4.3 Article

Phylogenetic diversity of eukaryotic marine microbial plankton on the Scotian Shelf Northwestern Atlantic Ocean

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 344-363

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbt123

关键词

phytoplankton; 18S rRNA gene; marine microbial eukaryotes; protists; spring bloom; sub-chlorophyll maxima

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. AZMP of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Bedford Institute of Oceanography
  3. The fonds de recherche du Quebec (FQRNT)
  4. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytoplankton on the Scotian Shelf (SS) are well studied using microscopy and flow cytometry (FCM). These tools provide a picture of a diatom dominated spring bloom, and summer-autumn communities dominated by the cyanobacterium Synechococcus. FCM studies have shown that non-diatom microbial eukaryotes are present throughout the year, but the diversity and seasonality of these often smaller difficult to identify species are not well known. We investigated the taxonomic identity of surface and sub-chlorophyll maxima communities, using cloning and sequencing of the 18S rRNA gene, in April and October, along two inshore to offshore transects. Here, we report new taxonomic records and evidence of novel taxa in this well-studied system. For example, during April, previously unreported Phaeocystis spp. were recovered and picophytoplankton `patches' identified from FCM were marked by the Bolido-Parmales complex. The October communities were phylogenetically diverse with chlorophytes more prevalent. Among heterotrophic taxa, choanoflagellates were characteristic of April along with two clades of uncultivated marine stramenopiles (MAST) clades; MAST-7 and MAST-1. In contrast, MAST-4 was more prevalent in October. There were also onshore versus offshore differences, with the April offshore communities more similar to October communities, reflecting nutrient draw-down and a post-bloom community offshore in April.

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

4.3
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