4.7 Article

Long-term pigment dynamics and diatom survival in dark sediment

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 1065-1074

出版社

AMER SOC LIMNOLOGY OCEANOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.4319/lo.2011.56.3.1065

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [833.02.2002]
  2. Darwin Center for Biogeology [142.16.1052]
  3. European Community [226354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to investigate survival of diatoms and long-term pigment dynamics in dark sediment, we incubated samples of homogenized, sieved, tidal-flat sediment for 1 yr in darkness. Microscopic observations revealed that some diatoms survived the full year in darkness and retained their pigments. Concentrations of the diatom-specific phospholipid-derived fatty acid (PLFA) 20:5 omega 3 indicate that these survivors represented only a small fraction of the original diatom community, probably no more than a few percent. Consequently, the effect of pigment retention in living diatoms on the overall pigment dynamics was negligible. The photosynthetic potential of the surviving diatoms was further investigated by re-exposing the sediment to light in the presence of (13)C-bicarbonate. Rapid (13)C fixation into algal PLFAs at a level similar to that in sediment freshly collected from the field indicates that surviving diatoms fully retained their photosynthetic capacity. Concentration dynamics of photosynthetic pigments generally reflected degradation of two different pools with clearly different loss rates. Losses during the first 1-2 months of the experiment (half lives of 6-22 d) reflected degradation of fresh algal material, while losses during the rest of the experiment reflected much slower degradation of more refractory pigment pools (half lives of >= 1 yr). Individual pigments showed distinctly different labilities, with losses ranging from 0% to 86% over the full year. The order of overall loss was fucoxanthin. chlorophyll c > chlorophyll a > diadinoxanthin > pheophorbide > pheophytin > diatoxanthin.

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

4.7
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