4.3 Article

Patterns of microbial community biomass, composition and HPLC diagnostic pigments in the Costa Rica upwelling dome

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 183-198

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbv086

Keywords

microbial community; biomass; epifluorescence microscopy; flow cytometry; HPLC pigments

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [OCE-0826626]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated biomass, size-structure, composition, depth distributions and spatial variability of the phytoplankton community in the Costa Rica Dome (CRD) in June-July 2010. Euphotic zone profiles were sampled daily during Lagrangian experiments in and out of the dome region, and the community was analyzed using a combination of digital epifluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry and HPLC pigments. The mean depth-integrated biomass of phytoplankton ranged 2-fold, from 1089 to 1858 mg C m(-2) (mean+/-SE = 1378+/-112 mg C m(-2)), among 4 water parcels tracked for 4 days. Corresponding mean (+/-SE) integrated values for total chlorophyll a (Chl a) and the ratio of autotrophic carbon to Chl a were 24.1+/-1.5 mg Chl a m(-2) and 57.5+/-3.4, respectively. Absolute and relative contributions of picophytoplankton (similar to 60%), Synechococcus (>33%) and Prochlorococcus (17%) to phytoplankton community biomass were highest in the central dome region, while >20 mu m phytoplankton accounted for <= 10%, and diatoms, <2%, of biomass in all areas. Nonetheless, autotrophic flagellates, dominated by dinoflagellates, exceeded biomass contributions of Synechococcus at all locations. Order-of-magnitude discrepancies in the relative contributions of diatoms (overestimated) and dinoflagellates (underestimated) based on diagnostic pigments relative to microscopy highlight potential significant biases associated with making community inferences from pigments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available