Advertisement

Polar Biology

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 1711–1724 | Cite as

A (too) bright future? Arctic diatoms under radiation stress

  • Eva LeuEmail author
  • Martin Graeve
  • Angela Wulff
Original Paper

Abstract

Decreasing Arctic sea ice cover and increasing stratification of ocean surface waters make the exposure of pelagic microalgae to high irradiances more likely. Apart from light being a necessary prerequisite for photosynthesis, rapidly changing and/or high irradiances are potentially detrimental. An in situ study was performed in the high Arctic (79°N) to determine the effect of high irradiances in general, and ultraviolet radiation (UVR, 280–400 nm) in particular, on cell concentrations, fatty acid composition, and photoprotective pigments of three diatom species isolated from seawater around Svalbard. Unialgal cultures were exposed in situ at 0.5- and 8 m-depth. After 40 h, cell concentrations of Synedropsis hyperborea and Thalassiosira sp., were lower at 0.5 than at 8 m, and the content of the photoprotective xanthophyll-cycle pigment diatoxanthin in all species (S. hyperborea, Thalassiosira sp., Porosira glacialis) was higher in the 0.5 m exposure compared to 8 m. In S. hyperborea, growth was additionally inhibited by UVR at 0.5-m depth. In situ radiation conditions led, furthermore, to a significant decrease in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in all three species, but UVR had no additional effect. Hence, we conclude that natural radiation conditions close to the surface could reduce growth and PUFA concentrations, but the effects are species specific. The diatoms’ potential to acclimate to these conditions over time has to be evaluated.

Keywords

UVR PAR PUFA Xanthophyll cycle Arctic Microalgae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the invaluable support by Wojtek Moskal during the fieldwork. Furthermore, we thank very much Christian Wiencke for lending us the frames used for the in situ exposure experiments and to Max Schwanitz for practical advices about their installation. Water-tight boxes for the UV loggers were built at the workshop at the Biological Institute, University of Oslo. Particulate carbon analyses were performed by Berit Kaasa. A thanks goes also to Stephen Hudson who helped plotting the spectral irradiance data. This study was funded as part of the CLEOPATRA-project by the Norwegian Research Council (Project nr. 178766/S30) as part of the Norwegian contribution to the International Polar Year (2007–2009).

Supplementary material

300_2016_2003_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (98 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 98 kb)

