4.6 Review

Potential contribution of planktonic components to ammonium cycling in the coastal area off central-southern Chile during non-upwelling conditions

期刊

PROGRESS IN OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 92-95, 期 -, 页码 43-49

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2011.07.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. COPAS Center [150100007]
  2. Fundacion Andes
  3. MECESUP [UCO0002]
  4. Marine Genomics postdoctoral fellowship [PBCT RUE 004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential contributions of different microbial components (<20 mu m) and metabolisms to ammonium cycling were assessed during non-upwelling conditions in a coastal area off Concepcion (similar to 36.5 degrees S). Assays with specific inhibitors to estimate rates of ammonium consumption and production, and carbon assimilation associated with photolithotrophic and chemolithoautotrophic (nitrification) metabolisms in the water column were performed. Despite low water column concentrations of ammonium in wintertime, intense ammonium transformations were registered. Prokaryotes (or bacterioplankton) contributed most to ammonium generation rates over the entire water column; these rates increased with depth (0.4-3.1 mu M d(-1)). In surface waters (10 m depth), aerobic ammonium oxidation (potentially by Bacteria and Archaea) was the dominant consumption process (average 0.7 mu M d(-1)) whereas in the subsurface layer (20 and 50 m depth), unexpectedly, eukaryotes accounted for most of its consumption (average 2.1 mu M d(-1)). Nitrification oxidized an important proportion of the ammonium in both layers (from 25% to 100%) and provided regenerated nitrate. The integrated water column rates of chemosynthesis (0.005 g C m(-2) d(-1)) represented a large proportion (51%) of the total dark carbon fixation during the non-upwelling season when integrated rates of photosynthesis are relatively low (0.42 g C m(-2) d(-1)) and microbial food webs dominate the transfer of carbon within this coastal system. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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