4-7 



(Figure 4-1). From June 1975 through October 1977, a 0.5 m diameter 

 conical not, fitted with a 158ym nylon mesh, was used. The new method 

 was afiojjli'.'d IjcMj.JUfu; of a n(j(;(i Lo oljtain mort; (]uantitat Lvc Lnformation on 

 larger animals which appeared to possess some ability to avoid the 

 smaller, slower-filtering sampler, and because the volume of the sample 

 taken by the smaller net was concluded to be inadequate. For a period 

 of 13 months (June 1975 through June 1976) the two collection methods 

 described above were employed concurrently to evaluate comparability 

 between them. In all cases sample volume was estimated using a mouth- 

 mounted General Oceanics digital flowmeter. 



In the laboratory, aliquots of zooplankton samples, which had 

 been preserved in 5% gluteraldehyde, were extracted and placed in Sedge- 

 wick-Rafter counting cells for identification and enumeration of the 

 zooplankters present. Levels of taxonomic identification were deter- 

 mined by practical ability and interest in specific groups. Adults of 

 numerically important copepods were differentiated to species, while 

 most other groups (e.g., polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans other 



than copepods) were usually not differentiated beyond order or suborder. 



3 

 Abiondance estimates (numbers/m ) were computed for each taxon. 



Sanders' (1960) biological importance values were utilized to 

 indicate overall dominance. Relative proportions of holoplankton, 

 meroplankton, and tychoplankton were computed according to collection 

 date, combining all stations, depths, and tides. Data collected prior 

 to July 1973 are not presented herein and may be found elsewhere (NAI, 

 1973; 1974) . The following 11 taxonomic/life-stage categories were 

 selected for detailed presentation patterns because of their dominance 

 in zooplankton collections from 1973 through 1977: 



