Minimum (Min), maximum (Max), and mean ± SD (standard deviation) of physicochemical parameters, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and ciliates communities in summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
Abstract
Studying zooplankton variability in coastal lagoons is crucial for environmental monitoring and preserving marine biodiversity. These organisms are highly valued as bio-indicators and helpful in identifying environmental phenomena such as eutrophication and assessing water quality. We studied the distribution of zooplankton in relation to environmental factors, phytoplankton, and ciliates in the coastal waters of the El Bibane lagoon during the summer of 2009 and 2010. Zooplankton assemblages were dominated by copepods, which represented 73–89% and 95–98% of total zooplankton abundance in summer 2009 and summer 2010, respectively. A total of 11 (summer 2009) and 21 (summer 2010) copepod species were identified in all stations, with an overwhelming abundance of Oithona nana in the summer of 2009 and Oithona similis in the summer of 2010. The prevalence of the two Oithona species is attributed to their adaptive strategies, which enables them to withstand environmental disturbances. Other zooplankton developed in association with an important proliferation of Cladoceran and Fish larvae, contributing 51% and 37% of total other zooplankton abundances in summer 2009 and summer 2010, respectively. The abundance of copepods or other zooplankton showed no significant correlation with phytoplankton and ciliates for both periods, suggesting an omnivorous/detritivorous diet hypothesis in El Bibane lagoon.
Keywords
- El Bibane lagoon
- zooplankton
- phytoplankton
- ciliate
- environmental factors
- summer season
1. Introduction
Plankton communities are viewed as being structured by a combination of factors such as climate change, abiotic properties, biotic factors [1], and regional effects (pollution) [2]. Zooplankton is a critical trophic link between phytoplankton, commercial fish stocks, and sea birds [3], and small zooplankton is an essential link between classical and microbial trophic levels [4]. The zooplankton species may respond differently to food concentration and environmental parameter variations [3]. In this context, it is important to understand the fluctuations in zooplankton abundance and their associations with physicochemical changes in the marine environment. These factors affect zooplankton at different scales [5], both directly [6] and indirectly, by shaping the abundance and repartition of their predators and prey [7], which will define populations’ growth [8] and mortality rates [9]. Planktonic copepods are the major members of zooplankton in marine pelagic ecosystems [10]. They graze on nano-micro-phytoplankton and microzooplankton [11], and at the same time, they are preyed on by higher trophic levels, such as fishes. Planktonic ciliates play an important role in transferring the production of pico and nanoplankton to meso- and macroplankton [12]. Variations in the repartition of ciliates may significantly affect other components of the marine food web and thus may influence the community structure and species composition of lower and higher organisms [13]. This study deals with the El Bibane lagoon (Gulf of Gabès, Tunisia), a symbolic Mediterranean ecosystem classified as Ramsar Wetland since 2007. This shallow lagoon is under eutrophication stress. The Gulf of Gabès, situated in southern Tunisia, is a unique and ecologically significant area in the Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately, this dynamic marine ecosystem is undergoing cultural eutrophication, characterized by nutrient enrichment from phosphorus and nitrogen salts [14]. Major contributors to nutrient pollution in the Gulf of Gabès include industrial discharges, urbanization, and agricultural activities [15]. A preceding study concerns the micro-phytoplankton communities [16]. Here, we focus on zooplankton, a crucial biological indicator of water quality and trophic status in lagoons, as they rapidly respond to environmental changes. With the objectives to (i) determine whether physicochemical properties such as water temperature, salinity, pH, and nutrient concentrations significantly impact the occurrence of the different zooplankton species; and (ii) analyze the dynamic and diversity of the zooplankton community in relation to phytoplankton and ciliates.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study site
The El Bibane lagoon, also known as Bhiret el Bibane, is a large lagoon of around 33 km in length by 10 km in width next to the Libyan limit. It is 10 km North of Ben Gardane city and 20 km West of Zarzis city. It is linked to the sea by a series of small channels, the largest of which is 800 m wide. This lagoon is the second largest in Tunisia after the Boughrara lagoon (Figure 1).
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F1.png)
Figure 1.
