4.8 Article

Significant CO2 fixation by small prymnesiophytes in the subtropical and tropical northeast Atlantic Ocean

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 1180-1192

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2010.36

关键词

CO2 fixation; primary production; prymnesiophytes; chrysophytes

资金

  1. NERC [NE/C003160/1]
  2. MRC [G0900740] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. NERC [noc010009, NE/G005125/1, NBAF010003] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0900740] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NBAF010003, NE/G005125/1, noc010009, NE/C003160/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global estimates indicate the oceans are responsible for approximately half of the carbon dioxide fixed on Earth. Organisms <= 5 mu m in size dominate open ocean phytoplankton communities in terms of abundance and CO2 fixation, with the cyanobacterial genera Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus numerically the most abundant and more extensively studied compared with small eukaryotes. However, the contribution of specific taxonomic groups to marine CO2 fixation is still poorly known. In this study, we show that among the phytoplankton, small eukaryotes contribute significantly to CO2 fixation (44%) because of their larger cell volume and thereby higher cell-specific CO2 fixation rates. Within the eukaryotes, two groups, herein called Euk-A and Euk-B, were distinguished based on their flow cytometric signature. Euk-A, the most abundant group, contained cells 1.8 +/- 0.1 mu m in size while Euk-B was the least abundant but cells were larger (2.8 +/- 0.2 mu m). The Euk-B group comprising prymnesiophytes (73 +/- 13%) belonging largely to lineages with no close cultured counterparts accounted for up to 38% of the total primary production in the subtropical and tropical northeast Atlantic Ocean, suggesting a key role of this group in oceanic CO2 fixation. The ISME Journal (2010) 4, 1180-1192; doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.36; published online 15 April 2010

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

4.8
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