<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-13-6171-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Ocean acidification challenges copepod phenotypic plasticity</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Ocean acidification challenges copepod phenotypic plasticity}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~Vehmaa et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Vehmaa</surname><given-names>Anu</given-names></name>
          <email>asvehmaa@gmail.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4912-3258</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Almén</surname><given-names>Anna-Karin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2 aff6">
          <name><surname>Brutemark</surname><given-names>Andreas</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Paul</surname><given-names>Allanah</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1037-5239</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Riebesell</surname><given-names>Ulf</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9442-452X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff7">
          <name><surname>Furuhagen</surname><given-names>Sara</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Engström-Öst</surname><given-names>Jonna</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Tvärminne Zoological Station, University of Helsinki,
J.A. Palménin tie 260, 10900 Hanko, Finland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Novia University of Applied Sciences, Coastal Zone
Research Team, Raseborgsvägen 9, 10600 Ekenäs,
Finland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Environmental and Marine Biology, Faculty of Science and
Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, Tykistökatu 6,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> 20500 Turku,
Finland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel,
Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Environmental Science and Analytical
Chemistry, Stockholm University, Svante Arrhenius väg 8,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> 11418,
Stockholm, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>a</label><institution>present address: Calluna AB, Torsgatan 30,
11321 Stockholm, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>b</label><institution>present address: Swedish Chemical Agency, Esplanaden
3A, 17267 Sundbyberg, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Anu Vehmaa (asvehmaa@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>15</day><month>November</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>22</issue>
      <fpage>6171</fpage><lpage>6182</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>4</day><month>November</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>17</day><month>November</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>11</day><month>October</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>October</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Ocean acidification is challenging phenotypic plasticity of
individuals and populations. Calanoid copepods (zooplankton) are shown to be
fairly plastic against altered pH conditions, and laboratory studies indicate
that transgenerational effects are one mechanism behind this plasticity. We
studied phenotypic plasticity of the copepod <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. in the
course of a pelagic, large-volume mesocosm study that was conducted to
investigate ecosystem and biogeochemical responses to ocean acidification. We
measured copepod egg production rate, egg-hatching success, adult female size
and adult female antioxidant capacity (ORAC) as a function of acidification
(<italic>f</italic>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 365–1231 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm) and as a function of
quantity and quality of their diet. We used an egg transplant experiment to
reveal whether transgenerational effects can alleviate the possible negative
effects of ocean acidification on offspring development. We found significant
negative effects of ocean acidification on adult female size. In addition, we
found signs of a possible threshold at high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, above which adaptive
maternal effects cannot alleviate the negative effects of acidification on
egg-hatching and nauplii development. We did not find support for the
hypothesis that insufficient food quantity (total particulate carbon
&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) or quality (C : N) weakens the
transgenerational effects. However, females with high-ORAC-produced eggs with
high hatching success. Overall, these results indicate that <italic>Acartia</italic>
sp. could be affected by projected near-future CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the atmosphere is
changing the carbon chemistry of the world's oceans. CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> dissolves in seawater, thereby decreasing ocean pH. Ocean acidification is
increasing fast and pH is expected to decrease by a further 0.14–0.43 pH
units during the coming century (IPCC, 2007). Acidification can cause
various problems to biochemical and physiological processes in aquatic
organisms. In addition to affecting calcification of calcareous organisms,
maintenance of acid-base equilibrium of body fluids may become more
difficult and have consequences, for example, on protein synthesis, metabolism
and volume control (Whiteley, 2011).</p>
      <p>In a changing environment, populations can respond in three main ways:
through plastic responses of individuals, through genetic changes across
generations or through escaping in space or time by modification of
phenology. During rapid change, phenotypic plasticity, i.e. the ability of
an individual or a population to alter its physiological state, appearance
or behaviour in response to the environment, is of major importance
(West-Eberhard, 2003). Theory predicts that higher plasticity evolves in
extreme environments and that spatial heterogeneity and dispersal select for
higher plasticity (Chevin et al., 2013). One could, therefore, hypothesise
that organisms inhabiting a variable environment, such as the study area,
could be fairly plastic in their response to ocean acidification because
they have to cope with both seasonal and sudden changes in pH (Almén et
al., 2014; Lewis et al., 2013).</p>
      <p>Proteomic studies suggest that oxidative stress is a common co-stress of
temperature and acidification (Tomanek, 2014). Increased production of
reactive oxygen species (ROS) may result in increased antioxidant and/or
repair costs as well as in reduced investment in reproduction or other
functions, such as immune defence. In addition, increased production of ROS
may lead to accumulation of oxidative damage and to acceleration
of senescence (Monaghan et al., 2009). There can also be a connection
between maternal oxidative balance and offspring quality. In birds, for
example, females allocate diverse antioxidants to the eggs that protect the
embryo from oxidative stress. This maternal effect has a positive effect on
offspring development and growth (Rubolini et al., 2006).</p>
      <p>Copepods (zooplankton) are indispensable to the functioning of the whole
pelagic ecosystem and contribute significantly to many ecosystem services
(Bron et al., 2011). They provide, for example, food for early life stages
as well as some adults of many economically important fish species
(Steele, 1974; Cushing, 1990).</p>
      <p>Previous results suggest that calanoid copepods have high buffering capacity
against projected ocean acidification for the year 2100 and beyond (Kurihara
and Ishimatsu, 2008; Weydmann et al., 2012; McConville et al., 2013; Vehmaa
et al., 2013), meaning that they are able to survive, grow, develop and
reproduce in lower pH (Reusch, 2014). However, there are also studies
showing negative impacts on moderate CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels (Fitzer et al., 2012),
whereas most of the negative impacts have been discovered for extreme carbon
storage scenarios (Kurihara et al., 2004; Mayor et al., 2007; Weydmann et
al., 2012). Many studies have tested only one life stage, adult females, and
have, therefore, possibly underestimated the effects of ocean acidification on
copepods (Cripps et al., 2014a). There are indications that transgenerational
effects are the mechanism responsible for the high plasticity of copepod
reproduction against altered pH conditions (Vehmaa et al., 2012). This
maternal effect is most likely dependent on the condition of the mother,
the availability of food and the quality of her diet (Vehmaa et al., 2012;
Pedersen et al., 2014a). Paternal effects can also influence offspring
traits. The exposure of both parents to CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to fewer adverse effects
on egg production and hatching than exposure of only gravid copepod females
(Cripps et al., 2014b). Thor and Dupont (2015) also highlight the importance
of testing transgenerational effects. They found significantly lower copepod
egg production after two generations when exposed to 900 and 1500 compared to
400 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm, but transgenerational effects alleviated the negative
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> response in 1500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm (Thor and Dupont, 2015).</p>
      <p>We tested direct and indirect effects of ocean acidification (i.e. via food
quantity and quality) on the copepod <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. egg production rate
(EPR), egg-hatching success (EH), female body size measured as prosome
length (PL), as well as antioxidant capacity (ORAC). The study was conducted
in association with the KOSMOS (Kiel Off-Shore Mesocosms for Ocean
Simulations) project in the Baltic Sea (Paul et al., 2015). The study was
intended to cover the low-productivity late spring and early summer period,
i.e. the post-spring bloom period when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations are at the
annual minimum. Over the annual cycle, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and pH vary substantially
at the study site as a result of biological activity and mixing/upwelling of
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-enriched deep water (Niemi, 1975; Omstedt et al., 2014). There are
also strong spatial gradients in seawater <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/pH, most prominently
between the surface layer and the CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-rich deeper waters (Almén et
al., 2014). Thus, the copepods in the study area are likely to experience
strong changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, both seasonally and during
their diurnal migration. Total particulate carbon
(TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) was used as the measure of food quantity.
Food quality was indicated by the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the same sized
fraction of seston (C : N &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) (Elser and Hasset,
1994; Sterner and Hessen, 1994). In addition, in order to separate
transgenerational plasticity (i.e. maternal and paternal effects) and the
effect of environment on copepod egg-hatching and development, we performed
an egg-transplant experiment. Half of the produced eggs were allowed to
develop in respective mesocosm water and the other half in water collected
outside the mesocosm bags.</p>
      <p>Due to the high buffering capacity of <italic>Acartia</italic> sp., we hypothesised
that there are no <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-related differences in egg production rate, egg-hatching success and prosome length between the mesocosms. In addition, we
hypothesised that copepod eggs hatch and develop better in the same
environment in which they are produced, because transgenerational effects can
alleviate the negative effects of environmental change. Our third hypothesis
stated that low food quantity (TPC) and poor quality (high C : N) will
weaken the maternal effect by deteriorating the condition of the mother.
