, Volume 24, Issue 7–8, pp 1419–1429 | Cite as

Planktonic community structure during a harmful bloom of Phaeocystis globosa in a subtropical bay, with special reference to the ciliate assemblages

  • Hua-Xue Liu
  • Hong-Hui Huang
  • Shan-Nan Xu
  • Ming Dai
  • Ping-Ping ShenEmail author


Planktonic community structure was investigated during outbreak of harmful Phaeocystis globosa bloom in a subtropical bay, the Maowei Sea, South China Sea. The phytoplankton assemblage was numerically dominated by colonial P. globosa, with its abundance ranging from 1.23 × 108 to 11.12 × 108 cells m−3 and contributing nearly 90 % to the total abundance. Totally 66 mesozooplankton (>169 µm) and 19 ciliates species were recorded, with the densities ranged from 169 to 1633 ind m−3 and 74 to 1118 cells L−1, respectively. The dominant species for mesozooplankton were Copepoda (larvae), Bestiola sinicus, B. amoyensis, Macrura (larvae) and Acartia spinicauda, respectively. The ciliate assemblage was numerically dominated by Codonella rapa, Strombidium globosaneum and Mesodinium rubrum. During the bloom, P. globosa seemed to be negatively affected by the nutrient phosphate significantly (p < 0.05). However, no correlation between P. globosa and ciliate assemblage was detected, but P. globosa was negatively correlated with total biomass of mesozooplankton and abundance of B. sinicus (p < 0.05), suggesting that P. globosa was uncoupled from the grazing by both ciliates and mesozooplankton when appearing as colonies form. On the other hand, both positive and negative correlations among the dominant groups of mesozooplankton and ciliates were observed (p < 0.05) which possibly indicated that the predation of mesozooplankton upon ciliates might be strengthened during the Phaeocystis bloom and the complex effect also varied from species to species.


