Marine Biology

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 327–334 | Cite as

Prey size selection, feeding rates and growth dynamics of heterotrophic dinoflagellates with special emphasis on Gyrodinium spirale

  • Per Juel Hansen


The relationship between size and growth rate in heterotrophic dinoflagellates (collected from the Kattegat, Denmark during 1989 and 1990) was studied. In addition, prey size selection, feeding rates and growth dynamics were studied for the naked heterotrophic dinoflagellate Gyrodinium spirale Bergh. Heterotrophic dinoflagellates have growth rates which are approximately three times lower than that of their potential competitors, the ciliates. G. spirale requires a relatively high prey concentration in order to grow. Ingestion rate at the maintenance level is about half of that of maximum ingestion rate. Consequently, yield is lower than typically found for planktonic protozoa. When exposed to low prey concentrations, the dinoflagellate is able to reduce its metabolism and thus prolong survival. The optimum prey particle size for G. spirale, which feeds by direct engulfment, corresponds to its own size. The ability to ingest relatively large prey may explain why these organisms are competitive in nature.


Ingestion Rate Dinoflagellate Growth Dynamic Maximum Ingestion Large Prey 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Andersen, P. (1989). Functional biology of the choanoflagellate Diaphanoeca grandis Ellis. Mar. microb. Fd Webs 3: 35–50Google Scholar
  2. Arndt, H., Mathes, J. (1991). Large heterotrophic flagellates form a significant part of protozooplankton biomass in lakes and rivers. Ophelia 33: 225–234Google Scholar
  3. Banse, K. (1982). Cell volumes, maximal growth rates of unicellular algae and ciliates, and the role of ciliates in the marine pelagial. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27: 1059–1071Google Scholar
  4. Bjørnsen, P. K., Kuparinen, J. (1991). Growth and herbivory by heterotrophic dinoflagellates in Southern Ocean, studied by microcosm experiments. Mar. Biol 109: 397–405Google Scholar
  5. Biecheler, B. (1952). Recherches sur les Peridiniens. Bull. biol. Fr. Belg. (Suppl.) 36: 1–149Google Scholar
  6. Buck, K. R., Bolt, P. A., Garrison, D. L. (1990). Phagotrophy and fecal pellet production by an athecate dinoflagellate in Antarctic sea ice. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 60: 75–84Google Scholar
  7. Bursa, A. S. (1961). The annual oceanographical cycle at Igloolik in the Canadian Arctic. II. The phytoplankton. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 18: 563–615Google Scholar
  8. Caron, D. A. (1990). Growth of two species of bacterivorous nanoflagellates in batch and continuous culture, and implications for their planktonic existence. Mar. microb. Fd Webs 4: 143–159Google Scholar
  9. Carreto, J. I., Benavides, H. R., Negri, R. M., Glorioso, P. D. (1986). Toxic red-tide in the Argentina Sea. Phytoplankton distribution and survival of the toxic dinoflagellate Gonyaulax excavata in a frontal area. J. Plankton Res. 8: 15–28Google Scholar
  10. Edler, L. (1979). Recommendations for marine biological studies in the Baltic Sea. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll. The Baltic Marine Biologists Publication No. 5, Malmö, Sweden, p. 1–38Google Scholar
  11. Fenchel, T. (1982a). Ecology of heterotrophic flagellates. II. Bioenergetics and growth. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8: 225–231Google Scholar
  12. Fenchel, T. (1982b). Ecology of heterotrophic microflagellates. III. Adaptations to heterogeneous environments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 25–33Google Scholar
  13. Fenchel, T. (1990). Adaptive significance of polymorphic life cycles in Protozoa: responses to starvation and refeeding in two species of marine ciliates. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 136: 159–177Google Scholar
  14. Fenchel, T., Finlay, B. J. (1983). Respiration rates in heterotrophic, free-living Protozoa. Microb. Ecol. 9: 99–122Google Scholar
  15. Gaines, G., Elbrächter, M. (1987). Heterotrophic nutrition. In: Taylor, F. J. R. (ed.) The biology of dinoflagellates. Blackwell, Oxford, p. 224–268Google Scholar
  16. Goldman, J. C., Dennett, M. R., Gordin, H. (1989). Dynamics of herbivorous grazing by the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxhyrrhis marina. J. Plankton Res. 11: 391–407Google Scholar
  17. Goodman, D. K. (1987). Dinoflagellate cysts in ancient and modern sediments. In: Taylor, F. J. R. (ed.) The biology of dinoflagellates. Blackwell, Oxford, p. 649–722Google Scholar
  18. Guillard, R. R. L. (1972). Culture of phytoplankton for feeding invertebrate animals. Plenum Press, New York, p. 29–60Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, P. J. (1991a). Dinophysis-a planktonic dinoflagellate genus which can act both as a prey and a predator of a ciliate. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 69: 201–204Google Scholar
  20. Hansen, P. J. (1991b). Quantitative importance and trophic role of heterotrophic dinoflagellates in a coastal pelagial food web. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 73: 253–261Google Scholar
  21. Heinbokel, J. F. (1978). Studies on the functional role of tintinnids in the Southern California Bight. I. Grazing an growth rates in laboratory cultures. Mar. Biol. 47: 177–189Google Scholar
  22. Jacobson, D. M. (1987). The ecology and feeding behaviour of thecate heterotrophic dinoflagellates. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution WHOI-87-10, Woods Hole, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobson, D. M., Anderson, D. M. (1986). Thecate heterotrophic dinoflagellates: feeding behaviour and mechanisms. J. Phycol. 22: 249–258Google Scholar
  24. Jonsson, P. R. (1986). Particle size selection, feeding rates and growth dynamics of marine heterotrophic planktonic oligotrichous ciliates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 33: 568–572Google Scholar
  25. Lessard E. J. (1991). The role of heterotrophic dinoflagellates in diverse environments. Mar. microb. Fd Webs 5: 49–58Google Scholar
  26. Lessard, E. J., Swift, E. (1985). Species-specific grazing rates of heterotrophic dinoflagellates in oceanic waters, measured with a dual-label radioisotope technique. Mar. Biol. 87:289–296Google Scholar
  27. Raven, J. A., Beardall, J. (1981). Respiration and photorespiration. Can. Bull Fish. aquat. Sciences 210: 55–82Google Scholar
  28. Smetacek, V. (1981). The annual cycle of protozooplankton in the Kiel Bight. Mar Biol. 63: 1–11Google Scholar
  29. Spittler, P. (1973). Feeding experiments with tintinnids. Oikos (Suppl.) 15: 128–132Google Scholar
  30. Verity, P. G. (1985). Grazing, respiration, excretion, and growth rates of tintinnids. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30: 1268–1282Google Scholar
  31. Verity, P. G. (1991). Measurement and simulation of prey uptake by marine planktonic ciliates fed plastidic and aplastidic nanoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36: 729–750Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Juel Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Matine Biological LaboratoryUniversity of CopenhagenHelsingørDenmark

Personalised recommendations