Finally, we tested whether mothers with higher ORAC produce
better quality offspring (EH) by calculating correlation coefficients between
the two variables.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
      <p>The study was performed in summer 2012 in the vicinity of Tvärminne
Zoological Station on the south-western coast of Finland. Six large mesocosms
were moored on site at the beginning of June. To enclose the natural plankton
community, the mesocosms were left open with only a 3 mm-sized mesh net
covering the top and the bottom during filling. After 4 days, the net was
removed and the top was pulled up 1.5 m above the water surface and closed
at the bottom (Riebesell et al., 2013; Paul et al., 2015). pH was <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in the mesocosms prior to adjustment were
237 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm (average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD of daily measurements from
all bags). Four mesocosm were manipulated with CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-enriched seawater,
during three consecutive days to reach <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations of
600–1650 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm (Paul et al., 2015). Two untreated mesocosms were
used as controls. The water column was mixed at the beginning of the
experiment to avoid salinity stratification. Due to outgassing, CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was
also added on day 15 to the upper 7 m of the high-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mesocosms to
maintain the treatment levels. No nutrients were added.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Sampling</title>
      <p>Sampling took place once a week during the first 4 weeks of the experiment,
and once more at the end of the whole experiment (days 3, 10, 17, 24 and 45).
Mesozooplankton were sampled from all mesocosms by taking two hauls with a
300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m net (17 cm diameter) from 17 m depth. The samples were
rinsed into containers with 4 L of seawater from respective mesocosm, taken
from 9 m depth with a water sampler (Limnos, Hydrobios). On the same day,
integrated water samples (0–17 m) were collected from all mesocosms and the
Baltic Sea, directly into 1.2 L Duran bottles that were closed without head
space. Water samples were kept in cool bags and zooplankton samples were
protected from light until transported to a temperature- and light-controlled
room at Tvärminne Zoological Station within 4 h. The light–dark cycle
in the room was 16 : 8 h and light intensity was 7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>mol
photons m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (LI-COR LI-1000). Temperature followed the in
situ temperature [9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (day 3), 11 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (day 10),
15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (day 17), 16 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (days 24 and 45)].</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Measurements of egg production, egg-hatching success and prosome
length</title>
      <p>Twenty adult <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. (17 females and 3 males) were picked with
pipettes from each sample using stereo microscopes and gently placed in
prefilled glass bottles with respective mesocosm water. The bottles were
closed without head space, to minimise CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-outgassing during the
incubation. pH in the bottles was measured before closing and right after
opening them at the end of the incubation using an Ecosense pH 10
pH/temperature pen (Table S1 in the Supplement). The pen was calibrated with
standard buffer solutions (Certipur, Titripac pH 4.00, 7.00 and 10.00) every
second day. The bottles were incubated in temperature- and light-controlled
room in the conditions described above (Sect. 2.1) and mixed 3 times a day,
and their place on the shelf was changed randomly. After the incubation
(24.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.3 h, average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD), the copepods and produced eggs
were filtered using 250 and 30 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m sieves respectively. The copepods
were counted and their viability checked before preserving them in
RNA<italic>later</italic> (Sigma). RNA<italic>later</italic> can affect size (Foley et al.,
2010), and the effect depends on the number of segments in the animal, i.e.
the more segments, the larger effect. Shrinkage is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 % for
copepods (E. Gorokhova, Stockholm University, personal
communication, 2015). Prosome length of the preserved
female copepods was measured using a stereo microscope (Leica MZ12) and
ocular micrometre (total magnification 100<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>). As all the measured
copepods were adult females, we assume the shrinkage to be of a similar
proportion for all individuals, which means that our results are quite
conservative and comparable between mesocosms.</p>
      <p>In the egg transplant experiment, the collected eggs were divided for
hatching into two 50 mL petri dishes with different conditions; one dish was
filled with respective mesocosm water and the other with Baltic water. The pH
of the water was measured as above before the incubations and right after the
petri dishes were opened after the incubation (Table S1). The eggs were
counted before the petri dishes were completely filled and sealed without
head space using Parafilm. Egg hatching was followed by counting the number
of remaining eggs on the dish through the lid using a stereo microscope twice
a day. When the number of eggs had remained the same on two consecutive
counting times, the dishes were opened and the water containing the remaining
eggs and hatched nauplii was preserved with acid Lugol's solution. The
hatching incubation time varied between 63.9 and 137.6 h, depending on
incubation temperature. <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. nauplii stages were determined
and the number of nauplii and remaining copepod eggs counted using a stereo
microscope.</p>
      <p>Some adults, copepodites, nauplii or eggs could have ended up in the
incubation bottles or petri dishes with the unfiltered incubation water. The
possible additional adults and their contribution to the EPR, eggs
copepod<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were taken into account as EPR was calculated using
the number of eggs and adult <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. females found in the
incubation bottles after the 24 h incubation. When estimating the
egg-hatching success (EH, %), the total number of hatched
<italic>Acartia</italic> sp. nauplii and remaining eggs at the end of the hatching
incubation were compared with the number of eggs were counted before the
hatching incubation. If the total number exceeded the egg number prior to
hatching, the most developed nauplii (&gt; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were considered to be carry-over individuals and were, therefore,
not considered in the estimation of EH. For an estimation of the nauplii
development rate, the development index (DI) was calculated (Knuckey et al.,
2005) accordingly.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>DI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the assigned stage value (0 for eggs, 1 for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 2 for
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 3 for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the number of individuals at
that stage. We assume all the <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. adults and nauplii to be
species <italic>A. bifilosa</italic>. However, because another <italic>Acartia</italic>
species, <italic>A. tonsa</italic> occurs in the area in late summer too (Katajisto
et al., 1998), we cannot be completely sure that we only had one species in
the experiments.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Antioxidant capacity</title>
      <p>For ORAC samples <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 live female <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. were picked from
every zooplankton sample onto a piece of plankton net in the temperature- and
light-controlled room on days 3, 10, 17 and 31. The net containing the
copepods was folded and stored in Eppendorf tubes at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The
samples were homogenised in 150 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>L Tris-EDTA buffer containing
1 % sarcosyl. The antioxidative capacity was assayed as ORAC (Ou et al.,
2001). As a source of peroxyl radicals, 2, 2-azobis (2-amidinopropane)
dihydrochloride (AAPH) (152.66 mM) was used and fluorescein was used as a
fluorescent probe (106 nM). We used trolox (218 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>M, Sigma-Aldrich)
as a standard and the assay was performed on a 96-well microplate and to each
well, 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>L sample, 30 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>L AAPH and 150 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>L
fluorescein were added. ORAC values were normalised to protein and expressed
as mg Trolox eq. mg protein<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Protein concentration was measured with
NanoOrange<sup>®</sup> (Life Technologies).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{C\,:\,N and TPC}?><title>C : N and TPC</title>
      <p>Samples for TPC and C : N were collected onto GF/F filters (Whatman,
nominal pore size 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) using gentle vacuum filtration
(&lt; 200 mbar), then stored in glass petri dishes at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. GF/F filters and petri dishes were combusted at
450 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C for 6 h before use. Gauze prefilters were used to separate
the size fraction &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m. Filters were not acidified to
remove inorganic carbon; therefore total particulate carbon was used. C and N
concentrations were determined on an elemental analyser (EuroEA) following
Sharp (1974), coupled by a Conflo II to a Finnigan Delta<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>Plus</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> mass
spectrometer and were used to calculate C : N ratios in mol : mol. For
further details on sampling and analyses, please refer to Paul et al. (2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Statistics</title>
      <p>The effect of acidification and food quantity and quality on <italic>Acartia </italic>sp. EPR, PL, ORAC and nauplii development index (DI) was tested using linear
mixed effect models (LMM) with restricted likelihood (REML) approximation
from the nlme-package (Pinheiro et al., 2014), where EPR, PL or ORAC were
used as response variables, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and
C : N as fixed explanatory variables and repeated measure of the mesocosms
over time as a random factor (Table 1). Due to the binomial nature of the
data, the effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N
on EH was tested with a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with Laplace
likelihood approximation, binomial error structure and logit link function
from the lme4-package (Bates et al., 2014) (Table 1). The average of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N measurements from
each mesocosm within 3 days before the zooplankton sampling were used as
explanatory variables for EPR, ORAC and EH, because 2–3 days are considered
to be an appropriate acclimatisation period for <italic>A. bifilosa</italic> (Yoon et
al., 1998; Koski and Kuosa, 1999). For PL, the average of all <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N measurements from the start of
the mesocosm experiment were used since PL reflects the environmental
conditions of the whole lifespan of the animal. In addition, day 3 was
excluded in the LMM testing the PL (Table 1), since 3 days is too short a
period for detecting differences in copepod size. Egg to adult generation
time for <italic>A. bifilosa</italic> at 17 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C is approximately 16 days of
which <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.5 d taken by nauplii stages and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.5 days by
copepodite stages (Yoon et al., 1998). Collinearity between all explanatory
variables was checked. Temperature was not considered in the models, because
it changed similarly in all the bags (Paul et al., 2015). The model
simplifications were done manually in a backward stepwise manner by removing
the non-significant effects and by using Akaike's information criterion
(AIC). We report <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics (EH) of the retained fixed effects. To
separate the effect of the hatching environment from the maternal
environment, EH and DI were divided by the corresponding values measured in
the Baltic Sea water. The ratio of Mesocosm EH (or DI) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Baltic EH (or
DI) &gt; 1 indicates that eggs hatch or develop better in the
maternal conditions (Mesocosm water), whereas the ratio &lt; 1
indicates that eggs hatch or develop better in the Baltic Sea water. The
effect of maternal environment (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
and C : N) on the ratio was tested with LMM, where the ratio of Mesocosm
EH <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Baltic EH and Mesocosm DI <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Baltic DI were used as response
variables; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N as fixed
explanatory variables; and repeated measure of the mesocosms over time as a
random factor. The model simplifications were made as above.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The structure of the full LMM or GLMM models that were used to test
the effects of ocean acidification, food quantity and food quality on copepod
EPR, EH, PL, ORAC, the ratio of EH mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> EH Baltic and
the ratio of nauplii DI mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DI Baltic. The
sampling days that were included in each of the models are listed. Repeated
measures of the same mesocosm bags were used as a random effect in all the models,
because copepods that come from the same bags are more alike than copepods
from different bags.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Response variable</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed effects</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Effect tested</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col9">Days included in the model </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">45</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EPR (LMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">X</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EH (GLMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PL (LMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">X</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ORAC (LMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EH MC/Baltic (LMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DI MC/Baltic (LMM)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ocean acidification</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">X</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quantity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">C : N (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Food quality</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>To test whether maternal ORAC correlates with egg-hatching success, Spearman
rank correlation tests were used. Data from days 3, 10 and 17 were included
in the test (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, EH result for MC (mesocosm) 6 in day 3 is missing) because those are the days when both ORAC
and EH were measured.</p>
      <p>All the statistical analyses were performed using software R 3.0.2 (R Core
Team, 2013), and the significance level was 0.05.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Egg production, prosome length, antioxidant capacity and egg-hatching
success</title>
      <p><italic>Acartia</italic> sp. EPR increased in all mesocosms between
day 3 and day 10, but decreased after that, reaching very low rates (1–2
eggs copepod<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on days 24 and 45 (Fig. 1a). Neither food
quantity (TPC, &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m), food quality (C : N,
&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m), nor ocean acidification (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had a
statistically significant effect on copepod egg production (Table 2), even
though there seemed to be variations in those parameters between the mesocoms
(Table 3).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>T-statistics of the retained fixed effects in the linear mixed
effect models testing the effects of TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m), C : N and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on EPR, female PL
and female ORAC. Repeated measures of same mesocosm
bags were used as a random effect in all the models, because copepods that
come from the same bags are more alike than copepods from different bags.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Response variable</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed effect</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Estimate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DF</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EPR</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.21 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">23</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.137</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PL</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.000027 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.000011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–2.39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.030</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.0037 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0017</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–2.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.042</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ORAC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.0045 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0021</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–2.17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.041</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Development of <italic>Acartia bifilosa</italic> <bold>(a)</bold> egg
production, <bold>(b)</bold>
prosome length (average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> s.e.), <bold>(c)</bold> antioxidant capacity and <bold>(d)</bold> egg-hatching success in the mesocosms and <bold>(e)</bold> egg-hatching success in Baltic
water when eggs are produced in mesocosms in the course of the study. The
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm) values represent the average in days 1–43
(Paul et al., 2015).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Ranges of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m and
C : N &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m that were used as explanatory variables
in the full LMM and GLMM models. Three-day averages (measured within the latest
three days of the sampling day) were used for testing the effects of the
explanatory variables on copepod EPR, ORAC and EH, whereas average of all measurements
since the start of the experiments until the sampling day were used when
testing the effects of the explanatory variables on copepod size (PL).
Variations in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m, and
C : N &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in the course
of the study are presented in Paul et al. (2015).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm) </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">C : N &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3-D average</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Average since</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3-D average</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Average since</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3-D average</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Average since</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Day 1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Day 1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Day 1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">267–477</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">267–365</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.1–31.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">21.4–31.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.51–8.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.26–8.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">745–1201</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">884–1121</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17.4–29.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20.4–29.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.94–8.36</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.79–8.20</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">275–481</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">274–368</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15.8–24.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">19.2–24.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.24–8.57</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.24–7.59</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">663–991</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">683–896</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16.5–34.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">21.0–34.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.14–8.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.60–7.81</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">390–565</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">390–497</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17.5–30.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">21.4–29.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.92–8.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.43–7.74</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MC 8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">874–1525</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1117–1413</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17.4–26.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">21.6–26.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.16–8.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.59–7.93</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>PL of <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. females increased during the
first week of the study; however there seemed to be some differences between
the mesocosms already on day 3, which was not included in the analysis
(Fig. 1b). From day 10 onwards, the smallest <italic>A. bifilosa</italic> adults were
found in the mesocosm with the highest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration (Fig. 1b).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, but also TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) had a statistically
significant negative impact on copepod body size (Table 2).</p>
      <p>ORAC of the female copepods increased from day 3 to day 10 in all mesocosms
(Fig. 1c). Interestingly, on day 3 ORAC was highest in the three mesocosms
and had the highest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatment, whereas on day 31 the situation
was reversed and ORAC was lowest in the three mesocosms with the highest
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1c). Despite this, only TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
had a statistically significant effect on ORAC, which decreases with
increasing TPC (Table 2).</p>
      <p>The overall EH was high throughout the study: over 80 % of the
<italic>Acartia</italic> sp. eggs hatched. As seen for EPR, PL and ORAC, EH also
increased from day 3 to day 10 in all mesocosms (Fig. 1d). Variance in the EH
between the four samplings was highest in the mesocosms with highest
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, whereas EH varied the least and remained &gt; 90 %
in both control mesocosms (MC 1, MC 5). In spite of this, only TPC
(&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) had a statistically significant negative effect
on EH (Table 4). Eggs that were produced in MCs 3, 5, 6 and 7 had fairly
similar hatching success in Baltic water, whereas the hatching success of
eggs that were produced in MCs 1 (control) and 8 (the highest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
was alternately either lower or higher than in the other MCs (Fig. 1e).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4"><caption><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics of the retained fixed effects in the GLMM testing the
effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N on EH. Repeated measures of the same mesocosm bags were used as a
random effect in the model, because copepods that come from the same bags
are more alike than copepods from different bags.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.90}[.90]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Response</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed effect</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Estimate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">variable</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EH</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.00062 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.00032</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.94</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.052</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.09557 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02505</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.82</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">&lt; 0.001</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Egg-hatching and nauplii development in mesocosm vs. Baltic Sea
conditions</title>
      <p>Neither the maternal food quantity (TPC) nor the quality (C : N) had a
statistically significant effect on offspring quality (EH and DI) in the egg
transplant experiment (Table 5). The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was the only detected
variable in the maternal environment that influenced the ratio of EH and DI
between mesocosm and Baltic conditions.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5" specific-use="star"><caption><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics of the retained fixed effects in the LMMs testing the
effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, TPC (&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and C : N on ratio
of EH mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> EH Baltic and nauplii development
index (DI) mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DI Baltic. Ratio &gt; 1: higher EH or DI in
the mesocosm water (maternal environment) than in the Baltic Sea water,
ratio &lt; 1: lower EH or DI in the mesocosm water (maternal
environment) than in the Baltic Sea water. Repeated measures of same
mesocosm bags were used as a random effect in both models, because copepods
that come from the same bags are more alike than copepods from different
bags.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Response variable</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed effect</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Estimate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DF</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EH mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> EH Baltic</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.000061 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.000028</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–2.20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.043</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DI mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DI Baltic</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–0.000145 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.000067</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–2.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.047</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Egg-hatching success for eggs hatching in the mesocosm water differed from
eggs hatching in the Baltic water. On days 3 and 10, hatching success was
higher in the mesocosm water for the control (MC 1, MC 5) and for
low-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-treatment bags (MC 7, MC 6), whereas eggs produced in
high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-treatment bags (MC 3, MC 8) showed higher hatching in the
Baltic water (Fig. 2a). Thus, there may be a threshold <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for
hatching success at high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, on days 17 and 24 the
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatment did not have a clear effect on hatching success.