Location of sampling stations along the El Bibane lagoon.
2.2 Field sampling
Samples for nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ciliates were collected during one-day campaigns performed in summer (July 2009 and July 2010) at four stations (Figure 1). Seawater samples for nutrients, phytoplankton, and ciliates were collected with a Van Dorn-type closing bottle deployed horizontally. Zooplankton samples were collected using a cylinder-conical net (30 cm aperture, 100 cm high, and 100 μm mesh size). The volume of water filtered was about 1 m3. Back in the laboratory, samples for nutrient analyses (120 mL) were immediately filtered under a low vacuum (<50 mm Hg) through pre-combusted (500°C, 4 h) GF/F (~0.7 mm) glass fiber filters (25 or 47 mm diameter, Whatman) using glassware filtration systems. Nutriment samples (120 mL) were kept immediately upon collection at −20°C in the dark. Samples for phytoplankton were preserved with acid Lugol solution (at 3%; [17]), and alkaline Lugol solution was used for fixation of ciliates samples (at 5%; [18]). Zooplankton samples were preserved in a 2% buffered formaldehyde solution and were stained with rose Bengal to facilitate dissection. Samples for plankton were placed at 4°C in the dark for enumeration.
2.3 Physicochemical variables
Physicochemical parameters (temperature, salinity, and pH) were measured using a multi-parameter kit (Multi 340 i/SET) immediately after sampling. Water for nutrient (nitrite, nitrate, ammonium, orthophosphate, silicate, total nitrogen, and total phosphate) analyses was collected in plastic containers of 4.5 mL previously washed with distilled water. Samples were analyzed with a Bran and Luebbe type 3 autoanalyzer, and concentrations were determined colorimetrically using a UV-visible (6400/6405) spectrophotometer [19]. Analyses are independent. The automatic analysis system provides a fast and accurate analysis of these nutrients. Although each nutrient is determined differently, the method remains similar. It used colorimetry to determine the dosage of each nutrient.
2.4 Plankton enumeration
Sub-samples (50 mL) for phytoplankton and ciliates counting were analyzed under an inverted microscope using the Utermöhl method [20] after 24 h settling. Phytoplankton and ciliates species counts were carried out on the entire sedimentation chamber with 40X magnification. Phytoplankton and ciliates were identified using morphological criteria. Phytoplankton species were identified according to various keys [21, 22]. Ciliates were identified at the genus or species level after the works [23, 24, 25]. Zooplankton enumeration was performed under a vertically mounted deep focus dissecting microscope (Olympus TL 2) after being colored with Bengalrose to identify internal tissues of the different zooplankton species and also to facilitate copepod dissection such as various appendixes and leg 5 of the different species. Zooplankton species identification was identified using various keys [26, 27, 28]. Their relative frequency determined the importance value for the different species.
2.5 Statistical analyses
The environmental parameters assessed at four stations and two periods were submitted to a normalized principal component analysis (PCA) [29]. Physical-chemical variables, such as temperature, salinity, pH, nutrient concentrations, and biological parameters, were assessed by examining the projection of the plots of the extracted factors on a factorial plan consisting of the statistically significant axis of the PCA. A simple log (x + 1) transformation was applied to the data in order to stabilize variance correctly [30]. The spatiotemporal patterns of zooplankton taxonomic groups were assessed with a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) after square-root transformation of data using PRIMER v7 software. Means and standard deviations (SD) were reported when appropriate. The spatial variability of biological communities and their relationships with environmental factors were assessed using Spearman rank correlation.
3. Results
3.1 Physical, chemical, and trophic parameters
The mean and range values of the four studied stations for physical and chemical variables recorded in July 2009 and July 2010 are given in Table 1. Surface water temperature was slightly warmer in summer 2010 (28.68 ± 0.54°C) than in summer 2009 (28.20 ± 0.39°C) (Table 1). The highest temperature (29.15°C) was recorded in the summer of 2010 and the lowest one (27.74°C) in the summer of 2009 at station 3. The average salinity was 45.46 ± 0.77 psu in the summer of 2010, and 45.77 ± 0.96 psu in the summer of 2009 (Table 1). pH was higher in the summer of 2009 (8.35 ± 0.19) than in the summer of 2010 (8.29 ± 0.16) (Table 1).
