Skip to main content
Log in

Marine phytoplankton preservation with Lugol’s: a comparison of solutions

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

Abstract

The comparability of data from multiple sources is a key factor in ensuring the success of international monitoring programmes such as the EU Water Framework Directive, EC, 2000. This study investigated the effects of using different Lugol’s iodine solutions on marine phytoplankton cell counts, over timescales ranging from 1 day to 8 months of preservation. Samples from cultures of Ditylum brightwellii, Prorocentrum lima, Karenia mikimotoi, Coccolithus pelagicus, Tetraselmis suecica and one (mixed) wild sample were preserved in each of three Lugol’s solutions (neutral, more dilute acidified and less dilute acidified). Cells were enumerated using the Utermöhl method, and comparisons were made across preservatives over time. Our results show that no single Lugol’s solution was most effective at limiting cell degradation across all taxa and the relative ratios of taxa may change in a phytoplankton sample as a result of preservation time and preservative used. These findings must be considered when comparing data derived from differently preserved samples. We strongly recommend that published data on marine algal cell concentrations derived from Lugol’s preserved samples must include information on which preservative was used and the lag time between preservation and analysis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen P, Throndsen J (2003) Estimating cell numbers. In: Hallegraeff GM, Anderson DM, Cembella AD, Enevoldsen HO (eds) Manual on harmful marine microalgae. UNESCO, Paris, pp 77–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi JW, Stoecker DK (1989) Effects of fixation on cell volume of marine planktonic protozoa. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:1761–1765

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher JC (1982) Physiological variation and electrophoretic banding patterns of genetically different seasonal populations of Skeletonema costatum (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol 18:148–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hällfors G, Melvasalo T, Niemi A, Viljamaa H (1979) Effect of different fixatives and preservatives on phytoplankton counts. Pub Water Res Inst 34:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee A, Das S, Bhattacharya T, De M, Maiti T, De Kumar T (2014) Optimization of phytoplankton preservative concentrations to reduce damage during long-term storage. Biopreserv Biobank 12:139–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/

  • Sournia A (ed) (1978) Phytoplankton manual. Monographs on oceanographic methodology 6. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Utermöhl H (1958) Zur vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton methodik (towards perfection of quantitative phytoplankton methodology). Mitt Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 9:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Richard Pipe and Maria Jutson formerly of The Plymouth Culture Collection, Marine Biological Association, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB, UK for supplying cultured live cells used in the experiment. We also thank David Sivyer and Dr Veronique Creach of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, UK for supplying the wild sample and T. suecica culture, respectively.

We further thank Cheryl Crisp, Steve Milligan, Nicola Travell and Alison Walton of the Plankton Laboratory, Cefas, for assisting in the analysis and management of the experimental work. In addition, we thank Dr Michaela Schratzberger for providing support for the write-up of this manuscript and two anonymous referees for their comments.

The Seedcorn fund of Cefas, UK, provided financial support for this work (Grant Number: DP337).

Data archiving

Data available from the Cefas Data Hub DOI: http://doi.org/10.14466/CefasDataHub.1

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver J. Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, O.J., Beckett, R.E. & Maxwell, D.L. Marine phytoplankton preservation with Lugol’s: a comparison of solutions. J Appl Phycol 28, 1705–1712 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0704-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-015-0704-4

Keywords

Navigation