Marine Biology

, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 193–203 | Cite as

Contribution ofSynechococcus spp. to size-fractioned primary productivity in three water masses in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean

  • H. E. Glover
  • L. Campbell
  • B. B. Prézelin
Article

Abstract

The distribution of phycoerythrin-richSynechococcus spp. relative to eukaryotic algae and the contribution ofSynechococcus spp. toin situ primary production were compared at a neritic front, in warm-core eddy 84-E, and at Wilkinson's Basin, during a cruise to the Northwest Atlantic Ocean in July/August 1984. Immunofluorescence analyses ofSynechococcus strains demonstrated the restricted distribution of the tropical oceanic serogroup to the warm-core eddy, while strains of the neritic serogroup and those labelled by antiserum directed against a motile strain, were abundant in all three water masses. Although the majority ofSynechococcus spp. cells were observed in the 0.6 to 1 μm fraction, an increasing proportion of the totalSynechococcus spp. cells were found in the 1 to 5 μm fraction as nitrate concentrations increased near the base of the thermocline. From immunofluorescence analyses, we determined that the increasing proportion of largerSynechococcus spp. cells at depth was not the result of a change in strain composition, and may therefore be associated with increasing cell volume due to the enhanced nutrient supply. The contribution of the different size fractions to the total standing crop of chlorophyll and thein situ rate of photosynthesis was distincty different for the three water masses. At the neritic front, the larger photoautotrophs of the 1 to 5 μm and >5 μm fractions were the major contributors to chlorophyll concentrations and primary production.Synechococcus spp. appeared to provide only 6% of the dawn-to-duskin situ primary production at the neritic front. In modified Sargasso water in the warm-core eddy,Synechococcus spp. contributed 25% to thein situ rate of integrated primary production. In this warm-core eddy, the 0.2 to 0.6 μm fraction made a major contribution to the standing crop of chlorophyll and primary production that equalled or exceeded that of the larger sze categories. Furthermore, at the bottom of the euphotic layer, eukaryotes numerically dominated the 0.2 to 0.6 μm fraction, which contributed 61% of the primary productivity. At Wilkinson's Basin, theSynechococcus spp.-dominated 0.6 to 1.0 μm fraction made the greatest contribution to the standing crop of chlorophyll an primary production, while smaller photoautotrophs (0.2 to 0.6 μm) accounted for little of the chlorophyll or photosynthetic rates measured over the euphotic layer. Largest numbers ofSynechococcus spp. (2.9x108 cells l-1) occurred at the 18% isolume, coincident with a shoulder in the chlorophyll fluorescence profile and the site of maximumin situ primary productivity. At Wilkinson's Basin,Synechococcus spp. contributed 46% to thein situ photosynthesis integrated over the water-column.

Keywords

Chlorophyll Water Masse Synechococcus Standing Crop Immunofluorescence Analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Campbell, L.: Investigations of marine phycoerythrin-containingSynechococcus spp. (cyanobacteria) by immunofluorescence: distribution of serogroups and growth rate measurements, 186 pp. Ph. D. thesis, SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 1985Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, L., E. J. Carpenter and V. J. Iacono: Identification and enumeration of marine chroococcoid cyanobacteria by immunofluorescence. Appl. envirl Microbiol.46, 553–559 (1983)Google Scholar
  3. Fitzwater, S. E., G. A. Knauer and J. H. Martin: Metal contamination and its effect on primary production measurements. Limnol. Oceanogr.27, 544–551 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. Glover, H. E., M. D. Keller and R. R. L. Guillard: Light quality and oceanic ultraphytoplankters. Nature, Lond. (In press)Google Scholar
  5. Glover, H. E., D. A. Phinney and C. S. Yentsch: Photosynthetic characteristics of picoplankton compared with those of larger phytoplankton populations in various water masses in the Gulf of Maine. Biological Oceanogr.3, 223–248 (1985a)Google Scholar
  6. Glover, H. E., A. E. Smith and L. Shapiro: Diurnal variations in photosynthetic rates: comparisons of ultraphytoplankton with a larger phytoplankton size fraction. J. Plankton Res.7, 519–535 (1985b)Google Scholar
  7. Holligan, P. M., W. M. Balch and C. M. Yentsch: The significance of subsurface chlorophyll, nitrite and ammonium maxima in relation to nitrogen for phytoplankton growth in stratified waters of the Gulf of Maine. J. mar. Res.42, 1051–1073 (1984)Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, K. S. and R. L. Petty: Determination of nitrate and nitrite in seawater by flow injection analysis. Limnol. Oceanogr.28, 1260–1266 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, P. W. and J. McN. Sieburth:In situ morphology and occurrence of eucaryotic phototrophs of bacterial size in the picoplankton of estuarine and oceanic waters. J. Phycol.8, 318–327 (1982)Google Scholar
  10. Li, W. K. W., D. V. Subba-Rao, W. G. Harrison, J. C. Smith, J. J. Cullen, B. Irwin and T. Platt: Autotrophic picoplankton in the tropical ocean. Science, N.Y.219, 292–295 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. Lorenzen, C. J.: A method for the continuous measurement ofIn vivo chlorophyll concentration. Deep-Sea Res.13, 223–227 (1966)Google Scholar
  12. Murphy, L. S. and E. Haugen: The distribution and abundance of phototrophic ultraplankton in the North Atlantic. Limnol. Oceanogr.30, 47–58 (1985)Google Scholar
  13. Platt, T., D. V. Subba-Rao and B. Irwin: Photosynthesis of picoplankton in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, Lond.301, 702–704 (1983)Google Scholar
  14. Prézelin, B. B. and H. A. Matlick: Nutrient-dependent low-light adaptation in the dinoflagellateGonyaulax polyedra. Mar. Biol.74, 141–150 (1983)Google Scholar
  15. Prézelin, B. B., M. Putt and H. E. Glover: Diurnal patterns in photosynthetic capacity and depth-dependent photosynthesis-irradiance relationships inSynechococcus spp. and larger phytoplankton in three water masses in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol.91, 205–217 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. Putt, M. and B. Prézelin: Diurnal patterns of photosynthesis in cyanobacteria and nanoplankton in California coastal waters during ‘el Nino’. J. Plankton Res.7, 779–790 (1985)Google Scholar
  17. Smith, R. C., K. S. Baker and P. Dunstan: Fluorometric techniques for the measurement of ocean chlorophyll in the support of remote sensing. Ref. Rep. Scripps Instn Oceanogr.81–17, 1–14 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. Waterbury, J. B., S. W. Watson and F. W. Valois: The contribution ofSynechococcus to oceanic primary productivity. IV.In: International Symposium on Photosynthetic Prokaryotes, p. 41 (Abstract). Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 1982Google Scholar
  19. Williams, F. M.: Dynamics of microbial populations, systems analysis and simulation. Ecology1, 197–267 (1971)Google Scholar
  20. Yentsch, C. S. and D. W. Menzel: A method for the determination of phytoplankton chlorophyll and phaeophytin by fluorescence. Deep-Sea Res.10, 443–448 (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. Glover
    • 1
  • L. Campbell
    • 2
  • B. B. Prézelin
    • 3
  1. 1.Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean SciencesWest Boothbay HarborUSA
  2. 2.Marine Sciences Research CenterState University of New YorkStony Brook, Long IslandUSA
  3. 3.Oceanic Biology Group, Marine Science Institute and Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations