4.5 Article

Microbial biomass and viral infections of heterotrophic prokaryotes in the sub-surface layer of the central Arctic Ocean

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2007.04.019

关键词

bacteria; Phytoplankton; viruses; bacteriophages; Biomass; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seawater samples were collected for microbial analyses between 55 and 235 in depth across the Arctic Ocean during the SCICEX 97 expedition (03 September-02 October 1997) using a nuclear submarine as a research platform. Abundances of prokaryotes (range 0.043-0.47 x 10(9)dm(-3)) and viruses (range 0.68-11 x 10(9)dm(-3)) were correlated (r = 0.66, n = 150) with an average virus: prokaryote ratio of 26 (range 5-70). Biomass of prokaryotes integrated from 55 to 235m ranged from 0.27 to 0.85 g Cm-2 exceeding that of phytoplankton (0.005-0.2 g Cm-2) or viruses (0.02-0.05 g Cm-2) over the same depth range by an order of magnitude on average. Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), we estimated that 0.5% of the prokaryote community on average (range 0-1.4%) was visibly infected with viruses, which suggests that very little of prokaryotic secondary production was lost due to viral lysis. Intracellular viruses ranged from 5 to >200/cell, with an average apparent burst size of 45 +/- 38 (mean +/- s.d.; it = 45). TEM also revealed the presence of putative metal-precipitating bacteria in 8 of 13 samples, which averaged 0. 3 % of the total prokaryote community (range 0- 1%). If these prokaryotes are accessible to protistan grazers, the Fe and Mn associated with their capsules might be an important source of trace metals to the planktonic food web. After combining our abundance and mortality data with data from the literature, we conclude that the biomass of prokaryoplankton exceeds that of phytoplankton when averaged over the upper 250 m of the central Arctic Ocean and that the fate of this biomass is poorly understood. (C) 2007 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

4.5
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