Phaeocystis globosa Harmful algal bloom Ciliates Mesozooplankton 



We thank Dr. Gang Li for his help in revision of the manuscript. This research was supported by the financial fund of the ministry of agriculture (NFZX2013), National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2015CB452903), Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest (201403008), Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (S2013040016424, 1015030101000002), Shantou Science and Technology Project (No. 99) and Open Project of the Key Laboratory of Marine Bio-resources and Ecology (LMB131004).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Carey PG (1992) Marine interstitial ciliates. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 14–324Google Scholar
  2. Chen MR, Chen BZ, Harrison P, Liu HB (2011) Dynamics of mesozooplankton assemblages in subtropical coastal waters of Hong Kong: a comparative study between an eutrophic estuarine and a mesotrophic coastal site. Cont Shelf Res 31:1075–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6. User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke AL, Weckstrom K, Conley DJ, Anderson NJ, Adser F, deJonge VN, Ellegaard M, Juggins S, Korhola A, Reuss N, Telford RJ, Vaalgamaa S (2006) Long-term trends in eutrophication and nutrients in the coastal zone. Limnol Oceanogr 51:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen RA, Fong P (2004) Responses of bloom-forming green macroalga to short-term change in salinity, nutrients, and light help explain its ecological success. Estuaries 27:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies AG, de Madariaga I, Bautista B, Fernandez E, Harbour DS, Serret P, Tranter PRG (1992) The ecology of a coastal Phaeocystis bloom in the northwestern English Channel in 1990. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 72:691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickerson KD, Medley KA, Havel JE (2010) Spatial variation in zooplankton community structure is related to hydrologic flow units in the Missouri River, USA. River Res Appl 26:605–618Google Scholar
  8. Giberto DA, Bremec CS, Cortelezzi A, Rodrigues A, Capitulo A, Brazeiro A (2007) Ecological boundaries in estuaries: macrobenthic β-diversity in the Río de la Plata system (34–36°S). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87:5012–5016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grattepanche JD, Vincent D, Breton E, Christaki U (2011) Microzooplankton herbivory during the diatom–Phaeocystis spring succession in the eastern English Channel. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 404:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamm CE (2000) Architecture, ecology and biogeochemistry of Phaeocystis colonies. J Sea Res 43:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamm CE, Rousseau V (2003) Composition, assimilation and degradation of Phaeocystis globosa-derived fatty acids in the North Sea. J Sea Res 50:271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamm CE, Simson DA, Merkel R, Smetacek V (1999) Colonies of Phaeocystis globosa are protected by a thin but tough skin. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 187:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hensen FC, Reckermann M, Klein Breteler WCM, Riegman R (1993) Phaeocystis blooming enhanced by copepod predation on protozoa: evidence from incubation experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 102:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hensen PJ, Bjørnsen PK, Hansen BW (1997) Zooplankton grazing and growth: scaling within the 2–2,000 μm body size range. Limnol Oceanogr 42:687–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang CJ, Dong QX, Zheng L (1999) Taxonomic and ecological studies on a large scale Phaeocystis pouchetii bloom in the southeast cast of China during late 1997. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica 30:581–589 (In Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  16. Huang TW, Wang XD, Wang Y (2012) Growth, architecture and cell distribution in Phaeocystis globosa colonies. Chin Bull Bot 47(5):508–514Google Scholar
  17. Jakobsen HH, Tang KW (2002) Effects of protozoan grazing on colony formation in Phaeocystis globosa (Prymnesiophyceae) and the potential costs and benefits. Aquat Microb Ecol 27:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson MD, Stoecker DK, Marshall HG (2013) Seasonal dynamics of Mesodinium rubrum in Chesapeake Bay. J Plankton Res 35(4):877–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kchaou N, Elloumi J, Drira Z, Hamza A, Ayadi H, Bouain A, Aleya L (2009) Distribution of ciliates in relation to environmental factors along the coastline of the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 83:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirkwood DS, Aminot A, Carlberg SR (1996) The 1994 quasimeme laboratory performances study: nutrients in seawater and standard solutions. Mar Pollut Bull 32:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kofoid CA, Campbell AS (1929) A conspectus of the marine and freshwater Ciliata belonging to the Suborder Tintinoinea, with descriptions of new species principally from the Agassiz Expedition to the Eastern Tropical Pacific 1904–1905. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp 1–403Google Scholar
  22. Kofoid CA, Campbell AS (1939) The Ciliata: the Tintinnoinea. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Boston, pp 1–473Google Scholar
