4.5 Article

Vertical distribution of phytoplankton biomass, production and growth in the Atlantic subtropical gyres

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2006.07.008

关键词

phytoplankton; biomass; primary production; growth; Atlantic subtropical gyres; AMT

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NER/O/S/2001/00680] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ninety-four stations were sampled in the Atlantic subtropical gyres during 10 cruises carried out between 1995 and 2001, mainly in boreal spring and autumn. Chlorophyll a (Chl-a) and primary production were measured during all cruises, and phytoplankton biomass was estimated in part of them. Picoplankton (< 2 mu m) represented > 60% of total Chl-a concentration measured at the surface, and their contribution to this variable increased with depth. Phytoplankton carbon concentrations were higher in the upper metres of the water column, whereas Chl-a showed a deep maximum (DCM). At each station, the water column was divided into the upper mixed layer (ML) and the DCM layer (DCML). The boundary between the two layers was calculated as the depth where Chl-a concentration was 50% of the maximum Chl-a concentration. On average DCML extends from 67 to 126 in depth. Carbon to Chl-a (C:Chl-a) ratios were used to estimate phytoplankton carbon content from Chl-a in order to obtain a large phytoplankton carbon dataset. Total C:Chl-a ratios averaged (+/- s.e.) 103 +/- 7 (n = 22) in the ML and 24 +/- 4 (n = 12) in the DCML and were higher in larger cells than in picoplankton. Using these ratios and primary production measurements, we derived mean specific growth rates of 0.17 +/- 0.01 d(-1) (n = 173) in the ML and 0.20 +/- 0.01 d(-1) (n = 165) in the DCML although the differences were not significant (t-test, p > 0.05). Our results suggest a moderate contribution of the DCML (43%) to both phytoplankton biomass and primary production in the Atlantic subtropical gyres. (c) 2006 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