Relative grazing impact of microzooplankton and mesozooplankton on a bloom of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum

Calbet, Albert; Vaqué, Dolors; Felipe, Jordi; Vila, Magda; Sala, M. Montserrat; Alcaraz, Miquel; Estrada, Marta

doi:10.3354/meps259303

Cited by 99 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…constitute a major component of the copepod diet (e.g. Calbet et al 2003). Copepod abundances may vary by orders of magnitude on both temporal and spatial scales.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Copepods induce paralytic shellfish toxin production in marine dinoflagellates

Selander¹,

Thor

Toth³

et al. 2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

182

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the thousands of unicellular phytoplankton species described in the sea, some frequently occurring and bloom-forming marine dinoflagellates are known to produce the potent neurotoxins causing paralytic shellfish poisoning. The natural function of these toxins is not clear, although they have been hypothesized to act as a chemical defence towards grazers. Here, we show that waterborne cues from the copepod Acartia tonsa induce paralytic shellfish toxin (PST) production in the harmful algal bloom-forming dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum. Induced A. minutum contained up to 2.5 times more toxins than controls and was more resistant to further copepod grazing. Ingestion of non-toxic alternative prey was not affected by the presence of induced A. minutum. The ability of A. minutum to sense and respond to the presence of grazers by increased PST production and increased resistance to grazing may facilitate the formation of harmful algal blooms in the sea.

show abstract

“…constitute a major component of the copepod diet (e.g. Calbet et al 2003). Copepod abundances may vary by orders of magnitude on both temporal and spatial scales.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Copepods induce paralytic shellfish toxin production in marine dinoflagellates

Selander¹,

Thor

Toth³

et al. 2006

Proc. R. Soc. B.

182

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Calbet et al 2003, Montagnes et al 2008. It has recently been postulated that dinoflagellate blooms may also result from the absence of efficient pathogens in newly invaded areas (Salomon et al 2003), a theory known as the 'enemy release hypothesis' in terrestrial ecology (Keane & Crawley 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection dynamics of Amoebophryidae parasitoids on harmful dinoflagellates in a southern Chilean fjord dominated by diatoms

Alves‐de‐Souza¹,

Varela²,

Iriarte³

et al. 2012

Aquat. Microb. Ecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parasitoids belonging to Amoebophryidae (Marine ALVeolate Group II or MALV II) infecting dinoflagellates were investigated in Reloncaví Fjord (southern Chile) in the austral summer 2009. Of the 12 dinoflagellate species recorded during monthly sampling, Prorocentrum micans, Dinophysis acuminata, and Phalacroma rotundata were infected by Amoebophrya spp. To assess parasitoid control of host populations, the short-term dynamics of Amoebophrya spp. were followed for 21 d during a bloom of P. micans. Host mortality induced by Amoebophrya spp. (% hosts killed per day) was estimated by dividing prevalence by the generation time of these parasitoids. Parasitism by Amoebophrya spp. was responsible for ~10% of P. micans mortality between 8 and 17 March. The small subunit rDNA genes of individual parasitoids infecting different host cells were sequenced, and like most environmental sequences retrieved from this ecosystem in January and February, all belonged to the MALV II Clade 4. However, as soon as the P. micans bloom was detected, the MALV II genetic composition changed drastically, with the detection of Clades 1, 4 (a different sub-cluster than before), 5, 6, and 12. Our results suggest that different types of parasitoids belonging to Amoebophryidae likely infect dinoflagellates in Reloncaví Fjord, offering the first demonstration of the presence of important genetic diversity in MALV II inhabiting an ecosystem where dinoflagellate hosts are not the usual dominant phytoplanktonic organisms.

