3.9 Article

Does nutrient enrichment decouple algal-bacterial production in periphyton?

期刊

出版社

NORTH AMER BENTHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1899/07-108.1

关键词

algal-bacterial interaction; bacterial production; ecological stoichiometry; eutrophication; microbial interactions; nutrient criteria; nutrient ratios; nutrient regeneration; periphyton; photosynthesis; streams; water quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coupled production between algae and bacteria in stream epilithon was assessed along a nutrient-enrichment gradient in 8 Texas streams with open canopies. Photosynthesis (PS) and bacterial biomass production (BBP) were measured simultaneously using a dual-label radioassay (C-14-HCO3- uptake and 3 H-L-leucine incorporation into protein) on multiple samples within a stream reach. PS and BBP were measured after light (1200-1500 mu mol m(-2) s(-1)) and dark incubations. The degree of coupled production between algae and bacteria within a stream was estimated as the covariation (i.e., correlation or covariance) between PS and BBP derived from unshaded replicates in each stream. Streamwater nutrients ranged from 0.18 to 8.1 mg/L total N and 0.009 to 2.0 mg/L total P. Epilithon N and P content (as % dry mass) and C:N:P ratios varied widely among streams and were positively correlated with streamwater nutrient concentrations. Mean BBP measured in light incubations (BBPL) was greater than mean BBP measured in dark incubations (BBPD), and the difference between the 2 means (BBPL - BBPD) was positively correlated with mean PS among streams (R-2 = 0.53). Covariance between PS and BBPL within streams (COVPS-BBP) decreased as epilithon nutrient content increased. COVPS-BBP was positively correlated with both epilithon ON (R-2 = 0.78) and C:P (R-2 = 0.77) among streams. These results suggest that algal and bacterial production are decoupled by nutrient enrichment, and that algae might rely more heavily on bacterial-regenerated nutrients than on streamwater nutrients to support production in nutrient-poor streams.

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

3.9
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