4.8 Article

Iron deficiency increases growth and nitrogen-fixation rates of phosphorus-deficient marine cyanobacteria

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 238-245

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2014.104

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) [0962309, 1260490]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Ocean Sciences [962309, 1260490] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine dinitrogen (N-2)-fixing cyanobacteria have large impacts on global biogeochemistry as they fix carbon dioxide (CO2) and fertilize oligotrophic ocean waters with new nitrogen. Iron (Fe) and phosphorus (P) are the two most important limiting nutrients for marine biological N-2 fixation, and their availabilities vary between major ocean basins and regions. A long-standing question concerns the ability of two globally dominant N-2-fixing cyanobacteria, unicellular Crocosphaera and filamentous Trichodesmium, to maintain relatively high N-2-fixation rates in these regimes where both Fe and P are typically scarce. We show that under P-deficient conditions, cultures of these two cyanobacteria are able to grow and fix N-2 faster when Fe deficient than when Fe replete. In addition, growth affinities relative to P increase while minimum concentrations of P that support growth decrease at low Fe concentrations. In Crocosphaera, this effect is accompanied by a reduction in cell sizes and elemental quotas. Relatively high growth rates of these two biogeochemically critical cyanobacteria in low-P, low-Fe environments such as those that characterize much of the oligotrophic ocean challenge the common assumption that low Fe levels can have only negative effects on marine primary producers. The closely interdependent influence of Fe and P on N-2-fixing cyanobacteria suggests that even subtle shifts in their supply ratio in the past, present and future oceans could have large consequences for global carbon and nitrogen cycles.

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