Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 7, pp 1641–1651 | Cite as

Dietary-induced responses in the phagotrophic flagellate Oxyrrhis marina

  • Florian Matthias HantzscheEmail author
  • Maarten Boersma
Original Paper


Primary producers may be limited by different nutrients as well as by light availability, which in turn affects their quality as food for higher trophic levels. Typically, algae with high C:N and/or C:P ratios are low-quality food for consumers. Heterotrophic protists are important grazers on these autotrophes, but despite their importance as grazers, knowledge of food quality effects on heterotrophic protists is sparse. In the present study, we examined how differently grown Rhodomonas salina (nutrient replete, N-limited and P-limited) affected the phagotrophic flagellate Oxyrrhis marina. The functional response of O. marina (based on ingested biovolume) did not show significant differences between food sources, thus food uptake was independent of food quality. O. marina was weakly homoeostatic which means that its C:N:P ratio still reflected the elemental composition of its food to some extent. Food quality had a significantly negative effect on the numerical response of O. marina. Whereas N-limited R. salina and nutrient replete R. salina resulted in similar growth rates, P-limited algae had a significantly negative effect on the specific growth rate of O. marina. Hence, the lack of elemental phosphorus of O. marina feeding on P-limited algae caused a reduction in growth. Thus, despite their weaker homoeostasis, heterotrophic protists are also affected by high C:P food in a similar way to crustacean zooplankton.


Food Quality High Respiration Rate Prey Concentration Heterotrophic Protist Experimental Bottle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study is a part of the PhD studies conducted by F.M.H. at the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Alfred-Wegener-Institut Bremerhaven, Germany, financed by GKSS Geesthacht, Germany, and complies with current German law on animal studies. We thank Daniel Schütz, Jacob Hauschildt and Anneke Purz for laboratory assistance and Martin Löder, Christina Gebühr, Katherina Schoo, Petra Brandt, Arne Malzahn and Nils Gülzow for useful discussions. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Sebastian Diehl and two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions improved the manuscript.