  23. Lan WL (2012) Study on reasons and prevention measures of eutrophication during 2006–2010 in Maowei Sea. Environ Sci Manag 37(8):39–44 (In Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  24. Li KZ, Yin JQ, Huang LM, Tan YH (2006) Spatial and temporal variations of mesozooplankton in the Pearl River estuary, China. Estuar Coast Shelf S 67:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li YN, Shen PP, Huang LM, Qi YZ (2012) Taxonomy and phylogenetics of the genus Phaeocystis: research progress. Chin J Ecol 31(3):745–754 (In Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  26. Liu JS, Marion VR, Yang WD, Peng XC, Lu SH, Wang Y, Chen JF, Wang ZH, Qi YZ (2010) Negative effects of Phaeocystis globosa on microalgae. Chin J Oceanol Limnol 28:911–916 (In Chinese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynn DH, Roff JC, Hopcroft RR (1991) Annual abundance and biomass of aloricate ciliates in tropical neritic waters off Kingston. Jam Mar Biol 110:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maeda M, Carey PG (1985) An illustrated guide to the species of the family Strombidiidae (Oligotrichida, Ciliophora), free swimming protozoa common in the marine environment. Bull Ocean Res Inst Univ Tokyo 19:1–68Google Scholar
  29. Muylaert K, Sabbe K, Vyverman W (2000) Spatial and temporal dynamics of phytoplankton communities in a freshwater tidal estuary (Schelde, Belgium). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 50:673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nejstgaard JC, Tang KW, Steinke M, Dutz J, Koski M, Antajan E, Long JD (2007) Zooplankton grazing on Phaeocystis: a quantitative review and future challenges. Biogeochemistry 83:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons TR, Maita Y, Lalli CM (1984) A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analyses. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 173Google Scholar
  32. Peng XC, Yang WD, Liu JS, Peng ZY, Lv SH, Ding WZ (2005) Characterization of the hemolytic properties of an extract from Phaeocystis globosa Scherffel. J Integr Plant Biol 47:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peperzak L, Duin RNM, Colijn F, Gieskes WWC (2000) Growth and mortality of flagellates and non-flagellate cells of Phaeocystis globosa (Prymnesiophyceae). J Plankton Res 22(1):107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierce RW, Turner JT (1992) Ecology of planktonic ciliates in marine food webs. Rev Aquat Sci 6:139–181Google Scholar
  35. Riegman R, van Boekel W (1996) The ecophysiology of Phaeocystis globosa: a review. J Sea Res 35:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoemann V, Becquevort S, Stefels J, Rousseau V, Lancelot C (2005) Phaeocystis blooms in the global ocean and their controlling mechanisms: a review. J Sea Res 53:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen PP, Qi YZ, Wang Y, Huang LM (2011a) Phaeocystis globosa Scherffel, a harmful microalga, and its production of dimethylsulfoniopropionate. Chin J Oceanol Limnol 29(4):869–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shen PP, Li G, Huang LM, Zhang JL, Tan YH (2011b) Spatio-temporal variability of phytoplankton assemblages in the Pearl River estuary, with special reference to the influence of turbidity and temperature. Cont Shelf Res 31:1672–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shen PP, Li YN, Qi YZ, Zhang LP, Tan YH, Huang LM (2012) Morphology and bloom dynamics of Cochlodinium geminatum (Schütt) Schütt in the Pearl River Estuary, South China Sea. Harmful Algae 13:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steen H (2004) Interspecific competition between Enteromorpha (Ulvales: Chlorophyceae) and Fucus (Fucales: Phaeophyceae) germlings: effects of nutrient concentration, temperature, and settlement density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 278:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tang KW, Jakobsen HH, Visser AW (2001) Phaeocystis globosa (Prymnesiophyceae) and the planktonic food web: feeding, growth, and trophic interactions among grazers. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1860–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Teixeira IG, Crespo BG, Nielsen TG (2012) Role of microzooplankton during a Phaeocystis sp. bloom in the Oosterschelde (SW Netherlands). J Mar Syst 94:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Utermöhl H (1958) Zurvervolkommungder quantitativen phytoplankton Methodik. Mitteilungen der Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte. Limnologie 9:1–38Google Scholar
  44. Verity PG, Smayda TJ (1989) Nutritional value of Phaeocystis pouchetii (Prymnesiophyceae) and other phytoplankton for Acartia spp. (Copepoda): ingestion, egg production, and growth of nauplii. Mar Biol 100:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verity PG, Smetacek V (1996) Organism life cycles, predation, and the structure of marine pelaic ecosystems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 130:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Widdicombe CES, Archer SD, Burkill PH, Stefels J (2004) Microzooplankton grazing in Phaeocystis and diatom-dominated waters in the southern North Sea in spring. J Sea Res 51:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Worm B, Lotze HK (2006) Effects of eutrophication, grazing, and algal blooms on rocky shores. Limnol Oceanogr 51:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hua-Xue Liu
    • 1
  • Hong-Hui Huang
    • 1
  • Shan-Nan Xu
    • 1
  • Ming Dai
    • 1
  • Ping-Ping Shen
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of South China Sea Fishery Resources Exploitation & Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture, South China Sea Fisheries Research InstituteChinese Academy of Fisheries SciencesGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Tropical Marine Bio-Resources and Ecology, South China Sea Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of SciencesGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations