Photoacclimation of Arctic Ocean phytoplankton to shifting light and nutrient limitation

Lewis, Kate M.; Arntsen, A. E.; Coupel, Pierre; Joy‐Warren, Hannah L.; Lowry, Kate E.; Matsuoka, Atsushi; Mills, Matthew M.; Dijken, Gert L. van; Selz, Virginia; Arrigo, Kevin R.

doi:10.1002/lno.11039

Cited by 62 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from the ICESCAPE campaign do not support the conclusion of Yun et al (2016) that primary productivity is decreasing in the Chukchi Sea. Lewis et al (2018) show that productivity during our study period averaged 2.5 ± 4.6 g C m −2 d −1 over 39 stations in the Chukchi Sea, which was greater than in any of the studies cited by Yun et al (2016). In fact, the highest numbers they cite (Hameedi, 1978) were collected in July, the same month as the ICESCAPE campaign.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…Likewise, cells can reduce the cellular concentration of protein-rich light harvesting complexes, as well as other components of the photosynthetic electron transport chain that are composed of N-rich proteins. However, decreasing the size of the antennae that captures photons has the disadvantage that it either reduces the functional absorption cross section (σ PSII ) or decreases the number of photosystem components, thereby reducing the rate at which electrons can flow through the photosynthetic electron transport chain (1/τ PSII ) (Moore et al, 2006;Lewis et al, 2018). Another phytoplankton response to N limitation may be an increase in NO 3 − transporters (Hildebrand and Dahlin, 2000) which likely leads to increased N uptake rates when NO 3 − becomes available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nitrogen Limitation of the Summer Phytoplankton and Heterotrophic Prokaryote Communities in the Chukchi Sea

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major changes to Arctic marine ecosystems have resulted in longer growing seasons with increased phytoplankton production over larger areas. In the Chukchi Sea, the high productivity fuels intense benthic denitrification creating a nitrogen (N) deficit that is transported through the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean, where it likely fuels N fixation. Given the rapid pace of environmental change and the potentially globally significant N deficit, we conducted experiments aimed at understanding phytoplankton and microbial N utilization in the Chukchi Sea. Ship-board experiments tested the effect of nitrate (NO 3 −) additions on both phytoplankton and heterotrophic prokaryote abundance, community composition, photophysiology, carbon fixation and NO 3 − uptake rates. Results support the critical role of NO 3 − in limiting summer phytoplankton communities to small cells with low production rates. NO 3 − additions increased particulate concentrations, abundance of large diatoms, and rates of carbon fixation and NO 3 − uptake by cells >1 µm. Increases in the quantum yield and electron turnover rate of photosystem II in +NO 3 − treatments suggested that phytoplankton in the ambient dissolved N environment were N starved and unable to build new, or repair damaged, reaction centers. While some increases in heterotrophic prokaryote abundance and production were noted with NO 3 − amendments, phytoplankton competition or grazers likely dampened these responses. Trends toward a warmer more stratified Chukchi Sea will likely enhance summer oligotrophic conditions and further N starve Chukchi Sea phytoplankton communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogen Limitation of the Summer Phytoplankton and Heterotrophic Prokaryote Communities in the Chukchi Sea

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The elemental stoichiometry of phytoplankton varies significantly through acclimation and adaptation (Quigg et al, , 2011Finkel et al, 2016), modulates fitness in different environments (Deutsch and Weber, 2012), global ocean carbon storage (Galbraith and Martiny, 2015), and the nutrition of higher trophic levels (Mitra et al, 2007). Population growth rates of phytoplankton depend on resource availability (Caperon and Meyer, 1972a,b;Paasche, 1973;Laws and Bannister, 1980;Pedersen and Borum, 1996;Xu et al, 2010) and also vary through acclimation and adaptation (Falkowski and Owens, 1980;Levasseur et al, 1993;Litchman et al, 2002Litchman et al, , 2003Collos et al, 2005;Litchman and Klausmeier, 2008;Van Mooy et al, 2009;Lewis et al, 2019). The environmentally dependent growth rate of a population is an important component of its fitness and significant for ecological and biogeochemical modeling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Mechanistic Model of Macromolecular Allocation, Elemental Stoichiometry, and Growth Rate in Phytoplankton

