4.2 Article

Molecular approach (PCR-DGGE) to diet analysis in young Antarctic krill Euphausia superba

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 319, 期 -, 页码 155-165

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps319155

关键词

Antarctic krill; Euphausia superba; diet; DGGE; 18S rDNA; sea ice microbial community; omnivory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antarctic krill Euphausia superba Dana comprise a key component of the Southern Ocean food web, yet despite decades of research, questions concerning the regional, seasonal and ontogenetic differences in their diet remain. All current methods used to characterize krill diet have limitations for identifying the full complement of the diet. Using DNA as a marker molecule, our goal in this study has been to evaluate the efficacy of a PCR-DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) approach targeting the 18S rDNA gene to discriminate among diet constituents in gut and fecal pellet samples from young Antarctic krill relative to their feeding environment-the seawater and sea ice microbial community. We conducted 2 laboratory-based feeding experiments with known food items and 3 field samplings of both the krill and their feeding environment. Sequenced PCR-DGGE phylotypes from laboratory trials clearly distinguished diatom and copepod prey, while in situ feeding analyses revealed that a broad diversity of taxa were ingested, including diatoms (Bacillariophyta, the most prevalent group detected), dinoflagellates, cryptomonads, prasinophytes, ciliates, cercozoans, choanoflagellates, turbellarians and (possibly) sponge larvae. Band image analyses allowed environmental and diet phylotypes to be matched. On average, 32% of those from the environment were present in the diet; conversely, of the phylotypes detected in the diet, an average of 59% were in common with the environment. Changes in environmental phylotypes among sampling dates were reflected by similar changes in the krill diet as potential prey diversity (richness) decreased during a phytoplankton bloom.

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

4.2
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