show abstract

“…During brown tides, feeding selectivity by microzooplankton may result in lower grazing rates on A. anophagefferens relative to grazing rates on co-occurring phytoplankton, thereby promoting blooms (Gobler et al 2002, Caron et al 2004, Sieracki et al 2004. Microzooplankton grazing may contribute to the decline of a bloom ) during a period when microzooplankton abundances often increase (Calbet et al 2003). However, the species of microzooplankton that may be responsible for grazing on A. anophagefferens have been poorly characterized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mesozooplankton have the potential to influence brown tide dynamics by directly consuming Aureococcus anophagefferens, co-occurring algae, and/or micro-or nanoplanktonic zooplankton that might prey on the brown tide alga or competing algae (Calbet et al 2003, Sieracki et al 2004). In MD, Aureococcus anophagefferens experienced either no grazing or lower grazing by mesozooplankton compared to other autotrophic populations within Chincoteague Bay.…”

Section: Evidence For a Trophic Cascade From Mesozooplankton To Aureomentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of zooplankton in the onset and demise of harmful brown tide blooms (Aureococcus anophagefferens) in US mid-Atlantic estuaries

Deonarine¹,

Gobler

Lonsdale³

et al. 2006

Aquat. Microb. Ecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harmful brown tides caused by the pelagophyte Aureococcus anophagefferens have occurred in mid-Atlantic estuaries for 2 decades. Low grazing rates by microzooplankton have been implicated as a possible cause of these events, but no study to date has concurrently quantified zooplankton population densities and zooplankton grazing rates of A. anophagefferens cells. We conducted field studies from 2002 to 2004 to quantify grazing on the brown tide alga A. anophagefferens by meso-, micro-, and nanozooplankton, while concurrently establishing the composition of the plankton community. Research sites included an estuary that experienced an intense brown tide (Chincoteague Bay, Maryland [MD]; 2004: 2 × 10 6 cells ml ). The MD site was dominated by small autotrophs (< 5 µm), such as A. anophagefferens and other picoeukaryotes, and small heterotrophs, such as Paulinella ovalis, while the NY site hosted a range of large and small autotrophs and zooplankton. Experiments indicated that small zooplankton (3 to 5 µm) were consumers of A. anophagefferens at bloom and non-bloom locations. However, dilution experiments documented active grazing on most picoplankton except A. anophagefferens in MD, while grazing rates on the brown tide alga in NY were comparable to grazing rates on the total phytoplankton community and other picoplankton. Experimental enrichment of estuarine waters with mesozooplankton indicated a preferential avoidance of A. anophagefferens by grazers during intense blooms, but active consumption during non-bloom conditions. Differences in the effect of grazing between sites suggest that zooplankton may be controlling brown tides in NY, but allowing blooms to form due to low grazing pressure in MD. These findings further suggest that the zooplankton community in NY has changed from one which formerly avoided the consumption of A. anophagefferens to one which currently contributes to top-down control of brown tides.KEY WORDS: Harmful algal blooms · Brown tide · Aureococcus anophagefferens · Zooplankton · Grazing · Trophic cascade · Paulinella ovalis · Synechococcus sp. Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherAquat Microb Ecol 44: [181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195] 2006 have negatively affected the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria fishery as well (reviewed in Gobler et al. 2005).Aureococcus anophagefferens may adversely affect the growth and survival of micro-and mesozooplankton (Caron et al. 1989, Lonsdale et al. 1996, Sieracki et al. 2004. Microzooplankton (20 to 200 µm;Sieburth et al. 1978, Omori & Ikeda 1984 are particularly important in marine food webs as a trophic link between pico-(< 2 µm) and nanoplankton (2 to 20 µm) and mesozooplankton (> 200 µm;Lonsdale et al. 1996, Kiørboe 1998, Calbet & Landry 1999, Klein Breteler et al. 1999). During brown tides, feeding selectivity by microzooplankton may result in lower grazing rates on A. anophagefferens relative to grazing rates on co-occurring phytoplankton, thereby prom...

show abstract

Relative grazing impact of microzooplankton and mesozooplankton on a bloom of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum

Cited by 99 publications

References 40 publications

Copepods induce paralytic shellfish toxin production in marine dinoflagellates

Copepods induce paralytic shellfish toxin production in marine dinoflagellates

Infection dynamics of Amoebophryidae parasitoids on harmful dinoflagellates in a southern Chilean fjord dominated by diatoms

Role of zooplankton in the onset and demise of harmful brown tide blooms (Aureococcus anophagefferens) in US mid-Atlantic estuaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About