Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Mixotrophy In Chesapeake Bay Dinoflagellates

Bockstahler, Katrin R.; Coats, D. Wayne

doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.1993.tb04881.x

Cited by 125 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effects such as those reported here may contribute to the remarkable species diversity in the marine microplankton. The extreme complexity of the microplanktonic food web is also shown by the fact that the main prey in the present investigation, Ceratium furca, can act as a predator on ciliates (Bockstahler & Coats 1993, Smalley et al 1999 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Protoperidinium steinii on a Ceratium bloom

Olseng¹,

Naustvoll²,

Paasche³

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variations in heterotrophic dinoflagellate populations at a station in the inner Oslofjord, Norway, were studied by sampling at ca 4 d intervals. Cells were concentrated from 1 l samples by filtration before being counted in an inverted microscope. Additional data include autotrophic carbon biomass estimates based on microscopy of the phytoplankton, chlorophyll a (chl a) concentrations, and hydrography. A modest (2 to 4 µg chl a l -1 ) diatom bloom in September was followed by a large (up to 128 µg chl a l -1 ) dinoflagellate bloom in October, dominated by Ceratium furca. Altogether 25 thecate heterotrophic dinoflagellate species were recorded in this study. Their total biomass at all times was <1% of that of the autotrophic phytoplankton. Coinciding with the Ceratium bloom, there was a marked growth in Protoperidinium steinii, with cell numbers reaching > 2000 cells l -1. P. pyriforme, P. brevipes, P. curtipes, and Oblea rotunda showed more modest increases, while no significant response was seen in any of the other 20 heterotrophic dinoflagellates. In incubated plankton samples, we recorded 81 instances of P. steinii feeding on C. furca or on other dinoflagellates. Our study confirms previous laboratory findings suggesting that P. steinii belongs to the limited selection of Protoperidinium species capable of exploiting dinoflagellate prey in the natural environment. KEY WORDS: Oslofjord · Heterotrophic dinoflagellates · Protoperidinium steinii · Grazing · Ceratium furca Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 225: [161][162][163][164][165][166][167] 2002 lius & Kuylenstierna 1996, Matsuyama et al. 1999). This approach was used in a recent investigation of Protoperidinium species in the inner Oslofjord, based on approximate monthly sampling through 1 yr (Kjaeret et al. 2000). The present study from the same area made use of much more closely repeated sampling, carried out over 2 mo in the autumn during which a modest bloom consisting mainly of the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia pseudodelicatissima was succeeded by a large bloom dominated by the dinoflagellate Ceratium furca. Our goal was to see if close sampling combined with observations of live samples could provide more conclusive evidence of predator-prey relationships involving Protoperidinium spp. MATERIALS AND METHODSThe material was collected in the inner Oslofjord at or near the station Nakkholmen (59°53' N, 10°41' E) at time intervals of 2 to 7 d, from September 7 to November 1, 2000. Data on water temperature and salinity were obtained by means of a mini-STD probe. Sampling for chlorophyll a (chl a) was carried out by Niskin bottle casts from the surface to 20 m depth. The samples were filtered onto Whatman GF/C glass fiber filters (pore size ca 1 µm) and extracted with 90% acetone according to Strickland & Parsons (1972) for subsequent analysis in a Turner Designs TD-700 fluorometer. Samples for quantitative microscopy and for observations on live plankton were taken from 2 m depth, suppl...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Protoperidinium steinii on a Ceratium bloom

Olseng¹,

Naustvoll²,

Paasche³

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bird & Kalff 1986, 1987, Sanders et al 1989, Bockstahler & Coats 1993, Hall et al 1993, increasing attention has been directed towards the biology and physiology of these mixotrophs (e.g. Andersson et al 1989, Caron et al 1993, Skovgaard 1996a, Stoecker et al 1997.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiology of the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Fragilidium subglobosum. I. Effects of phagotrophy and irradiance on photosynthesis and carbon content