  1. Aberle N, Malzahn AM (2007) Interspecific and nutrient-dependent variations in stable isotope fractionation: experimental studies simulating pelagic multitrophic systems. Oecologia 154:291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson TR, Hessen DO, Elser JJ, Urabe J (2005) Metabolic stoichiometry and the fate of excess carbon and nutrients in consumers. Am Nat 165:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustin CB, Boersma M (2006) Effects of nitrogen stressed algae on different Acartia species. J Plankton Res 28:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow RG, Burkill PH, Mantoura RFC (1988) Grazing and degradation of algal pigments by marine protozoan Oxyrrhis marina. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 119:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boersma M, Kreutzer C (2002) Life at the edge: is food quality really of minor importance at low quantities? Ecology 83:2552–2561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns CW (1995) Effects of crowding and different food levels on growth and reproductive investment of Daphnia. Oecologia 101:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns CW (2000) Crowding-induced changes in growth, reproduction and morphology of Daphnia. Freshw Biol 43:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark LL, Ingall ED, Benner R (1998) Marine phosphorus is selectively remineralized. Nature 393:426–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darchambeau F, Faerovig PJ, Hessen DO (2003) How Daphnia copes with excess carbon in its food. Oecologia 136:336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson K, Roberts EC, Wilson AM, Mitchell E (2005) The role of prey nutritional status in governing protozoan nitrogen regeneration efficiency. Protist 156:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeMott WR, Gulati RD, Van Donk E (2001) Effects of dietary phosphorus deficiency on the abundance, phosphorus balance, and growth of Daphnia cucullata in three hypereutrophic Dutch lakes. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1871–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ederington MC, Mcmanus GB, Harvey HR (1995) Trophic transfer of fatty acids, sterols, and a triterpenoid alcohol between bacteria, a ciliate, and the copepod Acartia tonsa. Limnol Oceanogr 40:860–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elser JJ (2002) Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems: ideas, plans, and realities. Integr Comp Biol 42:1226–1326Google Scholar
  14. Elser JJ, Hassett RP (1994) A stoichiometric analysis of the zooplankton-phytoplankton interaction in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Nature 370:211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flynn KJ, Davidson K (1993) Predator-prey interactions between Isochrysis galbana and Oxyrrhis marina II. Release of nonprotein amines and faeces during predation of Isochrysis. J Plankton Res 15:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flynn KJ, Davidson K, Cunningham A (1996) Prey selection and rejection by a microflagellate: implications for the study and operation of microbial food webs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 196:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frost BW (1972) Effects of size and concentration of food particles on feeding behavior of marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol Oceanogr 17:805–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gismervik I (2006) Top-down impact by copepods on ciliate numbers and persistence depends on copepod and ciliate species composition. J Plankton Res 28:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldman JC, Caron DA, Dennett MR (1987) Nutrient cycling in a microflagellate food chain: IV. Phytoplankton-microflagellate interactions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 38:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldman JC, Dennett MR, Gordin H (1989) Dynamics of herbivorous grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina. J Plankton Res 11:391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzalez JM, Sherr EB, Sherr BF (1993) Differential feeding by marine flagellates on growing versus starving, and on motile versus nonmotile, bacterial prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 102:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grasshoff K, Kremling K, Ehrhardt M (1999) Methods of seawater analysis. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grover JP, Chrzanowski TH (2006) Stoichiometry and growth kinetics in the “smallest zooplankton”—phagotrophic flagellates. Arch Hydrobiol 167:467–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guillard RRL, Ryther JH (1962) Studies of marine planktonic diatoms. I. Cyclotella nana Hustedt and Detonula confervacea Cleve. Can J Microbiol 8:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammer A, Gruttner C, Schumann R (2001) New biocompatible tracer particles: use for estimation of microzooplankton grazing, digestion, and growth rates. Aquat Microb Ecol 24:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansen FC, Witte HJ, Passarge J (1996) Grazing in the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina: size selectivity and preference for calcified Emiliania huxleyi cells. Aquat Microb Ecol 10:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazzard SE, Kleppel GS (2003) Egg production of the copepod Acartia tonsa in Florida Bay: role of fatty acids in the nutritional composition of the food environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 252:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Helgen JC (1987) Feeding rate inhibition in crowded Daphnia pulex. Hydrobiologia 154:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hessen DO, Faerovig PJ, Andersen T (2002) Light, nutrients, and P: C ratios in algae: grazer performance related to food quality and quantity. Ecology 83:1886–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hessen DO, Agren GI, Anderson TR, Elser JJ, De Ruiter PC (2004) Carbon sequestration in ecosystems: the role of stoichiometry. Ecology 85:1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howarth RW (1988) Nutrient limitation of net primary production in marine ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen TC, Hessen DO (2007) Does excess dietary carbon affect respiration of Daphnia? Oecologia 152:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeong HJ, Kim JS, Yeong DY, Kim ST, Kim TH, Park MG, Lee CH, Seong KA, Kang NS, Shim JH (2003) Feeding by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina on the red-tide raphidophyte Heterosigma akashiwo: a potential biological method to control red tides using mass-cultured grazers. J Eukaryot Microbiol 50:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jeong HJ, Song JE, Kang NS, Kim S, Yoo YD, Park JY (2007) Feeding by heterotrophic dinoflagellates on the common marine heterotrophic nanoflagellate Cafeteria sp. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 333:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson MP (2000) Physical control of plankton population abundance and dynamics in intertidal rock pools. Hydrobiologia 440:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonasdottir SH (1994) Effects of food quality on the reproductive success of Acartia tonsa and Acartia hudsonica: laboratory observations. Mar Biol 121:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kimmance SA, Atkinson D, Montagnes DJS (2006) Do temperature-food interactions matter? responses of production and its components in the model heterotrophic flagellate Oxyrrhis marina. Aquat Microb Ecol 42:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klein B, Gieskes WWC, Kraay GG (1986) Digestion of chlorophylls and carotenoids by the marine protozoan Oxyrrhis marina studied by H.P.L.C analysis of algal pigments. J Plankton Res 8:827–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kolowith LC, Ingall ED, Benner R (2001) Composition and cycling of marine organic phosphorus. Limnol Oceanogr 46:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koski M (1999) Carbon: nitrogen ratios of Baltic Sea copepods—indication of mineral limitation? J Plankton Res 21:1565–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malzahn AM, Aberle N, Clemmesen C, Boersma M (2007) Nutrient limitation of primary producers affects planktivorous fish condition. Limnol Oceanogr 52:2062–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin-Creuzburg D, von Elert E (2004) Impact of 10 dietary sterols on growth and reproduction of Daphnia galeata. J Chem Ecol 30:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nakano S (1994) Carbon: nitrogen: phosphorus ratios and nutrient regeneration of a heterotrophic flagellate fed on bacteria with different elemental ratios. Arch Hydrobiol 129:257–271Google Scholar
  44. Opik H, Flynn KJ (1989) The digestive process of the dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina Dujardin feeding on the chlorophyte Dunaliella primolecta Butcher: a combined study of ultrastructure and free amino acids. New Phyt 113:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedersen MF, Hansen PJ (2003) Effects of high pH on the growth and survival of six marine heterotrophic protists. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 260:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plath K, Boersma M (2001) Mineral limitation of zooplankton: stoichiometric constraints and optimal foraging. Ecology 82:1260–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Selph KE, Landry MR, Laws EA (2003) Heterotrophic nanoflagellate enhancement of bacterial growth through nutrient remineralization in chemostat culture. Aquat Microb Ecol 32:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skovgaard A (1996) Mixotrophy in Fragilidium subglobosum (Dinophyceae): growth and grazing responses as functions of light intensity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 143:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  50. Sterner RW, Robinson JL (1994) Thresholds for growth in Daphnia magna with high and low phosphorus diets. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1228–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strom SL, Benner R, Ziegler S, Dagg MJ (1997) Planktonic grazers are a potentially important source of marine dissolved organic carbon. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1364–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tang KW, Taal M (2005) Trophic modification of food quality by heterotrophic protists: species-specific effects on copepod egg production and egg hatching. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 318:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarran GA (1991) Aspects of the grazing behaviour of the marine dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina, DujardinGoogle Scholar
  54. Tillmann U, Reckermann M (2002) Dinoflagellate grazing on the raphidophyte Fibrocapsa japonica. Aquat Microb Ecol 26:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uitto A, Hallfors S (1997) Grazing by mesozooplankton and metazoan microplankton on nanophytoplankton in a mesocosm experiment in the northern Baltic. J Plankton Res 19:655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verity PG (1985) Grazing, respiration, excretion, and growth rates of tintinnids. Limnol Oceanogr 30:1268–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Verity PG (1991) Measurement and simulation of prey uptake by marine planktonic ciliates fed plastidic and aplastidic nanoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 36:729–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von Elert E (2002) Determination of limiting polyunsaturated fatty acids in Daphnia galeata using a new method to enrich food algae with single fatty acids. Limnol Oceanogr 47:1764–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vrede T, Persson J, Aronsen G (2002) The influence of food quality (P: C ratio) on RNA: DNA ratio and somatic growth rate of Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 47:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Matthias Hantzsche
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maarten Boersma
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.GKSS Research CentreGeesthachtGermany
  2. 2.Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Biologische Anstalt HelgolandHelgolandGermany

Personalised recommendations