as the organism develops along the way of body growing hydration and active metabolism [14, 23], decrease of great individuals’ mobility and maneuverability is compensated by one of highly important qualities: the lowered survival capability due to more developed bioluminescent organs and, consequently, maximum bioluminescent energy discharge.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the valuable advices during the given work conduction to Khanaichenko A.N., Finenko G.A. the scientists of KIMBR, Russia; to Juk V.F., Belogurova Yu.B. and M.I. Silakov, leading engineers of KIMBR, Russia, for the help in work with laboratory equipment and making the program of its verification.
References
- 1.
Harvey E. Bioluminescence. New York: Academic Press; 1952. 649 p. - 2.
Gitelzone I, Levin L, Utyushev R. et al. Bioluminescence in the ocean. St. Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat; 1992. 283 p. - 3.
Tokarev Yu. Basin of the hydrobionts biophysical ecology. Sevastopol: ECOSI‐Gidrophizika; 2006. 342 p. - 4.
Valiadi M, Iglesias‐Rodriguez D. Understanding bioluminescence in dinoflagellates: How far have we come? Mint: Microorganisms. 2013; 1: 3–25. - 5.
Marsinko C, Painter S, Martin A, Allen J. A review of the measurement and modeling of dinoflagellate bioluminescence. Mint: Progress in Oceanography. 2013; 109: 117–129. - 6.
Widder E. Bioluminescence in the ocean: Origins of biological, chemical, and ecological diversity. Mint: Science. 2010; 328: 704–708. - 7.
Pennisi E. Light in the deep. Mint: Science. 2012; 235(3): 1060–1063. - 8.
Determinator of fauna of the Black and Azov seas. Кiev: Naukova dumka; 1968. 437 p. - 9.
Purcell J. Climate effects on formation of jellyfish and ctenophore blooms: A review. Mint: Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 2005; 85: 461–476. - 10.
Öztürk B, Mihneva V, Shiganova T. First records of Bolinopsis vitrea (L. Agassiz, 1860) (Ctenophora: Lobata) in the Black Sea. Mint: Aquatic Invasions. 2011; 6(3): 355–360. Doi:10.3391/ai.2011.6.3.12 - 11.
Shushkina E, Musaeva E, Anochina L. et al. Role of the jellyfish macroplankton: Sifonophore Aurelia aurita , ctenophoresMnemiopsis leidyi andBeroe ovata in the planktonic community of the Black Sea. Mint: Oceanology. 2000; 40(6): 859 – 861. - 12.
Vostokov S, Arashkevich E, Drits A. et al. Ecological and physiological characteristics of the ctenophore Beroe ovata in the coastal water of the Black sea: Quantity, biomass, size distribution, hunting behavior, feeding and metabolism. Mint: Okeanologiya. 2001; 41(1): 109–155. - 13.
Mutlu E, Bingel F, Gucu A. et al. Distribution of the new invader Mnemiopsis sp. and the residentAurelia aurita andPleurobrachia pileus populations in the Black Sea in the years 1991–1993. Mint: ICES Journal of Marine Science. 1994; 51: 407–421. - 14.
Anninsky B, Finenko G, Abolmasova G et al. Body organic content Mnemiopsis leidyi (Ctenophora: Lobata) andBeroe ovata (Ctenophora: Beroida) in early ontogenetic stages. Mint: Biology Exterminating. 2007; 33(6): 457–464. - 15.
Zaika V, Sergeeva N. Morphology and development of Mnemiopsis mccradyi (Ctenophora, Lobata) in the Black sea. Mint: Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 1990; 69(2): 5–11. - 16.
Minkina N, Pavlova E. Daily changes of respiration intensity of comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black sea. Mint: Okeanologiya. 1995; 35 (2): 241–245. - 17.
Parkhomenko A. Phosphorus excretion by the Black sea Mnemiopsis leidyi . Mint: Ekologya Sea. 2006; 72: 70–76. - 18.
Finenko G, Abolmasova G, Romanova Z. Intensity of the nutrition, respiration, and growth Mnemiopsis mccradyi in relation to grazing conditions. Mint: Biologya of the Sea. 1995; 20(5): 315–320. - 19.
Finenko G, Romanova Z, Abolmasova G. The ctenophore Beroe ovata : A recent invader to the Black sea. Mint: Ekologya Sea. 2000; 50: 21–25. - 20.
Tsikhon‐Lukanina E, Reznichenka O, Lukasheva T. Quantitative aspects of feeding in the Black sea ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi . Mint: Okeanologiya. 1991; 31(2): 272–276. - 21.
Zaika V, Sergeeva N. Daily changes of structure of population of vertical distribution of a comb jelly of Mnemipsis mccradyi Mayer (Ctenophora) in the Black Sea. Mint: Gidrobiologichesky Zhurnal. 1991; 27(2): 15–19. - 22.
Zaika V, Ivanova N. Mnemiopsis mccradyi in the autumn hyponeuston of the Black sea. Mint: Ekologya Sea. 1992; 42: 6–10. - 23.
Zaika V. About the connection of Mnemiopsis leidyi size structure in the Black Sea with dynamics of its growth and reproduction. Mint: Morskyi Ekolohichnyi Zhurnal. 2005; 4(3): 59–64. - 24.