Nevertheless, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> had a statistically significant negative effect on
the ratio of EH mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Baltic, meaning that egg hatching was higher
in the Baltic water than in the maternal environment when the maternal
environment had a high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 5). When the maternal environment had
low <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, the situation was reversed. The level of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> also
had a significant negative effect on the DI mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Baltic ratio
(Fig. 2b; Table 5).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Development of the ratio of <bold>(a)</bold> EH
mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> EH Baltic and <bold>(b)</bold> nauplii development index (DI) mesocosm <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DI Baltic during
the study. Ratio &gt; 1: higher EH or DI in the mesocosm water
(maternal environment) than in the Baltic Sea water, ratio &lt; 1:
lower EH or DI in the mesocosm water (maternal environment) than in the
Baltic Sea water. Note that because of different development times, the DI
values are not comparable between the days. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>atm) values represent the average in days 1–43 (Paul et al., 2015).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016-f02.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Correlations between antioxidant capacity and offspring quality</title>
      <p>Copepod ORAC was correlated significantly with copepod
egg-hatching success. The relationship between the two variables is positive
and stronger for eggs developing in the mesocosm water
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.75,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) than for eggs developing in the Baltic water
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.62, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.007) (Fig. 3).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Correlations of copepod EH with maternal
ORAC.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6171/2016/bg-13-6171-2016-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>In this study, conducted in semi-natural mesocosm environments, reproduction
of the <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. copepod showed high phenotypic buffering against
acidification, i.e. the species was able to maintain similar egg production
rates and high egg-hatching success in all <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions.
Nevertheless, we found a significant negative effect of ocean acidification
on adult female size. Even more interestingly, we found signs of a possible
threshold at high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for offspring development, above which adaptive
maternal effects cannot alleviate the negative effects of acidification on
egg hatching and nauplii development (Fig. 2). However, we did not find
support for the third hypothesis that lower TPC and
higher C : N would weaken the maternal effect by deteriorating
the condition of the mother. Conversely, higher TPC
&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m correlated negatively with egg-hatching success,
adult female size and antioxidant capacity, whereas C : N ratio did not
correlate with any of the measured variables significantly. Copepods were
possibly food limited in all the mesocosms, especially after day 17 due to a
sharp decline in Chl <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations and in phytoplankton community size
structure (Paul et al., 2015). Dominance of picophytoplankton that are too
small to be consumed by copepods could be the reason for the observed
negative effects of food quantity and may also have masked the food
quality effect. Also, after day 17 egg production rate was so low that it was
practically impossible to find differences in egg production between the
mesocosms. Finally, we found a positive correlation between maternal
antioxidant capacity and egg-hatching success, suggesting that the female
antioxidant defence might also protect the embryo from oxidative stress.</p>
      <p>The fact that <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. egg production and egg hatching were
unaffected by high <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> but the egg transplant experiment revealed
that development was slower for nauplii at high CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> supports the
importance of looking beyond egg production and egg hatching, which is also
pointed out by Pedersen et al. (2014b). They concluded that the first
endogenously feeding nauplii stages of <italic>Calanus finmarchicus</italic> are more
sensitive to CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-induced acidification than eggs or later nauplii stages
(Pedersen et al., 2014b). Longer developmental times in high
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> low pH have been observed in crustaceans, echinoderms and
molluscs (Cripps et al., 2014a and references therein). Weydmann et
al. (2012) also reported a significant developmental delay for
<italic>Calanus glacialis</italic> eggs when exposed to highly acidified conditions.
Pedersen et al. (2014a) observed that development of C4 copepodites of
<italic>C. finmarchicus</italic> was delayed by 8.9 days in high-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatments
in comparison to the control condition, when also the previous generation had
been exposed to the same conditions.</p>
      <p>We expected maternal effects to be most obvious in a high-stress situation
(high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatments), as seen for three-spined sticklebacks in a
study testing the effects of global warming (Shama et al., 2014). Instead,
egg hatching was higher and nauplii development faster in the maternal
environment than in the Baltic water, when the maternal environment had low
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (low stress). In the high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> maternal environment the
opposite response was observed, thus indicating that maternal effects are in
fact weak and cannot compensate for the higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels that
correspond to near-future levels or that the eggs are damaged by the high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. This suggests that <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. and its reproduction are
after all somewhat sensitive to ocean acidification. However, the effects
were not as clear over the following weeks as at the beginning of the study,
which may be due to an overall low egg number and large variation in hatching
after day 17 or to acclimation of the copepods to the treatment
conditions. In addition, the maternal effects seemed to weaken over time.
This could be due to the weakening condition of the mothers. In the absence of
fish predators, zooplankton density, especially <italic>Bosmina</italic> sp.
(cladocerans), increased strongly in the mesocosms (Lischka et al., 2015).
Senescence and food limitation were thus plausible problems for copepods and
a likely cause of weakening maternal provisioning. In addition, conditions in
the Baltic Sea changed after day 17 due to an upwelling event, which caused
an increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and decrease in pH (Paul et al., 2015). This might
have made the Baltic conditions less favourable for copepod egg development
and evened out the differences between high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mesocosms and the
Baltic conditions.</p>
      <p>A few studies have highlighted the importance of testing for
transgenerational effects to avoid over- or underestimation of the effects of
ocean acidification on copepods. Thor and Dupont (2015) found decreasing egg
hatching of <italic>Pseudocalanus acuspes</italic> with increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. In
addition, transgenerational effects alleviated the negative effects on egg
production and hatching of the second generation when the mothers had been
acclimatised to the same treatment. Also, a reciprocal transplant experiment
showed that the effect was reversible and an expression of phenotypic
plasticity (Thor and Dupont, 2015). Contrary to the current study, Pedersen
et al. (2014a) found no effect of the CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> environment on egg hatching or
development of prefeeding nauplii stages <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in their multigenerational study using <italic>C. finmarchicus</italic>. However, the development time of larger nauplii and copepodite
stages was increased by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, although the development delay was not
detected in the following generation (Pedersen et al., 2014a). Vehmaa et
al. (2012) studied combined effects of ocean acidification and warming and
found indications that negative effects on <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. reproductive
success can partly be combated with maternal effects. The used pH treatments
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.4 from ambient) were at the same level as the low-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatments in this study (MC 6, MC 7), which makes the results of
the two studies consistent.</p>
      <p>The measurements of female copepod antioxidant capacity were done in order to
provide possible additional information of the maternal provisioning of the
offspring. A preferable practice in oxidative stress studies is to measure
several of the four components consisting of free radical production,
antioxidant defences, oxidative damage and repair mechanisms (Monaghan et
al., 2009). In the current study we only have the estimate for the defences,
ORAC measurements, which makes our conclusions
slightly more uncertain. However, an earlier study with the same species has
indicated that, at intermediate stress levels, an upregulation of the
antioxidant system enhances protection against oxidative damage, but at
higher stress, the pro-oxidants may exceed the capacity of the antioxidant
system and lead to oxidative damage (Vehmaa et al., 2013). In this study,
upregulated antioxidant defence seemed to have a positive effect on offspring
quality, as indicated by the positive correlation between female ORAC and egg-hatching success. Higher ORAC in the two highest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mesocosms at the beginning of the study could be a sign of an upregulated antioxidant system
in a sudden stressful situation, whereas the lowest ORAC in the high-<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatments at day 31 (Fig. 1c) could be caused by prolonged
stress and exhausted antioxidant defence. The change from positive to
negative effect in the course of the study could explain why <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> did
not show a significant correlation with ORAC, whereas food quantity (TPC
&lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) did.</p>
      <p>Ismar et al. (2008) showed that <italic>Acartia</italic> spp. development can be
either slow or altered by certain algal groups causing death before the first
copepodite or reproductive stage. A non-optimal diet could explain why higher
food quantity would cause smaller adult female size, lower egg-hatching
success or lower antioxidant capacity. <italic>Skeletonema</italic>-diatoms had
fairly high abundance in the mesocosms during the first days of the
experiment when egg-hatching success was lowest in every mesocosm, but then
declined rapidly. Diatom-dominated phytoplankton composition has been shown
to cause low copepod egg-hatching success in the field (Miralto et al.,
1999). Another quality aspect is the size and shape of the food, which may
make it difficult to ingest or assimilate. From day 16 onwards, over 50 %
of chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was in picophytoplankton (&lt; 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) (Paul
et al., 2015), which is too small for <italic>Acartia</italic> consumption (Rollwagen
Bollens and Penry, 2003). Since we did not study what the copepods preyed
upon, we can only speculate on diet quantity and quality. Satiated food
conditions can strengthen the maternal or transgenerational effects. The
transgenerational effects were of minor importance for hatching success in
<italic>C.</italic> <italic>finmarchicus</italic> when exposed to long-term high-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
food-limited conditions (Pedersen et al., 2014a). Long-term stress and food
limitation could thus also be a reason for weakening maternal effects in
the current study.</p>
      <p>We found body size (prosome length) to be negatively affected by high
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The result seems to be mostly driven by the mesocosm with the
highest <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (MC 8), where the adult <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. copepods
were smallest on all the four sampling times that were included in the
analysis (days 10, 17, 24 and 45) (Fig. 1b). It takes <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.5 days for a
sixth-stage nauplius of <italic>A. bifilosa</italic> to develop through the five
copepodite stages and reach adulthood at 17 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Yoon et al., 1998).