References

  1. Ackman RG, Tocher CS, McLachlan J (1968) Marine phytoplankter fatty acids. J Fish Res Board Can 25:1603–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrigo KR, van Dijken G, Pabi S (2008) Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary production. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2008gl035028 Google Scholar
  3. Brunet C, Johnsen G, Lavaud J, Roy S (2011) Pigments and photoacclimation processes. In: Roy S, Llewellyn CA, Egeland ES, Johnsen G (eds) Phytoplankton pigments: characterization, chemotaxonomy, and application in oceanography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buma AGJ, Visser RJW, Van De Poll WH, Villafane VE, Janknegt PJ, Walter Helbling E (2009) Wavelength-dependent xanthophyll cycle activity in marine microalgae exposed to natural ultraviolet radiation. Eur J Phycol 44:515–524. doi: 10.1080/09670260902971894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Mora SJ, Demers S, Vernet M (eds) (2000) The effects of UV radiation in the marine environment vol 10. Cambridge Environmental Chemistry series, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Dimier C, Corato F, Tramontano F, Brunet C (2007) Photoprotection and xanthophyll-cycle activity in three marine diatoms. J Phycol 43:937–947. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2007.00381.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falkowski PG, LaRoche J (1991) Acclimation to spectral irradiance in algae. J Phycol 27:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falkowski PG, Raven JA (1997) Aquatic photosynthesis. Blackwell Science, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  9. Falk-Petersen S, Hopkins CCE, Sargent JR (1990) Trophic relationships in the pelagic, arctic food web. In: Barnes M, Gibson RN (eds) 24th European marine biology symposium, Aberdeen University Press, pp 315–333Google Scholar
  10. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane Stanley GH (1957) A simple method for isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissue. J Biol Chem 226:497–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Foyer CH, Lelandais M, Kunert KJ (1994) Photooxidative stress in plants. Physiol Plant 92:696–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia-Pichel F (1994) A model for internal self-shading in planktonic organisms and its implications for the usefulness of ultraviolet sunscreens. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1704–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goss R, Mewes H, Wilhelm C (1999) Stimulation of the diadinoxanthin cycle by UV-B radiation in the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Photosynth Res 59:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanelt D (1998) Capability of dynamic photoinhibition in Arctic macroalgae is related to their depth distribution. Mar Biol 131:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harwood JL, Jones AL (1989) Lipid metabolism in algae advances in botanical research incorporating. Adv Plant Pathol 16:1–53Google Scholar
  16. Jeffrey SW, MacTavish HS, Dunlap WC, Vesk M, Groenewoud K (1999) Occurrence of UVA- and UVB-absorbing compounds in 152 species (206 strains) of marine microalgae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 189:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonasdottir SH, Gudfinnsson HG, Gislason A, Astthorsson OS (2002) Diet composition and quality for Calanus finmarchicus egg production and hatching success off south-west Iceland. Mar Biol 140:1195–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavaud J, Strzepek RF, Kroth PG (2007) Photoprotection capacity differs among diatoms: possible consequences on the spatial distribution of diatoms related to fluctuations in the underwater light climate. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1188–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leu E, Faerovig PJ, Hessen DO (2006a) UV effects on stoichiometry and PUFAs of Selenastrum capricomutum and their consequences for the grazer Daphnia magna. Freshw Biol 51:2296–2308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leu E, Falk-Petersen S, Kwasniewski S, Wulff A, Edvardsen K, Hessen DO (2006b) Fatty acid dynamics during the spring bloom in a High Arctic fjord: importance of abiotic factors versus community changes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2760–2779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leu E, Wangberg SA, Wulff A, Falk-Petersen S, Orbaek JB, Hessen DO (2006c) Effects of changes in ambient PAR and UV radiation on the nutritional quality of an Arctic diatom (Thalassiosira antarctica var. borealis). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 337:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leu E, Falk-Petersen S, Hessen DO (2007) Ultraviolet radiation negatively affects growth but not food quality of arctic diatoms. Limnol Oceanogr 52:787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leu E, Wiktor J, Søreide JE, Berge J, Falk-Petersen S (2010) Increased irradiance reduces food quality of sea ice algae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 411:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manney GL et al (2011) Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011. Nature 478:U469–U475. doi: 10.1038/nature10556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolaus M, Katlein C, Maslanik J, Hendricks S (2012) Changes in Arctic sea ice result in increasing light transmittance and absorption. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2012gl053738 Google Scholar
  26. Olaizola M, Yamamoto HY (1994) Short-term response of the diadinoxanthin cycle and fluorescence yield to high irradiance in Chaetoceros muelleri (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol 30:606–612. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3646.1994.00606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pabi S, van Dijken GL, Arrigo KR (2008) Primary production in the Arctic Ocean, 1998–2006. J Geophys Res Oceans. doi: 10.1029/2007jc004578 Google Scholar
  28. Pond D, Harris R, Head R, Harbour D (1996) Environmental and nutritional factors determining seasonal variability in the fecundity and egg viability of Calanus helgolandicus in coastal waters off Plymouth, UK. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 143:45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross JC, Vincent WF (1998) Temperature dependence of UV radiation effects on Antarctic cyanobacteria. J Phycol 34:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sakshaug E (2004) Primary and secondary production in the Arctic Seas. In: Stein R, Macdonald RW (eds) The organic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean. Springer, Berlin, pp 57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sakshaug E, Johnsen G, Kristiansen S, von Quillfeldt C, Rey F, Slagstad D, Thingstad F (2009) Phytoplankton and primary production. In: Sakshaug E, Johnsen G, Kovacs K (eds) Ecosystem Barents Sea. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 167–208Google Scholar
  32. Sargent J, Bell MV, Bell JG, Henderson RJ, Tocher DR (1995) Origins and functions of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in marine organisms. In: Cevc G, Paltauf F (eds) Phospholipids: characterization, metabolism and novel biological applications, pp 248–259Google Scholar
  33. Schofield O, Kroon BMA, Prézelin BB (1995) Impact of ultraviolet-B radiation on photosystem II activity and its relationship to the inhibition of carbon fixation rates for antarctic ice algae communities. J Phycol 31:703–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith RC et al (1992) Ozone depletion: ultraviolet radiation and phytoplankton biology in Antarctic waters. Science 255:952–959. doi: 10.1126/science.1546292 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sobrino C, Neale PJ, Montero O, Lubian LM (2005) Biological weighting function for xanthophyll de-epoxidation induced by ultraviolet radiation. Physiol Plantarum 125:41–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00538.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Strom SL, Fredrickson KA (2008) Intense stratification leads to phytoplankton nutrient limitation and reduced microzooplankton grazing in the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr 55:1761–1774. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suggett DJ, Borowitzka MA, Prášil O (eds) (2010) Chlorophyll a fluorescence in aquatic sciences: methods and applications. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson PA, Harrison PJ, Whyte JNC (1990) Influence of irradiance on the fatty acid composition of phytoplankton. J Phycol 26:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van de Poll WH, Alderkamp AC, Janknegt PJ, Roggeveld J, Buma AGJ (2006) Photoacclimation modulates excessive photosynthetically active and ultraviolet radiation effects in a temperate and an Antarctic marine diatom. Limnol Oceanogr 51:1239–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vernet M (2000) Effects of UV radiation on the physiology and ecology of marine phytoplankton. In: de Mora S, Demers S, Vernet M (eds) The effects of UV radiation in the marine environment. Cambridge Environmental Chemistry series, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vincent WF, Neale PJ (2000) Mechanisms of UV damage to aquatic organisms. In: de Mora S, Demers S, Vernet M (eds) The effects of UV radiation in the marine environment. Cambridge Environmental Chemistry Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. von Quillfeldt C, Hegseth EN, Johnsen G, Sakshaug E, Syvertsen EE (2009) Ice algae. In: Sakshaug E, Johnsen G, Kovacs K (eds) Ecosystem Barents Sea. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 295–314Google Scholar
  44. Wiencke C, Roleda MY, Gruber A, Clayton MN, Bischof K (2006) Susceptibility of zoospores to UV radiation determines upper depth distribution limit of Arctic kelps: evidence through field experiments. J Ecol 94:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright S, Jeffrey S (1997) High-resolution HPLC system for chlorophylls and carotenoids of marine phytoplankton. In: Jeffrey S, Mantoura R, Wright S (eds) Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Wulff A, Roleda MY, Zacher K, Wiencke C (2008) UV radiation effects on pigments, photosynthetic efficiency and DNA of an Antarctic marine benthic diatom community. Aquat Biol 3:167–177. doi: 10.3354/ab00076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zacher K, Wulff A, Molis M, Hanelt D, Wiencke C (2007) Ultraviolet radiation and consumer effects on a field-grown intertidal macroalgal assemblage in Antarctica. Glob Change Biol 13:1201–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Polar Institute, FRAM CentreTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Akvaplan-niva AS, CIENSOsloNorway
  3. 3.Alfred-Wegener-Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ResearchBremerhavenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations