Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of techniques used to count single-celled viable phytoplankton

  • Published:
Journal of Applied Phycology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Four methods commonly used to count phytoplankton were evaluated based upon the precision of concentration estimates: Sedgewick Rafter and membrane filter direct counts, flow cytometry, and flow-based imaging cytometry (FlowCAM). Counting methods were all able to estimate the cell concentrations, categorize cells into size classes, and determine cell viability using fluorescent probes. These criteria are essential to determine whether discharged ballast water complies with international standards that limit the concentration of viable planktonic organisms based on size class. Samples containing unknown concentrations of live and UV-inactivated phytoflagellates (Tetraselmis impellucida) were formulated to have low concentrations (<100 mL−1) of viable phytoplankton. All count methods used chlorophyll a fluorescence to detect cells and SYTOX fluorescence to detect nonviable cells. With the exception of one sample, the methods generated live and nonviable cell counts that were significantly different from each other, although estimates were generally within 100% of the ensemble mean of all subsamples from all methods. Overall, percent coefficient of variation (CV) among sample replicates was lowest in membrane filtration sample replicates, and CVs for all four counting methods were usually lower than 30% (although instances of ~60% were observed). Since all four methods were generally appropriate for monitoring discharged ballast water, ancillary considerations (e.g., ease of analysis, sample processing rate, sample size, etc.) become critical factors for choosing the optimal phytoplankton counting method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen P, Throndsen J (2003) Estimating cell numbers. In: Hallegraeff GM, Anderson DM, Cembella AD (eds) Manual on harmful marine microalgae. UNESCO, Paris, pp 99–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidigare RR, Frank TJ, Zastrow C, Brooks JM (1986) The distribution of algal chlorophylls and their degradation products in the Southern Ocean. Deep Sea Res Part A Oceanogr Res Papers 33:923–937

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Booth BC (1993) Estimating cell concentration and biomass of autotrophic plankton using microscopy. In: Kemp PF, Sherr BF, Sherr EB, Cole JJ (eds) Handbook of methods in aquatic microbial ecology. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 199–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce DG, Lewis MR, Worm B (2010) Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 466:591–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brussaard CP, Marie D, Thyrhaug R, Bratbak G (2001) Flow cytometric analysis of phytoplankton viability following viral infection. Aquatic Microbial Ecol 26:157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buskey EJ, Hyatt CJ (2006) Use of the FlowCAM for semi-automated recognition and enumeration of red tide cells (Karenia brevis) in natural plankton samples. Harmful Algae 5:685–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buskey E, Liu H, Collumb C, Bersano J (2001) The decline and recovery of a persistent Texas brown tide algal bloom in the Laguna Madre (Texas, USA). Estuaries Coasts 24:337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm SW, Olson RJ, Zettler ER, Goericke R, Waterbury JB, Welschmeyer NA (1988) A novel free-living Prochlorophyte abundant in the oceanic euphotic zone. Nature 334:340–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloern JE, Grenz C, Vidergar Lucas L (1995) An empirical model of the phytoplankton chlorophyll:carbon ratio: the conversion factor between productivity and growth rate. Limnol Ocean 40:1313–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge VN, Colijn F (1994) Dynamics of microphytobenthos biomass in the Ems estuary. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 104:185–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahnenstiel GL, McCormick MJ, Lang GA, Redalje DG, Lohrenz SE, Markowitz M, Wagoner B, Carrick HJ (1995) Taxon-specific growth and loss rates for dominant phytoplankton populations from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 117:229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkowski PG, Wilson C (1992) Phytoplankton productivity in the North Pacific Ocean since 1900 and implications for absorption of anthropogenic CO2. Nature 358:741–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkowski PG, Barber RT, Smetacek V (1998) Biogeochemical controls and feedbacks on ocean primary production. Science 281:200–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Register (2009) Standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters; Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Rule and Notice, 74 FR 44631-44672 (28 August 2009). National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC

  • Hobbie J, Daley R, Jasper S (1977) Use of Nuclepore filters for counting bacteria by fluorescence microscopy. Appl Env Microbiol 33:1225–1228

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • International Maritime Organization (2004) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. http://www.imo.org/conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=867. Accessed 01 October 2010

  • Karlson B, Cusack C, Bresnan E (2010) Microscopic and molecular methods for quantitative phytoplankton analysis (IOC Manuals and Guides, no. 55) (IOC/2010/MG/55). UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebaron P, Catala P, Parthuisot N (1998) Effectiveness of SYTOX green stain for bacterial viability assessment. App Env Microbiol 64:2697–2700

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • LeGresley M, McDermott G (2010) Counting chamber methods for quantitative phytoplankton analysis—haemocytometer, Palmer-Maloney cell and Sedgewick-Rafter cell. In: Karlson B, Cusack C, Bresnan E (eds) Microscopic and molecular methods for quantitative phytoplankton analysis (IOC Manuals and Guides, no. 55) (IOC/2010/MG/55). UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessard EJ, Swift E (1986) Dinoflagellates from the North Atlantic classified as phototrophic or heterotrophic by epifluorescence microscopy. J Plankton Res 8:1209–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey MD, Mackey DJ, Higgins HW, Wright SW (1996) CHEMTAX—a program for estimating class abundances from chemical markers: application to HPLC measurements of phytoplankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 144:265–283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McAlice BJ (1971) Phytoplankton sampling with Sedgwick-Rafter cell. Limnol Ocean 16:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson RJ, Sosik HM (2007) A submersible imaging-in-flow instrument to analyze nano-and microplankton: imaging FlowCytobot. Limnol Ocean Methods 5:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton NJ, Martin JL (2010) Imaging flow cytometry for quantitative phytoplankton analysis—FlowCAM. In: Karlson B, Cusack C, Bresnan E (eds) Microscopic and molecular methods for quantitative phytoplankton analysis (IOC Manuals and Guides, no. 55) (IOC/2010/MG/55). UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • See JH, Campbell L, Richardson TL, Pinckney JL, Shen R, Guinasso NL (2005) Combining new technologies for determination of phytoplankton community structure in the northern Gulf of Mexico. J Phycol 41:305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosik HM, Olson RJ, Neubert MG, Shalapyonok A, Solow AR (2003) Growth rates of coastal phytoplankton from time-series measurements with a submersible flow cytometer. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1756–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldhuis MJ, Kraay GW (2000) Application of flow cytometry in marine phytoplankton research: current applications and future perspectives. Sci Mar 64:121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welschmeyer NA (1994) Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll-a in the presence of chlorophyll-b and pheopigments. Limnol Oceangr 39:1985–1992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Willén E (1976) A simplified method of phytoplankton counting. Br Phycol J 11:265–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz KW, Pahlow M (2010) Dynamic chlorophyll and nitrogen: carbon regulation in algae optimizes instantaneous growth rate. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 402:81–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the US Coast Guard Research and Development Center under contract HSCG32-07-X-R00018 and does not represent official USCG policy. Partial research support to DMA and DMK was provided through NSF International Contract 03/06/394, and Environmental Protection Agency Grant RD-83382801-0. We thank Sarah Smith, Christopher Scianni, and Scott Riley for their help collecting and analyzing data and Timothy Wier for his assistance organizing and executing the workshop. We would also like to thank Kevin Burns and James Day III for statistical advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa A. Drake.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steinberg, M.K., First, M.R., Lemieux, E.J. et al. Comparison of techniques used to count single-celled viable phytoplankton. J Appl Phycol 24, 751–758 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-011-9694-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-011-9694-z

Keywords

Navigation