According to the Bělehrádek's temperature function it takes 12–15
days for VI nauplii to reach adulthood at 9–11 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
(Bělehrádek, 1935; McLaren, 1966). The constants used in the equation
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1008</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>8.701</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were the same as used in Dzierzbicka-Glowacka et
al. (2009) for the Baltic Sea <italic>Acartia</italic> spp. It is thus possible that
the copepods could have developed through several stages causing the
differences in prosome length between the treatments on day 10. Lowered pH
may have increased copepods' energy requirements and if energy is reallocated
towards maintaining homeostasis, their somatic growth can be reduced.
Pedersen et al. (2014a) found <italic>C. finmarchicus</italic> body size to be
inversely related to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. They also found a higher respiration rate
under more acidified conditions and claimed that increased energy
expenditure via rising respiration and consecutive decreasing growth and
reproduction could lower the energy transfer to higher trophic levels, thus hampering the productivity of the whole ecosystem (Pedersen et al., 2014a).
This is especially alarming when considering the projected climate warming,
since copepod size is negatively correlated with temperature (Foster et al.,
2011). In addition to temperature, food quantity and quality can affect the
copepod body size (Hart and Bychek, 2011) and create surprising combined
effects with acidification. Garzke et al. (2016) reported an indirect
positive effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on copepod body size, which was explained by
higher food availability when acidification acted as a fertiliser for
phytoplankton. Temperature and food also interact because temperature affects
the respiration and metabolism, thus the satisfying diet depends on
temperature (Boersma et al., 2016). If high-CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> treatment (MC 8) caused
a developmental delay in maturation, as could be interpreted from the prosome
length results (Fig. 1b), the maturation would have occurred at a different
temperature than in other mesocosms and possibly in non-optimal food
conditions. Anyway, higher food quantity and quality would be expected to
increase copepod size, contrary to our results. It is, therefore, possible that
the used food quantity (TPC &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and quality
estimates (C : N &lt; 55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) do not fully describe the diet
that <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. was consuming in the mesocosms.</p>
      <p>Adult copepods have in general shown robustness against acidification (Mayor
et al., 2012; McConville et al., 2013), whereas eggs and nauplii appear to be
more sensitive (Cripps et al., 2014b; Fitzer et al., 2012). In addition,
there seem to be notable differences in sensitivity between species. Nauplii
production, adult female fatty acid content and ORAC
of <italic>Eurytemora affinis</italic> were not affected by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
current mesocosm campaign (Almén et al., 2016). Similarly, Lewis et
al. (2013) found differences in ocean acidification sensitivity between the
species <italic>Oithona similis</italic> and <italic>Calanus</italic> spp. (<italic>C. glacialis</italic> and<italic> C. hyperboreus)</italic>. They argued that <italic>O. similis</italic> is more sensitive to future ocean acidification than <italic>Calanus spp.</italic>, because <italic>O. similis</italic> remains in the surface waters whereas
<italic>Calanus</italic> spp. migrates vertically and encounters wider <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
ranges daily than <italic>O. similis</italic> (Lewis et al., 2013). The same applies
to <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. and <italic>E. affinis</italic> in our study area. Although
<italic>Acartia</italic> spp. is exposed to natural variability in pH environment due
to daily variations as well as due to staying at greater depths during the
day (low pH in deep water), it does not reside as deep as <italic>E. affinis</italic> (Almén et al., 2014) and may, therefore, show higher sensitivity
than <italic>E. affinis</italic> during the current mesocosm campaign (Almén et
al., 2016).</p>
      <p>The results obtained for <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. reproduction in the current
study seem to contradict the results obtained for the <italic>Acartia</italic> sp.
abundance determined in the mesocosms. Although our results indicate that
<italic>Acartia</italic> sp. reproduction is in fact sensitive to ocean
acidification, no <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> effect was found for the abundance of this
species (Lischka et al., 2015). It is possible that 45 days was not long
enough to detect small negative effects of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on copepod size, egg
hatching and nauplii development, to be reflected in copepod abundance. In
addition, especially at the beginning of the study, <italic>Acartia</italic> eggs in
the mesocosms might have ended up in the sediment trap before hatching due to
slow development at low temperatures, which might have made it difficult to
detect differences in <italic>Acartia</italic> abundance between the mesocosms. On a
longer timescale, small acidification-induced delays in offspring
development could translate into negative effects for the copepod population
and on energy transfer within the pelagic food web. In addition,
warming will probably enhance the sensitivity of the species towards ocean
acidification (Vehmaa et al., 2012, 2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Our results support the idea that it is important to look beyond egg
production as hatching and development can be more sensitive to ocean
acidification. Parental effects will likely be important in mediating some of
the negative effects of ocean acidification. For <italic>Acartia</italic> sp., the
transgenerational (maternal) effects may alleviate negative impacts of ocean
acidification but potentially only under exposure to medium levels of
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. We did not find support for the hypothesis suggesting that poorer
food quantity and quality would weaken the maternal effect by deteriorating
the condition of the mother. This could be due to the overall food
limitation, especially during the latter half of the study, or the fact that
our estimates of food quantity and quality did not describe the diet in a
satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, maternal antioxidant defence seems to
correlate positively with offspring egg-hatching success. Overall, these
results indicate that <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. could in fact be affected by
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels predicted for the year 2100 (IPCC, 2007). However, it is
important to remember that this study shows how today's copepods would react
to tomorrow's world; thus these results do not take into account the possible
effects of evolutionary adaptation. Transgenerational effects can buffer
short-term detrimental effects of ocean acidification, thus giving time for
genetic adaptation and assisting persistence of populations under
climate change.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p><italic>Acartia</italic> sp. copepod data (Vehmaa et al., 2016;
<uri>https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.867662</uri>), as well as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
TPC and C : N data (Paul et al., 2016;
<uri>https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.863032</uri>) are available online
from the PANGAEA Data Publisher for Earth and Environmental Science.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-6171-2016-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/bg-13-6171-2016-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p>A. Vehmaa planned the experiment, A. Vehmaa, A.-K. Almén, J. Engström-Öst, A. Brutemark conducted the
laboratory experiment, A. Vehmaa performed the statistical analyses, A. Paul analysed
TPC and C : N; S. Furuhagen analysed ORAC, U. Riebesell coordinated the whole project, A. Vehmaa and
A.-K. Almén shared the responsibility of writing the manuscript with contributions
from all co-authors.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We would like to thank three anonymous referees for their constructive
comments. We thank the KOSMOS team and all of the participants in the
mesocosm campaign for their support during the experiment and the
Tvärminne Zoological Station for their warm hospitality, support and use
of facilities for this experiment. In particular, we would like to thank
Andrea Ludwig for coordinating the campaign logistics and assistance with
CTD operations, Silke Lischka and Bettina Grönlund for assisting with
the zooplankton sampling, and the diving team. We also gratefully
acknowledge the captain and crew of R/V <italic>ALKOR</italic> (AL394 and AL397) for their
work transporting, deploying and recovering the mesocosms. This
collaborative project was funded by BMBF projects BIOACID II (FKZ 03F06550),
SOPRAN Phase II (FKZ 03F0611), and MESOAQUA (grant agreement number 228224),
Cluster of Excellence “The Future Ocean” (Project CP1141), and Academy of
Finland (project no. 276947).
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: K. G. Schulz<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: three anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Almén, A.-K., Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., and Engström-Öst, J.:
Coping with climate change? Copepods experience drastic variations in their
physicochemical environment on a diurnal basis, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.,
460, 120–128, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Almén, A.-K., Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., Bach, L., Lischka, S., Stuhr,
A., Furuhagen, S., Paul, A., Bermúdez, R., Riebesell, U., and
Engström-Öst, J.: Negligible effects of ocean acidification on
<italic>Eurytemora affinis</italic> (Copepoda) offspring production,
Biogeosciences, 13, 1037–1048, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1037-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-13-1037-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S.: lme4: Linear
mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, R package version 1.1-7, available
at: <uri>http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4</uri>, last
access: 11 November 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bělehrádek, J.: Temperature and living matter, Protoplasma
Monograph, No. 8 Borntrager, Berlin, 1935.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Boersma, M., Mathew, K. A., Niehoff, B., Schoo, K. L., Franco-Santos, R. M.,
and Meunier, C.: Temperature driven changes in the diet preference of
omnivorous copepods: no more meat when it's hot?, Ecol. Lett., 19, 45–53,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bron, J. E., Frisch, D., Goetze, E., Johnson, S. C., Lee, C. E., and Wyngaard,
G. A.: Observing copepods through a genomic lens, Front. Zool., 8, 22,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-22" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/1742-9994-8-22</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chevin, L.-M., Collins, S., and Lefévre, F.: Phenotypic plasticity and
evolutionary demographic responses to climate change: taking theory out to
the field, Funct. Ecol., 27, 966–979,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cripps, G., Lindeque, P., and Flynn, K. J.: Have we been underestimating the
effects of ocean acidification in zooplankton?, Glob. Change Biol., 20,
3377–3385,  2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Cripps, G., Lindeque, P., and Flynn, K. J.: Parental exposure to elevated
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> influences the reproductive success of copepods, J. Plankton Res.,
36, 1165–1174,  2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cushing, D. H.: Plankton production and year-class strength in fish
populations: an update of the match/mismatch hypothesis, Adv. Mar. Biol.,
26, 249–292, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Dzierzbicka-Glowacka, L., Lemieszek, A., and Zmijewska, M.I.:
Parameterisation of a population model for <italic>Acartia</italic> spp. in the
southern Baltic Sea. Part 1. Development time, Oceanologia, 51, 165–184,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Elser, J. J. and Hassett, R. P.: A stoichiometric analysis of the
zooplankton-phytoplankton interaction in marine and freshwater ecosystems,
Nature, 3070, 211–213, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Fitzer, S. C., Caldwell, G. S., Close, A. J., Clare, A. S., Upstill-Goddard,
R. C., and Bentley, M. G.: Ocean acidification induces multi-generational
decline in copepod naupliar production with possible conflict for
reproductive resource allocation, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 418–419,
30–36,  2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Foley, C. J., Ryan, D. J., and Höök, T. O.: Length reduction of larval
yellow perch and freshwater amphipods in RNA <italic>later</italic> solution, N. Am.
J. Fish. Manage., 30, 1143–1148, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Foster, J., Hirst, A. G., and Atkinson, D.: How do organisms change size with
changing temperature? The importance of reproductive method and ontogenic
timing, Funct. Ecol., 25, 1024–1031,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Garzke, J., Hansen, T., Ismar, S. M. H., and Sommer, U.: Combined effects of ocean
warming and acidification on copepod abundance, body size and fatty acid
content, PLoS ONE, 11, e0155952, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155952" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0155952</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hart, R. C. and E. A.: Bychek: Body size in freshwater planktonic
crustaceans: an overview of extrinsic determinants and modifying influences
of biotic interactions, Hydrobiologia, 668, 61–108,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. Fourth assessment report, available at: <uri>http://www.ipcc.ch</uri>,
(last access: 27 July 2015), 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Ismar, S. M. H., Hansen, T., and Sommer, U.: Effect of food concentration and
type of diet on <italic>Acartia</italic> survival and naupliar development, Mar.
Biol., 154, 335–343, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Katajisto, T., Viitasalo, M., and Koski, M.: Seasonal occurrence and
hatching of calanoid eggs in sediments of the northern Baltic Sea, Mar.
Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 163, 133–143, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Knuckey, R. M., Semmens, G. L., Mayer, R. J., and Rimmer, M. A.: Development of
an optimal microalgal diet for the culture of the calanoid copepod
<italic>Acartia sinjiensis</italic>: Effect of algal species and feed concentration
on copepod development, Aquaculture, 249, 339–51,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Koski, M. and Kuosa, H.: The effect of temperature, food concentration and
female size on the egg production of the planktonic copepod <italic>Acartia bifilosa</italic>, J. Plankton Res., 21, 1779–1789, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Kurihara, H. and A. Ishimatsu: Effects of high CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> seawater on the
copepod (<italic>Acartia tsuensis</italic>) through all life stages and subsequent
generations, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 56, 1086–1090,  2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Kurihara, H., Shimode, S., and Shirayama, Y.: Effects of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration on the egg production rate and early development of two marine
copepods (<italic>Acartia steueri</italic> and <italic>Acartia erythraea</italic>), Mar.
Poll. Bull., 49, 721–727, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Lewis, C. N., Brown, K. A., Edwards, L. A., Cooper, G., and Findlay, H. S.:
Sensitivity to ocean acidification parallels natural <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> gradients
experienced by Arctic copepods under winter sea ice, P. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA, 110, E4960–E4967,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lischka, S., Bach, L. T., Schulz, K.-G., and Riebesell, U.: Micro- and
mesozooplankton community response to increasing CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels in the
Baltic Sea: insights from a large-scale mesocosm experiment, Biogeosciences
Discuss., 12, 20025–20070, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-12-20025-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bgd-12-20025-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Mayor, D. J., Matthews, C., Cook, K., Zuur, A. F., and Hay, S.:
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-induced acidification affects hatching success in <italic>Calanus finmarchicus</italic>, Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 350, 91–97, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Mayor, D. J., Everett, N. R., and Cook, K. B.: End of century ocean warming and
acidification effects on reproductive success in a temperate marine copepod,
J. Plankton Res., 34, 258–262,  2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>McConville, K., Halsband, C., Fileman, E. S., Somerfield, P. J., Findlay,
H. S., and Spicer, J. I.: Effects of elevated CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on the reproduction of
two calanoid copepods, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 73, 428–434,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
McLaren, I. A.: Predicting development rate of copepod eggs, Biol. Bull.,
131, 457–469, 1966.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Miralto, A., Barone, G., Romano, G., Poulet, S. A., Ianora, A., Russo, G. L.,
Buttino, I., Mazzarella, G., Laabir, M., Cabrini, M., and Giacobbe, M. G.:
The insidious effects of diatoms on copepod reproduction, Nature, 402,
173–176, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Monaghan, P., Metcalfe, N. B., and Torres, R.: Oxidative stress as a mediator
of life history trade-offs: mechanisms, measurements and interpretation,
Ecol. Lett., 12, 75–92,  2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Niemi, Å.: Ecology of phytoplankton in the Tvärminne area, SW coast
of Finland, II. Primary production and environmental condition in the
archipelago and the seas zone, Acta Botanica Fennica, 105, 1–73, 1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Omstedt, A., Humborg, C., Pempkowiak, J., Perttilä, M., Rutgersson, A.,
Schneider, B., and Smith, B.: Biogeochemical Control of the Coupled
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> System of the Baltic Sea: A Review of the Results of
Baltic-C, AMBIO, 43, 49–59, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Ou, B. X., Hampsch-Woodill, M., and Prior, M.: Development and validation of
an improved oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay using fluorescein as
the fluorescent probe, J. Agr. Food. Chem., 49, 4619–4626, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Paul, A. J., Bach, L. T., Schulz, K.-G., Boxhammer, T., Czerny, J.,
Achterberg, E. P., Hellemann, D., Trense, Y., Nausch, M., Sswat, M., and
Riebesell, U.: Effect of elevated CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> on organic matter pools and
fluxes in a summer Baltic Sea plankton community, Biogeosciences, 12,
6181–6203, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-6181-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-12-6181-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Paul, A., Schulz, K. G., Achterberg, E. P., Hellemann, D., Nausch, M.,
Boxhammer, T., Bach, L. T., and Trense, Y.: KOSMOS Finland 2012 mesocosm
study: carbonate chemistry, particulate and dissolved matter pools, and
phytoplankton community composition using marker pigments (CHEMTAX),
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.863032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.863032</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Pedersen, S. A., Håkedal, O. L., Salaberria, I., Tagliati, A., Gustavson,
L. M., Jenssen, B. M., Olsen, A. J., and Altin, D.: Multigenerational exposure
to ocean acidification during food limitation reveals consequences for
copepod scope for growth and vital rates, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48,
12275–12284,  2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Pedersen, S. A., Våge, V. V., Olsen, A. J., Hammer, K. M., and Altin, D.:
Effects of elevated carbon dioxide (CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations on early
developmental stages of the marine copepod <italic>Calanus finmarchicus</italic>
Gunnerus (Copepoda: Calanoidae), J. Toxicol. Env. Heal. A, 77, 535–549,
2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., and R Core Team: nlme:
Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, R package version 3.1-118,
available at: <uri>http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme</uri> (last access: 26 June
2015), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at:
<uri>http://www.R-project.org/</uri> (last access: 27 March 2014), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Reusch, T. B .H.: Climate change in the oceans: evolutionary versus
phenotypically plastic responses of marine animals and plants, Evol. Appl.,
7, 104–122,  2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Riebesell, U., Czerny, J., von Bröckel, K., Boxhammer, T., Büden-
bender, J., Deckelnick, M., Fischer, M., Hoffmann, D., Krug, S. A., Lentz,
U., Ludwig, A., Muche, R., and Schulz, K. G.: Technical Note: A mobile
sea-going mesocosm system – new opportunities for ocean change research,
Biogeosciences, 10, 1835–1847, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Rollwagen Bollens, G. C. and Penry, D. L.: Feeding dynamics of
<italic>Acartia</italic> spp. copepods in a largen, temperate estuary (San Francisco
Bay, CA), Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 257, 139–158, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Rubolini, D., Romano, M., Bonisoli Alquati, A., and Saino, N.: Early
maternal, genetic and environmental components of antioxidant protection,
morphology and immunity of yellow-legged gull (<italic>Larus michahellis</italic>)
chicks, J. Evol. Biol., 19, 1571–1584,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Shama, L. N. S., Strobel, A., Mark, F. C., and Wegner, K.: Transgenerational
plasticity in marine sticklebacks: maternal effects mediate impacts of a
warming ocean, Funct. Ecol., 28, 1482–1493, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Sharp, J.: Improved analysis for particulate organic carbon and nitrogen
from seawater, Limnol. Oceanogr., 19, 984–989, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Steele, J. H.: The structure of marine ecosystems, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Sterner, R. W. and Hessen, D. O.: Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition
of aquatic herbivores, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 25, 1–29, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Thor, P. and Dupont, S.: Transgenerational effects alleviate severe
fecundity loss during ocean acidification in a ubiquitous planktonic
copepod, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2261–2271, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Tomanek, L.: Proteomics to study adaptations in marine organisms to
environmental stress, J. Proteomics, 105, 92–106,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., and Engström-Öst, J.: Maternal effects
may act as an adaptation mechanism for copepods facing pH and temperature
changes, PLoS ONE, 7, e48538, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048538" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0048538</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Vehmaa, A., Hogfors, H., Gorokhova, E., Brutemark, A., Holmborn, T., and
Engström-Öst, J.: Projected marine climate change: effects on
copepod oxidative status and reproduction, Ecol. Evol., 13, 4548–4557,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Vehmaa, A., Almén, A.-K., Brutemark, A., Paul, A., Riebesell, U.,
Furuhagen, S., and Engström-Öst, J.: KOSMOS Finland 2012 mesocosm
study: <italic>Acartia</italic> sp. egg production rate, adult female size, adult
female antioxidant capacity, and egg-hatching success and nauplii development
index of the egg transplant experiment, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.867662" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.867662</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
West-Eberhard, M. J.: Developmental plasticity and evolution, Oxford
University Press, New York, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Weydmann, A., Søreide, J. E., Kwasniewski, S., and Widdicombe, S.:
Influence of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>-induced acidification on the reproduction of a key
Arctic copepod <italic>Calanus glacialis</italic>, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 428,
39–42,  2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Whiteley, N. M.: Physiological and ecological responses of crustaceans to
ocean acidification, Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 430, 257–271,  2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Yoon, W. D., Shim, M. B., and Choi, J. K.: Description of the developmental
stages in <italic>Acartia bifilosa</italic> Giesbrecht (Copepoda: Calanoida), J.
Plankton Res., 20, 923–942, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Ocean acidification challenges copepod phenotypic plasticity</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Ocean acidification is challenging phenotypic plasticity of
individuals and populations. Calanoid copepods (zooplankton) are shown to be
fairly plastic against altered pH conditions, and laboratory studies indicate
that transgenerational effects are one mechanism behind this plasticity. We
studied phenotypic plasticity of the copepod <i>Acartia</i> sp. in the
course of a pelagic, large-volume mesocosm study that was conducted to
investigate ecosystem and biogeochemical responses to ocean acidification. We
measured copepod egg production rate, egg-hatching success, adult female size
and adult female antioxidant capacity (ORAC) as a function of acidification
(<i>f</i>CO<sub>2</sub>  ∼  365–1231 µatm) and as a function of
quantity and quality of their diet. We used an egg transplant experiment to
reveal whether transgenerational effects can alleviate the possible negative
effects of ocean acidification on offspring development. We found significant
negative effects of ocean acidification on adult female size. In addition, we
found signs of a possible threshold at high <i>f</i>CO<sub>2</sub>, above which adaptive
maternal effects cannot alleviate the negative effects of acidification on
egg-hatching and nauplii development. We did not find support for the
hypothesis that insufficient food quantity (total particulate carbon
&lt; 55 µm) or quality (C : N) weakens the
transgenerational effects. However, females with high-ORAC-produced eggs with
high hatching success. Overall, these results indicate that <i>Acartia</i>
sp. could be affected by projected near-future CO<sub>2</sub> levels.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Almén, A.-K., Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., and Engström-Öst, J.:
Coping with climate change? Copepods experience drastic variations in their
physicochemical environment on a diurnal basis, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.,
460, 120–128, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Almén, A.-K., Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., Bach, L., Lischka, S., Stuhr,
A., Furuhagen, S., Paul, A., Bermúdez, R., Riebesell, U., and
Engström-Öst, J.: Negligible effects of ocean acidification on
<i>Eurytemora affinis</i> (Copepoda) offspring production,
Biogeosciences, 13, 1037–1048, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1037-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-13-1037-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S.: lme4: Linear
mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, R package version 1.1-7, available
at: <a href="http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4" target="_blank">http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4</a>, last
access: 11 November 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bělehrádek, J.: Temperature and living matter, Protoplasma
Monograph, No. 8 Borntrager, Berlin, 1935.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Boersma, M., Mathew, K. A., Niehoff, B., Schoo, K. L., Franco-Santos, R. M.,
and Meunier, C.: Temperature driven changes in the diet preference of
omnivorous copepods: no more meat when it's hot?, Ecol. Lett., 19, 45–53,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bron, J. E., Frisch, D., Goetze, E., Johnson, S. C., Lee, C. E., and Wyngaard,
G. A.: Observing copepods through a genomic lens, Front. Zool., 8, 22,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-22" target="_blank">doi:10.1186/1742-9994-8-22</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chevin, L.-M., Collins, S., and Lefévre, F.: Phenotypic plasticity and
evolutionary demographic responses to climate change: taking theory out to
the field, Funct. Ecol., 27, 966–979,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cripps, G., Lindeque, P., and Flynn, K. J.: Have we been underestimating the
effects of ocean acidification in zooplankton?, Glob. Change Biol., 20,
3377–3385,  2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Cripps, G., Lindeque, P., and Flynn, K. J.: Parental exposure to elevated
<i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub> influences the reproductive success of copepods, J. Plankton Res.,
36, 1165–1174,  2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cushing, D. H.: Plankton production and year-class strength in fish
populations: an update of the match/mismatch hypothesis, Adv. Mar. Biol.,
26, 249–292, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Dzierzbicka-Glowacka, L., Lemieszek, A., and Zmijewska, M.I.:
Parameterisation of a population model for <i>Acartia</i> spp. in the
southern Baltic Sea. Part 1. Development time, Oceanologia, 51, 165–184,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Elser, J. J. and Hassett, R. P.: A stoichiometric analysis of the
zooplankton-phytoplankton interaction in marine and freshwater ecosystems,
Nature, 3070, 211–213, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Fitzer, S. C., Caldwell, G. S., Close, A. J., Clare, A. S., Upstill-Goddard,
R. C., and Bentley, M. G.: Ocean acidification induces multi-generational
decline in copepod naupliar production with possible conflict for
reproductive resource allocation, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 418–419,
30–36,  2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Foley, C. J., Ryan, D. J., and Höök, T. O.: Length reduction of larval
yellow perch and freshwater amphipods in RNA <i>later</i> solution, N. Am.
J. Fish. Manage., 30, 1143–1148, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Foster, J., Hirst, A. G., and Atkinson, D.: How do organisms change size with
changing temperature? The importance of reproductive method and ontogenic
timing, Funct. Ecol., 25, 1024–1031,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Garzke, J., Hansen, T., Ismar, S. M. H., and Sommer, U.: Combined effects of ocean
warming and acidification on copepod abundance, body size and fatty acid
content, PLoS ONE, 11, e0155952, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155952" target="_blank">doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155952</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hart, R. C. and E. A.: Bychek: Body size in freshwater planktonic
crustaceans: an overview of extrinsic determinants and modifying influences
of biotic interactions, Hydrobiologia, 668, 61–108,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. Fourth assessment report, available at: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch" target="_blank">http://www.ipcc.ch</a>,
(last access: 27 July 2015), 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Ismar, S. M. H., Hansen, T., and Sommer, U.: Effect of food concentration and
type of diet on <i>Acartia</i> survival and naupliar development, Mar.
Biol., 154, 335–343, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Katajisto, T., Viitasalo, M., and Koski, M.: Seasonal occurrence and
hatching of calanoid eggs in sediments of the northern Baltic Sea, Mar.
Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 163, 133–143, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Knuckey, R. M., Semmens, G. L., Mayer, R. J., and Rimmer, M. A.: Development of
an optimal microalgal diet for the culture of the calanoid copepod
<i>Acartia sinjiensis</i>: Effect of algal species and feed concentration
on copepod development, Aquaculture, 249, 339–51,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Koski, M. and Kuosa, H.: The effect of temperature, food concentration and
female size on the egg production of the planktonic copepod <i>Acartia
bifilosa</i>, J. Plankton Res., 21, 1779–1789, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kurihara, H. and A. Ishimatsu: Effects of high CO<sub>2</sub> seawater on the
copepod (<i>Acartia tsuensis</i>) through all life stages and subsequent
generations, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 56, 1086–1090,  2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kurihara, H., Shimode, S., and Shirayama, Y.: Effects of CO<sub>2</sub>
concentration on the egg production rate and early development of two marine
copepods (<i>Acartia steueri</i> and <i>Acartia erythraea</i>), Mar.
Poll. Bull., 49, 721–727, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Lewis, C. N., Brown, K. A., Edwards, L. A., Cooper, G., and Findlay, H. S.:
Sensitivity to ocean acidification parallels natural <i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub> gradients
experienced by Arctic copepods under winter sea ice, P. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA, 110, E4960–E4967,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lischka, S., Bach, L. T., Schulz, K.-G., and Riebesell, U.: Micro- and
mesozooplankton community response to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the
Baltic Sea: insights from a large-scale mesocosm experiment, Biogeosciences
Discuss., 12, 20025–20070, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-12-20025-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bgd-12-20025-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Mayor, D. J., Matthews, C., Cook, K., Zuur, A. F., and Hay, S.:
CO<sub>2</sub>-induced acidification affects hatching success in <i>Calanus
finmarchicus</i>, Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 350, 91–97, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Mayor, D. J., Everett, N. R., and Cook, K. B.: End of century ocean warming and
acidification effects on reproductive success in a temperate marine copepod,
J. Plankton Res., 34, 258–262,  2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
McConville, K., Halsband, C., Fileman, E. S., Somerfield, P. J., Findlay,
H. S., and Spicer, J. I.: Effects of elevated CO<sub>2</sub> on the reproduction of
two calanoid copepods, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 73, 428–434,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
McLaren, I. A.: Predicting development rate of copepod eggs, Biol. Bull.,
131, 457–469, 1966.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Miralto, A., Barone, G., Romano, G., Poulet, S. A., Ianora, A., Russo, G. L.,
Buttino, I., Mazzarella, G., Laabir, M., Cabrini, M., and Giacobbe, M. G.:
The insidious effects of diatoms on copepod reproduction, Nature, 402,
173–176, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Monaghan, P., Metcalfe, N. B., and Torres, R.: Oxidative stress as a mediator
of life history trade-offs: mechanisms, measurements and interpretation,
Ecol. Lett., 12, 75–92,  2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Niemi, Å.: Ecology of phytoplankton in the Tvärminne area, SW coast
of Finland, II. Primary production and environmental condition in the
archipelago and the seas zone, Acta Botanica Fennica, 105, 1–73, 1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Omstedt, A., Humborg, C., Pempkowiak, J., Perttilä, M., Rutgersson, A.,
Schneider, B., and Smith, B.: Biogeochemical Control of the Coupled
CO<sub>2</sub>–O<sub>2</sub> System of the Baltic Sea: A Review of the Results of
Baltic-C, AMBIO, 43, 49–59, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Ou, B. X., Hampsch-Woodill, M., and Prior, M.: Development and validation of
an improved oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay using fluorescein as
the fluorescent probe, J. Agr. Food. Chem., 49, 4619–4626, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, A. J., Bach, L. T., Schulz, K.-G., Boxhammer, T., Czerny, J.,
Achterberg, E. P., Hellemann, D., Trense, Y., Nausch, M., Sswat, M., and
Riebesell, U.: Effect of elevated CO<sub>2</sub> on organic matter pools and
fluxes in a summer Baltic Sea plankton community, Biogeosciences, 12,
6181–6203, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-6181-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-12-6181-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, A., Schulz, K. G., Achterberg, E. P., Hellemann, D., Nausch, M.,
Boxhammer, T., Bach, L. T., and Trense, Y.: KOSMOS Finland 2012 mesocosm
study: carbonate chemistry, particulate and dissolved matter pools, and
phytoplankton community composition using marker pigments (CHEMTAX),
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.863032" target="_blank">doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.863032</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Pedersen, S. A., Håkedal, O. L., Salaberria, I., Tagliati, A., Gustavson,
L. M., Jenssen, B. M., Olsen, A. J., and Altin, D.: Multigenerational exposure
to ocean acidification during food limitation reveals consequences for
copepod scope for growth and vital rates, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48,
12275–12284,  2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Pedersen, S. A., Våge, V. V., Olsen, A. J., Hammer, K. M., and Altin, D.:
Effects of elevated carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentrations on early
developmental stages of the marine copepod <i>Calanus finmarchicus</i>
Gunnerus (Copepoda: Calanoidae), J. Toxicol. Env. Heal. A, 77, 535–549,
2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., and R Core Team: nlme:
Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, R package version 3.1-118,
available at: <a href="http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme" target="_blank">http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme</a> (last access: 26 June
2015), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at:
<a href="http://www.R-project.org/" target="_blank">http://www.R-project.org/</a> (last access: 27 March 2014), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Reusch, T. B .H.: Climate change in the oceans: evolutionary versus
phenotypically plastic responses of marine animals and plants, Evol. Appl.,
7, 104–122,  2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Riebesell, U., Czerny, J., von Bröckel, K., Boxhammer, T., Büden-
bender, J., Deckelnick, M., Fischer, M., Hoffmann, D., Krug, S. A., Lentz,
U., Ludwig, A., Muche, R., and Schulz, K. G.: Technical Note: A mobile
sea-going mesocosm system – new opportunities for ocean change research,
Biogeosciences, 10, 1835–1847, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Rollwagen Bollens, G. C. and Penry, D. L.: Feeding dynamics of
<i>Acartia</i> spp. copepods in a largen, temperate estuary (San Francisco
Bay, CA), Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 257, 139–158, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Rubolini, D., Romano, M., Bonisoli Alquati, A., and Saino, N.: Early
maternal, genetic and environmental components of antioxidant protection,
morphology and immunity of yellow-legged gull (<i>Larus michahellis</i>)
chicks, J. Evol. Biol., 19, 1571–1584,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Shama, L. N. S., Strobel, A., Mark, F. C., and Wegner, K.: Transgenerational
plasticity in marine sticklebacks: maternal effects mediate impacts of a
warming ocean, Funct. Ecol., 28, 1482–1493, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Sharp, J.: Improved analysis for particulate organic carbon and nitrogen
from seawater, Limnol. Oceanogr., 19, 984–989, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Steele, J. H.: The structure of marine ecosystems, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Sterner, R. W. and Hessen, D. O.: Algal nutrient limitation and the nutrition
of aquatic herbivores, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 25, 1–29, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Thor, P. and Dupont, S.: Transgenerational effects alleviate severe
fecundity loss during ocean acidification in a ubiquitous planktonic
copepod, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2261–2271, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Tomanek, L.: Proteomics to study adaptations in marine organisms to
environmental stress, J. Proteomics, 105, 92–106,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Vehmaa, A., Brutemark, A., and Engström-Öst, J.: Maternal effects
may act as an adaptation mechanism for copepods facing pH and temperature
changes, PLoS ONE, 7, e48538, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048538" target="_blank">doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048538</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Vehmaa, A., Hogfors, H., Gorokhova, E., Brutemark, A., Holmborn, T., and
Engström-Öst, J.: Projected marine climate change: effects on
copepod oxidative status and reproduction, Ecol. Evol., 13, 4548–4557,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Vehmaa, A., Almén, A.-K., Brutemark, A., Paul, A., Riebesell, U.,
Furuhagen, S., and Engström-Öst, J.: KOSMOS Finland 2012 mesocosm
study: <i>Acartia</i> sp. egg production rate, adult female size, adult
female antioxidant capacity, and egg-hatching success and nauplii development
index of the egg transplant experiment, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.867662" target="_blank">doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.867662</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
West-Eberhard, M. J.: Developmental plasticity and evolution, Oxford
University Press, New York, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Weydmann, A., Søreide, J. E., Kwasniewski, S., and Widdicombe, S.:
Influence of CO<sub>2</sub>-induced acidification on the reproduction of a key
Arctic copepod <i>Calanus glacialis</i>, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 428,
39–42,  2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Whiteley, N. M.: Physiological and ecological responses of crustaceans to
ocean acidification, Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser., 430, 257–271,  2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Yoon, W. D., Shim, M. B., and Choi, J. K.: Description of the developmental
stages in <i>Acartia bifilosa</i> Giesbrecht (Copepoda: Calanoida), J.
Plankton Res., 20, 923–942, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