Zaika V, Revkov N. Anatomy of gonads and regime of spawning of ctenophore Mnemiopsis sp. in the Black sea. Mint: Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. 1994; 73(3): 5–9. - 25.
Anninsky B, Abolmasova G. Temperature, as a factor of ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi metabolism intensity and mass development in the Black Sea. Mint: Okeanologiya. 2000; 40(5): 63–69. - 26.
Finenko G, Abolmasova G, Datsyk N. Effect of food composition and temperature on ctenophore‐invader Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz feeding ratein situ . Mint: Russian Journal of Biological Invasions. 2013; 4: 78–90. - 27.
Tokarev Yu, Mashukova O. Variability of the bioluminescence characteristics of the Black Sea ctenophores‐aliens in connection with different conditions of nutrition. Mint: Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology. 2013; 4: 968–973. http://www.scirp.org/journal/abb/ - 28.
Tokarev Yu, Mashukova O, Vasilenko V. The bioluminescence of ctenophore‐aliens Mnemiopsis leidyi andBeroe ovata in the Black sea at the mechanical and chemical stimulation. Mint: Ekologya Sea. 2008; 76: 61–66. - 29.
Luppova N. Beroe ovata Mayer, 1912 (Ctenophora, Athentaculata, Beroidea) in the coastal waters of the north‐east of the Black sea. Mint: Ekologya Sea. 2002; 59: 23–25. - 30.
Finenko G, Romanova Z, Abolmasova G. et al. Trophic interaction in the Black sea plankton community at the present stage. Mint: Ecologiya Moray. 2006; 71: 50–54. - 31.
Mashukova O, Tokarev Yu. Seasonal dynamic of the Black sea ctenophores‐aliens. Mint: Natura Montenegrina, Podgorica. 2013; 12(2): 345–355. - 32.
Mashukova O, Tokarev Yu. Bioluminescence daily rhythm of ctenophore Beroe ovata Mayer, 1912. Proceedings of the Global Congress on ICM: Lessons Learned to Address New Challenges. Mint: Marine Biology Microbiology. 2013; 2: 729–736. - 33.
Tokarev Yu, Mashukova O, Sibirtsova E. Bioluminescence characteristics changeability of ctenophore Beroe ovata Mayer 1912 (Beroida) in ontogenesis. Mint: Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2012; 12: 479–484.http://www.trjfas.org/ - 34.
Arashkevich E, Anokhina L, Vostokov S. et al. Reproduction Strategy of Beroe ovata (Ctenophora, Atentaculata, Beroida): A New Invaser in the Black Sea. Mint: Oceanology. 2001; 41(1): 116–120. - 35.
Gubanova A. Mnogoletnie izmeneniya v soobschestve zooplanktona Sevastopol'skoy bukhty. In: Eremeev V, Gaevska A. editors. Sovremennoe sostoyanie pribrezhnykh vod Kryma. IBSS, Sevastopol Sevastopol: ECOSI‐Gidrophizika; 2003. p. 83–94. - 36.
Mashukova O, Tokarev Yu. Influence of the temperature at the Black Sea ctenophores‐aliens bioluminescence characteristics. Mint: Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology. 2012; 3: 269–273. http://www.scirp.org/journal/abb/ - 37.
Finenko G, Romanova Z, Abolmasova G. et al. Ctenophores: Invaders and their role in the trophic dynamics of the planktonic community in the coastal regions off the Crimean Coasts of the Black Sea (Sevastopol Bay). Mint: Oceanology. 2006; 46(4): 472–482. - 38.
Shiganova T, Bulgakova Y, Volovik S. et al. The new invader Beroe ovata Mayer, 1912 and its effect on the ecosystem in the northeastern Black Sea. Mint: Hydrobiologia. 2001; 451: 187–197. - 39.
Khoroshilov V. The Black sea ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi population seasonal dynamics. Mint: Okeanologiya. 1993; 33(4): 558–562. - 40.
Shimomura O. Bioluminescence: Chemical principles and methods. World Scientific; 2006. 470 p. - 41.
Haddock S, Moline M, Case J. Bioluminescence in the Sea. Mint: Annual Review of Marine Science. 2010; 2: 443–493. - 42.
Anninsky B. Seasonal dynamics of the chemical composition of organic matter in the ctenophora Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz in the Black sea. Mint: Okeanologiya. 1995; 35(3): 426–429. - 43.
Finenko G, Arashkevitch E, Kideys A. et al. Reproduction characteristics and growth rate of ctenophore Beroe ovata larvae in the Caspian and Black Sea waters. Mint: Morskyi Ekologichnyi Zhurnal. 2011; 10(1): 77–88. - 44.
Kharchuk I. Anabiosis: Basic definitions and processes, accompanied it. Mint: Ecologiya Moray. 2005; 70: 62–78. - 45.
Lapota D. Bioluminescence: Recent advances in oceanic measurements and laboratory applications. InTech Janeza Trdine; 2012; 9: 190 p. - 46.
Gucu A. Can overfishing be responsible for the successful establishment of Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black Sea? Mint: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2002; 54: 439–451. - 47.
Mashukova O.V., Tokarev Yu.N. Variability of Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz (Ctenophora: Lobata) bioluminescence in relation to regeneration. Mint: Marine Biological Journal. 2016; 1(1): 36–42.