4.6 Article

Feeding of biofilm-dwelling nematodes examined using HPLC-analysis of gut pigment contents

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 680, 期 1, 页码 219-232

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-011-0920-0

关键词

Selectivity; Grazing; Diatoms; Periphyton; Meiofauna; Chromadorina

资金

  1. national CNRS [EC2CO-CYTRIX]
  2. French department of higher education and research (MESR) [31381-2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The natural feeding behaviour of the nematodes Chromadorina bioculata (Schultze in Carus 1857) and Chromadorina viridis (Linstow 1876) was studied in situ, within epilithic biofilms of the Garonne River (France). Based on their feedingtype characteristics and population dynamics, it was hypothesised that these species feed selectively on microphytobenthos (MPB) within the biofilm, and that among MPB groups, diatoms are preferred. Highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used for separation, identification and quantification of pigments both in nematode guts and in the biofilm. This is the first time that nematode gut pigment contents were examined under natural conditions. Diatoms dominated the MPB which also comprised cyanobacteria and green microalgae. The comparison between chlorophyll a content in nematode guts versus in the biofilm showed that C. bioculata and C. viridis fed opportunistically (non-selectively) on MPB within the biofilm. Only diatom biomarker pigments were found in nematode guts suggesting that they could preferentially fed on diatoms among MPB groups. However, the non-detection of biomarker pigments for other microphyte groups could be also linked to HPLC detection limits. It was estimated that Chromadorina nematodes daily ingested on average 0.03-0.67% of the MPB standing stock. This grazing covered only a small part of their energetic requirements, suggesting that besides MPB they probably also fed on other biofilm food sources. Some considerations on the applicability of the HPLC gut pigment analysis technique for the examination of nematode feeding are also presented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据