4.5 Article

Phosphate uptake and growth kinetics of Trichodesmium (Cyanobacteria) isolates from the North Atlantic Ocean and the Great Barrier Reef, Australia

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 62-73

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.04063.x

关键词

cyanobacteria; P limitation; phosphate uptake; Redfield ratio; Trichodesmium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared inorganic phosphate (P-i) uptake and growth kinetics of two cultures of the diazotrophic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium isolated from the North Atlantic Ocean (IMS101) and from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (GBRTRLI101). Phosphate-limited cultures had up to six times higher maximum P-i uptake rates than P-replete cultures in both strains. For strain GBRTRLI101, cell-specific P-i uptake rates were nearly twice as high, due to larger cell size, but P-specific maximum uptake rates were similar for both isolates. Half saturation constants were 0.4 and 0.6 muM for P-i uptake and 0.1 and 0.2 muM for growth in IMS101 and GBRTRLI101, respectively. Phosphate uptake in both strains was correlated to growth rates rather than to light or temperature. The cellular phosphorus quota for both strains increased with increasing P-i up to 1.0 muM. The C:P ratios were 340-390 and N:P ratios were 40-45 for both strains under severely P-limited growth conditions, similar to reported values for natural populations from the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The C:P and N:P ratios were near Redfield values in medium with >1.0 muM P-i. The North Atlantic strain IMS101 is better adapted to growing on P-i at low concentrations than is GBRTRLI101 from the more P-i-enriched Great Barrier Reef. However, neither strain can achieve appreciable growth at the very low (nanomolar) P-i concentrations found in most oligotrophic regimes. Phosphate could be an important source of phosphorus for Trichodesmium on the Great Barrier Reef, but populations growing in the oligotrophic open ocean must rely primarily on dissolved organic phosphorus sources.

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