4.4 Article

Standing stocks, production, and respiration of phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria in the western Arctic Ocean

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.10.018

Keywords

Bacterial production; Primary production; Carbon cycle; Arctic; Ice coverage; Temperature effects

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [OPP 0124733, OPP 0125464]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Standing stocks and production rates for phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria were examined during four expeditions in the western Arctic Ocean (Chukchi Sea and Canada Basin) in the spring and summer of 2002 and 2004. Rates of primary production (PP) and bacterial production (BP) were higher in the summer than in spring and in shelf waters than in the basin. Most surprisingly, PP was 3-fold higher in 2004 than in 2002; ice-corrected rates were 1581 and 458 Mg C m(-2) d(-1), respectively, for the entire region. The difference between years was mainly due to low ice coverage in the summer of 2004. The spatial and temporal variation in PP led to comparable variation in BR Although temperature explained as much variability in BP as did PP or phytoplankton biomass, there was no relationship between temperature and bacterial growth rates above about 0 degrees C. The average ratio of BP to PP was 0.06 and 0.79 when ice-corrected PP rates were greater than and less than 100 mg C m(-2) d(-1), respectively; the overall average was 0.34. Bacteria accounted for a highly variable fraction of total respiration, from 3% to over 60% with a mean of 25%. Likewise, the fraction of PP consumed by bacterial respiration, when calculated from growth efficiency (average of 6.9%) and BP estimates, varied greatly over time and space (7% to > 500%). The apparent uncoupling between respiration and PP has several implications for carbon export and storage in the western Arctic Ocean. (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available