4.7 Article

Large Phaeodaria in the twilight zone: Their role in the carbon cycle

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 2579-2594

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lno.10961

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [OCE-0417616, OCE-1026607, OCE-1637632, OCE-1614359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in in situ imaging allow enumeration of abundant populations of large Rhizarians that compose a substantial proportion of total mesozooplankton biovolume. Using a quasi-Lagrangian sampling scheme, we quantified the abundance, vertical distributions, and sinking-related mortality of Aulosphaeridae, an abundant family of Phaeodaria in the California Current Ecosystem. Inter-cruise variability was high, with average concentrations at the depth of maximum abundance ranging from < 10 to > 300 cells m(-3), with seasonal and interannual variability associated with temperature-preferences and regional shoaling of the 10 degrees C isotherm. Vertical profiles showed that these organisms were consistently most abundant at 100-150 m depth. Average turnover times with respect to sinking were 4.7-10.9 d, equating to minimum in situ population growth rates of similar to 0.1-0.2 d(-1). Using simultaneous measurements of sinking organic carbon, we find that these organisms could only meet their carbon demand if their carbon : volume ratio were similar to 1 mu g C mm(-3). This value is substantially lower than previously used in global estimates of rhizarian biomass, but is reasonable for organisms that use large siliceous tests to inflate their cross-sectional area without a concomitant increase in biomass. We found that Aulosphaeridae alone can intercept > 20% of sinking particles produced in the euphotic zone before these particles reach a depth of 300 m. Our results suggest that the local (and likely global) carbon biomass of Aulosphaeridae, and probably the large Rhizaria overall, needs to be revised downwards, but that these organisms nevertheless play a major role in carbon flux attenuation in the twilight zone.

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