Variables | Summer 2009 | Summer 2010 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | |
Physical variables | ||||||
Temperature (°C) | 27.74 | 28.56 | 28.20 ± 0.39 | 27.90 | 29.15 | 28.68 ± 0.54 |
Salinity (psu) | 44.50 | 46.83 | 45.77 ± 0.96 | 44.70 | 46.30 | 45.46 ± 0.77 |
pH | 8.21 | 8.61 | 8.35 ± 0.19 | 8.13 | 8.51 | 8.29 ± 0.16 |
Chemical variables | ||||||
NO2− (μM) | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.39 | 0.22 ± 0.13 |
NO3− (μM) | 0.99 | 1.28 | 1.11 ± 0.12 | 0.89 | 2.06 | 1.45 ± 0.58 |
NH4+ (μM) | 1.09 | 1.46 | 1.23 ± 0.17 | 1.00 | 1.65 | 1.41 ± 0.31 |
T-N (μM) | 4.85v | 6.42 | 5.67 ± 0.81 | 6.12 | 7.17 | 6.51 ± 0.46 |
PO43− (μM) | 1.94 | 5.65 | 3.25 ± 1.67 | 2.03 | 3.05 | 2.52 ± 0.42 |
T-P (μM) | 10.29 | 15.97 | 12.65 ± 2.76 | 11.82 | 12.54 | 12.22 ± 0.32 |
N/P ratio | 0.50 | 1.23 | 0.92 ± 0.35 | 0.87 | 1.83 | 1.25 ± 0.42 |
Si(OH)4 (μM) | 2.09 | 4.25 | 3.51 ± 0.96 | 3.39 | 5.82 | 4.63 ± 1.09 |
Biological variables | ||||||
Chlorophyll- | 0.83 | 1.15 | 1.00 ± 0.16 | 0.70 | 1.88 | 1.33 ± 0.54 |
T- zooplankton (ind m−3) | 12,772 | 26,928 | 18,090 ± 6520 | 2212 | 65,688 | 40,810 ± 27,273 |
Copepods (ind m−3) | 10,806 | 21,120 | 14,498 ± 4599 | 2170 | 62,470 | 39,076 ± 26,034 |
Cyclopoids (ind m−3) | 1311 | 16,192 | 7032 ± 6419 | 917 | 247 | 12,862 ± 9709 |
Calanoids (ind m−3) | 4224 | 8349 | 6392 ± 1705 | 501 | 24,704 | 11,893 ± 10,003 |
Harpacticoids (ind m−3) | 000 | 310 | 118 ± 149 | 210 | 3360 | 1240 ± 1477 |
Poecilostomatoids (ind m−3) | 000 | 176 | 119 ± 081 | 000 | 630 | 267 ± 263 |
Other zooplankton (ind m−3) | 1478 | 5808 | 3592 ± 2187 | 042 | 3218 | 1734 ± 1320 |
T- ciliates (cells l−1) | 000 | 700 | 081 ± 159 | 000 | 300 | 053 ± 088 |
T- phytoplankton (cells l−1) | 1400 | 18,700 | 8450 ± 7424 | 9600 | 22,700 | 16,950 ± 6077 |
Table 1.
The concentration of total nitrogen (T-N) was, on average, 5.67–6.51 μM, ranging from 4.85 (station 2, Summer 2009) to 7.17 μM (station 1, summer 2010). NO3− and NH4+ concentrations were relatively high (> 1 μM), while NO2− concentration was much lower (0.22–0.24 μM) (Table 1). The concentration of total phosphorus (T-P) varied from 10.29 (station 1, summer 2009) to 15.97 μM (station 2, summer 2009). The relatively important T-P concentrations were due to the high contribution of PO43−, close to 23% of T-P, which displayed a mean concentration of 3.25 ± 1.67 μM and 2.52 ± 0.42 μM in summer 2009 and summer 2010, respectively, showed the highest value 5.65 μM in summer 2009 station 2 (Table 1). Nutrient values were indicative of a generalized eutrophication. The N/P was always lower than the Redfield ratio, suggesting potential N limitation in this area (Table 1).
