Temporal and Spatial High-Frequency Monitoring of Phytoplankton by Automated Flow Cytometry and Pulse-Shape Analysis

Conference paper

Abstract

Phytoplankton were investigated with automated high frequency flow cytometry to address their patchiness and short-term variability.

To document this, we deployed a submersible flow cytometer (Cytosub, www.cytobuoy.com) in the Bay of Marseille (North Mediterranean) at 2 m depth.

This instrument involves pulse shape analysis and can analyze cells (1–1000 μm) and even chains at a flow rate of 8 mm3.s−1. During experiments, which took place in summer 2005, phytoplankton were monitored in situ every 30 min. The seven clusters (cells sharing the same optical properties of scatter and fluorescence) resolved in the size range 1–50 μm and behaved as independent entities, suggesting that they could be considered as functional groups.

The spatial heterogeneity of oceanic phytoplankton surface distribution was addressed by running the CytoSub on board a 33-m schooner (Fetia Ura, www.seanergies.com) between the Azores and French Brittany in April 2007. The flow cytometric analysis was triggered every 15 min (spatial resolution of 2.8 km). Five clusters were resolved in the pumped surface water, and specific relationships were determined between their distributions within the different water masses sampled during the cruise.

The evidenced variabilities are critical to explain the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on phytoplankton spatial and temporal distributions. Automated in situ flow cytometry appears to be a powerful tool to investigate phytoplankton assemblages at high frequency and at the single cell level. Undergoing technological developments are extending this capacity to the whole microbial ecosystem and aim at real-time information of stakeholders.

Keywords

Phytoplankton Assemblage Phytoplankton Distribution Sailing Ship Dimethyl Sulphide Ship Track 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the captain and crew of the Fetia Ura ship as well as the teenagers and the instructors of the “Deferlante.” The work was supported by the “Cytometry In Situ” (CYMIS) contract between the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the City of Marseille, partially supported by “l’Agence de l’Eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse”, by the “Deferlante” association, and the “SEANERGIES OCEANES” company, which allocated the ship. M Thyssen benefited from a fellowship from the Region Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur.

References

  1. Alpine AE, Cloern JE (1988) Phytoplankton growth rates in a light-limited environment, San Francisco Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 44:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baretta JW, Baretta-Bekker JG, Ruardij P (1998) Data needs for ecosystem modelling. ICES J Mar Sci 55:756–766Google Scholar
  3. Bishop JKB (1989) Regional extreme in particulate matter composition and flux: effects on the chemistry of the ocean interior. In: Berger WH, Smetacek VS, Wefer G (eds) Productivity of the ocean: present and past. Wiley, Chichester, UK/New York, pp 117–137Google Scholar
  4. Charlson RJ, Lovelock JE, Andreae MO, Warren SG (1987) Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature 326:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DuRand MD, Olson RJ (1996) Contributions of phytoplankton light scattering and cell concentration changes to diel variations in beam attenuation in the Equatorial Pacific from flow cytometric measurements of pico-, ultra- and nanoplankton. Deep Sea Res II 43:891–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dubelaar BJ, Venekamp RR, Gerritzen PL (2003) Handsfree counting and classification of living cells and colonies. 6th congress on Marine Sciences, HavanaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski PG (1998) Primary production of the biosphere: integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281:237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Furnas MJ (1991) Net in situ growth rates of phytoplankton in an oligotrophic, tropical shelf ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 36:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Longhurst AR, Harrison WG (1989) The biological pump: profiles of plankton production and consumption in the upper ocean. Prog Oceanogr 22:47–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malin G, Turner SM, Liss PS (1992) Sulfur: the plankton/climate connection. J Phycol 28:590–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nee S (2004) More than meets the eye - Earth’s real biodiversity is invisible, whether we like it or not. Nature 429:804–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smayda TJ (1978) From phytoplankton to biomass. In: Sournia A (ed) Phytoplankton manual. Monographs on oceanographic methodology 6. UNESCO, Paris, pp 273–279Google Scholar
  13. Smayda TJ (1998) Patterns of variability characterizing Marine Phytoplankton, with examples from Narragansett Bay. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55:562–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thyssen M (2008) Analyse à haute fréquence spatiale et temporelle du phytoplancton à l’aide de la cytométrie en flux automatisée et immergeable. Thèse, Université de la Méditerranée, p 222Google Scholar
  15. Thyssen M, Tarran GA, Zubkov MV, Holland RJ, Grégori G, Burkill PH, Denis M (2008a) The emergence of automated high frequency flow cytometry: revealing temporal and spatial phytoplankton variability. J Plank Res 30:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thyssen M, Mathieu D, Garcia N, Denis M (2008b) Short-term variation of phytoplankton assemblages in Mediterranean coastal waters recorded with an automated submerged flow cytometer. J Plank Res 30:1027–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thyssen M, Garcia N, Denis M (2009) Phytoplankton distribution in the Northeastern Atlantic surface waters determined with an automated flow cytometer at sub meso-scale resolution. Biogeosciences 6:569–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vaulot D, Marie D (1999) Diel variability of photosynthetic picoplankton in the equatorial Pacific. J Geophys Res 104:3297–3310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Géochimie et Ecologie Marines, CNRS UMR 6117Université de la Méditerranée, Centre d’Océanologie de MarseilleMarseille cedex 09France

Personalised recommendations