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model of the growth rate and elemental stoichiometry of phytoplankton as a function of resource allocation between and within broad macromolecular pools under a variety of resource supply conditions. The model is based on four, empirically-supported, cornerstone assumptions: that there is a saturating relationship between light and photosynthesis, a linear relationship between RNA/protein and growth rate, a linear relationship between biosynthetic proteins and growth rate, and a constant macromolecular composition of the light-harvesting machinery. We combine these assumptions with statements of conservation of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and energy. The model can be solved algebraically for steady state conditions and constrained with data on elemental stoichiometry from published laboratory chemostat studies. It interprets the relationships between macromolecular and elemental stoichiometry and also provides quantitative predictions of the maximum growth rate at given light intensity and nutrient supply rates. The model is compatible with data sets from several laboratory studies characterizing both prokaryotic and eukaryotic phytoplankton from marine and freshwater environments. It is conceptually simple, yet mechanistic and quantitative. Here, the model is constrained only by elemental stoichiometry, but makes predictions about allocation to measurable macromolecular pools, which could be tested in the laboratory.

show abstract

“…In the Arctic, Lewis et al () observed a PAR ratio (ratio of surface PAR to mean ML PAR) of 3. In order to extend our comparison, we can use the photoacclimation parameter ( E k ) as an indicator of the average light in the mixed layer to which phytoplankton are acclimated, and we find a range of 4 to 11 ( E k /surface PAR) in the Arctic (Lewis et al, ) and North Atlantic (Moore et al, ). In our study, communities from low ML PAR became more photodamaged than those from higher ML PAR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Light Is the Primary Driver of Early Season Phytoplankton Production Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light and dissolved iron (dFe) availability control net primary production (NPP) in much of the Southern Ocean, but the primary controller during spring in the western Antarctic Peninsula has never been assessed. Underwater light and dFe availability are sensitive to climate‐induced changes in upper ocean circulation, stratification, and sea ice cover, which can affect NPP and phytoplankton community composition, both of which can alter carbon drawdown and food web structure. We estimated in situ NPP, net community production, and heterotrophic respiration and contextualized our field measurements with satellite‐based historical NPP estimates. Average light exposure mainly controlled NPP, while low dFe was associated with greatest NPP, indicating that spring phytoplankton growth is light‐limited and not dFe‐limited. Using experiments that simulated varying mixed layer depths by exposing phytoplankton to a short period of in situ surface light (up to 150× the mean light in the mixed layer, comparable to the difference in light experienced by phytoplankton mixed from 50 m to the surface), we assessed the effect of phytoplankton photoacclimation on NPP and relative success of individual taxa. At moderate light exposure (<30×), phytoplankton experienced little photodamage or changes in NPP, and Phaeocystis antarctica grew more than diatoms. Conversely, phytoplankton exposed to high light (>60×) experienced significant photodamage, declines in NPP, and declines in P. antarctica, with no consistent changes in diatoms. These results support the idea that P. antarctica is better adapted to variable light than diatoms and suggest that deeper mixed layers with variable light will favor P. antarctica.

show abstract

Photoacclimation of Arctic Ocean phytoplankton to shifting light and nutrient limitation

Cited by 62 publications

References 107 publications

Nitrogen Limitation of the Summer Phytoplankton and Heterotrophic Prokaryote Communities in the Chukchi Sea

Nitrogen Limitation of the Summer Phytoplankton and Heterotrophic Prokaryote Communities in the Chukchi Sea

A Mechanistic Model of Macromolecular Allocation, Elemental Stoichiometry, and Growth Rate in Phytoplankton

Light Is the Primary Driver of Early Season Phytoplankton Production Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About