3.2 Zooplankton community structure and spatial distribution
The total zooplankton abundance varied from 2212 (station 2) to 65,688 ind m−3 (station 3) in summer 2010. Zooplankton assemblages were dominated by copepods, representing 73–89% and 95–98% of total zooplankton abundance in summer 2009 and 2010, respectively (Figure 2). Total copepod abundance was negatively associated with salinity (r = −0.891, p > 0.05) and positively with phosphates (r = 0.923, p > 0.05). The highest copepod abundances were observed at station 3 (62,470 ind m−3) in July 2010. Their abundance did not exceed 21,120 ind m−3 in July 2009 (Table 1). Other zooplankton (Appendicularia, Bivalvia,
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F2.png)
Figure 2.
Spatial variations of zooplankton groups abundance in summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
Copepods composition and abundance showed four groups: Calanoids (on average 19–77% of the total copepod abundance), Cyclopoids (12–76%), Harpacticoids (0–12%) and Poecilostomatoids (0–1%) (Figure 3). A total of 23 copepod species were found at all stations (Table 2), with
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F3.png)
Figure 3.
Spatial variations of the relative abundance of copepod groups in summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
July 2009 | July 2010 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | |
Copepoda | ||||||||
Nauplii | 982 | 591 | 528 | 1240 | 23,730 | 500 | 11,700 | 15,330 |
Calanoida | ||||||||
328 | — | — | — | 8820 | 250 | 21,775 | 10,920 | |
— | — | — | — | — | — | 98 | — | |
— | 444 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
1474 | 148 | 352 | 620 | — | — | 231 | — | |
4910 | 1035 | 2464 | 1705 | 315 | — | 325 | — | |
— | — | — | — | 210 | — | 325 | 210 | |
— | — | — | — | 210 | — | — | — | |
164 | — | — | — | — | 42 | — | 210 | |
— | — | — | — | — | 167 | 1950 | 210 | |
1473 | 5169 | 1408 | 3875 | — | 42 | — | 1050 | |
— | — | — | — | — | — | — | 210 | |
Cyclopoida | ||||||||
1147 | 2365 | 12,848 | 2635 | 420 | 417 | 6825 | 1890 | |
— | 2217 | 3168 | 2945 | 12,600 | 500 | 17,875 | 10,920 | |
164 | — | 176 | 465 | — | — | — | — | |
Poecilostomatoida | ||||||||
— | — | — | — | — | — | — | 210 | |
— | — | — | — | 210 | — | — | — | |
— | 148 | 176 | 155 | — | — | — | 420 | |
— | — | — | — | — | — | 228 | — | |
Harpacticoida | ||||||||
164 | — | — | 310 | 210 | — | 325 | 210 | |
— | — | — | — | 420 | — | 650 | — | |
— | — | — | — | 1890 | 84 | — | — | |
— | — | — | — | — | 84 | — | — | |
— | — | — | — | 840 | 84 | 163 | — | |
Other Crustaceans | ||||||||
Cladocera | 328 | 148 | 4048 | 2790 | 210 | — | 325 | — |
Ostracoda | — | — | 176 | — | — | — | — | — |
Euphausiacea | — | — | — | — | 210 | — | — | — |
Gelatinous | ||||||||
Appendicularia | 328 | 739 | 704 | 930 | — | — | — | — |
Hydromedusae | — | — | — | — | 315 | 42 | 325 | — |
Meroplankton | ||||||||
Gasteropoda larvae | 982 | 591 | 704 | 1085 | 210 | — | 650 | 210 |
Bivalvia | 328 | — | 176 | 310 | — | — | 293 | 210 |
Cirripedia nauplii | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 210 |
Polychaeta larvae | — | — | — | — | 210 | — | 325 | — |
Zoea | — | — | — | — | 210 | — | — | 420 |
Fish larvae | — | — | — | — | 210 | — | 1300 | 1050 |
Table 2.
List and abundance (in ind.m−3) of the zooplankton species observed in the summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F4.png)
Figure 4.
Average distribution of the relative abundance of other zooplankton groups in summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
3.3 Relationships between zooplankton, phytoplankton, and ciliate
The spatial distribution of zooplankton abundance with the prevailing potential prey (total phytoplankton and total ciliate) is illustrated in Figure 5. The abundance of zooplankton does not show any significant correlations between the abundance of copepods or other zooplankton and phytoplankton and ciliates for both periods.
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F5.png)
Figure 5.
Spatial variations of total zooplankton, phytoplankton, and ciliates abundance in summer 2009/2010 along the El Bibane lagoon.
3.4 Multivariate analysis
The first factorial plane (axes 1 and 2) of the PCA analysis on environmental, phytoplankton, and ciliate variables explained 86.36% of the total variance, 58.35% of it for the first component and 28.01% for the second component (Figure 6a). The first axis shows an opposition between stations 2–3 correlated to all nutrients and stations 1–4 correlated to phytoplankton, Chl
![](/media/chapter/a043Y00000yuj6OQAQ/a09Tc0000012HiXIAU/media/F6.png)
Figure 6.
Results of (A) principal component analysis (axes I and II) performed on environmental, phytoplankton, and ciliate variables and (B) non-metric multidimensional scaling on percentage abundance of zooplankton taxonomic groups.
4. Discussion
The present study is the first to examine the spatial distribution of zooplankton communities in the coastal waters of the El Bibane lagoon in relation to nutrients, phytoplankton, and ciliates. Nutrient concentrations showed a generalized eutrophication status (Table 1). High eutrophication levels of the coastal waters of the Gulf of Gabès were confirmed [13, 14].
Copepods dominated the zooplankton community in all the stations in the El Bibane lagoon in summer. The dominance of copepods has already been reported in several studies in the Gulf of Gabès region: on western area of the Djerba coasts (54–100% of total zooplankton abundances; [16]); on the northern coast of Sfax (61–82%; [2, 31]); along the southern coast of Kerkennah Islands (98%; [32]), in Kneiss Islands (30–96%; [33]) in summer. Among copepods, Calanoids were highly dominant (19–77% of the total copepod abundance), which is very similar to what was observed by Rekik et al. [16] in the coastal area of Djerba Island (up to 79% of total copepod abundance) and Drira et al. [34] on the coast of Sfax (43% of total copepod abundance).
Although the environmental and tropic conditions did not change significantly between the summer of 2009 and the summer of 2010, the structural composition of the zooplankton community showed very distinctive traits between the two periods in the El Bibane lagoon. Cladocerans were much more abundant in 2009, and appendicularians, relatively abundant in the four stations in 2009, were absent in 2010. The copepod community was dominated by
5. Conclusion
This study analyzes zooplankton distribution in the El Bibane lagoon, emphasizing their connections with nutrients, phytoplankton, and ciliates. It confirms a generalized eutrophication status in the Gulf of Gabès and highlights the dominance of copepods, particularly Calanoids, consistent with regional findings. Significant changes in zooplankton composition between summer 2009 and summer 2010, despite stable conditions, are noted. The prominence of small planktonic copepods like
Acknowledgments
This study was performed in the framework of the international project Société d’étude de Réalisation d’Aménagement et d’Hydraulique (SERAH). This work was conducted in the Marine Biodiversity and Environment LR/18ES30 laboratory at the University of Sfax.
References
- 1.
Alexander R. (diss.)Interactions of Zooplankton and Phytoplankton with Cyanobacteria. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska; 2012. 69 p - 2.
Rekik A, Drira Z, Guermazi W, Elloumi J, Maalej S, Aleya L, et al. Impacts of an uncontrolled phosphogypsum dumpsite on summer distribution of phytoplankton, copepods and ciliates in relation to abiotic variables along the near-shore of the south western Mediterranean coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2011; 64 :336-346 - 3.
Jacobsen S, Gaard E, Larsen KMH, Eliasen SK, Hátún H. Temporal and spatial variability of zooplankton on the Faroe shelf in spring 1997-2016. Journal of Marine Systems. 2018; 177 :28-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2017.08.004 - 4.
Wickham SA. Trophic relations between cyclopoid copepods and ciliated protists: Complex interactions link the microbial and classic food webs. Limnology and Oceanography. 1995; 40 (6):1173-1181 - 5.
Dickey TD, Bidigare RR. Interdisciplinary oceanographic observations: The wave of the future. Scientia Marina. 2005; 69 :23-42 - 6.
Fernández De Puelles ML, Molinero JC. Decadal changes in hydrographic and ecological time-series in the Balearic Sea (western Mediterranean), identifying links between climate and zooplankton. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2008; 65 :311-317 - 7.
Landry MR, Brown SL, Rii YM, Selph KE, Bidigare RR, Yang EJ, et al. Depth-stratified phytoplankton dynamics in cyclone opal, a subtropical mesoscale eddy. Deep-Sea Research Part. 2008; II (55):1348-1356 - 8.
Lin KY, Sastri AR, Gong GC, Hsieh CH. Copepod community growth rates in relation to body size, temperature, and food availability in the East China Sea: A test of metabolic theory of ecology. Biogeosciences. 2013; 10 :1877-1892 - 9.
Maar M, Rindorf A, FriisMøller E, Christensen A, Madsen KS, Van Deurs M. Zooplankton mortality in 3D ecosystem modelling considering variable spatial-temporal fish consumptions in the North Sea. Progress in Oceanography. 2014; 124 :78-91 - 10.
Leandro SM, Morgado F, Pereira F, Queiroga H. Temporal changes of abundance, biomass and production of copepod community in a shallow temperate estuary (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2007; 74 :215-222 - 11.
Sherr E, Sherr B. Understanding roles of microbes in marine pelagic food webs: A brief history. In: Kirchman DL, editor. Microbial Ecology of the Oceans. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2009. pp. 27-44 - 12.
Stoecker DK, Michaels AE. Respiration, photosynthesis and carbon metabolism in planktonic ciliates. Marine Biology. 1991; 108 :441-447 - 13.
Annabi-Trabelsi N, Ali M, Belmonte G, Ayadi H, Guermazi W. Evaluation of the water quality and the eutrophication risk in Mediterranean Sea area: A case study of the Gulf of Gabès. In: Gonçalves AM, editor. Marine Ecosystems. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2023. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.114108 - 14.
Annabi-Trabelsi N, Guermazi W, Leignel V, Al-Enezi Y, Karam Q , Ali M, et al. Effects of eutrophication on plankton abundance and composition in the Gulf of Gabès (Mediterranean Sea, Tunisia). Water. 2022; 14 (14):2230 - 15.
Dolan JR, Coats DW. Seasonal abundances of planktonic ciliates and microflagellates in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 1990; 31 :157-175 - 16.
Rekik A, Guermazi W, Kmiha Megdiche S, Sellami I, Pagano M, Ayadi H, et al. Spatial variation of summer microphytoplankton and zooplankton communities related to environmental parameters in the coastal area of Djerba Island (Tunisia, Eastern Mediterranean). Mediterranean Marine Science. 2023; 24 (1):156-172. DOI: 10.12681/mms.30650 - 17.
Parsons TP, Maita Y, Lalli CM. A Manuel of Chemical and Biological Methods for Seawater Analysis. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press; 1984, 173 p - 18.
Sherr EB, Sherr BF. Preservation and storage of samples for enumeration of heterotrophic protests. In: Kemp PF, Sherr BF, Sherr EB, Cole JJ, editors. Handbook of Methods in Aquatic Microbial Ecology. London: Lewis Publishers; 1993. pp. 207-212 - 19.
Grasshof KM. Determination of nitrate. In: Ehradt K, Grasshof KM, Kremling K, editors. Methods of Seawater Analyses. Verlag Chemie: Weinheim; 1983. pp. 143-150 - 20.
Utermöhl H. Zur Vervollkommung der quantitative Phytoplankton Methodik. Mitteilungen Internationale Vereinigungfür Theoretische und Angewandte. Limnologie. 1958; 9 :1-38 - 21.
Balech E. Tintinnoinea del Mediterraneo. Trabajos del Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia. 1959; 28 :1-88 - 22.
Tomas CR, Hasle GR, Steidinger AK, Syvertsen EE, Tangen C. Identifying Marine Diatoms and Dinoflagellates. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc; 1996, 598 p - 23.
Alder VA. Tintinnoinea. In: Boltovsky D, editor. South Atlantic Zooplankton. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers; 1999. pp. 321-384 - 24.
Ciliophora PW. In: Boltovsky D, editor. South Atlantic Zooplankton. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers; 1999. pp. 265-319 - 25.
Strüder-Kypke MC, Montagnes DJS. Development of web-based guides to planktonic protists. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 2002; 27 :203-207 - 26.
Rose M. Copépodes pélagiques. In: Faune de la France. Vol. 26. Paris: Lechevalier; 1933, 368 p - 27.
Costanzo G, Campolmi M, Zagami G. Stephosmarsalensis new species (Copepoda, Calanoida, Stephidae) from coastal waters of Sicily, Italy. Journal of Plankton Research. 2000; 22 :2007-2014 - 28.
Boxshall GA, Halsey SH. An Introduction to Copepod Diversity. Tome I. Printed and Bound by Henry Ling Ltd. Dorchester: The Dorset Press; 2003, 421 p - 29.
Dolédec S, Chessel D. Rythmes saisonniers et composantes stationnelles en milieu aquatiqueII. Prise en compte et élimination d’effets dans un tableau faunistique. Acta Oecologica Oecologia Generalis. 1989; 10 :207-332 - 30.
Frontier S. Etude statistique de la dispersion du zooplancton. The Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1973; 12 :229-262 - 31.
Rekik A, Denis M, Aleya L, Maalej S, Ayadi H. Spring plankton community structure and distribution in the north and south coasts of Sfax (Tunisia) after north coast restoration. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2013; 6 :82-93 - 32.
Rekik A, Ayadi H, Elloumi J. Distribution of the plankton assemblages during the winter and summer along the southern coast of the Kerkennah Islands (Tunisia, eastern Mediterranean Sea). Marine Ecology. 2018a; 39 (2):e12494 - 33.
Rekik A, Ayadi H, Elloumi J. Spatial and inter-annual variability of proto- and metazooplankton during summer around the Kneiss Islands (Tunisia, Central Mediterranean Sea). Applied Water Science. 2018b; 8 :99 - 34.
Drira Z, Kmiha-Megdiche S, Sahnoun H, Tedetti M, Pagano M, Ayadi H. Copepod assemblages as a bioindicator of environmental quality in three coastal areas under contrasted anthropogenic inputs (gulf of Gabes, Tunisia). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2018; 98 (8):1889-1905 - 35.
Ben Salem Z, Drira Z, Ayadi H. What factors drive the variations of phytoplankton, ciliate, and mesozooplankton communities in the polluted southern coast of Sfax, Tunisia? Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2015; 22 (12):9071-9086. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4416-8 - 36.
Ben Ltaief T, Drira Z, Hannachi I, Bel Hassen M, Hamza A, Pagano M, et al. What are the factors leading to the success of small planktonic copepods in the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia? Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2015; 95 :747-761 - 37.
Riccardi N, Mariotto L. Seasonal variations in copepod body length: A comparison between different species in the lagoon of Venice. Aquatic Ecology. 2000; 34 :243-252 - 38.
Gallienne CP, Robins DB. Is Oithona the most important copepod; in the world’s oceans? Journal of Plankton Research. 2001;23 :1421-1432 - 39.
Bel Hassen M, Drira Z, Hamza A, Ayadi H, Akrout F, Issaoui H. Summer phytoplankton pigments and community composition related to water mass properties in the Gulf of Gabes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2008; 77 :645-656 - 40.
Annabi-Trabelsi N, Kobbi-Rebai R, Al-Enezi Y, Ali M, Subrahmanyam MNV, Belmonte G, et al. Factors affecting Oithona nana and Oithona similis along a salinity gradient. Mediterranean Marine Science. 2021; 22 (3):552