ALBERT

Description: Aim: Invasive species are of increasing global concern. Nevertheless, the mechanisms driving further distribution after the initial establishment of non‐native species remain largely unresolved, especially in marine systems. Ocean currents can be a major driver governing range occupancy, but this has not been accounted for in most invasion ecology studies so far. We investigate how well initial establishment areas are interconnected to later occupancy regions to test for the potential role of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics in order to infer invasion corridors and the source–sink dynamics of a non‐native holoplanktonic biological probe species on a continental scale. Location: Western Eurasia. Time period: 1980s–2016. Major taxa studied: ‘Comb jelly’ Mnemiopsis leidyi. Methods: Based on 12,400 geo‐referenced occurrence data, we reconstruct the invasion history of M. leidyi in western Eurasia. We model ocean currents and calculate their stability to match the temporal and spatial spread dynamics with large‐scale connectivity patterns via ocean currents. Additionally, genetic markers are used to test the predicted connectivity between subpopulations. Results: Ocean currents can explain secondary spread dynamics, matching observed range expansions and the timing of first occurrence of our holoplanktonic non‐native biological probe species, leading to invasion corridors in western Eurasia. In northern Europe, regional extinctions after cold winters were followed by rapid recolonizations at a speed of up to 2,000 km per season. Source areas hosting year‐round populations in highly interconnected regions can re‐seed genotypes over large distances after local extinctions. Main conclusions: Although the release of ballast water from container ships may contribute to the dispersal of non‐native species, our results highlight the importance of ocean currents driving secondary spread dynamics. Highly interconnected areas hosting invasive species are crucial for secondary spread dynamics on a continental scale. Invasion risk assessments should consider large‐scale connectivity patterns and the potential source regions of non‐native marine species.

Description: Aim: The distribution of mesoplankton communities has been poorly studied at global scale, especially from in situ instruments. This study aims to (1) describe the global distribution of mesoplankton communities in relation to their environment and (2) assess the ability of various environmental-based ocean regionalizations to explain the distribution of these communities. Location: Global ocean, 0–500 m depth. Time Period: 2008–2019. Major Taxa Studied: Twenty-eight groups of large mesoplanktonic and macroplanktonic organisms, covering Metazoa, Rhizaria and Cyanobacteria. Methods: From a global data set of 2500 vertical profiles making use of the Underwater Vision Profiler 5 (UVP5), an in situ imaging instrument, we studied the global distribution of large (〉600 μm) mesoplanktonic organisms. Among the 6.8 million imaged objects, 330,000 were large zooplanktonic organisms and phytoplankton colonies, the rest consisting of marine snow particles. Multivariate ordination (PCA) and clustering were used to describe patterns in community composition, while comparison with existing regionalizations was performed with regression methods (RDA). Results: Within the observed size range, epipelagic plankton communities were Trichodesmium-enriched in the intertropical Atlantic, Copepoda-enriched at high latitudes and in upwelling areas, and Rhizaria-enriched in oligotrophic areas. In the mesopelagic layer, Copepoda-enriched communities were also found at high latitudes and in the Atlantic Ocean, while Rhizaria-enriched communities prevailed in the Peruvian upwelling system and a few mixed communities were found elsewhere. The comparison between the distribution of these communities and a set of existing regionalizations of the ocean suggested that the structure of plankton communities described above is mostly driven by basin-level environmental conditions. Main Conclusions: In both layers, three types of plankton communities emerged and seemed to be mostly driven by regional environmental conditions. This work sheds light on the role not only of metazoans, but also of unexpected large protists and cyanobacteria in structuring large mesoplankton communities.