Skovgaard¹,

Hansen²,

Stoecker³

2000

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photosynthesis was measured for the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Fragilidium subglobosum grown with and without prey (Ceratium lineatum), at 5 different irradiances. Photosynthetic rates were measured in phototrophically and mixotrophically grown cultures by use of the single-cell 14 C uptake technique. Photosynthetic rates were reduced by 48 to 69% and cellular chlorophyll a (chl a) content was reduced by 13 to 67% in food-replete mixotrophic cultures as compared with strictly phototrophic cultures grown at the same irradiances. Under the same conditions, chl anormalized photosynthetic rates were thus 7 to 49% lower in mixotrophic cultures than in strictly phototrophic cultures. It is, therefore, suggested that either the photosynthetic apparatus becomes less efficient when the cells are phagotrophically active or the chl a-normalized photosynthesis is reduced because fed cells contain photosynthetically inactive chl a in their food vacuoles. When food is abundant, the greater part of the gross carbon uptake of F. subglobosum is acquired through phagotrophy even at irradiances saturating for photosynthesis.

show abstract

“…Several mixotrophic, bloom-forming dinoflagellates attain high concentrations in the middle and the northern regions of Chesapeake Bay Seliger, 1978, 1981;Harding, 1988;Harding and Coats, 1988;Bockstahler and Coats, 1993a;Stoecker et al, 1997). Among these species, a subsurface transport mechanism for Prorocentrum minimum in the Bay has been hypothesized Seliger 1978, 1981;Harding and Coats, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dinoflagellate blooms can represent a major portion of local phytoplankton biomass and production (Loftus et al, 1972;Sellner and Brownlee, 1990). Several species are reported to be involved in the formation of blooms in Chesapeake Bay, including Prorocentrum minimum (synonyms, P.mariae-lebouriae, P.triangulatum), Gymnodinium sanguineum (synonyms, G.splendens, G.nelsonii), Gyrodinium uncatenum and Ceratium furca (Tyler and Seliger, 1978;Bockstahler and Coats, 1993a). None of these dinoflagellates are reported to be toxic in the mid-Atlantic region, but dense blooms can nevertheless have harmful effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mixotrophy (i.e. simultaneous nutritional mode of heterotrophy and autotrophy) appears common among dinoflagellates (Sanders and Porter, 1988;Bockstahler and Coats, 1993a;Jacobson and Anderson, 1996;Li et al, 1996), and has been proposed to contribute to their success under varying environmental conditions (i.e. light and nutrient limitation) (Stoecker et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial and temporal aspects of Gyrodinium galatheanum in Chesapeake Bay: distribution and mixotrophy

Li¹,

Stoecker²,

Coats³

2000

Journal of Plankton Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Gyrodinium galatheanum (Braarud) Taylor 1995 is a common bloom-forming, potentially toxic photosynthetic dinoflagellate in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Abundance of this dinoflagellate achieved densities >4 ϫ 10 3 cells ml -1 in the mid-and upper Bay during late spring and early summer of 1995 and 1996. Ingestion of cryptophytes by this dinoflagellate was detected in most samples collected from the Bay. During late spring and early summer, mean number of ingested cryptophytes per G.galatheanum was as high as 0.46 for dinoflagellate populations located in surface waters of the mid-and upper Bay where dissolved inorganic phosphorus was low. Observations on the distribution of G.galatheanum in Chesapeake Bay show that populations of this dinoflagellate were usually restricted to waters with salinities ranging from 7 to 18 psu, seasonally progressed up the estuary, and usually co-occurred with cryptophytes. Correlation analysis indicates that abundance of G.galatheanum and incidence of feeding was negatively correlated with dissolved inorganic phosphorus, and that incidence of feeding was positively correlated with abundance of cryptophyte prey. These results indicate that G.galatheanum is an important component of the Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton during the spring and summer. Our results suggest that the phagotrophic capability possessed by this phototrophic dinoflagellate may contribute to its success in a varying-resource environment like Chesapeake Bay.

show abstract

Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Mixotrophy In Chesapeake Bay Dinoflagellates

Cited by 125 publications

References 52 publications

Grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Protoperidinium steinii on a Ceratium bloom

Grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Protoperidinium steinii on a Ceratium bloom

Physiology of the mixotrophic dinoflagellate Fragilidium subglobosum. I. Effects of phagotrophy and irradiance on photosynthesis and carbon content

Spatial and temporal aspects of Gyrodinium galatheanum in Chesapeake Bay: distribution and mixotrophy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About